260302.mbx

260302.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, March 2, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 43 Headlines ALAMEDA, CA: Class Settlement in Gonzalez Suit Gets Final Nod ALEN CORP: Faces Petty Suit Over Mislabeled FLEX HEPA Air Purifiers AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Order in Wilson Lawsuit Entered AMAZON.COM INC: GateGuard to Produce Withheld Documents by March 30 AMBER NELSON: Initial Standing Order Entered in Button Suit AMERICAN FAMILY: Hacker Wins Bid for Class Certification AMERICAN HONDA: Appeals Denied Reconsideration Bid to 9th Circuit AON INVESTMENTS: Bid to Remand Steinke to Philadelphia Court Tossed AVAS MANAGEMENT: Deinnocentes Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BF SLEEP: Faces Butler Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BIRD AND BE: Fails to Protect Private Health Info, Fenton Says BROOKDALE SENIOR: Brown Seeks Caregivers' Unpaid Overtime Wages BT'S ON THE RIVER: Cruz Seeks Conditionally Certify FLSA Class CAKE 5332: Alvarez Wins Class Certification Bid CAULER CONTAINERS: Status Conference in O'Donnell Set for April 10 CENTRAL FREIGHT: Court Awards Henry $406K in Atty's Fees CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Barnett Class Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. CHESTNUT HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Oct. 8 CKS PACKAGING: Fares Seeks to Stay Class Cert Bid Deadline CLUB 360: Appeals Judgment Order in Bazarganfard Suit to 9th Cir. COVENANT ROOFING: Griffin Balks at Failure to Pay Overtime Wages D. G. GROCERY: Faces Presinal Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. DABELLA EXTERIORS: Seeks to Strike Class Allegations in Wiengrad DANAHER CORP: Faces Warren Suit Over Workplace Age Discrimination DEBOER SECURITY: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Bennett Alleges DIAMOND BRACES: Aliyeva Seeks Summary Judgment Briefing Schedule DIAMOND BRACES: Plaintiffs Must File Complaint Letter Due March 3 DIGI-KEY CORP: Underpays Customer Support Staff, Keely Alleges DUPONT DE NEMOURS: Standing Order Entered in Graham Class Suit E.I. DU PONT: Status Teleconference in Banks Set for March 17 ELECTROLUX CONSUMER: Houser Balks at Defective Gas Cooking Ranges EMPOWER RETIREMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Lovely Says EUGENE CARLTON: Gladney's Bid to Certify Class Tossed FUBOTV INC: Kelly Sues Over COI's Director Removal Provision FUNDING CHANNEL: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due August 21 FURRY N' FABULOUS: General Pretrial Management Entered in Brown GENTING NEW: Court Grants Final Approval of $1.1M "Roberts" Deal GET LIQUID: Underpays Company Employees, Brown Alleges GOOGLE LLC: Transmit Users' Online Activities to Chinese Entities GOOGLE LLC: Transmits Online Activities to Third Parties, Suit Says HOTELENGINE INC: Bid for Court-Authorized Notice OK'd IDEAS TILE: Faces Bustillo Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks Leave to File Opposition Sur-Reply J & A: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Barranco Says JESSICA MCCORMACK: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Moran Says JOHN FLUEVOG: Butler Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users JTCW INVESTMENTS: Pardo Balks at Property's Architectural Barriers KRISTI NOEM: Directed to Release Moran from Custody LIBERTY MUTUAL: Fassina Wins Bid for Class Certification LITE STAR: Class Settlement in Chea Suit Gets Final Approval LITHIA MOTORS: Faces Ventura Class Action Suit Over 401(k) Plan MAHOGANY RIVERFRONT: Graham Sues Over Tip Theft, Retaliation MANAGED CARE: Bid for Leave to File Class Cert Reply Tossed MARSHFIELD CLINIC: Website Uses Tracking Tools, Franck Alleges MEDICREDIT INC: Deadline for Dispositive & Daubert Bids Stayed METROPOLITAN WASTE: Johnson Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA MICROF LLC: Deadline to File Class Cert Bid in Slee Stayed MICROF LLC: Deadline to File Class Certification Stayed MICROF LLC: Yukna Seeks to Stay Class Cert Bid Deadline MINT CANNABIS: Calcedo TCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Fla. NATIONAL TENANT: Bid to Stay Proceedings in Clermont Suit Tossed NAVIENT CORPORATION: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid NEON MACHINE: General Pretrial Management Entered in Realm Suit NES GLOBAL: OT Pay Scheme Shortchanges Engineers, Foreman Says NORTHSTAR CAFE: $835K Settlement in Highman Suit OK'd NVIDIA CORP: Pre-Class Cert Fact Discovery in Nazemian Due May 5 OPENAI INC: Hearing on Summary Judgment Bids Set for Nov. 18 OSHKOSH CORP: City of Milwaukee Sues Over Fire Truck Price-Fixing OYO HOTELS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Lein Suit Due June 13 PATRIOT AMBULANCE: Underpays Dispatch Operators, Collard Says PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Disseminates False Business Info, Goodman Alleges PERFETTI VAN MELLE: Rodriguez Alleges Illegal Background Check PROCTOR & GAMBLE: Class Cert Bid Filing Due August 27, 2027 PROFESSIONAL ARTS: Pinero Sues Over Property's Physical Barriers PROGRESS RESIDENTIAL: Court Recommends Class Cert Bid Denial QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Appeals Attorneys' Fees Order in Vargas Suit RIVERBEND HOME: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Bahena Says ROLLINS RANCHES: Braun Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ROUNDY'S SUPERMARKETS: Dombrowski Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime RUNWAY AI: Random Golf Files Copyright Infringement Suit SANGSIRI INC: Faces Olmedo Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. SCRIPTPRO LLC: Polistina-Wright Files Discrimination Case SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal SHONEY'S OF KNOXVILLE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dillon Suit Says SNAP INC: Infringes Copyrighted Work, Chmura Says SOUTHEASTERN TRAFFIC: Pepenella Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime SPRINGWOOD HOSPITALITY: Settlement in Shatzer Gets Final Nod STILLWATER MINING: Bertram Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification SUBARU OF AMERICA: Appeals Class Certification Order in Aquino Suit SUPERIOR PLUS: Holley Files FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Wages SWAGELOK COMPANY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Patterson Due June 30 T-MOBILE USA: Wins Bid to Dismiss "Diaz" Class Claims TAPESTRY INC: Bid for Class Certification in Hernandez Due June 30 THOMSON REUTERS: Freund Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Messages TOMMY BAHAMA: Class Cert. Discovery in Haley Due Sept. 23 TP-LINK SYSTEMS: Illegally Collects Browser's Data, Gianne Says TPS PARKING: Faces Masaya Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. TRUIST BANK: Filing for Class Cert Bids in Edwards Due Dec. 9 TWENTY-FOUR/SEVEN: Crum and Forster Wins Bid to Dismiss "Ross" ULTA SALON: Maxwell Class Suit Removed to E.D. Wash. UNITED HEALTHCARE: Tamburrino Appeals Class Cert. Order to 3rd Cir. UNITED STATES: Costa Writ of Habeas Corpus Bid OK'd UNITED STATES: Freestyle Balks at Unfair Tariff Imposition UNITED STATES: Garcia Sues Over Illegal Searches and Seizures UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Patterson Due June 30 US IMMIGRATION: Prelim. Injunction & Class Cert. Bids Partly OK'd VALOR TECHNICAL: Schwartz Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA VENEZUELA: Mazzaccone Seeks Bid for Class Certification VETERANS UNITED: Peyton Balks at Deceptive Home Loans for Veterans WEBHELP AMERICAS: Johnson Loses Bid for Class Certification WESTGATE RESORTS: Appeals Tossed Arbitration Bid in McMillan Suit WHITEPAGES INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Carrera Due Feb. 26, 2027 WILLAMETTE FALLS: Faces Mitchell Over Mass Layoff Under WARN Act WM RESOURCES: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Cherrington Says ZYNEX INC: Beidel Sues Over Misleading Company Statements ********* ALAMEDA, CA: Class Settlement in Gonzalez Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL GONZALEZ, et al., v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-07423-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the parties' class action settlement. The Settlement Agreement encompasses all male detainees who are or were detained at the Santa Rita Jail between Aug. 31, 2023, through Dec. 17, 2026, and who were or are subjected to the following sanitation policies and practices: The Jail's policy requiring inmates to maintain the sanitation of their own cells and common areas, but failing to have a policy or practice which provides inmates with adequate sanitation supplies, or a policy for addressing inmates housed with those who cannot functionally maintain their own sanitation because of mental health issues, which impacts sanitation for all inmates within that congregate housing area. The Jail's policy of not providing bathrooms in the common areas, and inmates' difficulties obtaining access to bathroom areas during POD or out-of-cell time. These class members release their injunctive relief claims related to these policies and practices through Dec. 17, 2026. There is no release of any class member damages claims. The Court is in receipt of the Plaintiffs' administrative motion for a hearing regarding the Plaintiffs' request to modify the class action settlement. The Plaintiffs' motion is denied. The Court has determined no notice is required as the class is certified under Rule 23(b)(2). To the extent Plaintiffs have concerns regarding the County's compliance with the Settlement Agreement and any notice procedure they negotiated with the County, they shall meet and confer with the County in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Settlement Agreement. The case has been pending for over five years. Given the broad relief sought, the challenges of litigation against an institutional defendant, the transient nature of the class member detainee population, and the risks posed by continuing to litigate the Plaintiffs' claims, the certainty of the injunctive relief and policy changes obtained under the Settlement Agreement weigh in favor of granting final approval. The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action in November 2019 alleging they are subject to unlawful, inhumane, and unconstitutional treatment at the Santa Rita Jail. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xdxY7I at no extra charge.[CC] ALEN CORP: Faces Petty Suit Over Mislabeled FLEX HEPA Air Purifiers ------------------------------------------------------------------- CLINT PETTY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALEN CORPORATION, Case No. 3:26-cv-01056-BAS-MMP (Feb. 19, 2026) arises from the false and misleading representations that Defendant made for years about its BreatheSmart 45i HEPA and BreatheSmart FLEX HEPA air purifiers, along with their respective replacement filters. According to the complaiont, the Defendant represented that the Air Purifiers were equipped with High Efficiency Particulate Air filters when in fact they were not. Independent testing by Plaintiff's counsel has shown that the filters used in the Air Purifiers and the replacement filters do not meet HEPA standards. Reasonable consumers have had no opportunity to find this out for themselves because they cannot conduct HEPA standard testing. The Defendant knew this, but continued hocking its wares, making a killing selling the Air Purifiers and replacement filters since the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Defendant sold its Products through Amazon.com, its own website, and retail stores. The Defendant has profited greatly from the explosion in the air purifier market brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic and yearly "once-in-a-lifetime" wildfires that have ravaged the United States. Consumers are rightfully concerned about maintaining indoor spaces that are free of harmful pathogens and, contaminants. As a result, a large portion of the Defendant's profits are attributable to its false HEPA filtration claims. But for Defendant's HEPA claims, the fair value of its Air Purifiers would have been substantially lower (i.e., their market price would have been closer to non-HEPA air purifier, which sell at a discount compared to air purifiers with HEPA filters). The Plaintiff purchased an Alen Air BreatheSmart 45i on November 27, 2022, for $318.99 and a replacement filter on May 16, 2024, for $81.09 -- both on Defendant's website. Alen manufactures, distributes, advertises and sells the Products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Luke Sironski-White, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com lsironski@bursor.com - and - Greg Sinderbrand, Esq. SINDERBRAND LAW GROUP, P.C. 2829 Townsgate Road, Suite 100 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (818) 370-3912 E-mail: greg@sinderbrandlaw.com AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Order in Wilson Lawsuit Entered ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH FRAME-WILSON, et al, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-00424-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Chun entered an order granting stipulated motion and order regarding schedule for briefing motions to strike Feb. 6, 2026, surreply and Daubert briefing: 1. The Plaintiffs' motions to strike shall be deemed 14-day motions pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(d)(2), and subject to the word limits set forth in Local Civil Rule 7(e)(2). 2. The parties' briefing with respect to the Plaintiffs' motions to strike may be filed provisionally under seal, until such time as proposed final sealing and redaction determinations are submitted in accordance with paragraph 6 below. 3. By Feb. 18, 2026, the Plaintiffs shall file their motions to strike. 4. The Parties' responsive briefing deadlines shall be determined by Local Civil Rule 7(d)(2). 5. All responsive deadlines with respect to Amazon's surreply and Daubert briefing, and Amazon's corresponding motion to seal, shall be held in abeyance until resolution of the Plaintiffs' motions to strike, including briefing and other deadlines pertaining to sealing and redaction. 6. Within five business days of the Court's resolution of the Plaintiffs' motions to strike, the parties shall meet and confer on, and submit, a proposed stipulation and order as to the schedule for any remaining briefing, including with respect to sealing and redactions of relevant briefing. Amazon.com is an online retailer that offers a wide range of products. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DN6ij9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq. Kelly Fan, Esq. Anne F. Johnson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com barbaram@hbsslaw.com annej@hbsslaw.com kellyf@hbsslaw.com - and - Jessica Beringer, Esq. Shane Kelly, Esq. Alex Dravillas, Esq. Roseann Romano, Esq. KELLER POSTMAN LLC 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500 Austin, TX, 78701 Telephone: (512) 690-0990 E-mail: Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com ajd@kellerpostman.com roseann.romano@kellerpostman.com - and - Steig D. Olson, Esq. David D. LeRay, Esq. Nic V. Siebert, Esq. Maxwell P. Deabler-Meadows, Esq. Elle Mahdavi, Esq. Adam B. Wolfson, Esq. Matthew Hosen, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 1109 First Avenue, Suite 210 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 905-7000 E-mail: steigolson@quinnemanuel.com davidleray@quinnemanuel.com nicolassiebert@quinnemanuel.com maxmeadows@quinnemanuel.com adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com ellemahdavi@quinnemanuel.com matthosen@quinnemanuel.com The Defendant is represented by: John A. Goldmark, Esq. MaryAnn Almeida, Esq. Emily Parsons, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile: (206) 757-7700 E-mail: JohnGoldmark@dwt.com MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com EmilyParsons@dwt.com - and - Karen L. Dunn, Esq. William A. Isaacson, Esq. Amy J. Mauser, Esq. Meredith Dearborn, Esq. Kyle Smith, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1047 Telephone: (202) 223-7300 Facsimile: (202) 223-7420 E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com wisaacson@paulweiss.com amauser@paulweiss.com ksmith@paulweiss.com mgoodman@paulweiss.com mdearborn@paulweiss.com AMAZON.COM INC: GateGuard to Produce Withheld Documents by March 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GATEGUARD, INC., v. AMAZON.COM, INC. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-09321-JGK-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Figueredo entered an order that GateGuard has until March 30, 2026, to produce the previously withheld documents over which the Court concluded that GateGuard had waived any assertion of privilege. Additionally, by Feb. 26, 2026, the parties are directed to submit a revised case management plan with a proposed briefing schedule for GateGuard's class certification motion. Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jOWgnM at no extra charge.[CC] AMBER NELSON: Initial Standing Order Entered in Button Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUSTY BUTTON, et al., v. AMBER NELSON, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-09275-DMG-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Gee entered an initial standing order: The Plaintiff shall promptly serve the complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant to Local Rule 5-3.1. Any defendant not timely served under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) shall be dismissed from the action without prejudice. Discovery Matters Referred to Magistrate Judge All discovery matters have been referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge, who will hear all discovery disputes. The Magistrate Judge’s initials follow the District Judge’s initials next to the case number. Time for Filing and Hearing Motions shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule 7. This Court hears motions on Fridays, beginning at 9:30 a.m. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tv2AJA at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN FAMILY: Hacker Wins Bid for Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Craig Hacker, v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company SI, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01936-DLR (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Rayes entered an order granting Hacker's motion for class certification and denying without prejudice American Family's motions to exclude the expert reports and testimony of Guy and Dr. Kaufman. The Court further entered an order that Craig Hacker is appointed as the Class Representative and that the law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP is appointed as Class Counsel. The Plaintiff Craig Hacker alleges that Defendant American Family Mutual Insurance Company failed to stack uninsured motorist ("UM") or underinsured motorist ("UIM") coverage for insureds who had multi-vehicle policies and therefore routinely underpaid those insureds. Hacker moved to certify the following class: "All insured persons under one or more American Family Insurance Company Policies issued in Arizona to the same purchaser covering multiple vehicles at the time of a covered loss who, from the earliest allowable time to the date judgment enters, received UM/UIM benefits in an amount equal to the limits of only one of the UM/UIM coverages under the applicable policy or policies." AmFam is an American private mutual company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JutBMG at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN HONDA: Appeals Denied Reconsideration Bid to 9th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion for reconsideration of class certification order in the lawsuit entitled Marcus Brown, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03147-AB-MBK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs filed this product liability suit against the Defendant on April 3, 2020. On Aug. 12, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On Nov. 19, 2025, the Court entered an Order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. On Dec. 3, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration, which Judge Andre Birotte Jr. denied on Feb. 4, 2026. Accordingly, the Court concluded Defendants' concerns were not fatal to class certification does not equate with failing to consider those concerns. As stated in the Class Certification Order, the California Song-Beverly Express Warranty Subclass definition limits subclass members to those "who provided Defendant[s] with two (2) or more opportunities to repair their Class Vehicles," and those who took delivery of new vehicles in California. The Defendants' records will help confine the subclass to qualifying members by examining warranty repair requests consistent with the alleged defect as defined by Plaintiffs, as opposed to requests linked to a specific diagnostic trouble code ("DTC") as urged by the Defendants. Confining the subclass to its proper membership does not undermine the predominance of common issues. The appellate case is entitled Brown, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case No. 26-985, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 19, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents MARCUS BROWN, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Gretchen M. Nelson, Esq. NELSON & FRAENKEL LLP 601 S. Figeroa Street, Suite 2050 Los Angeles, CA 90017 - and - Amey J. Park, Esq. Russell David Paul, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE, PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 - and - Christopher Stiner, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 - and - Cody Robert Padgett, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW, APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 - and - Natalie F. Bennett, Esq. James C. Shah, Esq. MILLER SHAH, LLP 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806 Philadelphia, PA 19103 - and - Michael Ram, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 1390 Market Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94102 - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Defendant-Petitioner AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. is represented by: Amir Nassihi, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, LLP 555 Mission Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94105 - and - Michael Lawrence Mallow, Esq. Darlene Mi-Hyung Cho, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 AON INVESTMENTS: Bid to Remand Steinke to Philadelphia Court Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN STEINKE, et al., v. AON INVESTMENTS USA INC., and AKSIA LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-07163-CFK (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Kenney entered an order denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand. The case is a class action lawsuit seeking tens of millions of dollars in damages, which was removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act. The Plaintiffs brought a class action lawsuit involving tens of millions of dollars in potential damages and over 100,000 class members in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. While Defendant Hamilton Lane was a party to the case, that defendant triggered the local controversy exception to CAFA, and the case proceeded in state court. The removing Defendants did not receive clear and unequivocal notice that the case had become removable until the Parties signed the stipulation to dismiss Defendant Hamilton Lane from the case on November 20, 2025. The Plaintiffs are public school teachers who participate in the pension fund Public School Employees Retirement System (PSERS), which administers pension plans for Pennsylvania public school employees. The Plaintiffs brought the action "on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons whose pension contributions or pension benefits have been or will be affected by Defendants’ actions and inactions, including their investment recommendations, decisions, and other wrongful conduct." Aon offers portfolio construction, risk management, asset allocation, and financial planning services. A copy of the Court's memorandum dated Feb. 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q36zzU at no extra charge.[CC] AVAS MANAGEMENT: Deinnocentes Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARY ANN DEINNOCENTES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Avas Management Services Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00216 (N.D. Ind., February 20, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.avasflowers.net to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Deinnocentes and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On September 30, 2026, the Plaintiff was searching online for flower delivery services. During her search, she came across the Defendant's website and attempted to make a purchase. However, while trying to purchase roses, she encountered accessibility barriers that prevented her from completing the transaction. Specifically, the navigation submenus with dropdown options could not be opened or accessed using a keyboard, which prevented her from browsing different categories within the submenus. On the product page, when Plaintiff tried to access the product description, she encountered "Read more" and "Here" links that did not clearly convey their function or destination. These access barriers render the Website inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually impaired individuals, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Avas Management Services Inc. operates the website that offers a selection of floral arrangements, including roses, carnations, lilies, calla lilies, orchids, daisies, sunflowers, tulips, and luxury flowers, as well as plants categorized as green, blooming, and orchid varieties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason B. Marshall, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 E-mail: jmarshall@ealg.law BF SLEEP: Faces Butler Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- BENJAMIN BUTLER, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BF SLEEP LLC, d/b/a BIG FIG MATTRESS, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01409 (S.D.N.Y., February 19, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, maintain, and operate its commercial website, www.bigfigmattress.com in a manner accessible to Plaintiff and other blind and visually impaired individuals 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 Civil Rights Law. According to the complaint, Plaintiff Butler suffered a concrete injury when he attempted to purchase the Big Fig Classic Mattress, Heavy Duty Foundation, Mattress Protector, and Premium Cooling Sheets on October 30 and November 5, 2025, and was unable to do so because of the accessibility barriers which include missing alternative text, unlabeled buttons, inaccessible size-selection menus, improper ARIA implementation, and visual label mismatches that caused Non-Visual Desktop Access to announce incomplete or meaningless information. These barriers prevented him from accessing product information, selecting mattress sizes, reviewing specifications, or completing a purchase, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief requiring Defendant to revise its digital policies and practices to ensure that its website is and remains fully accessible to blind and visually impaired users. BF SLEEP LLC, d/b/a BIG FIG MATTRESS, operates the website that offers Classic Mattress and related bedding products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 E-mail: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com BIRD AND BE: Fails to Protect Private Health Info, Fenton Says -------------------------------------------------------------- HEIDI FENTON, LIZ ELDRIDGE, and BOBBYJO ANDOH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE BIRD AND BE CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01775 (C.D. Cal., February 19, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for 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 Plaintiffs and other visitors to Defendant's website, www.birdandbe.com, Bird & Be fails to protect the confidentiality of Plaintiffs and other patients' confidential health information, asserts the complaint. Instead, through Bird & Be's website, the Defendant collected and transmitted personally identifiable, sensitive health information pertaining to Plaintiffs and other Bird & Be customers, including their full names, e mail addresses, their biological sex, their partner's biological sex, the diagnoses made by its online assessment, and the specific products that they purchased to unauthorized third parties, including Alphabet, Inc., Meta Platforms, Inc., and Klaviyo, through its use of surreptitious online tracking tools, says the suit. As a result of Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered numerous injuries, including: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) lack of trust in communicating with online service providers; (iii) emotional distress and heightened concerns related to the release of sensitive health information to third parties, (iv) loss of benefit of the bargain; (v) diminution of value of the sensitive health information; (vi) statutory damages and (viii) continued and ongoing risk to their sensitive health information. The Bird & Be Co., Inc. sells fertility testing kits and supplements aimed towards women trying to conceive. Through Bird & Be's website, the patients can purchase Bird & Be's products or take online health assessment to receive recommendations about which of its products are best suited for their needs.