260303.mbx

260303.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, March 3, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 44 Headlines 26 CAPITAL: "Barnes" Referred to Delaware Bankruptcy Court 3 DAY BLINDS: Valenzuela Sues Over Falsified E-Mails 3J INTERNATIONAL: Cazares Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind A MODO NOSTRO: Galvez Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages AECON GROUP INC: Wright Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Surreply ALLSTATE CORP: Johnson Sues Over Illegal Third-Party Data Trackers ALTAMED HEALTH: Pineda-Rivas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AMAZON.COM INC: More Time for Unsealing Class Cert Portions Sought AMERICAN ECONOMY: Glasner Wins Bid for Class Certification ANISA SHAH: Standing Order Entered in Cauley Class Action ASPIRANET: Faces Pena Class Suit in Calif. Super. AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES: Gray Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ATLAS CDL: Dobransky Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime Wages BABBEL GMBH: Cerkezoglu Suit Removed to W.D. Washington BBGCC LLC: Bryant Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Mississippi BEATS ELECTRONICS: Saucedo Sues Over False and Deceptive Marketing BEIS LLC: Noble Class Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. BENEFITS MANAGEMENT: Novak Files Suit Over Data Breach BEST INSURANCE: Class Certification Bid Filing Date Extended BETTERMENT LLC: Hufnus Files Suit in S.D. New York BEYOND TRUCKING: Pimentel Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California BREATHE DIVINITY: Hunter Suit Removed to S.D. Florida CADIA HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Contamination Suit CALIFORNIA CEMETERY: Gonzalez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Anesthesia Services Sues Over Ransomware Attack CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Alvarado Suit Removed to C.D. California CHARTIS HOLDINGS: Faces Fitzgerald Class Suit in Calif. Super. CHOICE HOTELS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Faulcon Says CIRCLE K. STORES: Haddad Suit Removed to C.D. California CKS PACKAGING: Joint Prelim. Report & Discovery Plan Due April 13 CLEMENT AUTO ILLINOIS: Willis Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Illinois CONTINENTAL TIRE: Ct. Junks "Thompson" Bid for Injunctive Relief CORPORACION ELECTRICA: Mazzaccone Seeks to Certify Class CVS PHARMACY: Class Cert Order in Plumbers Suit Entered CVS PHARMACY: Class Cert Order in Sheet Metal Suit Entered DEE MARK: Court Grants Partial Win in "Lorenzo" Wage Dispute DEXCOM INC: Faces Dalora Suit over Glucose Devices DEXCOM INC: Faces Dickinson Suit over Glucose Devices DEXCOM INC: Faces Estravit Suit over Glucose Devices DEXCOM INC: Faces Grisoli Suit over Glucose Devices DNOW INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims DUCASSE HOLDING: Rahman Seeks Proper Wages for Restaurant Workers EDDIE BAUER: Hearing on Bid to Compel Arbitration Set for April 15 EETHO BRANDS: Gulley Sues Over Website's Tracking Tools ENERGY TRANSFER: Continues to Defend Cline Class Suit in Oklahoma ENTERGY TEXAS: Continues to Defend Dorrell Antitrust Class Suit ENZO CUSTOM: Faces Butler Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ESSENTIA HEALTH: Seeks Oral Argument on Bid to Certify Class ESTEE LAUDER: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class Action FAB GLASS: Bowman Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FIGURE LENDING: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Mardikian Says FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS: England Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections GILDAN ACTIVEWEAR: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website GOODGRAIN INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dalton Says GOOGLE LLC: Shares Private Data to Ad Partners, Jenkins Alleges HARVEY NORMAN: Faces Class Action Suit Over Latitude Payment Plans HIMS & HERS: Faces Donoho Suit Over False Product Ads HOME CARE: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Mayhem Due June 26 HONOR HOME CARE: Brooks Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HQ DONTICS DENTAL: Alkhal Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida I AM BEYOND: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Anderson Alleges ICONTAINERS USA: SX Can File Bid to Certify Class Under Seal JOEST LLC: Opposition to Mezoff's Bid to Certify Class Stayed KALSHI INC: Reynolds Sues Over Alleged Online Gambling Enterprise KASTKING GLOBAL: Website Not Accessible to the Blind, Cole Says KENNECOTT UTAH: Bascom Bid Seal Conditional Cert. OK'd KENNECOTT UTAH: Bascom FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class KEOLIS TRANSIT: Class Certification Bid Filing Continued to June 15 KYNDRYL HOLDINGS: Brander Sues Over Drop in Share Price LAYLA SLEEP: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Anderson Says LEGACY HEALTHCARE: Stevens Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages LORETTO HEALTH: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response MAIDEN HOLDINGS: Wigglesworth Seeks to Certify Class Action MAIMOUN LLC: Moran Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MASSACHUSETTS BOARD: Diviacchi Sues Over Reinstatement Bid Denial MATTRESS FIRM: Wong Sues Over Unlawful & Deceptive Sale Promotions MICROF LLC: Deadline to File Class Cert Bid in Yukna Stayed MOCHI MEDICAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cioppettini Says MUUAA INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cole Suit Claims NEW YORK, NY: Class Cert. Bid in United Probation Due March 6 NOVA BIOMEDICAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Brodeur Says ODACITE INC: Henry Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ONRIN 0129: Ramirez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages OPENLOOP HEALTH: Fails to Safeguard Sensitive Info, Alvarez Alleges ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Class Certification Order in Jan Entered PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Cupat Securities Suit PARTS AUTHORITY: Pilabre et al. Sue Over Labor Law Breaches PATTANA RESTAURANT: Guevara Seeks to Recover Bartenders' Unpaid OT PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 20 PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Bermudez Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections PRIDE MANUFACTURING: Cole Sues Over Website's ADA Non-Compliance RAILS INTERNATIONAL: Moran Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website RAMBOLL LIMITED: Jones and Ammerman Sue Over Alleged ERISA Breaches REGENXBIO INC: Kuik Sues Over Artificially Inflated Prices ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Discovery in Milito Suit Ongoing ROSIE JANE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Cruz Suit Says ROWMARK LLC: Battle Sues Over Website Inaccessibility RUNWAY AI: Extracts Copyrighted Videos Without Consent, Suit Says SCHNEIDER SADDLERY: Demaio Suit Removed to S.D. Florida SLM CORPORATION: Continues to Defend Zappia Securities Class Suit SMG FOOD: Ordono Suit Seeks To Certify Class SOUTHERN COMPANY: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit STATE FARM: Safont Suit Seeks to Certify Class STATE FARM: Safont Suit Seeks to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal STOCKTON CARDIOLOGY: Olvera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. STRATEGY INC: Continues to Defend Dodge Class Suit in Delaware STRIDES PHARMA: Painter Seeks Prelim Nod of Settlement Deal TOWER RECORDS: Faces Rice Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website TRB OILFIELD: Faces Macumba Class Suit in Calif. Super. TRIPLE CANOPY: Jackson Seeks Collective Conditional Certification TRONOX HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Conn. TSG 89 CORP: Barreto Sues Over Unpaid Compensation ULTA SALON: Parties Seek More Time for Class Certification Bids UNIQURE NV: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 13 UNITED COLLECTION: Braver Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Must Amend Complaint w/o Leave by Dec. 23 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Dr. Kallas Dental Sues Over Data Breach VALVOLINE INC: Campbell Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices VF OUTDOOR: Silvey Suit Removed to C.D. California VF OUTDOOR: Silvey Suit Removed to E.D. Washington VIMEO.COM INC: Deliyannides Balks at Illegal Data Trackers VIRTU FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Asia Broadband Class Suit VISION OF HOPE MINISTRIES: Miller Suit Seeks to Certify Class W.W. GRAINGER INC: Jackson Suit Removed to C.D. California WASHINGTON FINE: Class Cert Bid Filing in Branson Due May 4 WESTERN UNION: Continues to Defend Money Transfer Fees Class Suit WISNER BAUM LLP: Hernandez Files Suit in C.D. California WITH PRIDE: Faces Edilson Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. WOODRIDGE CAPITAL: Class Cert. Bid Continued to August 3 X CORP: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Filing Due March 25 X CORP: Plaintiff Seeks Class Certification ZEALTHY INC: Brown Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania ********* 26 CAPITAL: "Barnes" Referred to Delaware Bankruptcy Court ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned Kevin Barnes, directly on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated Class A stockholders, Plaintiff, v. Jason Ader, John K. Lewis, Rafael Ashkenazi, Joseph Kaminkow, Gregory S. Lyss, J. Randall Waterfield, 26 Capital Holdings LLC, and related defendants, C.A. No. 25-931-MN (D. Del.), Judge Maryellen Noreika of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware referred the entire action to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. The Plaintiff, a Class A stockholder of 26 Capital Acquisition Corp. (the Company), filed a class action complaint on March 17, 2025, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware alleging breach of fiduciary duty and other Delaware state law claims on behalf of the Company and its Class A stockholders. The complaint alleged that 26 Capital Holdings LLC (the Sponsor), the Company's controlling stockholder, breached its fiduciary duties and was not entitled to share in the proceeds of a settlement signed on November 9, 2023, of separate litigation concerning a failed merger. On July 11, 2025, the Company filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. On July 25, 2025, the Sponsor removed the Barnes Action to the District Court on the basis that the action expressly sought to undo the settlement and the return of the settlement proceeds, which the Sponsor asserted were the Debtor's only liquid assets. On August 19, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Abstention and Remand, seeking to return solely Count VII of the complaint to the Court of Chancery. Count VII alleged that the Sponsor has no claim against the Company as a matter of state law and would require consideration of the internal affairs of the Company, a Delaware corporation. The Bankruptcy Court subsequently converted the Chapter 11 case to a case under Chapter 7 on December 12, 2025, and Jami B. Nimeroff was appointed as Interim Chapter 7 Trustee on December 13, 2025. On December 22, 2025, Jason Ader commenced a separate Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida. No party opposed or otherwise responded to the Motion for Abstention and Remand. The court noted that although the motion was unopposed and the Plaintiff presented strong arguments supporting abstention and remand with respect to Count VII, consistent with the weight of authority in the Circuit, the court transferred the matter to the Bankruptcy Court for a decision on abstention. Accordingly, the court ordered that the action be referred in its entirety, including the Plaintiff's unopposed Motion for Abstention and Remand, to the Bankruptcy Court to be assigned to the Honorable Karen B. Owens, Chief United States Bankruptcy Judge, in connection with the Bankruptcy Case captioned In re 26 Capital Acquisition Corp., No. 25-11323-KBO. The Clerk of the Court was directed to close C.A. No. 25-931-MN. A copy of the Court's referral order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WajHnc from PacerMonitor.com About 26 Capital Acquisition Corp. 26 Capital Acquisition Corp. is a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC). 26 Capital Acquisition Corp. sought relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 25-11323) on July 11, 2025. In its petition, the Debtor reports estimated assets between $1 million and $10 million and estimated liabilities between $10 million and $50 million. Honorable Bankruptcy Judge Karen B. Owens handles the case. The Debtor is represented by Kevin Scott Mann, Esq. at Cross & Simon, LLC and Richard C. Pedone, Esq., at NIXON PEABODY LLP. 3 DAY BLINDS: Valenzuela Sues Over Falsified E-Mails ---------------------------------------------------- Sonya Valenzuela and Tommy Purscelley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3 DAY BLINDS LLC, a Delaware entity, Case No. 3:26-cv-00973-H-SBC (S.D. Cal., Feb. 15, 2026), is brought on behalf of person who received any commercial e-mail from the Defendant where such email(s) contained: a falsified, misrepresented, or forged domain name; falsified, misrepresented, or forged header information; or false or misleading subject line or contents in violation of California Business and Professions Code, within the four years preceding the filing of this action. The Defendant is a prolific spammer. It markets window treatment products and related services through large-scale, unlawful email campaigns that embody every abusive practice that California law prohibits: falsified and misleading header information; nonexistent sending addresses; spoofed domain names; obfuscated routing data; Rapidly rotated sending domains and IP addresses to avoid blacklisting; boilerplate footer language that does not accurately identify the sender; mass transmission practices that demonstrate indiscriminate blasting; and misleading subject lines. It does so to bypass spam filters, confuse consumers, and increasing open rates. These practices hallmarks of sophisticated spam operations designed to maximize penetration into consumer inboxes while minimizing traceability and accountability. Defendant’s conduct reflects a calculated strategy: conceal its identity, evade filtering safeguards, and induce unwary recipients to engage with advertising they did not request and would not otherwise open. None of the Plaintiffs ever gave “direct consent” to receive commercial e mail advertisements from Defendant or its marketing agents. Indeed, “direct consent” under the statute requires a unique level of specificity and clarity that must be informed, knowing, and explicit--meaning that consumers must be told clearly that they are agreeing to receive advertising