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew J. Langley, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (312) 576-3024 E-mail: matt@almeidalawgroup.com - and - Victor J. Sandoval, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 111 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 426 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 534-5907 E-mail: victor@almeidalawgroup.com - and - Sonjay C. Singh, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: ssingh@sirillp.com BROOKDALE SENIOR: Brown Seeks Caregivers' Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- JAYLA BROWN and ELETHEA CURRY, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING, INC. Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00172-UNA (D. Del., February 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay Plaintiffs and other employees' overtime wages, seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Brown worked for the Defendant at its facility in Westlake, Ohio as an hourly, non-exempt employee as defined in the FLSA in the role of Caregiver from May 2023 to September 2023. The Defendant allegedly violated the FLSA with respect to Named Plaintiffs, Opt-In Plaintiffs, and the FLSA Collective by failing to compensate them for overtime wages for all overtime hours worked because of Defendant's policies and/or practices. Brookdale Senior Living Inc. is in the business of providing a variety of senior care services at its communities including independent living services, assisted living services, memory care services, skilled nursing services, continuing care retirement communities, and at home care services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com - and - Brian E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 North Market Street, 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 777-0300 Facsimile: (302) 777-0301 E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com BT'S ON THE RIVER: Cruz Seeks Conditionally Certify FLSA Class -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAZMIN CRUZ, et al., v. BT'S ON THE RIVER, LLC d/b/a BOOBY TRAP ON THE RIVER, a Florida Limited Liability Company et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-20942-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting bid FLSA conditional certification and issuance of court authorized notice and incorporated memorandum of law. The Plaintiffs have met, at this stage of the litigation, their lenient burden of demonstrating that they and potential collective action members are similarly situated, and that other class members would join this action if notice was issued. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs request that this Court enter an Order: (a) conditionally certifying the following FLSA class: "All entertainers/dancers who worked at BT's On The River, Klub 24, BT Doral and/or BT Pompano at any time on or after [insert date 3 years before issuance of notice]"; (b) requiring the Defendants to produce within 20 days a list of all entertainers who worked in the past three years in an electronic or computer-readable format with their full name, stage names, dates of employment, last known address, cell phone number, and email address, to facilitate notice; and (c) authorizing notice in the form attached as Exhibit 7, and establishing a 60 day period to join the collective action; and (d) authorizing notice by mail, email, text messaging and posting in the workplace. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g8mDm4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carlos Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 631 S. Orlando Ave., Ste 300 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 813-7513 E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com CAKE 5332: Alvarez Wins Class Certification Bid ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSANGELICA ALVAREZ and SHAHRAM SHAHANDEH, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CAKE 5332, LLC, ABDUL HAMIDEH, and AJTX MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-00697-FJG (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Miachael A. Hodgson and Barry Ray Grissom are appointed as Class counsel. Rosangelica Alvarez and Shahram Shahandeh are appointed as class representatives. The parties will submit to the Court a proposed scheduling order for remaining discovery and all other remaining issues within 30 days of the date of this Order. The Court Plaintiffs submit their proposed notice on or before March 10, 2026. The Defendants may file their objections, if any, on or before March 31, 2026. The Plaintiffs may reply to the objections on or before April 14, 2026. As the Court finds Plaintiffs' proposed classes should be certified, the Court adopts the following class definition: "All servers who worked at Missouri restaurants owned and operated by the Defendants from Oct. 28, 2019, to the present. On Jan. 1, 2026, a show cause order was entered, ordering the Defendants to show cause why the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification should not be granted. The Defendants failed to respond to this order. The Plaintiffs challenge the Defendants' use of the tip credit for certain non-tip-producing activities when they exceeded 20% of their workday or workweek. The Plaintiffs allege that they should have been paid full minimum wage for that time. The Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendants failed to properly notify employees of the Defendants' use of the tip credit and thus could not take a minimum wage credit against servers' tips. The Defendant is a regional international house of pancakes restaurant group. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rUNUgH at no extra charge.[CC] CAULER CONTAINERS: Status Conference in O'Donnell Set for April 10 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNI O'DONNELL, v. CAULER CONTAINERS, INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-05558-JLS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl entered an order that a telephonic status conference shall be held on April 10, 2026, at 10:30 AM. All parties shall dial: 1-855-244-8681; Access Code: 2301 227 2970. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the parties shall compete Phase I class certification discovery by May 29, 2026. Cauler provides residential waste removal, roll-off and front-load container rental services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8Cen0e at no extra charge.[CC] CENTRAL FREIGHT: Court Awards Henry $406K in Atty's Fees -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICKEY HENRY, et al., v. CENTRAL FREIGHT LINES, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-00280-DAD-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd entered an order granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs. 1. The Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs is granted as follows: a. The court awards $406,330.00 to plaintiffs in attorneys' fees; b. The court awards $51,985.03 to plaintiffs in costs; and 2. The Defendant is directed to pay plaintiffs through their counsel the amount awarded above. Because the plaintiffs obtained a default judgment against defendant and were awarded damages on all of their claims, they are the prevailing party and are therefore entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees under Labor Code sections 226, 1194, and 2699. On Oct.20, 2015, the plaintiff filed a complaint initiating this wage and hour class action on behalf of himself and a putative class of similarly situated individuals in the Sacramento County Superior Court. Central Freight was a major American regional less-than-truckload (LTL) carrier. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kcdaSw at no extra charge.[CC] CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Barnett Class Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as CHRISTOPHER BARNETT, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV00994, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division on February 18, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01748 to the proceeding. In this complaint, the Plaintiff alleges causes of action for (1) Violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, (2) Unfair Competition, (3) False Advertising, (4) Intentional Misrepresentation (Fraud), (5) Negligent Misrepresentation, and (6) Quasi-Contract. The Plaintiff alleges that Charter's internet pricing practices (under Charter's "Spectrum" brand) have caused "hundreds of thousands" of individuals to suffer damages in the form of hidden fees. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that Charter advertises artificially low monthly prices that do not include its hidden 'California Cost Recovery Charge'. Charter Communications, Inc., is an American telecommunications and mass media company with services branded as Spectrum.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Lukas Sosnicki, Esq. Joseph Scott, Esq. THOMPSON COBURN LLP 10100 Santa Monica Blvd, Ste 500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 282-2500 Facsimile: (310) 282-2501 E-mail: lsosnicki@thompsoncoburn.com jscott@thompsoncoburn.com CHESTNUT HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Oct. 8 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Doe 1, et al., v. Chestnut Health Systems, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01475 (C.D. Ill., Filed Nov. 22, 2024), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered an order adopting the revised deadlines in the parties' amended discovery plan, including the following: (1) Fact discovery is to be completed on or by Oct. 8, 2026 (2) The deadline to move for class certification is Oct. 8, 2026 (3) All discovery shall be completed on or before Jan. 21, 2027 (4) Dispositive motions shall be filed on or before Feb. 8, 2027 The nature of suit states Diversity-Contract Default. Chestnut provides primary health care, addiction treatment, mental health counseling, housing, and supportive services.[CC] CKS PACKAGING: Fares Seeks to Stay Class Cert Bid Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROMAN FARES and ANGELA HUGHES, TEASHIA GREEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. C.K.S. PACKAGING INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-04586-SDG (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order to stay the deadline to file their motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs request that the Court extend the current motion for class certification deadline to allow sufficient time for the Plaintiffs to hold a Rule 3 conference with the Defendant and Third-Party Defendant, develop a discovery plan, and to conduct necessary discovery on class certification issues. Given Plaintiffs' evidentiary burden, and the rigorous factual analysis required for a motion for class certification, a sufficient amount of time for discovery is essential to understand the scope of the claims, obtain evidence supporting them, and ascertain their certifiability on a class wide basis. On Nov. 4, 2024, the Plaintiff Teashia Green filed a related class action complaint against the Defendant stemming from data bBreach. CKS manufactures and distributes plastic packaging products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OKljJD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com - and - Leigh Skye Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Street, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 E-mail: lmontgomery@eksm.com CLUB 360: Appeals Judgment Order in Bazarganfard Suit to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- CLUB 360, LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court judgment in the lawsuit entitled Edwin Bazarganfard, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Club 360, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02272-CBM-BFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs filed this suit against the Defendants for alleged violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. On May 20, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment and/or partial summary judgment. On Feb. 3, 2026, Judge Consuelo B. Marshall entered judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs. Judgment is entered against the Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $47,672.28 in actual damages; against Defendant ABC Financial Services, LLC in the amount of $500,000 in statutory damages; and against Defendants Meher, Club 360 LLC, Valley Gym Corp., North Hollywood Fitness LLC, and Van Nuys Fitness Center, LLC, jointly and severally, in the amount of $184,400 in statutory damages. The appellate case is styled as Bazarganfard, et al. v. Club 360, LLC, et al., Case No. 26-994, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 19, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on February 24, 2026; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order is due on March 3, 2026; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on April 2, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on May 12, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on June 11, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees EDWIN BAZARGANFARD, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD FRIEDMAN 23586 Calabasas Road, Suite 105 Calabasas, CA 91302 Defendants-Appellants CLUB 360, LLC, et al. are represented by: Robert M. Dato, Esq. BUCHALTER, LLP 18400 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612 - and - Thomas Borncamp, Esq. Hassan Elrakabawy, Esq. YUKEVICH CAVENAUGH 355 S. Grand Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 COVENANT ROOFING: Griffin Balks at Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- OCTAVIUS GRIFFIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COVENANT ROOFING & CONSTRUCTION INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-00130 (M.D. Fla., February 18, 2026) arises from the Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act for failure to pay Plaintiff and others similarly situated overtime wages for all hours worked over 40 in each and every workweek. According to the complaint, pursuant to a multi-state, common policy, and unlawful pay practice and scheme to avoid its overtime pay obligations under the FLSA, Covenant Roofing either willfully misclassified these positions as exempt, or intentionally and willfully violated the FLSA by refusing to pay overtime premiums to non-exempt day laborer employees in order to save millions of dollars in labor costs and to increase profits. The Plaintiff was hired to work for Covenant on October 16, 2024, under the title and in the position of Project Manager and continued in this position until his separation from employment in January 2026. Covenant Roofing & Construction Inc. is a licensed and insured roofing contractor based in Leesburg, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq. FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP 12610 Race Track Rd, Suite 225 Tampa, FL 33625 Telephone: (813) 639-9366 Facsimile: (813) 639-9376 E-mail: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com mail@feldmanlegal.us D. G. GROCERY: Faces Presinal Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ RAFAEL PRESINAL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. D. G. GROCERY CORP. (D/B/A D&G DELI GROCERY) and FREDDY PANTALEON, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01396 (S.D.N.Y., February 18, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and for violations of the New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. According to the complaint, Plaintiff Presinal worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that he worked. The Defendants also failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Presinal appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Plaintiff Presinal was employed by the Defendants at D&G Deli Grocery from approximately November 2021 until January 30, 2026. D. G. Grocery Corp. operates a deli/grocery located in the South Bronx section of The Bronx in New York City.[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 DABELLA EXTERIORS: Seeks to Strike Class Allegations in Wiengrad ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEON WEINGRAD, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated, v. DABELLA EXTERIORS LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00396-SI (D. Or.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order denying class certification and striking the class allegations. This is not a situation where DaBella made calls to individuals on the National DNC Registry en masse. To the contrary, DaBella's Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") policies require consent prior to placing any marketing calls to an individual on the DNC, and DaBella obtained a consent form to call the Plaintiff's telephone number in this specific case, the Defendant avers. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's class claims are not appropriate and do not comply with Rule 23 requirements. On March 6, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against the Defendant, alleging violations of TCPA in connection with alleged calls he received from the Defendant, which he amended on Sept. 30, 2025. In the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that his telephone number (503) XXX-XXXX1 has been registered on the DNC for over a year prior to the calls at issue. The Plaintiff alleges that he did not consent for Defendant to call him. The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following class: National Do Not Call Registry Class: "All persons within the United States: (1) whose residential telephone numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 31 days; (2) but who received more than one telephone solicitation call from the Defendant or any third party acting on the Defendant's behalf; (3) within a 12 month period; (4) within the four years prior to the filing of the Complaint." DaBella is a residential roofing contractor. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Qe3SFt at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Drew L. Eyman, Esq. SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. 601 SW 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Portland, OR 97204-3229 Telephone: (503) 624-6800 Facsimile: (503) 624-6888 E-mail: deyman@swlaw.com - and - Diane J. Zelmer, Esq. BERENSON LLP 4495 Military Trail, Suite 203 Jupiter, FL 33458 Telephone: (561) 429-4496 E-mail: djz@berensonllp.com DANAHER CORP: Faces Warren Suit Over Workplace Age Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN MICHAEL WARREN, DEBORAH COTE, ANDREW BUNENKO, and MOHAMED YOUSSEF AMIN BRIHMAT on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. DANAHER CORPORATION, BECKMAN COULTER, INC., INTEGRATED DNA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., PALL CORPORATION, CYTIVA, and ABCAM, Case No. 1:26-cv-00556 (D.D.C., Feb. 20, 2026) is a class and collective action brought by representatives who applied for employment with Danaher alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Florida Civil Rights Act, New York State Human Rights Law, California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and the Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law. The Plaintiffs seeks damages including back pay, front pay, liquidated damages, punitive damages, lost benefits, compensatory damages, emotional distress, pain and suffering, injunctive relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and any other relief to which Plaintiffs are entitled, including, but not limited to, equitable relief. The Plaintiffs applied for various sales and account management positions across the country, in different cities and states, to work for Danaher and/or its operating companies. Their applications for employment were rejected, and they were never hired despite being as qualified and/or more qualified than younger applicants who were hired. Defendant Danaher and its OpCos pride themselves on attracting and retaining young workers. Danaher prefers not to hire, and actively eliminates from consideration for hire, older individuals for its sales, professional, and management positions based on age. Rather, it prefers to hire, and except in rare circumstances does hire younger individuals, says the suit. Danaher is an American Fortune 200 company. It operates globally, primarily in the life sciences, diagnostics and biotechnology sectors.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: George G. Triantis, Esq. Marc R. Edelman, Esq. Gregory R. Schmitz, Esq. C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. Sophia L. Walker, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 577-4761 Facsimile: (813) 559-4870 E-mail: Gtriantis@forthepeople.com medelman@forthepeople.com gschmitz@forthepeople.com rmorgan@forthepeople.com sophia.walker@forthepeople.com DEBOER SECURITY: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Bennett Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- FRANCISCO BENNETT, ALLEN BROWN JR., and FILIBERTO CLEMENTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DEBOER SECURITY GLOBAL INC, a California corporation; JULIUS DE BOER, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCVO5205 (Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Cal., February 18, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for damages and injunctive and declaratory relief based on failure to pay state minimum wage; failure to pay overtime compensation; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to furnish timely and accurate wage statements; waiting time penalties; failure to indemnify for all necessary expenditures and losses; and unfair competition. According to the complaint, the Defendants illegally required or permitted Plaintiffs and Class Members to perform work for which they were not fully compensated. During these periods, Defendants failed to record and pay for all hours worked, including work performed outside of scheduled shifts and work for which time was under-recorded or not recorded at all. The Defendants maintained policies and practices that resulted in the underreporting and underpayment of the compensable time of Plaintiffs and Class Members. Such policies and practices included, but were not limited to, failing to accurately capture all time worked and altering, reducing, or otherwise failing to fully credit time Plaintiffs and Class Members' time entries. The uncompensated time was not de minimis and, over time, Plaintiffs and Class Members were not fully compensated for all the time that they actually worked. During these periods, Plaintiffs and Class Members were not paid at least minimum wages. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered injury in fact and have lost money or property as a result of Defendants' unfair business practices, and Defendants have reaped unfair benefits and illegal profits at the expense of Plaintiffs and Class Members. Plaintiffs and Class Members are thus entitled to declaratory and equitable relief, including, but not limited to, restitution of all amounts owing to Plaintiffs and Class Members. Plaintiffs Francisco Bennett, Allen Brown Jr., and Filiberto Clemente were employed by the Defendant. Defendant DeBoer Security Global, Inc. is a private security firm providing protective services and risk management solutions for high-profile clients and enterprises. Julius De Boer founded the company and serves as its CEO. Mr. De Boer is a high-level employee or officer, director, and/or managing agent of DeBoer Security who influenced DeBoer Security's wage and hour policies, contributed to DeBoer Security's wage and hour violations, and exercised a high degree of control over the working conditions of Plaintiffs and Class Members. Defendants 1 through 100 are the fictitiously named defendants.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph Tojarieh, Esq. STONEBROOK LAW 10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 553-5533 Facsimile: (310) 553-5536 E-mail: jft@stonebrooklaw.com DIAMOND BRACES: Aliyeva Seeks Summary Judgment Briefing Schedule ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Aliyeva v. Diamond Braces et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-04575-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting request setting a briefing schedule on the Plaintiffs' anticipated motions for summary judgment and class certification pursuant to Rules 56 and 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiffs are available at the Court's convenience. The Defendants have stated they also intend to file a motion for summary judgment. Diamond is an orthodontic practice that operates more than 40 offices throughout the New York metropolitan area. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cLhdKy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 DIAMOND BRACES: Plaintiffs Must File Complaint Letter Due March 3 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Aliyeva v. Diamond Braces et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-04575-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katherine Polk Failla entered an order granting the parties request for a pre-motion conference. The post-fact conference currently scheduled for March 17, 2026, is converted into a pre-motion conference. The parties are reminded that the Court's individual rules require that pre-motion letters must "describe the grounds for the proposed motion." Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases 4(A). The Plaintiffs shall file a complaint letter on or before March 3, 2026. The Defendants shall then file a response on or before March 10, 2026. Diamond Braces is an orthodontist provider. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SmFyil at no extra charge.[CC] DIGI-KEY CORP: Underpays Customer Support Staff, Keely Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- SHON KEELY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DIGI-KEY CORPORATION, and DIGI-KEY SERVICES, INC., d/b/a DIGIKEY and/or DIGI-KEY ELECTRONICS, Defendants, Case No. 0:26-cv-01475-JRT-LIB (D. Minn., February 17, 2026) is a collective and class action brought by Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons employed by Defendants, arising from Defendants' willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and common law. According to the complaint, the Defendants classified their employees as non-exempt and tasked them with the primary job duty of providing over-the-phone customer service. The Defendants violated the FLSA and common law by systematically failing to compensate their employees for work tasks completed before, during, and after their scheduled shifts, when they were not logged into Defendants' timekeeping system. This timekeeping procedure resulted in Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees not being paid for all overtime hours worked and in workweeks in which they worked overtime, for straight time, says the suit. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a remote, non-exempt employee from approximately August 2021 to January 2025. During his employment, the Plaintiff resided in Minnesota and Maine. The Plaintiff held the job title of Global Customer Support from approximately August 2021 to February 2023, at which point he was promoted to Global Customer Support Supervisor. Digi-Key Corporation distributes electronic components. The Company offers microphones, sirens, speakers, batteries, audio cables, and fiber optics products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. Zackary Kaylor, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Ste. 1800 St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Paulina R. Kennedy, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com pkennedy@sommerspc.com DUPONT DE NEMOURS: Standing Order Entered in Graham Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURENCE J. GRAHAM, et al., v. DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-00986-FLA-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Aenlle-Rocha entered a Standing Order. The Plaintiff shall promptly serve the complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant to Local Rule 5-3.1. All documents filed in state court, including documents appended to the complaint, answers, and motions, must be re-filed in this court as a supplement to the notice of removal. Under 28 U.S.C. section636, the parties may consent to have a Magistrate Judge preside over all proceedings, including trial. All discovery matters are referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge, who will hear all discovery disputes. T Motions shall be filed in accordance with Local Rules 6 and 7. The court hears motions in civil actions on Fridays, beginning at 1:30 p.m. DuPont is an American multinational specialty materials and chemicals company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Y8GJlR at no extra charge.[CC] E.I. DU PONT: Status Teleconference in Banks Set for March 17 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Banks, et al., v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01672 (D. Del., Filed Sept. 6, 2019), the Hon. Judge Jennifer L. Hall entered a scheduling order setting a status teleconference on March 17, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. "to address subsequent deadlines, including further merits discovery and expert deadlines, dispositive motion deadlines and a pretrial conference." On Feb. 10, 2026, the court issued a Report and Recommendation on Plaintiffs' class certification motion. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Product Liability. E.I. du Pont is a chemical company.[CC] ELECTROLUX CONSUMER: Houser Balks at Defective Gas Cooking Ranges ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARSHALL HOUSER, AIMEN HALIM, BARBARA FORTE, TONIA MCCONNELL, DEAN SLEGER, RICHARD ANELLI, and JOANNE BARRETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ELECTROLUX CONSUMER PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-00029 (W.D.N.C., February 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for common law fraud, violations of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act, breaches of express and implied warranties, fraudulent omission or concealment, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. The Plaintiffs and the Class are purchasers of Frigidaire-branded ranges, which are manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold by Electrolux without disclosing to consumers that the Frigidaire ranges' outer glass on the oven door has a propensity to shatter or explode without any misuse or forewarning. The Defect poses a serious safety hazard to consumers, their children, and pets and a risk to personal and real property. Furthermore, due to the significant risk of explosion in their kitchen, Class members are deprived of the use of their Frigidaire ranges, says the suit. As a result of Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered an ascertainable loss of money and/or property, and/or loss in value. Class members have been forced to spend time and money purchasing replacement parts and hiring technicians for repairs and have lost the use of their Frigidaire range while waiting for a repair. Electrolux Consumer Products, Inc. is a designer, manufacturer, marketer, advertiser, distributor, and seller of Electrolux and Frigidaire branded home appliances. Electrolux is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in Charlotte, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Martha A. Geer, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 900 West Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 E-mail: mgeer@brysonpllc.com - and - Tina Wolfson, Esq. Christopher E. Stiner, Esq. Sarper Unal, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com cstiner@ahdootwolfson.com sunal@ahdootwolfson.com EMPOWER RETIREMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Lovely Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- SHENIQUA LOVELY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EMPOWER RETIREMENT, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00651-TPO (D. Colo., February 18, 2026) is a collective and class action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, arising from Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and common law. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the FLSA and common law by systematically failing to compensate its employees for work tasks completed before, during and after their scheduled shifts which resulted in employees not being paid for all overtime hours worked, overtime gap time when associated with unpaid overtime, and in non-overtime workweeks for regular hours. More specifically, the Defendant failed to compensate its employees for the substantial time they spent performing essential work tasks prior to clocking into and after clocking out of Defendant's timekeeping system each shift, says the suit. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt remote customer service representative from approximately January 2021 through March 2023. Empower Retirement, LLC is a retirement plan financial holding company with its principal office located in Greenwood Village, Colorado.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Kathryn E. Milz, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com kmilz@sommerspc.com EUGENE CARLTON: Gladney's Bid to Certify Class Tossed ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD J. GLADNEY, v. WARDEN EUGENE K. CARLTON, et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-00537-KKM-PRL (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Mizelle entered an order denying the Gladney's motion to certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. Gladney does not allege sufficient facts to show that "there are questions of law or fact common to the class" or that Gladney's claims or defenses are "typical of the claims or defenses of the class. " To the extent that the motion seeks to join parties under Rule 20, Gladney fails to identify how the proposed class members assert a right to relief "arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences. " In addition, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, "each prisoner must bring a separate suit in order to satisfy the Act's requirement that each prisoner pay the full filing fee." Furthermore, "it is plain error to permit an imprisoned litigant who is unassisted by counsel to represent his fellow inmates in a class action." Gladney, a pro se prisoner, brings an amended civil rights complaint, and moves to certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b). Gladney vaguely claims that other transgender inmates have been abused by prison staff "and/or negligently housed in the special housing unit" and seeks a class composed of them. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Kmr3P1 at no extra charge.[CC] FUBOTV INC: Kelly Sues Over COI's Director Removal Provision ------------------------------------------------------------ DENNIS KELLY, Plaintiff v. FUBOTV INC., a Delaware Corporation, ANDY BIRD, DAVID GANDLER, DANIEL LEFF, IGNACIO FIGUERAS, JONATHAN HEADLEY, JIM LYGOPOULOS, DEBRA OCONNELL, CATHLEEN TAFF, and JUSTIN WARBROOKE, Defendants, Case No. 2026-0239 (Del. Ch., February 19, 2026) is brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders of FuboTV Inc., for declaratory relief relating to the Company's violation of the Delaware General Corporation Law Section 141(k) and Delaware common law and public policy. According to the complaint, a provision of the Company's certificate of incorporation, adopted and maintained by Defendants, provides that a single certain stockholder has the exclusive right to prevent the removal of directors from office. The Delaware law only allows for the right of removal of any directors of a corporation by the holders of a majority of any of its stockholders with no veto powers being allowed to any stockholder. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other affected stockholders of the Company against the Company and the members of its Board, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Removal Provision in the currently effective charter violates Section 141(k) of the DGCL and Delaware common law and public policy and is thus void. FuboTV Inc. operates as a live TV streaming company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake A. Bennett, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A. 1000 N. West St., Suite 1500 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 984-3889 - and - Brian P. Murray, Esq. BRIAN MURRAY LAW PLLC 750 E. Main Street, Suite 620 Stamford, CT 06902 Telephone: (203) 883-2170 E-mail: bmurray@brianmurraylaw.com - and - Werner R. Kranenburg, Esq. KRANENBURG 80-83 Long Lane London EC1A 9ET United Kingdom Telephone: (44) 20-3174-0365 E-mail: werner@kranenburgesq.com FUNDING CHANNEL: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due August 21 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN BACHHUBER, v. THE FUNDING CHANNEL LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00959-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Anita Marie Boor entered a preliminary pretrial conference order. The court held a telephonic preliminary pretrial conference on February 10, 2026. Both parties appeared by counsel. The court set the schedule for this case and advised the parties that their conduct throughout this case is governed by this pretrial conference order and its attachments, which are available electronically in a hyperlink in the same docket entry as the order itself. Amendments to the Pleadings: April 14, 2026 Disclosure of experts: Plaintiff/Proponent: Aug. 21, 2026 Defendant/Respondent: Oct. 20, 2026 Motions & Briefs to certify proposed class: Aug. 21, 2026 Brief in Opposition: Oct. 20, 2026 Reply: Dec. 18, 2026 Deadline for filing Daubert Motions for Class Experts: Dec. 18, 2026 Responses to Daubert Motions: Jan. 19, 2027 Replies: Feb. 1, 2027 Discovery Cutoff: Aug. 20, 2027 Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures and all motions in limine: Sept. 10, 2027 Responses: Oct. 1, 2027 Trial: Nov. 1, 2027, at 9:00 a.m. The Defendant is a business financing firm. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8vrz0E at no extra charge.[CC] FURRY N' FABULOUS: General Pretrial Management Entered in Brown --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALTAUNE BROWN, v. FURRY N' FABULOUS LLC, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-01071-DEH-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management. All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. Parties and counsel are cautioned: If and when a discovery schedule is issued, all discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and § 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court proceeding (including a telephonic court conference), or to extend a deadline, must be made in writing and in compliance with § 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Furry N' Fabulous is a full-service pet grooming salon. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sgNdrp at no extra charge.[CC] GENTING NEW: Court Grants Final Approval of $1.1M "Roberts" Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Gerald Roberts, Stephen Johnson, Christopher McLeod, and David Shaw, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Genting New York LLC d/b/a Resorts World Casino New York City, Defendant, No. 14-cv-0257 (KAM)(VMS) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted final approval of a class action settlement agreement and granted Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees. On January 14, 2014, lead Plaintiffs filed this class action alleging violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act), 29 U.S.C. Section 2101 et seq., and New York Labor Law Section 860 et seq. against Defendant. Plaintiffs amended their putative class action complaint on March 17, 2014. The parties certified discovery as closed on July 6, 2015, and then engaged in extensive motion practice. The court granted summary judgment to Defendant on March 12, 2021, but the Second Circuit reversed that decision on May 15, 2023, reinstating the action. See Roberts v. Genting New York LLC, 68 F.4th 81 (2d Cir. 2023). Following reinstatement, the parties entered into settlement negotiations. On October 3, 2025, the court granted preliminary approval and scheduled a fairness hearing for January 16, 2026. On January 15, 2026, the court held the hearing and found the settlement to be procedurally and substantively fair. The parties agreed to create a settlement fund of $1,124,217.46. The class is composed of 176 individuals. Class Counsel requested $353,254.11 in attorneys' fees and $8,875.46 in costs. The settlement provided for the administrator to receive a fee of $25,000. The four lead Plaintiffs were each paid an incentive award of $10,000, for a total of $40,000. The amount of Net Claimant Settlement Payments for the class is $697,087.89. As of January 7, 2026, 89 of the 176 class members had submitted a claim, and no class members objected to the settlement. The court found the settlement to be procedurally fair. First, Class Counsel and the class representatives adequately represented the interests of the entire class. The class representatives did not have interests antagonistic to those of the class as a whole and had diligently litigated the action for over ten years. Second, the settlement was negotiated at arm's length, with the parties engaging in extensive discovery and settlement discussions before Magistrate Judge Scanlon. The court found the proposed settlement to be substantively fair. The parties settled for $1,124,217.46, which represented 30.24% of the maximum estimated damages, falling within the range of reasonableness. The plan of allocation provided each Plaintiff who submitted a claim form an amount based on a percentage share of the total fund, as calculated by Plaintiffs' expert. The court found that the proposal treated class members equitably relative to each other. Class Counsel requested a fee of 31.42% of the settlement fund under the percentage method. Courts within the Second Circuit routinely approve attorneys' fees requests of up to 33%. The court also conducted a lodestar cross-check. Class Counsel provided contemporaneous billing records for 186 hours of attorney Jesse Rose's time at an hourly rate of $500 per hour, for a total lodestar value of $93,000. The remaining claimed hours -- 241.5 by Rose, 80 by Edward Kennedy, and 40 by Thomas Kocian -- were supported only by estimates, as Class Counsel stated that timekeeping records were lost due to a computer malfunction. When the total requested fee of $353,254.11 was divided by the documented lodestar of $93,000, the lodestar multiplier was 3.79. The court found this multiplier reasonable, as it fell within the 1-to-4 range that courts typically approve in class actions, given that Class Counsel had litigated the case for over ten years, successfully reversed a summary judgment on appeal, and negotiated a favorable settlement. The court therefore granted Class Counsel's attorneys' fees request. The court approved incentive awards of $10,000 each for the four class representatives, finding the amounts fell within the range deemed reasonable. The class representatives had remained as Plaintiffs in this case for over ten years. Accordingly, the court granted Lead Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the Class Action Settlement Agreement and granted Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees. A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9e3QEY from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Resorts World Casino New York City Represented By Dana M. Susman Kane Kessler, P.C. 212-541-6222 dsusman@kanekessler.com Jeffrey H. Daichman Kane Kessler, P.C. 212-541-6222 jdaichman@kanekessler.com Tanya Claire Pohl Kane Kessler PC 212-541-6222 tpohl@kanekessler.com Defendant Genting New York LLC Represented By Dana M. Susman Kane Kessler, P.C. 212-541-6222 dsusman@kanekessler.com' Tanya Claire Pohl Kane Kessler PC 212-541-6222 tpohl@kanekessler.com Plaintiffs GERALD ROBERTS, STEPHEN JOHNSON,CHRISTOPHER MCLEOD, AND DAVID SHAW, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, were represented by Jesse Curtis Rose of The Rose Law Group, PLLC (212-248-7431; jrose@tpglaws.com) and Edward J. Kennedy of Phillips & Associates, Attorney At Law, PLLC (212-248-7431; ekennedy@tpglaws.com). GET LIQUID: Underpays Company Employees, Brown Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ KIM BROWN, and DIEGO LEWIS, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GET LIQUID FUNDING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 9:26-cv-80170-XXXX (S.D. Fla., February 18, 2026) is a class action seeking to recover unpaid compensation, in the form of overtime compensation owed to plaintiffs, individually, and on behalf of all employees and former employees of GLF who are similarly situated, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint relates that GLF is in the business of Surplus Recovery, whereby GLF recovers surplus from homeowners who have lost their homes to foreclosure and provide house-hunting services for rental properties. BROWN and LEWIS were employed with GLF as Sales Representatives who provides support to homeowners facing foreclosure by connecting them with financial solutions and helping them recover surplus funds after foreclosure actions, efforts achieved through proactive client outreach and strategic lead management. The complaint alleges that throughout LEWIS' employment, he and similarly situated employees often worked over 40 hours per week. GLF owes BROWN, LEWIS, and similarly situated employees, overtime compensation. BROWN is owed at least 73 hours of overtime compensation and LEWIS is owed at least 174 hours of overtime compensation. BROWN and LEWIS on behalf of themselves and other current and former employees who will opt into this action pursuant to the FLSA, asserts that they and other similarly situated employees are entitled to: (1) unpaid wages from GLF for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime pay as required by the FLSA; (2) liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA; (3) reasonable fees and costs; and (4) any further relief this Court deems just and equitable. Plaintiff KIM BROWN worked for GLF for the period December 17, 2024 to April 7, 2025. Plaintiff DIEGO LEWIS worked for GLF for the period of October 31, 2024 to May 6, 2025. Defendant GET LIQUID FUNDING, LLC ("GLF") is an enterprise engaged in interstate commerce.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gina Marie Cadogan, Esq. Madison A. Heckman, Esq. CADOGAN LAW 1200 S. Pine Island Road, Suite 370 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: 954-606-5891 Facsimile: 877-464-7316 E-mail: gina@cadoganlaw.com E-mail: madison@cadoganlaw.com E-mail: tyler@cadoganlaw.com GOOGLE LLC: Transmit Users' Online Activities to Chinese Entities ----------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE MCGRATH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOOGLE LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 3:26-cv-01446 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 20, 2026) seeks to hold Google accountable for operating an infrastructure through which Americans' sensitive online activity is transmitted to advertising entities subject to the jurisdiction of a designated foreign adversary. Accordingly, millions of Americans use the internet to research medications, read the Bible, seek parenting advice, and browse other sensitive content, reasonably expecting that neither this activity nor their identities will be secretly intercepted and disclosed to Chinese technology conglomerates answerable to Beijing. However, as alleged that is exactly what Google has done in violation of federal and state law. Google operates the world's largest digital advertising ecosystem, generating approximately $307.4 billion in annual revenue, the majority of which derives from advertising. Through this vast advertising infrastructure, Google intercepts information about Americans' browsing activity and assigns persistent, digital identifiers that track individuals through websites, apps, and devices, the suit contends. Allegedly, Google transmits personal information on a massive scale and without meaningful notice or valid consent of users, to third-party advertising entities participating in Google's ecosystem -- including entities owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China -- in violation of federal regulations and wiretapping laws ,as well as California's privacy, wiretapping, and computer fraud statutes. On behalf of a nationwide class, the Plaintiff seeks statutory and compensatory damages for millions of affected individuals and an injunction prohibiting Google from continuing these illegal transfers. Plaintiff Nicole McGrath is a natural person and citizen of New Hampshire, who resides in Hudson, New Hampshire. Google is a major American multinational technology company and a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc., specializing in internet-related services, software, hardware, and AI. Founded by Larry Page and Sergey Brin in 1998, it dominates online advertising, search engine technology, cloud computing, and consumer electronics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew W. Ruan, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 100 Tri-State International, Suite 128 Lincolnshire, IL 60069 Telephone: (224) 632-4500 E-mail: mruan@fklmlaw.com GOOGLE LLC: Transmits Online Activities to Third Parties, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- TRISHA NADEAU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOOGLE LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 3:26-cv-01454 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 19, 2026) seeks to hold Google accountable for operating an infrastructure through which Americans' sensitive online activity is transmitted to advertising entities subject to the jurisdiction of a designated foreign adversary. Google operates the world's largest digital advertising ecosystem, generating approximately $307.4 billion in annual revenue, the majority of which derives from advertising. Through this vast advertising infrastructure, Google intercepts information about Americans' browsing activity and assigns persistent, digital identifiers that track individuals through websites, apps, and devices, the suit contends. According to the complaint, Google transmits personal information on a massive scale and without meaningful notice or valid consent of users, to third-party advertising entities participating in Google's ecosystem — including entities owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China -- in violation of federal regulations and wiretapping laws ,as well as California's privacy, wiretapping, and computer fraud statutes. On behalf of a nationwide class, the Plaintiff seeks statutory and compensatory damages for millions of affected individuals and an injunction prohibiting Google from continuing these illegal transfers. Google is a major American multinational technology company and a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc., specializing in internet-related services, software, hardware, and AI. Founded by Larry Page and Sergey Brin in 1998, it dominates online advertising, search engine technology, cloud computing, and consumer electronics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew W. Ruan, Esq. Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq. Nicholas R. Lange, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 100 Tri-State International, Suite 128 Lincolnshire, IL 60069 Telephone: (224) 632-4500 E-mail: mruan@fklmlaw.com jjagher@fklmlaw.com nlange@fklmlaw.com HOTELENGINE INC: Bid for Court-Authorized Notice OK'd ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOISES ALBINES, v. HOTELENGINE, INC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02409-CNS-NRN (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge N. Reid Neureiter entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for Court-authorized notice pursuant to section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as follows: -- The Plaintiff is authorized to issue notice to putative Collective Members who worked as exempt-classified Sales Representatives for Engine in the United States at any time between May 6, 2022 and the present ("putative Collective Members"). "Sales Representatives" are defined as individuals who work or worked as inside salespeople, including in the job titles Account Executive, Account Manager, and Sales Associate, and other similarly situated roles, however variously titled, nationwide. -- Within 21 days of this Order, Engine shall produce to the Plaintiff a computer readable data file containing names, last known mailing addresses, last known personal telephone numbers, last known personal email addresses, social media account information for LinkedIn (if known), work locations, and dates of employment as Sales Representatives in each relevant job title and at each location, for all potential Collective Members. -- The Plaintiff's Proposed Notice and the plan for its distribution are approved, with the modifications described above. The Defendant is a travel technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZVg1Jj at no extra charge.[CC] IDEAS TILE: Faces Bustillo Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL BUSTILLO, on behalf of himself, individually, and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IDEAS TILE & MARBLE CORP. and REGINALDO DASILVA, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-01031 (E.D.N.Y., February 22, 2026) is an action against the Defendants to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, as well as the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations. Throughout Plaintiff's employment, despite regularly working in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff at his statutorily required overtime rates of one and one-half times his regular rates of pay or the applicable minimum wage, whichever is greater, for hours worked in excess of 40 hours during a single workweek, in violation of the FLSA and NYLL, asserts the complaint. The Defendants failed to provide a written notice to Plaintiff upon his hire in his primary language and failed to furnish with accurate or any statements of his wages earned, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a non-exempt installer, technician and laborer from January 2021 until July 7, 2025. Ideas Tile & Marble Corp. operates a business that specializes in the sale, fabrication and installation of tiles, glass tiles, mosaics, murals, granite, marble and quartz, and other materials in kitchens and bathrooms for residential and commercial clients in and around Long Island, New York and New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Barnhorn, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks Leave to File Opposition Sur-Reply -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GLAZING EMPLOYERS AND GLAZIERS' UNION LOCAL #27 PENSION AND RETIREMENT FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and QUENTIN BLACKFORD, Case No. 3:24-cv-00706-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting administrative motion for leave to file a sur reply in further opposition to plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Defendants request that the Court grant Defendants leave to file a 10-page sur reply due Feb. 18, 2026. Should the Court decline to do so, Defendants request that the Court decline to consider new arguments or evidence raised in Plaintiff’s Reply or supplemental expert report. A sur-reply is warranted because Plaintiff's Reply in further Support of its Motion for Class Certification introduces new arguments and evidence related to price impact that is at odds with the record, including a rebuttal report from Plaintiff's expert, Dr. Cain, with affirmative analysis that dwarfs Dr. Cain's opening report. The Defendants have conferred with Plaintiff, who stated that it would not oppose Defendants' request if the filing of additional briefing would not alter the February 26, 2026, hearing date on class certification and if Defendants did not oppose Plaintiff’s request to file a 5-page response to the sur-reply. iRhythm develops and manufactures heart monitoring devices designed to diagnose abnormalities in the timing or pattern of a patient's heartbeat, known as arrhythmias. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yF0k36 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Kristin Tahler, Esq. Christopher Porter, Esq. Jesse Bernstein, Esq. Brenna Nelinson, Esq. Amy Shehan, Esq. Emily Erickson, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 South Figueroa Steet, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 E-mail: kristintahler@quinnemanuel.com chrisporter@quinnemanuel.com jessebernstein@quinnemanuel.com brennanelinson@quinnemanuel.com amyshehan@quinnemanuel.com emilyerickson@quinnemanuel.com J & A: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Barranco Says --------------------------------------------------- VICENTE BARRANCO, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. J & A GLATT MEATS, INC. d/b/a THE PRIME CUT, and ALBIR ALLAHHAM, individually, and NISSIM ALLAHHAM, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-967 (E.D.N.Y., February 18, 2026) is a civil rights action for damages and other redress based upon willful violations that Defendants committed of Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to him by: (i) the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); (ii) the overtime provisions of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. ("NYCRR"); (iii) the minimum wage provisions of the NYLL; (iv) the NYLL's requirement that employers pay their employees an additional one hour's pay at the minimum wage rate for those days when their employees' spread of hours exceeds ten in a workday; (v) the NYLL's requirement that employers furnish employees with a wage statement containing specific categories of accurate information on each payday; and (vi) any other claim(s) that can be inferred from the facts set forth herein. The complaint relates that throughout the Plaintiff's employment for the six-year period pre-dating the commencement of this action, plus an additional 228 days pursuant to former Governor Andrew M. Cuomo's executive tolling orders, until the end of his employment, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff the overtime wages lawfully due to him under the FLSA and the NYLL. Specifically, the Defendants required Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did work, in excess of 40 hours each workweek, or virtually each week, yet in exchange, Defendants paid Plaintiff a flat weekly salary that by operation of law covered only the first 40 hours that Plaintiff worked in a week. Thus, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at any rate, let alone at the statutorily-required rate of one and one-half times his regular rate for the hours that Plaintiff worked in a week in excess of 40. Furthermore, throughout the Relevant Period, the effective rate that Defendants paid Plaintiff for all hours of work fell below the minimum wage that the NYLL requires for each hour of work. Additionally, for those days when Plaintiff's shift exceeded 10 hours from beginning to end, which was almost every workday, Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff with an additional one hour's pay at the minimum wage rate, in violation of the spread of hours provisions of the NYLL and the NYCRR. The Defendants further violated the NYLL by failing to furnish Plaintiff with an accurate wage statement on each payday. The Defendants have paid and treated all of their butchers, cooks, and food preparers in the same manner, adds the complaint. Plaintiff VICENTE BARRANCO worked for Defendants as a butcher from March 2009 to October 3, 2025. Defendant J & A GLATT MEATS, INC. d/b/a THE PRIME CUT is a New York corporation that operates a butcher shop that serves pre-packaged and ready-to-eat food items in Brooklyn, New York, as well as the entity's Chief Executive Officer/day-to-day overseer and its manager. Defendant ALBIR ALLAHHAM was and is the Chief Executive Officer and day-to-day overseer of Defendant Prime Cut. Defendant NISSIM ALLAHHAM was and is the manager of Defendant Prime Cut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan S. Riger, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 JESSICA MCCORMACK: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Moran Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ WASHINGTON BENAVIDES MORAN, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. JESSICA MCCORMACK, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-1356 (S.D.N.Y., February 18, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://us.jessicamccormack.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on February 2, 2026, in an attempt to purchase 0.20ct Diamond & White Gold Gypset Hoop Earrings 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, relates the complaint. 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, the complaint adds. Accordingly, the 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 WASHINGTON BENAVIDES MORAN is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant JESSICA MCCORMACK, INC. operates the Jessica McCormack online retail store and physical retail stores, as well as the Jessica McCormack interactive Website that provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's: jewelry, as well as other types of goods, pricing, locations and hours of operation of their physical stores and directions thereto, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and internet pricing specials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal JOHN FLUEVOG: Butler Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users --------------------------------------------------------------- BENJAMIN BUTLER, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHN FLUEVOG SHOES, LTD. Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01421 (S.D.N.Y., February 19, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, maintain, and operate its website, www.fluevog.com, in a manner accessible to Plaintiff and other blind and visually impaired individuals 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 Civil Rights Law. On October 30 and November 5, 2025, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant's website using NonVisual Desktop Access screen reader software with the intent to shop for footwear for both his wife and himself. While attempting to navigate the Caravaggio and Bennett product pages, he encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented him from reviewing product information, selecting sizes, or adding items to his cart. These barriers included missing alternative text, unlabeled buttons, inaccessible size-selection menus, and ARIA implementation failures, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief requiring Defendant to revise its digital policies and practices to ensure that its website is and remains fully accessible to blind and visually impaired users. John Fluevog Shoes, Ltd. operates the website that offers footwear, accessories, and customer service tools to consumers across the United States, including New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 E-mail: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com JTCW INVESTMENTS: Pardo Balks at Property's Architectural Barriers ------------------------------------------------------------------ NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. JTCW INVESTMENTS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-21047 (S.D. Fla., February 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities as defined by and pursuant to the ADA. He visited the commercial property on October 19, 2025, and encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the commercial property and the tenants' businesses therein. Specifically, the Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property that include excessive slopes, inaccessible routes from the public sidewalk and transportation stop, and inaccessible entrance thresholds, asserts the complaint. The Defendant has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property, says the suit. JTCW Investments LLC owns and operates a commercial property at 9100 S. Dixie Highway, Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Primary E-Mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary E-Mails: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com mds@ajperezlawgroup.com KRISTI NOEM: Directed to Release Moran from Custody --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YOLIANNY MORAN, v. KRISTI NOEM, et al., Case No. 4:26-cv-00017-RGJ (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Jennings entered an order granting Moran's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus: The United States is directed to release Petitioner Moran immediately because of the unlawful detention in violation of her due process rights. The United States must provide her with a bond hearing before a neutral IJ pursuant to Section 1226. The United States must certify compliance with the Court’s order by a filing on the docket by February 12, 2026 Petitioner Moran is a 25-year-old native and citizen of Venezuela. Moran has been present in the United States since 2022 when she entered without inspection. Moran was not examined by any Customs or Border Patrol officers or any other immigration officers when entering the United States. On Oct. 16, 2025, Moran was arrested by Department of Homeland ("DHS") Security officers at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") check-in appointment. Kristi Noem is an American politician. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Feb. 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kWmKX6 at no extra charge.[CC] LIBERTY MUTUAL: Fassina Wins Bid for Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANICE FASSINA, STEVEN EDELEN, KENNETH BLACK, CRAIG DOBBS and NANCY DOBBS individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, LM INSURANCE CORPORATION, and LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Case No. 22-cv-11466-DJC (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Denise Casper entered an order: -- Allowing the Glasner Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. -- Allowing the Fassina Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, -- Allowing the Glasner Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, and -- Allowing the Fassina Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment in part as to the Dobbs' breach of contract and the Dobbs and Black's declaratory judgement claims, and denying same in part as to Black's breach of contract claim. In sum, both the RCV Plaintiffs' breach of contract allegations and their alleged financial injury demonstrate that they have an incentive to adequately litigate and a personal stake in the proposed classes' breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims. Accordingly, the RCV Plaintiffs have standing to bring these claims on behalf of the class. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have standing to bring their breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims on behalf of the proposed classes. On June 24, 2021, Glasner filed a complaint individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against AEIC. On September 12, 2022, Fassina filed a parallel complaint individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against LMFIC. The Glasner Plaintiffs move for certification of the proposed class, comprised of: "All AEIC, LMPIC, and Safeco of Indiana personal-lines property insurance policyholders (or their lawful assignees) who made: (1) a structural damage claim for property located in the States at Issue; (2) for which Liberty accepted coverage and issued an actual cash value payment during the class period that was calculated by Liberty exclusively through Xactimate(TM) software or Symbility(TM) software; and (3) Liberty's own calculation of actual cash value resulted in a reduced actual cash value payment due to the "manipulation of estimating software," or which resulted in an eliminated actual cash value payment because the manipulation of estimating software caused the loss payment to drop below the applicable deductible." The Fassina Plaintiffs similarly move for certification of the proposed class, comprised of: "All [Liberty], Safeco of America, LM, and LIC personal-lines property insurance policyholders (or their lawful assignees) who made: (1) a structural damage claim for property located in the States at Issue; (2) for which Liberty accepted coverage and issued an actual cash value payment during the class period that was calculated by Liberty exclusively through Xactimate(TM) software or Symbility (TM) software; and (3) Liberty's own calculation of actual cash value resulted in a reduced actual cash value payment due to the "manipulation of estimating software," or which resulted in an eliminated actual cash value payment because the manipulation of estimating software caused the loss payment to drop below the applicable deductible." Liberty offers a wide range of insurance products and services. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Feb. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KKwbyj at no extra charge.[CC] LITE STAR: Class Settlement in Chea Suit Gets Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINNA CHEA, v. LITE STAR ESOP COMMITTEE, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00647-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Boone entered an order granting motion for final approval of class action settlement and granting motion for attorneys' fees, expenses, and service award: 1. The Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the class action settlement is granted and the settlement is approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; 2. The class is certified for purposes of settlement and the class is defined as: "All participants and beneficiaries of the Lite Star, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan at any time from its inception until Dec. 31, 2024 (unless they terminated employment without vesting), excluding the individual Defendants and their family members or beneficiaries"; 3. The Court confirms the prior appointment of the Plaintiff Linna Chea as Class Representative and awards her an incentive payment in the amount of $5,000; 4. The Court confirms the prior appointment of law firms Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow LLP and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC as class counsel and awards reimbursement of $44,833.94 in litigation expenses, settlement administration expenses not to exceed $12,500.00, and independent fiduciary fees in the amount of $20,000.00; 5. The Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees is granted in the amount of $500,000.00; and 6. The Court approves Prison Rights Center as the cy pres beneficiary of any residual payment. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pc7lOy at no extra charge.[CC] LITHIA MOTORS: Faces Ventura Class Action Suit Over 401(k) Plan --------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID VENTURA, individually and as representative of a class of participants and beneficiaries and on behalf of the Lithia Motors, Inc. 401(K) Plan v. LITHIA MOTORS, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-01786 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 20, 2026) arises out of the Defendant Lithia's wrongful conduct in connection with the Lithia Motors, Inc. 401(k) Plan, a defined contribution employee retirement plan with over $1.03 billion in net assets and more than 29,000 participants as of December 31, 2024. The Defendant breached its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by diverting at least $17.3 million in forfeited plan assets to reduce its own employer contribution obligations rather than using those funds for the benefit of plan participants, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks damages and equitable relief in connection with the Defendant's wrongful conduct in misusing and mismanaging Plan assets. Lithia Motors is an American nationwide automotive dealership group headquartered in Medford, Oregon. As of 2025, Lithia is the largest automotive retailer in the United States by revenue, ahead of competitors such as AutoNation and Penske Automotive Group.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua H. Haffner, Esq. Alfredo Torrijos, Esq. Vahan Mikayelyan, 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 vh@haffnerlawyers.com - and - Shaun C. Setareh, Esq. Thomas A. Segal, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 420 N Camden Drive, Suite 100 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 888 7771 Facsimile: (310) 888 0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com thomas@setarehlaw.com MAHOGANY RIVERFRONT: Graham Sues Over Tip Theft, Retaliation ------------------------------------------------------------ KEITH HARVARD GRAHAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAHOGANY RIVERFRONT, LLC, and CARLEE MCCULLOUGH, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02170 (W.D. Tenn., February 19, 2026) arises from the Defendants' unfair compensation policies to Plaintiff and similarly situated in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants purport to take a tip credit while failing to satisfy the statutory prerequisites for doing so. They require Plaintiff and similarly situated servers to remit 5% of gross liquor sales to service bartenders irrespective of gratuities actually received. The Defendants also redistribute gratuities to bussers pursuant to a mandatory and non-transparent system controlled by management. After Plaintiff raised concerns regarding the absence of pay documentation and payroll irregularities, the Defendants reduced his scheduled hours, alleges the suit. The Plaintiff began his employment with Defendants as a server on October 2, 2024, and remains employed. Mahogany Riverfront, LLC, operates the Mahogany River Terrace restaurant in Memphis, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip E. Oliphant, Esq. THE ROLWES EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM 254 Court Avenue, Suite 305 Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: (901) 519-9135 Facsimile: (901) 979-2499 E-mail: poliphant@rolweslaw.com MANAGED CARE: Bid for Leave to File Class Cert Reply Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Crowe v. Managed Care of North America, Inc., Case No. 0:23-cv-61065 (S.D. Fla., Filed June 5, 2023), the Hon. Judge Raag Singhal entered an order denying Defendants' motion for leave to file reply in support of motion to: -- Exclude expert opinions of David Nelson, and -- File sur-reply in response to plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion for class certification. The Court previously directed the Defendants to file a reply brief in support of their motion to exclude by Dec. 30, 2025. The Defendants did not file a reply then. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Personal Property Damage. Managed Care provides dental plans.[CC] MARSHFIELD CLINIC: Website Uses Tracking Tools, Franck Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- GRETCHEN FRANCK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARSHFIELD CLINIC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00125 (W.D. Wis., February 18, 2026) arises out of Defendant's unlawful use of third-party tracking technologies by data brokers such as Google LLC ("Google") to surreptitiously intercept and disclose their patients' and prospective patients' highly sensitive protected health information ("PHI") and personally identifiable information ("PII") to third parties without their informed consent. The complaint relates that by and through its website, https://www.marshfieldclinic.org/ Marshfield Clinic's patients and potential patients can, among other things: (i) view information related to their medical conditions and potential treatments; (ii) search for and view information about treating physicians; (iii) search for clinic and hospital locations; (iv) book appointments; and (v) access patient resources, including patient forms and information related to billing, insurance, prescription refills, and financial assistance. Unfortunately, unbeknownst to Plaintiff and other visitors to and users of Marshfield Clinic's Website, their private personal and health information was not kept private. Instead, by placing, configuring, and using surveillance software ("Tracking Tools") on its Website, Defendant collected and transmitted personally identifiable, sensitive health information pertaining to Plaintiff and other patients and prospective patients, including information related to specific medical conditions, treatments, physicians, treating locations, and patient resources such as billing, insurance, financial assistance and prescription refills (collectively, "Sensitive Health Information") to unauthorized third parties, including Google, through the use of surreptitious online tracking tools. As a result of Defendant's use of Google's Tracking Tools, Plaintiff's PHI and PII including patient status, health conditions and symptoms, treatments, physicians, information related to appointments, billing, and insurance, and unique personal identifiers used to link the sensitive web communications to Plaintiff were compromised and disclosed to Google without authorization or consent. Accordingly, Defendant's disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Sensitive Health Information constitutes a violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"). The complaint alleges that as a result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered numerous injuries, including: (i) invasion of medical privacy; (ii) lack of trust in communicating with medical providers; (iii) emotional distress and heightened concerns related to the release of Sensitive Health Information to third parties, (iv) loss of benefit of the bargain; (v) diminution of value of the Sensitive Health Information; (vi) statutory damages and (vii) continued and ongoing risk to their Sensitive Health Information. Plaintiff, therefore, seeks on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated persons, to remedy these harms and asserts the following statutory and common law claims against Defendant: (i) violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"); (ii) the Wisconsin Wiretap Statute; (iii) Invasion of Privacy; (iv) Negligence; (v) Breach of Implied Contract; and (vi) Unjust Enrichment. Plaintiff Gretchen Franck is a resident of Wood County in the State of Wisconsin. Defendant Marshfield Clinic, Inc. is one of the largest healthcare systems in Wisconsin with more than 60 clinic locations and 11 hospitals that serve over 300,000 patients annually.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David S. Almeida, Esq. Christopher M. Nienhaus, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Ave. Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (708) 529-5418 E-mail: david@almeidalawgroup.com chris@almeidalawgroup.com MEDICREDIT INC: Deadline for Dispositive & Daubert Bids Stayed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON SAGGIO and JUDE FURR, v. MEDICREDIT, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-01005-JAR (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge John A. Ross entered an order that the deadline for dispositive and Daubert motions is stayed pending the Eighth Circuit's ruling. Medicredit is a Missouri-based debt collection agency. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zsCA5b at no extra charge.[CC] METROPOLITAN WASTE: Johnson Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- TYKI JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. METROPOLITAN WASTE SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-01056 (E.D. Pa., Feb. 19, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs and other relief for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968, and the Pennsylvania common law. THE Plaintiff brings these claims as a collective action on behalf of all current and former hourly workers who performed work for Defendant at any time from three years before the filing of this Complaint to the present and who were not paid overtime at one and one half of their regular hourly rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek (the FLSA OT Collective). Th Defendant employs hourly workers like Plaintiff who collect trash, and remove and haul snow. Metropolitan Waste Systems, Inc. offers a range of services including dumpster rentals and junk removal.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin I. Lovitz, Esq. LOVITZ LAW FIRM One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street, 36th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-1996 Facsimile: (267) 319-7943 E-mail: kevin@lovitzlaw.com - and - Scott E. Brady, Esq. Philip Bohrer, Esq. BOHRER BRADY, LLC 8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 925-5297 Facsimile: (225) 231-7000 E-mail: scott@bohrerbrady.com phil@bohrerbrady.com MICROF LLC: Deadline to File Class Cert Bid in Slee Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Slee v. Microf, LLC (RE MICROF LLC DATA SECURITY LITIGATION), Case No. 1:26-cv-00032-MHC (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Cohen entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to stay deadline to file motion for class certification. The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their eventual motion for class certification is suspended pending the submission of a proposed case management report and the Court's entry of a case management order. Microf provides consumer financing services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bo2Bzv at no extra charge.[CC] MICROF LLC: Deadline to File Class Certification Stayed ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Olivero v. Microf LLC (RE MICROF LLC DATA SECURITY LITIGATION), Case No. 1:25-cv-07464 (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Cohen entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to stay deadline to file motion for class certification. The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their eventual motion for class certification is suspended pending the submission of a proposed case management report and the Court's entry of a case management order. Microf provides consumer financing services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dwRJAI at no extra charge.[CC] MICROF LLC: Yukna Seeks to Stay Class Cert Bid Deadline ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Yukna v. Microf LLC (RE MICROF LLC DATA SECURITY LITIGATION), Case No. 1:25-cv-07434-MHC (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order to stay the deadline to file the motion for class certification until after the parties file their case management report and proposed scheduling order (which will include a proposed deadline for the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification after conferring with the Defendant regarding the needs and scope of the case). The Plaintiffs request that the Court extend the current motion for class certification deadline to allow sufficient time for Plaintiffs to hold a Rule 26(f) conference with the Defendant, develop a discovery plan, and to conduct necessary discovery on class certification issues. On Dec. 30, 2025, the Plaintiff Yukna filed the first class action against the Defendant arising from Data Breach. The Defendant provides consumer financing services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ndxKXS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kennedy M. Brian, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (929) 376-5170 E-mail: kbrian@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com - and - Rachel Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 520 S. Dixie Hwy, #240 Hallandale Beach, FL33009 Telephone: (954) 799-5914 E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com - and - Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (771) 772-3086 E-mail: cturner@milberg.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com MINT CANNABIS: Calcedo TCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Fla. ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as JAY CALCEDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MINT CANNABIS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2025CA002640, was removed from the Circuit Court of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Seminole County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on February 18, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:26-cv-00391 to the proceeding. In this Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. MINT CANNABIS, LLC is a leading cannabis retailer in Arizona, and continues its multi-state expansion into Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Massachusetts and Nevada.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Chantal M. Pillay, Esq. Eric J. Partlow, Esq. ADAMS AND REESE LLP 100 North Tampa Street, Suite 4000 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: 813-402-2880 Facsimile: 813-402-2887 Primary: chantal.pillay@arlaw.com Secondary: lisa.stallard@arlaw.com Primary: eric.partlow@arlaw.com Secondary: Madeline.Algarin@arlaw.com NATIONAL TENANT: Bid to Stay Proceedings in Clermont Suit Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLERMONT v. NATIONAL TENANT NETWORK, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-03545 (D.N.J., Filed June 30, 2023), the Hon. Judge Leda D Wettre entered an order denying bid to stay proceedings before it while defendants pursue an interlocutory appeal of class certification. If a brief extension of time to provide class data is needed, defense counsel shall confer with plaintiffs' counsel on their requested extension before writing the Court to seek approval. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. National Tenant provides resident screening services.[CC] NAVIENT CORPORATION: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JILL BALLARD, REBECCA VARNO, and MARK POKORNI, on behalf of themselves and the class members described herein, v. NAVIENT CORPORATION, NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, INC. and NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-00121-JFS-PJC (M.D. Pa.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting a seven-day extension of the deadline to file an opposition brief to the Plaintiffs' class certification motion (or until Feb. 24, 2026) and a similar seven-day extension of the deadline for the Plaintiffs to file a reply brief to the class certification motion (or until March 17, 2026). A brief, seven-day extension of the deadline to file an opposition brief to the Plaintiffs' class certification motion, however, is needed given the complexity of this matter and undersigned counsels' additional professional commitments and deadlines. Navient is an American financial services company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=f4HWla at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Daniel T. Brier, Esq. Donna A. Walsh, Esq. Richard L. Armezzani, Esq. MYERS BRIER & KELLY, LLP 425 Biden Street, Suite 200 Scranton, PA 18503 Telephone: (570) 342-6100 E-mail: dbrier@mbklaw.com dwalsh@mbklaw.com rarmezzani@mbklaw.com - and - Cory W. Eichhorn, Esq. Jonathan M. Marmo, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 789-7576 E-mail: cory.eichhorn@hklaw.com jonathan.marmo@hklaw.com NEON MACHINE: General Pretrial Management Entered in Realm Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REALM METAVERSE REAL ESTATE INC., v. NEON MACHINE, INC., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-10057-JAV-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management: All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. Parties and counsel are cautioned: If and when a discovery schedule is issued, all discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and § 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court proceeding (including a telephonic court conference), or to extend a deadline, must be made in writing and in compliance with § 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Telephone requests for adjournments or extensions will not be entertained. Neon provides entertainment software solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oSpeeK at no extra charge.[CC] NES GLOBAL: OT Pay Scheme Shortchanges Engineers, Foreman Says -------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL FOREMAN, individually and for others similarly situated v. NES GLOBAL, LLC d/b/a NES FIRCROFT, Case No. 4:26-cv-01353 (S.D. Tex., February 19, 2026) is a collective action against the Defendant to recover unpaid wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. NES employed Plaintiff Foreman as one of its straight time employees in Texas and Arkansas. The Plaintiff and the other straight time employees regularly work more than 40 hours in a workweek but NES does not pay them overtime. Instead, NES pays them the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including hours after 40 in a workweek. The Defendant's straight time for overtime pay scheme violates the FLSA by depriving non-exempt employees of overtime when they work more than 40 hours in a workweek, says the suit. Plaintiff Foreman was employed by the Defendant as a piping engineer in Texas and Arkansas from approximately May 2024 through November 2024. NES Global, LLC is an engineering staffing provider for the oil and gas; power and renewables; chemicals; construction and infrastructure; life sciences; mining; information technology; and manufacturing industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com NORTHSTAR CAFE: $835K Settlement in Highman Suit OK'd ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY HIGHMAN, et al., v. NORTHSTAR CAFE EASTON, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-01757-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Edmund Sargus, Jr. entered an order as follows: 1. The settlement agreement is approved in part and preliminarily approved in part. The FLSA Collective Action Group's settlement outlined in the Settlement Agreement is approved. The Rule 23 Second Chance Class's settlement outlined in the Settlement Agreement is preliminarily approved. 2. Solely for the purposes of settlement, the Rule 23 Second Chance Class is certified, consisting of the following: "All current and former tipped employees who worked for Northstar Café at any time between June 12, 2020, through May 24, 2023, who were subject to the tip credit and who did not opt into the FLSA Collective Action." 3. The Plaintiffs Anthony Highman, Sarah Bates, and Sarah Taylor are appointed the claimants' Representatives for the FLSA Collective Action Group and the Rule 23 Second Chance Class. 4. The Court will conduct a Rule 23 fairness hearing on April 22, 2026 at 10 a.m. The Court is satisfied that the settlement reached is a "fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute" under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Court summarizes the following relevant portions of the parties' Settlement and Release Agreement: The Total Settlement Amount is $835,000.00; About $330,201.22 of the Total Settlement Amount is allocated for the FLSA Collective Action Group; a. The 272 FLSA Collective Action Group members’ claims total $276,877.76, leaving $53,323.46, which will be added to the Rule 23 Second Chance Class settlement amount; About $153,734.65 of the Total Settlement Amount is allocated for the Rule 23 Second Chance Class, prior to the addition of $53,323.46 mentioned above; and About $351,064.13 of the Total Settlement Amount is allocated for the payments of counsel's attorneys' fees and out-of-pocket expenses, litigation costs, the Claims Administrator’s fees and costs, and the claimant representative’s service awards. Northstar Cafe is a Columbus, Ohio-based restaurant. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lgixyi at no extra charge.[CC] NVIDIA CORP: Pre-Class Cert Fact Discovery in Nazemian Due May 5 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ABDI NAZEMIAN, BRIAN KEENE, STEWART O’NAN, ANDRE DUBUS III and SUSAN ORLEAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NVIDIA Corporation, Case No. 4:24-cv-01454-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered extending deadlines as follows: -- Deadline to serve written discovery, April 10, 2026 subpoenas, and deposition notices: -- Deadline to file motions regarding April 17, 2026 fact discovery: -- Deadline for pre-class certification May 5, 2026 fact discovery: Nvidia is a multinational technology company known for its pioneering work in GPU-accelerated computing and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kV2lgQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Diane S. Rice, Esq. Christopher K.L. Young, Esq. Evan Creutz, Esq. Elissa A. Buchanan, Esq. William Castillo Guardado, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1505 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com cyoung@saverilawfirm.com drice@saverilawfirm.com ecreutz@saverilawfirm.com eabuchanan@saverilawfirm.com wcastillo@saverilawfirm.com - and - Bryan L. Clobes, Esq. Mohammed Rathur, Esq. Nabihah Maqbool, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 782-4880 E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com nmaqbool@caffertyclobes.com mrathur@caffertyclobes.com - and - Justin A. Nelson, Esq. Alejandra C. Salinas, Esq. Rohit D. Nath, Esq. Elisha Barron, Esq. Craig Smyser, Esq. Jordan W. Connors, Esq. Trevor D. Nystrom, Esq. Dylan B. Salzman, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77002-5096 Telephone: (713) 651-9366 E-mail: jnelson@susmangodfrey.com asalinas@susmangodfrey.com RNath@susmangodfrey.com ebarron@susmangodfrey.com csmyser@susmangodfrey.com jconnors@susmangodfrey.com tnystrom@susmangodfrey.com dsalzman@susmangodfrey.com - and - Rachel J. Geman, Esq. Danna Z. Elmasry, Esq. Anne B. Shaver, Esq. Betsy A. Sugar, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 E-mail: rgeman@lchb.com delmasry@lchb.com ashaver@lchb.com bsugar@lchb.com - and - David A. Straite, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. Nada Djordjevic, Esq. James A. Ulwick, Esq. Brian O'Mara, Esq. DiCELLO LEVITT LLP 485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 933-1000 E-mail: dstraite@dicellolevitt.com akeller@dicellolevitt.com ndjordjevic@dicellolevitt.com julwick@dicellolevitt.com briano@dicellolevitt.com - and - Matthew Butterick, Esq. BUTTERICK LAW 1920 Hillhurst Avenue, #406 Los Angeles, CA 90027 Telephone: (323) 968-2632 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: mb@buttericklaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Sean S. Pak, Esq. Andrew H. Schapiro, Esq. Alex Spiro, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-6600 Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 E-mail: seanpak@quinnemanuel.com andrewschapiro@quinnemanuel.com alexspiro@quinnemanuel.com OPENAI INC: Hearing on Summary Judgment Bids Set for Nov. 18 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tremblay et al., v. OpenAI, Inc. et al (RE OPENAI, INC., COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION), Case No. 1:25-cv-03482 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Stein entered an order modifying the case schedule in class cases as follows: Event Deadline Close of fact discovery: Feb. 27, 2026 Close of expert discovery (includes July 17, 2026 Opening, rebuttal, reply): Last day to file Dispositive motions Aug. 14, 2026 and date for filing Dauberts (all cases): Hearing on motions for summary judgment: Nov. 18, 2026 The parties will submit joint or competing proposals to the Court for a schedule regarding class certification expert disclosures, class certification expert discovery, class certification Daubert briefing, and substantive briefing on class certification within two weeks of this Court's order on summary judgment. OpenAI operates as an investment company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=X5DTnS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin A. Nelson, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1000 Louisiana St., Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 651-9366 E-mail: jnelson@susmangodfrey.com The Defendant is represented by: Annette L. Hurst, Esq. Daniel Justice, Esq. Amanda H. Schwartz, Esq. Christopher J. Cariello, Esq. Marc Shapiro, Esq. Lisa T. Simpson, Esq. Vanessa Sorrentino, Esq. Sheryl Koval Garko, Esq. Laura Brooks Najerny, Esq. Monica Svetoslavov, Esq. Andrew Schreiber, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP The Orrick Building 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2669 Telephone: (415) 773-5700 Facsimile: (415) 773-5759 E-mail: ahurst@orrick.com djustice@orrick.com aschwartz@orri ck. corn ccariello@orrick.com lsimpson@orrick.com sgarko@orrick.com lnajemy@orrick.com msvetoslavov@orrick.com aschreiber@orrick.com - and - Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Esq. Jared B. Briant, Esq. Kirstin L. Stoll-DeBell, Esq. Carrie A. Beyer, Esq. Elizabeth M.C. Scheibel, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 1177 A venue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 248-3191 E-mail: jeffrey.jacobson@faegredrinker.com jared.briant@faegredrinker.com kirstin.stolldebell@faegredrinker.com carrie.beyer@faegredrinker.com elizabeth.scheibel@faegredrinker.com - and - Tiffany Cheung, Esq. Joseph C. Gratz, Esq. Caitlin S. Blythe, Esq. Rose S. Lee, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 E-mail: tcheung@mofo.com jgratz@mofo.com cblythe@mofo.com roselee@mofo.com - and - Andrew Gass, Esq. Allison Blanco, Esq. Sarang V. Damle, Esq. Luke A. Budiardjo, Esq. Elana N. Dawson, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 650 Town Center Drive, 20th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: 714.755.8293 E-mail: Andrew.Gass@lw.com allison.blanco@lw.com sy.damle@lw.com luke.budiardjo@lw.com elana.nightingaledawson@lw.com - and - Robert A. Van Nest, Esq. R. James Slaughter, Esq. Paven Malhotra, Esq. Michelle S. Ybarra, Esq. Sarah Salomon, Esq. Katie Lynn Joyce, Esq. KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP 633 Battery St. San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-5400 E-mail: rvannest@keker.com rslaughter@keker.com pmalhotra@keker.com mybarra@keker.com ssalomon@keker.com kjoyce@keker.com OSHKOSH CORP: City of Milwaukee Sues Over Fire Truck Price-Fixing ----------------------------------------------------------------- THE CITY OF MILWAUKEE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OSHKOSH CORPORATION; REV GROUP, INC., ROSENBAUER AMERICA LLC, and FIRE APPARATUS MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00271 (E.D. Wis., February 18, 2026) is an antitrust class action brought pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Plaintiff brings this suit against Defendants for their unlawful contract, combination, or conspiracy to suppress the supply and raise the prices of Fire Trucks sold throughout the United States. The Defendants' conduct to consolidate the market, charge supra-competitive prices, and backlog delivery of new fire apparatus has diminished the availability of fire trucks, impairing firefighters' ability to respond effectively and leaving the public less protected during fires and other emergencies. To accomplish the anticompetitive aims of the conspiracy, the Defendants engaged in a continuous and multi-faceted exchange of competitively sensitive information through Fire Apparatus Manufacturers' Association, the primary trade association for the Fire Truck industry, which suppressed supply and price competition and permitted Defendants to monitor each other's adherence to the conspiracy. FAMA creates ongoing opportunities for Defendants to meet in person and exchange sensitive information, including its spring and fall meetings, and collects nonpublic, competitively sensitive information from members that is then shared with other members in a give-to-get information sharing scheme, says the suit. The Plaintiff, the City of Milwaukee, is the largest city in Wisconsin. Since 2014, the City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin has purchased Fire Trucks from dealers of Manufacturer Defendants for the City of Milwaukee Fire Department. Oshkosh Corp. designs, manufactures, and markets fire and emergency apparatuses, specialty commercial, and military trucks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas P. Dehler, Esq. Joseph D. Newbold, Esq. O'NEIL, CANNON, HOLLMAN, DEJONG & LAING S.C. 111 E. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1400 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: (414) 276-5000 E-mail: doug.dehler@wilaw.com joseph.newbold@wilaw.com - and - James C. Shah, Esq. Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 E-mail: jcs@millershah.com nfinkelman@millershah.com OYO HOTELS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Lein Suit Due June 13 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REBEKKA LIEN, v. OYO HOTELS INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-01785-FLA-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Aenlle-Rocha entered an order approving stipulation to continue class certification briefing schedule: 1. Deadline for the Plaintiff to file her motion for class certification: June 13, 2026. 2. The Defendant Oyo Hotels Inc.'s response: July 10, 2026. 3. The Plaintiff's reply in support: Aug. 7, 2026. 4. Last date to hear the Plaintiff's motion for class certification: Aug. 21, 2026. OYO is a global hospitality technology platform. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cTn0Wj at no extra charge.[CC] PATRIOT AMBULANCE: Underpays Dispatch Operators, Collard Says ------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY COLLARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PATRIOT AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC., a Michigan corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-10553-DML-DRG (E.D. Mich., February 17, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant seeking to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Throughout Plaintiff's employment, the Defendant failed to properly calculate Plaintiff's bonus pay and other non-discretionary remuneration into the regular rate for proper overtime calculation, says the suit. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from approximately August 2019 through January 16, 2026 as a non-exempt, hourly employee with the job title of dispatch operator at Defendant's Flint, Michigan location. Patriot Ambulance Service, Inc. provides ambulance services across seven counties in Southeastern Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7500 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Paulina R. Kennedy, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 746-4055 E-mail: pkennedy@sommerspc.com - and - Jonathan Melmed, Esq. Laura Supanich, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C. 1801 Century Park East, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 824-3828 E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com lms@melmedlaw.com PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Disseminates False Business Info, Goodman Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ AARON B. GOODMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC., JAMES ALEXANDER CHRISS, JAMIE S. MILLER, FRANK KELLER, and DIEGO SCOTTI, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-01381 (N.D. Cal., February 17, 2026) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired PayPal common stock between February 25, 2025, to February 2, 2026, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants provided investors with material information concerning PayPal's expected financial targets for 2027 alongside the growth trajectory for its core branded checkout segment. The Defendants' statements included, among other things, confidence in PayPal's ability to capitalize on its growth potential through new initiatives to facilitate Branded Checkout growth both in the U.S. and internationally. However, the Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of PayPal's salesforce; notably, that it was not truly equipped to execute on the Company's perceived growth potential and were "too optimistic" as to how easily and expeditiously its staff could change customer adoption. Such statements absent these material facts caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase PayPal's securities at artificially inflated prices, says the suit. On February 3, 2026, PayPal announced its financial results for the fourth quarter and full fiscal year 2025, unveiling disappointing earnings results with worsening performance in Branded Checkout. Investors and analysts reacted immediately to PayPal's revelation. The price of PayPal's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $52.33 per share on February 2, 2026, PayPal's stock price fell to $41.70 per share on February 3, 2026, a decline of about 20.31% in the span of just a single day, the suit alleges. Paypal Holdings, Inc. operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides technology platform that enables digital and mobile payments on behalf of consumers and merchants. The Company offers online payment solutions. PayPal Holdings serves customers worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 1160 Battery Street East, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 373-1671 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com PERFETTI VAN MELLE: Rodriguez Alleges Illegal Background Check -------------------------------------------------------------- RAMIRO RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PERFETTI VAN MELLE USA INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01774 (N.D. Ill., February 18, 2026) is a class action against Defendant pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the FCRA by, inter alia, failing to: (i) comply with the FCRA's authorization requirements in obtaining the permission of Plaintiff and other consumers to procure their consumer reports for employment purposes; (ii) provide copies of consumer reports to Plaintiff and other consumers prior to taking adverse employment action against them based on such reports; and (iii) certify that Defendant complied with the FCRA's mandates prior to obtaining copies of consumer reports referencing Plaintiff and other consumers. The Defendant's actions in violation of the FCRA are part of a pattern of practice undertaken with numerous other individuals. As such, Plaintiff, on his own behalf and behalf of all others similarly situated, files this class action complaint seeking statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and all other relief available pursuant to the FCRA. Plaintiff Rodriguez is, and was at all relevant times, a resident of Chicago, Illinois. Plaintiff was the subject of a consumer report procured by Defendant. Perfetti Van Melle USA Inc. is engaged in the business of manufacturing and distributing confectionery and chewing gum throughout the U.S., including Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ivana Lozo, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (929) 303-7675 Facsimile: (646) 417-5967 E-mail: ilozo@sirillp.com PROCTOR & GAMBLE: Class Cert Bid Filing Due August 27, 2027 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONICA DAWKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE PROCTOR & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No. 1:25-cv-01287-JLT-HBK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Barch-Kuchta entered an initial case management and scheduling order: Action or Event Date Deadline for providing mandatory Feb. 26, 2026 initial disclosures: Deadline to move to join a party or June 11, 2026 amend pleadings: Deadline for nonexpert class Apr. 27, 2027 certification and the Plaintiff merits discovery: Expert Discovery Deadline: July 20, 2027 Deadline to File Class Certification Aug. 27, 2027 Motion: Deadline to File Opposition for Class Oct. 27, 2027 Certification: Deadline to File Reply for Class Nov. 17, 2027 Certification: Class Certification Hearing Deadline: Dec. 17, 2027 The Defendant is an American multinational consumer goods corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Jnr6qC at no extra charge.[CC] PROFESSIONAL ARTS: Pinero Sues Over Property's Physical Barriers ---------------------------------------------------------------- EMILIO PINERO v. THE PROFESSIONAL ARTS CENTER AT KENDALL VILLAGE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-21105 (S.D. Fla., Feb. 20, 2026) is a class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff and others similarly situated pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff has suffered harm and injury as a result of personally encountering barriers to access at the Defendant's subject premises, and he will continue to suffer harm due to the Defendant' failure to address ADA violations. The Plaintiff has experienced direct and indirect injury as a result of the physical barriers and ADA violations at the subject premises and the Defendant' actions or inactions in remedying these violations. The Plaintiff attempted to access the subject premises but was unable to do so due to his disability and the existence of physical barriers, dangerous conditions, and ADA violations that restricted his access to the property and its accommodations. The Professional Arts Center at Kendall Village Condominium Association, Inc. owns the property/subject premises.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lauren N. Wassenberg, Esq. LAUREN N. WASSENBERG & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 33 SE 4th St., Ste. 100 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (844) 702-8867 E-mail: WassenbergL@gmail.com PROGRESS RESIDENTIAL: Court Recommends Class Cert Bid Denial ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHEYENNE HARRIS and ROBERT WHITAKER, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. PROGRESS RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 6:24-cv-00859-CEM-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Irick entered a judgment recommending that the Court: 1. Direct the Plaintiffs to address the jurisdictional question; and 2. Deny the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. While the undersigned recommends that Plaintiffs' classes are ascertainable and the Plaintiffs meet their burden with respect to the commonality, adequacy, and numerosity under Rule 23(a), the undersigned ultimately recommends that the Court deny the Plaintiffs' motion because typicality, predominance, and superiority are lacking under Rule 23(a) & (b). The Plaintiffs propose that the Court certify two classes: Breach of Contract Class: "All persons in the State of Florida who signed a lease substantially similar to Exhibit B for a residential property managed by Progress Residential and had any portion of their security deposit retained without first receiving the FRLTA Notice Language in written form by certified mail, as required by the Lease." Notice Class: "All persons in the State of Florida who signed a lease substantially similar to Exhibit B for a residential property managed by Progress Residential and had any portion of their security deposit retained without first receiving the FRLTA Notice Language by certified mail." The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant takes possession of tenants' security deposits without providing the requisite notice and the opportunity to object to claims against the security deposits in violation of the Florida Residential Landlord Tenant Act (FRLTA) and in breach of the lease agreement. The Defendant is a licensed real estate provider. A copy of the Court's report and recommendation dated Feb. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=imvs9z at no extra charge.[CC] QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Appeals Attorneys' Fees Order in Vargas Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- QUEST DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL LABORATORIES, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Julian Vargas, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-08108-DMG-MRW, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The suit is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On Oct. 20, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for attorney fees, costs and service award. On Dec. 19, 2025, Judge Dolly M. Gee entered an Order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees. The Court awards the Plaintiffs a total of $6,007,503 in attorneys' fees, $276,192.52 in expenses and costs, $250,000 in monitoring fees, and $25,000 as an incentive award to Vargas, for a total award of $6,558,695.52. The appellate case is styled as Vargas, et al. v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc., et al., Case No. 26-1011, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 19, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees JULIAN VARGAS, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jonathan Miller, Esq. Alison Marie Bernal, Esq. Jordan Porter, Esq. NYE, PEABODY, STIRLING & HALE & MILLER, LLP 33 West Mission Street, Suite 201 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 - and - Benjamin Sweet, Esq. NYE STIRLING HALE, MILLER & SWEET, LLP 101 Pennsylvania Boulevard, Suite 2 Pittsburgh, PA 15228 - and - Matthew Keith Handley, Esq. HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON, PLLC 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 Defendants-Appellants QUEST DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL LABORATORIES, INC., et al. are represented by: David Raizman, Esq. Jan Nicholas Marfori, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC 400 S. Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 - and - Mark Sidoti, Esq. Daniel Seth Weinberger, Esq. FBT GIBBONS LLP 1 Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 4515 New York, NY 10119 - and - Michael R. McDonald, Esq. FBT GIBBONS, LLP 1 Gateway Center Newark, NJ 07102 RIVERBEND HOME: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Bahena Says -------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY BAHENA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Riverbend Home Center, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01934 (N.D. Ill., February 20, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.riverbendhome.comto be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Bahena and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On July 30, 2025, Plaintiff Bahena came across the Defendant's website after searching for safety accessories for bathroom. While browsing the website using her screen reader, she encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from completing the purchase. Specifically, sub-menu elements that contained drop-down menus could not be accessed using the keyboard. The Plaintiff attempted to navigate these menus using the "Tab" and "Arrow" keys, but these efforts were unsuccessful. Additionally, several links contained ambiguous or unclear text that made it difficult for her to determine their purpose. These accessibility barriers render the website inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually impaired individuals, asserts the Plaintiff. Plaintiff Bahena seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Riverbend Home Center, LLC operates the website that offers a range of home goods, such as bathroom fixtures, lighting, furniture, decor, storage solutions, and other outdoor and home improvement items.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (718) 554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law ROLLINS RANCHES: Braun Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------- TERESA BRAUN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROLLINS RANCHES, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-60479 (S.D. Fla., February 21, 2026) is an action arising from the Defendant's alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The similarly situated individuals who may become Plaintiffs in this action are Defendants' non-exempt employees who have worked more than 40 hours during one or more work weeks within the last 3 years and did not receive overtime pay for all hours worked over 40 in one or more work weeks. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a housekeeper and full-time employee from approximately 20015 until April 5, 2024. Rollins Ranches, LLC is a foreign limited liability company that transacts business throughout the U.S., including Broward County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Dennis Card, Jr., Esq. CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A. 6231 PGA Blvd, Suite 104-1003 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418 Telephone: (561) 822-3446 Facsimile: (305) 574-0132 E-mail: dennis@cloorg.com ROUNDY'S SUPERMARKETS: Dombrowski Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------------ BRANDON DOMBROWSKI, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROUNDY'S SUPERMARKETS INC. and ROUNDY'S ILLINOIS, LLC, d/b/a MARIANO'S, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01762 (N.D. Ill., February 17, 2026) is a collective and class action complaint against the Defendants seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff and the putative Collective and Illinois Class Members performed work as department managers that was integrated into the normal course of Defendants' business. Consistent with the Defendants' policy, pattern and/or practice, the Plaintiff and the putative Collective and Illinois Class Members regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek without being paid premium overtime wages, in violation of the FLSA and Illinois law, the suit says. The Plaintiff was employed by and was permitted to work for the Defendants in their Western Springs, Illinois and Westmont, Illinois locations as a Meat & Seafood Manager from 2021 through April 2025. Roundy's Supermarkets, Inc. operates 149 retail grocery stores, including over 40 Mariano's locations throughout the Chicagoland area in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Andrew Head, Esq. Bethany Hilbert, Esq. HEAD LAW FIRM, LLC 4422 N. Ravenswood Ave. Chicago, IL 60640 Telephone: (404) 924-4151 Facsimile: (404) 796-7338 E-mail: bhilbert@headlawfirm.com ahead@headlawfirm.com - and - Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Christopher M. Timmel, Esq. KLAFTER LESSER, LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 Facsimile: (914) 934-9220 E-mail: seth@klafterlesser.com christopher.timmel@klafterlesser.com RUNWAY AI: Random Golf Files Copyright Infringement Suit -------------------------------------------------------- RANDOM GOLF CLUB, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RUNWAY AI, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01362 (S.D.N.Y, February 18, 2026) is a nationwide class action for violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, arising from Defendant unlawfully circumventing technological measures to access and scraping thousands of copyrighted videos from the online video viewing platform, YouTube, in order to feed, train, improve, and commercialize a large-scale generative artificial intelligence ("AI") model. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff's channel appears extensively in the dataset Defendant used to train its artificial intelligence model. RANDOM GOLF CLUB ("RGC") has at least 390 videos Defendant scraped from YouTube in order to train its generative AI model. RGC invested significant resources into producing and publishing this video content, and every scraped videos was downloaded, copied, and ingested by Defendant without authorization. Like Plaintiff, the Class Members in this case are independent content creators who uploaded their video content to YouTube's video platform, notes the complaint. The video content of Class Members was also part of the dataset utilized by Defendant to train its AI model. The Defendant has profited and will continue to profit substantially from its infringement of Plaintiff's and Class Members' video content through Defendant's training of its generative AI products. Defendant's financial and technological success would not have been possible without the video content created by Plaintiff and Class Members, which was intended for streaming on YouTube, says the complaint. The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of itself and of a nationwide class of YouTube creators whose works were scraped, ingested, and trained on without authorization, seeking statutory damages, injunctive relief, restitution, and all other remedies allowed by law pursuant to the DMCA, seeking an injunction and damages commensurate with the scope of Defendant's massive and ongoing infringement. More particularly, Defendant's conduct violates the provisions of the DMCA regarding anti-circumvention by bypassing technological protection measures that control access to and copying of YouTube videos. Plaintiff, Ace Cam Inc., DBA Random Golf Club is a golf content channel who posted videos on YouTube. The channel is @RandomGolfClubFilms on the YouTube platform and has over 325,000 subscribers and millions of views. Defendant Runway AI Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 18 West 18th Street, Floor 11, New York, New York 10011. It is currently designing, training and building an artificial intelligence system capable of generating video output from text and image input. This "text to video" system is intended to allow consumers to generate images and videos using text and image prompts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Svensson, Esq. Michael A. Acciavatti, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 594-5300 E-mail: msvensson@milberg.com macciavatti@milberg.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. William J. Edelman, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: wedelman@milberg.com gklinger@milberg.com - and - Jarrett Lee Ellzey, Esq. Tom Kherkher, Esq. Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD MONTGOMERY LLP 4200 Montrose Street, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 244-6363 E-mail: jellzey@eksm.com tkherkher@eksm.com lmontgomery@eksm.com - and - James E. Cecchi, Esq. Kevin G. Cooper, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Rd. Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com kcooper@carellabyrne.com SANGSIRI INC: Faces Olmedo Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------- ESPERANZA GONZALEZ OLMEDO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SANGSIRI INC. (d/b/a LEMONGRASS BROOKLYN) (a/k/a LEMONGRASS GRILL) THE EMERALD BKK INC. (D/B/A AUTHENTIC THAI BY PERRI), NAWIN CHAINAM, VERASAK SANGSIRI, PREECHA SANGSIRI, SIRIPORN P. FERRARO, and PERRI PEERASRI, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00993 (E.D.N.Y., February 19, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Gonzalez worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without receiving the applicable minimum wage or appropriate overtime compensation for the hours that she worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of her hours worked, failed to pay Plaintiff Gonzalez the applicable minimum wage, and failed to pay her appropriately for any hours worked over 40, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which she worked over 10 hours per day, says the suit. Plaintiff Gonzalez was employed by the Defendants as a cook from approximately May 2023 until on or about February 5, 2026 at both Lemongrass Brooklyn and Authentic Thai by PerrI restaurants. Sangsiri Inc., d/b/a LEMONGRASS BROOKLYN, is a Thai restaurant owned by Nawin Chainam, Verasak Sangsiri and Preecha Sangsiri 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 E-mail: michael@faillacelaw.com SCRIPTPRO LLC: Polistina-Wright Files Discrimination Case --------------------------------------------------------- SUSAN POLISTINA-WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCRIPTPRO, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02092-TC-GEB (D. Kan., February 18, 2026) is a collective action against the Defendant for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. In May 2025, Defendant ScriptPro engaged in a reduction-in-force (RIF), offering either voluntary or involuntary separation packages impacting approximately 124 company employees, including Plaintiff and the putative class. The Plaintiff was involuntarily terminated as part of the RIF. The complaint asserts that Plaintiff was treated less favorably than other, younger, similarly situated employees. Younger employees within Plaintiff's department and across the company-wide RIF were retained while older employees were terminated. The Plaintiff's position, for example, was eliminated and then re-hired with an individual who, while over 40 themselves, was still over 10 years Plaintiff's junior, says the suit. ScriptPro, LLC is a pharmaceutical company headquartered in Mission, Kansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Barry R. Grissom, Esq. Conner Mitchell, Esq. Jake Miller, Esq. GRISSOM MILLER LAW FIRM, LLC 1600 Genessee Street, Ste. 460 Kansas City, MO 64102 Telephone: (816) 336-1213 Facsimile: (816) 384-1623 E-mail: barry@grissommiller.com cam@grissommiller.com jake@grissommiller.com SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit re Seagate Technology Holdings plc Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:23-cv-03431-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their administrative motion to consider whether another Party's material should be sealed. The Defendants have submitted certain evidence in support of their opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, appointment of class representatives, and approval of class counsel, that contains information designated as "CONFIDENTIAL" by the Plaintiffs pursuant to Section 5(b) of the stipulated protective order filed with and granted by the Court, or for which the deadline for designation pursuant to Section 5(b) of the Stipulated Protective Order has not yet passed. Seagate is a major global data storage company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=f2mMZc at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Caz Hashemi, Esq. Stephen B. Strain, Esq. John I. Karin, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 493-9300 Facsimile: (650) 565-5100 E-mail: chashemi@wsgr.com sstrain@wsgr.com jkarin@wsgr.com SHONEY'S OF KNOXVILLE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dillon Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ KIMBERLY DILLON, individually, and on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v. SHONEY'S OF KNOXVILLE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00067 (E.D. Tenn., February 17, 2026) is brought against the Defendant as a multi-Plaintiff action to recover the applicable Fair Labor Standards Act minimum wage and overtime compensation rates of pay owed to Plaintiff and other similarly situated tipped employees. According to the complaint, the Defendant has had a common plan, policy and practice of compensating Plaintiff and other similarly situated restaurant employees under a tip-credit compensation plan, consisting of paying such employees only a sub-minimum hourly rate of pay and then crediting tips received by such employees during their shifts which, when added to the sub-minimum pay, would amount to at least the FLSA required hourly rate of pay of at least $7.25. The Defendant had a common plan, policy, and practice of denying minimum wages and overtime compensation to its tipped employees at its Shoney's restaurants, says the suit. The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant as a tipped employee within this district during the applicable statutory limitations period of this action. Shoney's of Knoxville, Inc. owns and operates 18 Shoney's franchised restaurants in and around Knoxville, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood, IV, Esq. JACKSON SHIELDS HOLT OWEN & BRYANT Attorneys at Law 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com SNAP INC: Infringes Copyrighted Work, Chmura Says ------------------------------------------------- Nicole Chmura on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SNAP INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01732 (C.D. Cal., February 18, 2026) is a nationwide class action for violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's ("DMCA") anti-circumvention provisions, arising from Snapchat's unauthorized acquisition--through scraping, bulk downloading, and other extraction methods--of various content creators' YouTube-hosted audiovisual works ("Works") at the file level by bypassing YouTube's technological measures that control access to those Works and Snapchat's use of those unlawfully accessed Works to train, develop, and improve Snapchat's artificial intelligence ("AI") systems. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and the Class Members are independent content creators of audiovisual content hosted on YouTube. The Plaintiff and Class Members derive value from their Works through viewership, advertising, sponsorships, licensing, and other monetization that depends on controlled distribution and the ability to choose whether, when, and how their Works will be licensed for downstream uses, including AI model training. According to the complaint, through her YouTube channel, Plaintiff Chmura provides firsthand observations and candid opinions based on trips she personally undertakes and pays for. Plaintiff Chmura does not accept free or discounted travel, lodging, or services from cruise lines, airlines, hotels, or other travel-related entities, and the content on the channel reflects her independent, unsponsored viewpoints. At least one video from the "Let's Go Team" YouTube channel appears in the dataset "HD-VILA-100M, which Defendant used to train its AI video-learning architecture. Snapchat did not obtain licenses or permissions from Plaintiff and Class members for the file-level acquisition and use of their Works as training inputs for its AI models. Instead, Snapchat used or relied on circumvention tools and services to defeat YouTube's technological measures at scale, says the suit. The DMCA prohibits circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work, and it prohibits trafficking in circumvention technologies and services. Against this backdrop, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, and other remedies authorized by DMCA. Plaintiff Nicole Chmura is a resident of California and the owner and operator of the YouTube channel "Let's Go Team." The channel features videos documenting Plaintiff Chmura's own personal travel experiences, which she independently records and publishes. Defendant Snap Inc. is a Delaware corporation that offers users artificial-intelligence features and tools that enable the creation, modification, enhancement, and manipulation of images and video clips. It is engaged in the development of generative AI technologies, including an AI-based video generator and related products that Defendant intends to integrate into--and monetize through--its business operations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William J. Edelman, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: 866-252-0878 E-mail: wedelman@milberg.com - and - Michael A. Acciavatti, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: 212-594-5300 E-mail: macciavatti@milberg.com SOUTHEASTERN TRAFFIC: Pepenella Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Geraldine Pepenella, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Southeastern Traffic Supply, LLC Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-00456 (M.D. Fla., February 18, 2026) arises from the Defendant's unlawful labor policies that violates the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff began working for the Defendant in April 2020 as a flagger. In or around May 2021, the Plaintiff was promoted to Crew Leader. She was responsible for obtaining and operating a company vehicle, ensuring traffic control equipment was loaded, and transporting crew members and equipment from the warehouse or designated reporting locations to assigned worksites. The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek when all hours worked, including transportation time, are counted. Beginning in or around late 2022 or early 2023, the Defendant implemented and maintained a company-wide policy and practice of deducting approximately two hours of drive time from Crew Leaders' paid hours each workday, typically one hour for morning travel and one hour for return travel, despite requiring employees to engage in pre and post shift responsibilities and to transport personnel and equipment between designated meeting sites, the warehouse and job sites. As a result of Defendant's policies and practices, the Plaintiff was not paid for all hours worked, including weeks in which she worked fewer than 40 hours and weeks in which she worked more than forty hours but was denied overtime due to excluded transportation time, says the suit. Southeastern Traffic Supply, LLC provides the tools and methods to control the flow of traffic.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Troy E. Longman II, Esq. Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq. FLORIN|GRAY 16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100 Lutz, FL 33558 Telephone: (727) 220-4000 Facsimile: (727) 483-7942 E-mail: tlongman@floringray.com wflorin@floringray.com SPRINGWOOD HOSPITALITY: Settlement in Shatzer Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAYMIE SHATZER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SPRINGWOOD HOSPITALITY, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01244-KMN (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Neary entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for final approval of the settlement agreement as follows: 1. The Court certifies the following Settlement Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) and 29 U.S.C. section 216(b): "All current and former Room Attendants or Other Hourly Employees who worked for Springwood at any time from July 25, 2021, to June 30, 2023, at its Ephrata hotel, according to the Plaintiff's allegations, did not receive timely payment of all regular and overtime wages to which they were entitled." "All current and former Room Attendants or Other Hourly Employees who worked for Springwood at any time from July 25, 2021, to July 25, 2024, at its Harrisburg Hotel, according to the Plaintiff's allegations, did not receive timely payment of all regular and overtime wages to which they were entitled." 2. The Plaintiff Jaymie Shatzer is approved as the Class Representative of the Settlement Class and the Service Award in the amount of $5,000.00 to the Plaintiff Shatzer for her service to the Class and in exchange for her additional released claims in favor of Defendant is approved; 3. Weisberg Cummings, P.C. is approved as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; 4. The Plaintiff's unopposed motion for Attorneys' fees and costs is granted, and payment of attorneys' fees in the amount of $25,000.00 and costs in the amount of $2,815.00 are finally approved; The Defendant is a developer and operator of Marriott and Hilton select-service/extended-stay hotels. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aZ0i6N at no extra charge.[CC] STILLWATER MINING: Bertram Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXANDER BERTRAM and STEVEN DAMMANN, individually and for others similarly situated, v. STILLWATER MINING COMPANY d/b/a SIBANYE-STILLWATER, Case No. 1:25-cv-00138-DWM (D. Mont.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for FLSA conditional certification and issuance of court-authorized notice. The Plaintiffs request the Court preliminarily certify Plaintiffs' FLSA claims as a collective action and authorize notice to be sent to the following group of employees (the "Putative Collective Members"): "All hourly, non-exempt Stillwater employees who worked at any time during the last three (3) years through the present (the "Putative Collective Members")." The Plaintiffs readily meet their lenient evidentiary burden at this stage to conditionally certify this case as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), the result of which is merely sending notice to inform the recipients of their rights under the FLSA. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PqPRxS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: rschreiber@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (7130 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Timothy M. Bechtold, Esq. BECHTOLD LAW FIRM, PLLC Missoula, MT 59807 Telephone: (406) 721-1435 E-mail: tim@bechtoldlaw.net SUBARU OF AMERICA: Appeals Class Certification Order in Aquino Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBARU OF AMERICA INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Ricardo Aquino, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Subaru of America Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00990, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The suit is brought against the Defendants for design, manufacturing, and distribution of Class vehicles with defective engine. On May 9, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Karen M. Williams granted in part and denied in part on Nov. 24, 2025. The Court certifies four statewide subclasses (New York, Arizona, Indiana, Michigan) as to the statutory consumer protection claims and it certifies the negligent misrepresentation claims for the New York, Arizona, and Indiana subclasses only; and denies certification of the negligent misrepresentation claim for the Michigan subclass. Additionally, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have met their burden to demonstrate ascertainability. The appellate case is styled as Ricardo Aquino, et al. v. Subaru of America Inc, et al., Case No. 26-1328, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on February 20, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees RICARDO AQUINO, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Gary S. Graifman, Esq. KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN 135 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200 Montvale, NJ 07645 Telephone: (201) 391-7000 Defendants-Appellants SUBARU OF AMERICA INC., et al. are represented by: Neal D. Walters, Esq. Casey Watkins, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR 700 E. Gate Drive, Suite 330 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Telephone: (856) 761-3438 (208) 818-2415 SUPERIOR PLUS: Holley Files FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------- ERIC HOLLEY, individually and for others similarly situated v. SUPERIOR PLUS ENERGY SERVICES INC. d/b/a SUPERIOR PLUS PROPANE, Case No. 6:26-cv-06223 (W.D.N.Y., February 19, 2026) is a class and collective action brought by the Plaintiff to recover unpaid wages and other damages from Superior Plus Energy Services for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and South Carolina Payment of Wages. Superior Plus employed Plaintiff Holley as one of its hourly employees in South Carolina. The Plaintiff and the other hourly employees regularly work more than 40 hours in a week but Defendant does not pay them for all hours worked, including overtime hours. Instead, Superior Plus rounds Plaintiff and the other hourly employees' clock in and clock out punches to the nearest quarter hour for its own primary benefit, says the suit. Additionally, Superior Plus pays Plaintiff and other hourly employees non-discretionary bonuses, including sign on bonuses, safety bonuses, and on call pay, that it excludes from their regular rates of pay for overtime purposes. The Defendant's rounding policy and bonus pay scheme violate the FLSA and SCPWA by depriving Holley and the other hourly employees of earned wages, including overtime wages, the suit alleges. Plaintiff Holley was employed as a bagger and operator from approximately January to September 2025. Superior Plus Energy Services Inc. is a North American distributor of propane, compressed natural gas, renewable energy and related products and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank S. Gattuso, Esq. GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC 7030 East Genesee Street Fayetteville, NY 13066 Telephone: (315) 314-8000 Facsimile: (315) 446-7521 E-mail: fgattuso@gclawoffice.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com SWAGELOK COMPANY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Patterson Due June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURA L. PATTERSON, v. SWAGELOK COMPANY, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00566-JPC (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge J. Philip Calabrese entered an amended case management plan and scheduling order as follows: Deadline for any motion for leave to amend the complaint: April 1, 2026 Fact Discovery Cut-Off (including Class Discovery): June 30, 2026 Deadline for the Plaintiffs to move for class certification: June 30, 2026 Swagelok is a manufacturer and supplier of high pressure fittings, regulators, valves, and tubing accessories. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kDSIhr at no extra charge.[CC] T-MOBILE USA: Wins Bid to Dismiss "Diaz" Class Claims ----------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Ryan Diaz, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., a corporation, Defendant, No. 2:25-cv-02933 WBS CSK (E.D. Cal.), Judge William B. Shubb of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and dismiss class claims, and stayed the case pending arbitration. Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging various California Labor Code violations arising from Defendant's purported failure to provide nondiscretionary remuneration, sick pay, and accurate rates of pay on wage statements. Plaintiff was a T-Mobile employee between 2023 and 2025. Regarding formation of the arbitration agreement, the Court found that Plaintiff accepted Restricted Stock Units through a process on the NetBenefits portal, where employees were shown a Grant Agreement, Plan Document, and Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate, and were instructed to read all documents before accepting. The acceptance screen stated that by clicking Accept my award,Plaintiff confirmed having opened, read, understood, and agreed to the documents above, including the Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate. Two prior district courts had assessed this exact agreement and concluded that the acceptance screen provided the employee with reasonably conspicuous notice of the agreement's terms, and that by clicking the button, the employee unambiguously manifested assent. The Court found no reason to diverge from those determinations. On the delegation clause, Section 1 of the Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate states that the arbitrator, and not any federal, state, or local court or agency, shall have exclusive authority to resolve any dispute relating to the scope, interpretation, applicability, enforceability, or waiver of the agreement. The Court recognized this language as clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties' intent to delegate arbitrability to the arbitrator. Plaintiff challenged the delegation clause as unconscionable, citing the agreement's Mass Arbitration Demand procedures. The Court found the agreement's procedures distinguishable from those struck down in Heckman v. Live Nation Entertainment and Pandolfi v. AviaGames, because selection of batched cases is split between parties, cases proceed on an individual basis with distinct arbitrators, results of batched cases are not binding on subsequent cases, and the arbitrations are meant to be resolved in 120 days. The Court concluded the Mass Arbitration Demand procedures do not present significant delay and are not substantively unconscionable. On procedural unconscionability, Plaintiff recycled his mutual assent argument, which the Court had already rejected, and therefore found the delegation clause not procedurally unconscionable. On the class action waiver, Section 4 of the agreement provides that the employee waives any right for any dispute to be brought as a class action or collective action. Plaintiff did not challenge this provision. Citing Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, the Court enforced the class action waiver and dismissed Plaintiff's class claims. Accordingly, the Court granted Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and dismiss class claims, and stayed the case pending arbitration. A Copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tWgh9B from PacerMonitor.com Defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc. Represented By Chad D. Greeson Littler Mendelson P.C. 925-932-2468 cgreeson@littler.com Plaintiff Ryan Diaz Represented By Kwanporn Tulyathan Diversity Law Group 213-488-6555 ktulyathan@diversitylaw.com William Lucas Marder Polaris Law Group, LLP 831-531-4211 bill@polarislawgroup.com Larry W. Lee Diversity Law Group 213-488-6555 lwlee@diversitylaw.com TAPESTRY INC: Bid for Class Certification in Hernandez Due June 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOVANNY HERNANDEZ on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. TAPESTRY, INC. and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-07010-GW-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wu entered an order granting stipulation to continue class certification and related dates: 1. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed on or before June 30, 2026. 2. The Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed on or before July 28, 2026. 3. The Plaintiff's reply in support of the motion for class certification shall be filed on or before Aug. 11, 2026. 4. The hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be held on Aug. 27, 2026, at 8:30 a.m., or on such other date and time as the Court may set. 5. All other dates and deadlines not specifically addressed herein shall remain in effect. 6. There will be no further continuances as to the motion for class certification. Tapestry is an American holding company based in New York City which is the parent company of Coach New York and Kate Spade New York. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=J6DTea at no extra charge.[CC] THOMSON REUTERS: Freund Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Messages ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT FREUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01427 (N.D. Cal., February 18, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for making and directing unsolicited telemarketing messages to recipients, including Plaintiff, in California, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants purposely directed their conduct toward residents of Humboldt County, California. Defendants left unsolicited telemarketing messages on Plaintiff's cellular device, despite Plaintiff's repeated requests to not be called. Plaintiff's cellular device--which serves as his residential telephone--is assigned a (530) area code, which corresponds to a location in this district. The Plaintiff's telephone number, 530-XXX-1654, is a cellular telephone line, which serves as Plaintiff's residential telephone. That number is assigned to a telephone service that is charged per the call. On May 30, 2025, Plaintiff explicitly revoked his consent to receive marketing messages from Defendant. Nonetheless, Defendant placed at least three calls and left multiple voice messages on Plaintiff's telephone, after he revoked consent, thereby refusing to honor Plaintiff's do-not-call request, including on February 11, 13, and 18, 2026. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and all members of the classes have been harmed by the acts of Defendant because their privacy has been violated and they were subjected to annoying and harassing calls that constitute a nuisance. The calls and messages also occupied Plaintiff's telephone line from legitimate communication. Plaintiff Robert Freund is a citizen and resident of Los Angeles, California. Defendant Thomson Reuters Corporation is a multinational media company incorporated in Ontario, Canada, with its principal place of business in Toronto, Canada. Defendants DOES 1 to 10, inclusive are individuals and/or entities (including telemarketers hired by Thomson Reuters Corporation) whose true identities are currently unknown to Plaintiff but who participated in the illegal activities complained of in this class action.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Cole, Esq. KJC LAW GROUP, A.P.C. 9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1000 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 861-7797 E-mail: kevin@kjclawgroup.com TOMMY BAHAMA: Class Cert. Discovery in Haley Due Sept. 23 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VALERIE HALEY, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. TOMMY BAHAMA GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-01969-BJR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Barbara J. Rothstein entered an order extending scheduling order on class certification deadlines. Event New Deadline Deadline to join additional parties: June 1, 2026 Class certification discovery deadline: Sept. 23, 2026 Motion for class certification: Oct. 22, 2026 Parties to meet and confer regarding No later than 14 remaining discovery and case scheduling days after deadlines: resolution of the motion for class certification Tommy provides apparel for men and women. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AHBVNe at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. 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: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Natalie A. Lyons, Esq. Ian R. Bensberg, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com nlyons@cohenmalad.com ibensberg@cohenmalad.com - and - Gerard J. Stranch, IV, Michael C. Tackeff, pro hac vice STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com mtackeff@stranchlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Lauren B. Rainwater, Esq. Rachel Herd, Esq. Emily Parsons, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile: (206) 757-7700 E-mail: laurenrainwater@dwt.com rachelherd@dwt.com emilyparsons@dwt.com TP-LINK SYSTEMS: Illegally Collects Browser's Data, Gianne Says --------------------------------------------------------------- NATALIE GIANNE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TP-LINK SYSTEMS, INC. Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01818 (C.D. Cal., February 19, 2026) arises from the Defendant's violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, California's computer fraud statute, California's Unfair Competition Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and Californians' constitutional right to privacy under the California Constitution. Through its consumer-facing digital ecosystem -- including its: primary website -- tp-link.com consumer-facing websites -- www.tp-link.com www.kasasmart.com and www.tapo.com and its mobile applications, including Tether, Tapo, Kasa, and Deco; and the firmware embedded in its networking hardware -- TP-Link allegedly intercepts and collects detailed information regarding users' browsing activity, device usage, network metadata, and persistent identifiers. TP-Link further assigns and utilizes digital identifiers capable of tracking individuals across websites, applications, and devices. The complaint alleges that rather than the secure digital doorway consumers expect, TP-Link's devices are an open window for Chinese-sponsored threat actors and Chinese intelligence agencies. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to hold TP-Link accountable for operating infrastructure that intercepts and, on information and belief, transfers Americans' sensitive online activity to entities subject to the jurisdiction of a designated foreign adversary, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of a Nationwide Class and a California Subclass, seeking statutory and compensatory damages for the millions affected, as well as injunctive relief prohibiting TP-Link from continuing these unlawful data-transfer practices. TP-Link Systems, Inc. produces computer networking devices. The Company offers wireless routers, switches, cameras, and adapters for home and office use.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Heather M. Lopez, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (331) 240-3015 E-mail: hlopez@milberg.com - and - Victor Sandoval, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 111 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 426 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (310) 896-5813 E-mail: victor@almeidalawgroup.com - and - Britany A. Kabakov, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (708) 529-5418 E-mail: britany@almeidalawgroup.com - and - Heather M. Lopez, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (331) 240-3015 E-mail: hlopez@milberg.com - and - Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 800 Gay St., Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 E-mail: ahoneycutt@milberg.com TPS PARKING: Faces Masaya Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. ----------------------------------------------------------- MARIA MASAYA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TPS PARKING MANAGEMENT, LLC, d/b/a THE PARKING SPOT, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 26STCV05281 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., February 18, 2026) is a law enforcement and representative action against the Defendant under the Private Attorneys General Act of the California Labor Code. The complaint arises from the Defendants' failure to provide Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees with all wages, meal and rest periods in compliance with the applicable wage order and/or the California Labor Code, failure to pay vacation pay wages at the regular rate, failure to reimburse business expenses, and by failure to comply with the applicable wage order and/or the Labor Code in regards to the payment of wages. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in Los Angeles, California, from June 28, 2022, until her date of termination on April 23, 2025. She was responsible for doing many tasks while on the job, such as scanning keys, providing the keys to Defendant customers, and setting up and providing GPS and gas cards to the customers as well. TPS Parking Management, LLC, d/b/a The Parking Spot is a near-airport parking company that offers its customers parking services such as airport parking, airport shuttle service, and valet parking.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq. Theodore H. Chase, Esq. Talal Al-Hindi, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP 31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805) 270-7100 Facsimile: (805) 270-7589 E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com tchase@bradleygrombacher.com talhindi@bradleygrombacher.com TRUIST BANK: Filing for Class Cert Bids in Edwards Due Dec. 9 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSSIE ERNEST LEE EDWARDS, III, v. TRUIST BANK, Case No. 2:25-cv-07280-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Wendy Beetlestone entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. All fact discovery shall be completed by July 31, 2026. 2. Any expert reports are due no later than Aug. 10, 2026. If an expert report is intended solely to contradict or rebut evidence on the same subject matter identified by another party, counsel shall serve such report on counsel for every other party no later than Sept. 9, 2026. 3. Any discovery depositions of expert witnesses shall be completed by Oct. 9, 2026. 4. Any motions for class certification shall be filed and served on or before Dec. 9, 2026. 5. Any motions for summary judgment and/or Daubert motions shall be filed and served on or before Feb. 9, 2027. If the parties do not plan on filing summary judgment and/or Daubert motions, they shall so report to the Court (Chambers, Room 10614) on or before Feb. 9, 2027. Truist operates as a bank. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0Ckn6o at no extra charge.[CC] TWENTY-FOUR/SEVEN: Crum and Forster Wins Bid to Dismiss "Ross" -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Vontessa Ross and Kendra Sumpter, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Twenty-Four/Seven Bail Bonds, LLC, Randolph Smith, Crum and Forster Indemnity Company, and Herbert A. Thaler, Jr., Defendants, Civil Case No. SAG-20-00088 (D. Md.), Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted the motion to dismiss filed by Crum and Forster Indemnity Company, and granted in part and denied in part the motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by Herbert A. Thaler, Jr. In 2017, Sumpter was held on a $50,000 bail bond. To secure her release, she and her mother, Ross, entered into a bail bond contract with Twenty-Four/Seven. Crum and Forster acted as the surety on the bail bond and appointed Twenty-Four/Seven to act as its authorized agent in the solicitation, sale, and negotiation of the bail bond. The contract required Plaintiffs to pay a 10%, or $5,000, premium. In 2019, Twenty-Four/Seven, through its attorney Thaler, filed a consumer debt collection action against Ross. Plaintiffs allege that Twenty-Four/Seven entered the contract while it was unlicensed, in violation of Section 10-103(e) of the Maryland Insurance Code. The court found that although discovery may reveal that Twenty-Four/Seven was properly licensed, it was not convinced of that point as a matter of law at this stage. The trade name approval sheet appeared to have been issued by the Department of Assessments and Taxation rather than the Insurance Administration, and the defendants offered no support that registration with another agency sufficed under Section 10-113(b). Plaintiffs alleged that Crum and Forster was vicariously liable for Twenty-Four/Seven's debt collection conduct. The court found that Plaintiffs alleged no facts regarding the relationship between Crum and Forster and Twenty-Four/Seven beyond a bare conclusion. The court therefore dismissed Counts I and II against Crum and Forster. The court also dismissed the unjust enrichment claim, finding that Plaintiffs received everything they bargained for, namely the payment of the bond to secure Sumpter's release. The declaratory and injunctive relief claim was dismissed because a plaintiff may not seek such relief under the MCDCA, MCPA, or FDCPA. The court denied Thaler's motion as to the MCDCA claim to the extent it was based on Twenty-Four/Seven's lack of licensure, finding that Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged Thaler acted with at least reckless disregard by failing to note through public record that the company seeking the debt had not been properly licensed. However, the court granted his motion as to claims premised on the allegedly deficient installment agreements, as the complaint contained no allegations of Thaler's knowledge concerning them. Counts IV and V were dismissed against Thaler. The court ordered that if Plaintiffs wish to pursue the dismissed claims, they must seek leave to amend within twenty-one days of the opinion. A copy of the Court's decision dated February 23 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cZYFeg from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Crum & Forster Indemnity Company Represented By Kevin S. Brotspies Mcelroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP kbrotspies@mdmc-law.com Defendant Randolph Smith 3003 Windsor Avenue Baltimore, MD 21216 Defendant Twenty-Four/Seven Bail Bonds, LLC 3123 W. North Avenue Baltimore, MD 21216 Defendant Herbert A. Thaler, Jr. Represented By Shirlie Norris Lake Eccleston And Wolf PC lake@ewmd.com Plaintiff Vontessa Ross On Their Own Behalf and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated 356 Marydell Road Baltimore, MD 21229 Represented By Matthew Thomas Vocci Santoni, Vocci & Ortega, LLC mvocci@svolaw.com Chelsea Ortega Santoni, Vocci & Ortega, LLC 443-921-8161 cortega@svolaw.com Jane Santoni Santoni, Vocci & Ortega, LLC 443-921-8161 jsantoni@svolaw.com Plaintiff Kendra Sumpter Represented By Matthew Thomas Vocci Santoni, Vocci & Ortega, LLC mvocci@svolaw.com Chelsea Ortega Santoni, Vocci & Ortega, LLC 443-921-8161 cortega@svolaw.com Jane Santoni Santoni, Vocci & Ortega, LLC 443-921-8161 jsantoni@svolaw.com ULTA SALON: Maxwell Class Suit Removed to E.D. Wash. ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as CASSAUNDRA MAXWELL, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02500, was removed from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on February 18, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00084-RLP to the proceeding. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that commercial emails to Washington citizens sent by Ulta violated Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act and Consumer Protection Act because the emails allegedly contain false or misleading information in their subject lines. Plaintiff seeks actual damages, trebled statutory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs per Revised Code of Washington. Defendant Ulta Beauty, Inc., formerly known as Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance Inc. and before 2000 as Ulta3, is an American chain of cosmetic stores headquartered in Bolingbrook, Illinois.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Amanda S Amert, Esq. WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP 300 N LaSalle Drive 50th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 728-9010 Facsimile: (312) 728-9199 E-mail: aamert@willkie.com - and - Craig C Martin, Esq. WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP 300 N LaSalle Drive 50th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 728-9050 Facsimile: (312) 728-9199 E-mail: cmartin@willkie.com - and - Debra Bogo-Ernst, Esq. WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP 300 North LaSalle Drive 50th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 728-9062 E-mail: dernst@willkie.com - and - Markus William Louvier, Esq. EVANS CRAVEN & LACKIE PS 818 West Riverside Suite 250 Spokane, WA 99201 Telephone: (509) 455-5200 Facsimile: (509) 455-3632 E-mail: Mlouvier@ecl-law.com - and - Melanie L Lee, Esq. WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP 300 North LaSalle Drive 50th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 728-9078 Facsimile: (312) 728-9199 E-mail: mlee@willkie.com UNITED HEALTHCARE: Tamburrino Appeals Class Cert. Order to 3rd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH F. TAMBURRINO, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Joseph F. Tamburrino, as an assignee and authorized representative of his patient L.K., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. United Healthcare Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-12766, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this putative class action was filed by Dr. Joseph F. Tamburrino and Dr. Taylor Theunissen to challenge then-named Defendants' alleged uniform claim processing and reimbursement policy that denies coverage to United members whose plastic surgeons perform post-mastectomy DIEP flap microsurgery as either assistant surgeons or as co-surgeons. On Oct. 11, 2021, the same Plaintiffs filed a three-count First Amended Class Action Complaint ("FAC") alleging wrongful denial of benefits under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B) (Count I), a claim for equitable relief under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3)(A) (Count II), and a claim for equitable relief under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3)(B) (Count III). On May 25, 2022, Plaintiffs Dr. Tamburrino and Barbara Williams filed the Second Amended Class Action Complaint ("SAC"), in which they allege the same three counts as in the FAC against only Defendant United Healthcare Insurance Company. On July 1, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Susan D. Wigenton denied on Jan. 28, 2026. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23 to proceed as a class action. The appellate case is styled as Joseph Tamburrino, et al. v. United Healthcare Insurance Company, Case No. 26-8004, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on February 12, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners JOSEPH F. TAMBURRINO, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: John W. Leardi, Esq. Paul D. Werner, Esq. BUTTACI LEARDI & WERNER 212 Carnegie Center, Suite 202 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (609) 799-5150 - and - Natalie Lesser, Esq. Amey J. Park, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3079 (267) 831-4701 Defendant-Respondent UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY is represented by: Geoffrey M. Sigler, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER 1700 M. Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 887-3752 - and - Stephanie L. Silvano, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER 200 Park Avenue, 47th Floor New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-2680 UNITED STATES: Costa Writ of Habeas Corpus Bid OK'd --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENNIS COSTA, Petitioner, v. JOSEPH D. MCDONALD, Plymouth County Sheriff, TODD M. LYONS, Acting Director Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Boston Field Office, PATRICIA HYDE, Field Office Director, MICHAEL KROL, HSI New England Special Agent in Charge, KRISTI NOEM, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, PAMELA BONDI, U.S. Attorney General, DONALD TRUMP, President of the US, Case No. 1:25-cv-13469-AK (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Kelley entered an order granting the Petitioner's petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Respondents are ordered to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. section 1226(a) within 10 calendar days of this Order, during which Respondent must show that alternatives to detention to ensure the safety of the community would be inadequate. The Parties are ordered to file a status report within 14 calendar days of this Order stating whether Petitioner has been granted bond, and, if his request for bond was denied, the reasons for that denial. The Court agrees with Petitioner and finds that by failing to address less restrictive alternatives to detention, the Government failed to provide Petitioner with constitutionally sufficient procedure. The Court finds that, as applied to Petitioner, the Immigration Judge’s failure to consider whether alternatives to detention or other less restrictive means could address the risks of danger posed by Petitioner to the community was constitutionally deficient. The Court agrees with Petitioner that relief is warranted but disagrees as to the appropriate remedy. The Court orders the Immigration Court to conduct a new hearing at which it must consider alternatives to detention. Petitioner challenges his continued detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement under 8 U.S.C. section 1226(a), asserting that the standard applied by the Immigration Judge during his bond hearing violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Petitioner is a sixty-six-year-old citizen of Portugal who has lived in the United States for approximately fifty-six years. In 1969, the Petitioner's status was adjusted to that of a Lawful Permanent Resident. In 1991, Petitioner was convicted in Massachusetts state court of the offenses of Rape, Abuse of a Child, and Indecent Assault and Battery on a Child Under 14 Years of Age. Petitioner pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a term of incarceration of ten years. Petitioner is a registered Sex Offender in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Feb. 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vpw3jN at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Freestyle Balks at Unfair Tariff Imposition ---------------------------------------------------------- FREESTYLE WORLD, INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; RODNEY S. SCOTT, in his official capacity as Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection; and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01088 (U.S. C.I.T, February 19, 2026) is a class action challenging the legality of the orders by U.S. President Donald J. Trump to impose new and substantial tariffs on goods imported from nearly every foreign country, including countries from which Plaintiff sources its imports. Beginning in February 2025, through a series of executive orders, President Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act as authority to impose new and substantial tariffs. IEEPA does not authorize these tariffs and the IEEPA duties imposed by the Defendants, and the underlying executive orders that directed them, are unlawful, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy this gap by bringing this action on behalf of itself and a discrete class of importers whose IEEPA duties payments do not exceed $1,000,000 from February 2025 through the date of the filing of this complaint. The proposed Class excludes any entity that has separately filed an action seeking to recover IEEPA duties. The Plaintiff, of behalf itself and the proposed Class, seeks (1) a declaration that the IEEPA duties paid by Plaintiff and Class Members are unlawful; (2) an injunction preventing any future liquidations of tariff payments made under the invalidated executive orders; (3) reliquidation of any IEEPA duties payments that have already been liquidated; (4) refund of all unlawfully levied IEEPA duties payments; and/or (5) any other relief as this Court deems proper. Plaintiff Freestyle World, Inc. is a U.S. Company headquartered in California and an importer of merchandise. U.S. Customs and Border Protection is a component agency of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security headquartered in Washington, D.C. CBP is responsible for border security and collecting tariffs or duties and taxes on goods imported into the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq. Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com dhutchinson@lchb.com - and - Nicholas Diamand, Esq. Lucas Issacharoff, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013-1413 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 Facsimile: (212) 355-9592 E-mail: ndiamand@lchb.com lissacharoff@lchb.com - and - Joel B. Young, Esq. THE TIDRICK LAW FIRM LLP 1990 N. California Blvd., 8th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (510) 788-5100 E-mail: jby@tidricklaw.com UNITED STATES: Garcia Sues Over Illegal Searches and Seizures ------------------------------------------------------------- Humberto Garcia, Andrea Soledad Garcia, Anna Beatriz Garcia, L.G., by her next friend, Andrea Soledad Garcia, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KRISTI NOEM, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, TODD M. LYONS, Defendants, Case No. 7:26-cv-00085 (S.D. Tex., February 18, 2026) is an action brought by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, who have been and will be affected by the Defendants' policy directive authorizing certain supervisory immigration officers to rely on administrative warrants to forcibly enter citizens and noncitizens' residences and arrest them. The Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendants because this policy directive violates their constitutional Fourth Amendment right to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and their Fifth Amendment right to due process. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief and injunctive relief against Defendants, to protect their rights arising under the laws and Constitution of the United States. Kristi Noem is sued in her official capacity as the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The DHS is a cabinet-level department of the U.S. federal government. Its components include U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raed Gonzalez, Esq. GONZALEZ OLIVIERI, LLC 9920 Gulf Freeway, Suite 100 Houston, TX 77034 Telephone: (713) 481-3040 Facsimile: (713) 588-8683 E-mail: rgonzalez@gonzalezolivierillc.com UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Patterson Due June 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC L. PATTERSON, v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00470-JPC (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge J. Philip Calabrese entered an amended case management plan and scheduling order as follows: Deadline for any motion for leave to amend the complaint: April 1, 2026 Fact Discovery Cut-Off (including Class Discovery): June 30, 2026 Deadline for the Plaintiffs to move for class certification: June 30, 2026 UnitedHealth is an American multinational for-profit company specializing in health insurance and health care services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qxqYjU at no extra charge.[CC] US IMMIGRATION: Prelim. Injunction & Class Cert. Bids Partly OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FERNANDO GOMEZ RUIZ; FERNANDO VIERA REYES; JOSE RUIZ CANIZALES; YURI ALEXANDER ROQUE CAMPOS; SOKHEAN KEO; GUSTAVO GUEVARA ALARCON; and ALEJANDRO MENDIOLA ESCUTIA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; TODD M. LYONS, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; SERGIO ALBARRAN, Acting Director of San Francisco Field Office, Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Case No. 3:25-cv-09757-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Chesney entered an order granting in part the Plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunction and class certification. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are likely to prevail on the merits of their claims; that they will suffer irreparable harm if the Court does not issue relief; that the balance of equities tips in their favor; that the public interest lies in issuing a preliminary injunction; and that all the requirements of Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2) have been satisfied. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction is granted in part, as follows: 1) The Defendants are ordered to ensure the following: a. adequate health care staffing; b. comprehensive, documented medical intake screening; c. thorough initial appraisals performed timely by a primary care provider; d. timely approval and access to medical specialists; e. timely and responsive emergency services; f. continuity of medical care upon intake and thereafter; g. timely access to prescribed medications; and h. a responsive "sick call" request system. 2) To ensure compliance with Paragraph (1) and the provision of constitutionally adequate health care, the Defendants are ordered to provide access to a qualified, independent, third-party monitor ("External Monitor") for a period of 120 days, subject to renewal by court order. 3) The Defendants are ordered to ensure that detained individuals have timely and confidential access to attorneys. 4) The bond requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) is waived. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is provisionally granted as to the Class, and the Provisional Class is defined as: "All persons who are now, or in the future will be, in the legal custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") and detained at California City Detention Facility ("California City"). The Provisional Class is certified as to the practices and relief identified in this Order. The Court further entered an order that Fernando Gomez Ruiz, Fernando Viera Reyes, Jose Ruiz Canizales, Yuri Alexander Roque Campos, Sokhean Keo, Gustavo Guevara Alarcon, and Alejandro Mendiola Escutia are appointed to be the named representatives of the Provisional Class. The March 6, 2026, Case Management Conference is vacated and taken off calendar. The Feb. 13, 2026, deadline to conduct a Rule 26(f) conference and to file the ADR Certification is vacated. The Feb. 27, 2026, deadline to exchange initial disclosures and file a joint case management statement is vacated. The Immigration enforces federal laws governing border control, customs, trade, and immigration. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QG8lAD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven P. Ragland, Esq. Cody S. Harris, Esq. Carlos C. Martinez, Esq. Lisa C. Lu, Esq. KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Telephone: (415) 391-5400 Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 E-mail: sragland@keker.com charris@keker.com cmartinez@keker.com llu@keker.com - and - Priya Arvind Patel, Esq. Mariel Villarreal, Esq. CALIFORNIA COLLABORATIVE FOR IMMIGRANT JUSTICE 1999 Harrison Street #1800 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (650) 762-8990 E-mail: priya@ccijustice.org mariel@ccijustice.org - and - Margot Mendelson, Esq. Tess Borden, Esq. Patrick Booth, Esq. Alison Hardy, Esq. Rana Anabtawi, Esq. PRISON LAW OFFICE 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710-1916 Telephone: (510) 280-2621 E-mail: mmendelson@prisonlaw.com tess@prisonlaw.com patrick@prisonlaw.com ahardy@prisonlaw.com rana@prisonlaw.com - and - Kyle Virgien, Esq. Felipe Hernandez, Esq. Marisol Dominguez-Ruiz, Esq. Carmen Iguina Gonzalez, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 425 California Street, 7th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 343-0770 E-mail: kvirgien@aclu.org npp_fhernandez@aclu.org mdominguez-ruiz@aclu.org ciguinagonzalez@aclu.org VALOR TECHNICAL: Schwartz Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------- TAYLOR SCHWARTZ AND JAMES JONES, On behalf of themselves and those similarly situated v. VALOR TECHNICAL CLEANING, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00673 (D. Colo., Feb. 20, 2026) seek appropriate monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief based on Defendants' willful failure to compensate Schwartz and similarly situated individuals overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs seek to recover overtime wages under the statutory laws of Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. The Defendant employed Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees as Operations/Travel Technicians. The Defendants have repeatedly and willfully violated the FLSA and the NMMWA by failing to pay Trainees and Technicians one and a half their regular rate of pay for all hours in excess of 40 hours in any one workweek, says the suit. Plaintiffs Schwartz and Jones bring this action on behalf of themselves and similarly situated current and former Trainees and Technicians nationwide who elect to opt in pursuant to FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) to remedy Defendants' FLSA violations. Valor Technical Cleaning is a biohazard cleaning company that provides technical and biohazard cleanup and restoration services across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. Emily A. Hubbard, Esq. Laura E. Farmwald, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515 Cincinnati, OH 45236 Telephone: (513) 202-0710 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com akimble@billerkimble.com ehubbard@billerkimble.com lfarmwald@billerkimble.com VENEZUELA: Mazzaccone Seeks Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mazzaccone v. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Case No. 1:24-cv-09114-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting permission to file a motion for class certification, the appointment of Plaintiff as class representative, and the appointment of Duane Morris LLP as Class Counsel. The action arises from the failure of the Defendant to make certain contractually mandated repayments of principal and semi-annual payments of interest on certain of the Republic's debt securities. More specifically, on or about December 1, 2003, the Republic issued $1,000,000,000 principal amount of 7.0% notes maturing on Dec. 1, 2018, under ISIN No. USP97475AD26 (the "AD26 Notes"). Notes like the AD26 Notes -- with a billion-dollar face value issued into the market -- typically have hundreds or thousands of beneficial owners, the identities of whom can be identified through central securities depositories who nominally own the notes and transmit payments to the beneficial owners. As such, it is apparent that the Class has more than a few dozen members. Typically, there is a large number of beneficial owners in an international foreign sovereign debt offering of this magnitude. The Plaintiff – an owner of $10,000 in the AD26 Notes since July 2024 – filed this action on Nov. 27, 2024, suing on behalf of a proposed class defined to include: "All holders of the AD26 Notes on Nov. 30, 2024, who continue to hold thereafter (collectively, the "Class")." The Defendant is a South American nation located on the northern coast. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=D8naCH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Costantini, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 30 South 17th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-4196 Telephone: (212) 692-1032 Facsimile: (212) 202-4715 E-mail: AJCostantini@duanemorris.com VETERANS UNITED: Peyton Balks at Deceptive Home Loans for Veterans ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTIAN PEYTON, SALEM ZAHN, and ERNEST EASTER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VETERANS UNITED HOME LOANS, REALTY SEARCH SOLUTIONS, LLC (d/b/a VETERANS UNITED REALTY), and MORTGAGE RESEARCH CENTER, LLC, Missouri Corporations, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-04039 (W.D. Mo., February 18, 2026) is a class action for Defendants' violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, and for common law and unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, Veterans United Home Loans and the remaining Defendants have capitalized on and exploited the demand of military members and Veterans for mortgages by falsely presenting itself as part of the VA. In reality, it is not since Veterans United is a private for-profit corporation that has no affiliation with the government, founded and run by three individuals with no military service. The complaint asserts that its website is intentionally designed to mislead home buyers into believing that it is part of the VA, based in part on its promotion that it is "The Nation's #1 VA Lender." The deception does not end at Veterans United's website. Veterans United has a network of "preferred" agents throughout the country who do not work for Veterans United, but who receive referrals (or "leads") from Veterans United. If the lead closes on a house, these preferred agents pay Veterans United a substantial proportion (around 35%) of their commission. These agents are also required to steer their clients to use Veterans United for their home loans. If the agents do not do so, they stop receiving leads, says the suit. Plaintiff Peyton served in the U.S. Army Reserve and U.S. Army National Guard for several years, with an honorable discharge in 2007. Plaintiff Peyton currently receives 100% permanent and total disability benefits from the VA. On May 17, 2022, Plaintiff Peyton used Veterans United Home Loans to purchase a property in Gallatin. Veterans United Home Loans is registered as a "Fictitious Name" with the Missouri Secretary of State, with its principal place of business in Columbia, Missouri. Veterans United Home Loans is 100% owned by Mortgage Research Center, LLC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brandon J.B. Boulware, Esq. Jeremy M. Suhr, Esq. Kevin D. Thomson, Esq. BOULWARE LAW LLC 1600 Genessee, Suite 760 Kansas City, MO 64102 Telephone: (816) 492-2826 E-mail: brandon@boulware-law.com jeremy@boulware-law.com kevin@boulware-law.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. Jerrod C. Patterson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com jerrodp@hbsslaw.com WEBHELP AMERICAS: Johnson Loses Bid for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SASHA JOHNSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WEBHELP AMERICAS LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-22043-RKA (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Altman entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Plaintiff's only evidence for the supposed similarity of the Opt in Plaintiffs' claims is her own declaration, in which she attests that she "worked remotely for [the Defendant] as an hourly call center agent." For conditional class certification, the Plaintiff must show that there were "similarly situated employees who wish to opt into the lawsuit. " And she hasn't done that. The Plaintiff has sued on behalf of herself and "all current and former hourly call center agents who worked for the Defendant at any time during the past three years." The Plaintiff—Sasha Johnson—has brought this collective and class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act ("NCWHA") against the Defendant. The Amended Complaint alleges that the "Defendant required its Agents to begin work prior to their scheduled shifts by performing compensable, off-the-clock work that was integral and indispensable to their jobs, including booting up computers, logging into numerous software programs, and logging into phones." The Plaintiff "worked [remotely] for [the] Defendant as an Agent from November 2021 until May 2022." The Defendant is a customer service outsourcing company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ROyX1M at no extra charge.[CC] WESTGATE RESORTS: Appeals Tossed Arbitration Bid in McMillan Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- WESTGATE RESORTS, LTD. is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Lashonna McMillan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Westgate Resorts, Ltd., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-01954-AB-RAO, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The Plaintiff filed this suit against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On Nov. 3, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration, which Judge Andre Birotte, Jr. denied on Feb. 5, 2026. The appellate case is entitled McMillan v. Westgate Resorts, Ltd., Case No. 26-1010, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 19, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on February 24, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on March 31, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on April 30, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee LASHONNA MCMILLAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Gustavo Ponce, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 6069 S. Fort Apache Road, Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89148 - and - Mona Amini, Esq. Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Defendant-Appellant WESTGATE RESORTS, LTD. is represented by: Victor Allen Sahn, Esq. GREENSPOON MARDER, LLP 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 WHITEPAGES INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Carrera Due Feb. 26, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER CARRERA, ET AL, v. WHITEPAGES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-01408-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Chun entered an order setting the following case management deadlines: -- Deadline to complete the first phase of fact discovery (e.g., concerning the plaintiff's individual claims and class certification): Sept. 22, 2026. -- Deadline for the Plaintiffs' expert witness disclosures: Dec. 4, 2026. -- Deadline for the Defendant's expert witness disclosures: Jan. 8, 2027. -- Deadline for the Plaintiffs to move for class certification: Feb. 26, 2027. -- Deadline to complete remaining class discovery: three months after the Court rules on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Whitepages is a provider of online directory services, fraud screening, background checks and identity verification for consumers and businesses. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1zA23W at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nick Major, Esq. NICK MAJOR LAW 450 Alaskan Way S. #200 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 410-5688 E-mail: nick@nickmajorlaw.com - and - Frank S. Hedin, Esq. Tyler K. Somes, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Ave, Suite 610 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 E-mail: fhedin@hedinllp.com tsome@hedinllp.com The Defendant is represented by: Tyler L. Farmer, Esq. Ariel A. Martinez, Esq. MARTINEZ & FARMER LLP 4020 East Madison St., Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98112 Telephone: (206) 208-2270 E-mail: tyler@mfseattle.com ariel@mfseattle.com WILLAMETTE FALLS: Faces Mitchell Over Mass Layoff Under WARN Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- JASON MITCHELL, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. WILLAMETTE FALLS PAPER CO., INC. and COLUMBIA VENTURES CORPORATION, Case No. 3:26-cv-00332-JR (D. Or., Feb. 19, 2026) is a Class Action Complaint brought under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, by the Plaintiff individually and on behalf of the other similarly situated persons against Defendant, the employer for WARN Act purposes., On Aug. 9, 2024, the Defendant abruptly terminated several groups of employees, unilaterally and without proper notice to employees or staff, terminating over 50 employees and at least 33% of active full-time employees, including Plaintiff, who were employed by Defendants at the Facility, the Plaintiff contends. The Defendants operate a manufacturing plant located at 4800 Mill Street, West Linn, Oregon 97068 (the Facility). The Plaintiff's employment was terminated by the Defendants on August 9, 2024, as part of a mass layoff and/or plant closing, without proper notice under the WARN Act. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and other similarly situated former employees who worked for Defendants and were terminated as part of the foreseeable result of a mass layoff or plant closing ordered by Defendants on or around August 9, 2024, and within 90 days of that date who were not provided 60 days' advance written notice of their terminations by Defendants, as required by the WARN Act. WFPC is a West Linn, Oregon-based manufacturer of coated and uncoated paper, including specialized, sustainable, agricultural-fiber-based, and natural kraft grades.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan R. Ring, Esq. J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Mariah S. England, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC 3100 W. Charleston Blvd., Ste. 208 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Telephone: (725) 235-9750 E-mail: nring@stranchlaw.com gstranch@stranchlaw.com mengland@stranchlaw.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Telelphone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com athomas@cohenandmalad.com WM RESOURCES: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Cherrington Says ------------------------------------------------------------- TAMI CHERRINGTON, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. WM RESOURCES, INC., a corporation, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-01306 (S.D. Tex., February 18, 2026) arises from Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and common law. The complaint relates that in order to provide its services, the Defendant employs customer service representatives ("CSRs") in brick and mortar call centers and in remote, at-home call center settings across the United States. The Defendant classifies its CSRs as non-exempt and tasked them with the primary duty of providing customer service over-the-phone to Defendant's customers. One of those abuses, which is at issue in this case, is the employer's refusal to pay for work from the beginning of the first principal activity of the workday to the end of the last principal activity of the workday. The Defendant violates the FLSA and common law by systematically failing to compensate its CSRs for work tasks completed before their scheduled shifts and during their unpaid meal periods, when they are not logged into Defendant's timekeeping system, which results in CSRs not being paid for all overtime hours worked, and in non-overtime workweeks, for regular hours. More specifically, Defendant fails to compensate CSRs for the substantial time they spend booting up their computer systems, programs and applications prior to the start of their shift and prior to the end of their meal periods each and every work day, alleges the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks a declaration that her rights, and the rights of the putative Collective and Class members, were violated, a judgment awarding her unpaid back wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs to make her and the putative Collective and Class whole for damages they suffered, and any other remedies to which they may be entitled, and to help ensure Defendant will not subject future workers to the same illegal conduct in the future. Plaintiff Tami Cherrington is a resident of Phoenix, Arizona and worked remotely for Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt CSR from approximately April 2019 through March 2023. Defendant compensated Plaintiff through the payment of an hourly rate. Defendant WM Resources, Inc. is the leading provider of comprehensive waste management services in North America, providing services that range from collection and disposal to recycling and renewable energy generation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: 248-355-0300 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com ZYNEX INC: Beidel Sues Over Misleading Company Statements --------------------------------------------------------- KENT BEIDEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THOMAS SANDGAARD, ANNA LUCSOK, DANIEL MOORHEAD, BARRY D. MICHAELS, MICHAEL CRESS, and JOSHUA DISBROW, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00714-DDD-KAS (D. Colo., February 20, 2026) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Zynex, Inc. securities between February 25, 2021 to December 15, 2025, inclusive, pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, and engaged in deceptive behavior. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (a) that Zynex shipped products, including electrodes, in excess of need; (b) that, as a result of this practice, the Company inflated its revenue; (c) that the Company's practice of filing false claims drew scrutiny from insurers, including Tricare; (d) that on August 21, 2023, Travelers commenced an action against Zynex, Sandgaard, Lucsok and Fox in the Superior Court of California alleging that Zynex and the defendants had embarked on a fraudulent overbilling scheme and seeking more than $23 million in damages and civil penalties relating to hundreds of fraudulent claims between 2018 and 2023; (e) that management had prioritized aggressive sales strategies to drive orders over compliance with industry laws, rules and regulations; (f) that the Company was not committed to maintaining a strong internal control environment; (g) that the Company's order growth was a result of illegal overbilling; (h) that, as a result, it was reasonably likely that Zynex would face adverse consequences, including removal from insurer networks and penalties from the federal government; and (i) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis, says the suit. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Zynex, Inc. is a medical device manufacturer that produces and markets electrotherapy devices for use in pain management, physical rehabilitation, neurological diagnosis, and cardiac monitoring.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. Christopher M. Brain, Esq. GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON 260 Madison Ave., 22nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 983-1300 Facsimile: (212) 983-0383 Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com gegleston@gme-law.com cbrain@gme-law.com - and - Laurence D. Paskowitz, Esq. THE PASKOWITZ LAW FIRM, P.C. The Contour 97-45 Queens Blvd., Ste. 1202 Rego Park, NY 11374 Telephone: (212) 685-0969 E-mail: lpaskowitz@pasklaw.com - and - Bill Keller, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BETH A. KELLER, P.C. 118 North Bedford Road, Ste. 100 Mount Kisco, NY 10549 Telephone: (914) 752-3040 Facsimile: (914) 752-3041 E-mail: bkeller@keller-lawfirm.com - and - Lesley Portnoy, Esq. PORTNOY LAW FIRM 28310 Roadside Drive, Suite 244 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Telephone: (310) 692-8883 E-mail: lesley@portnoylaw.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 ***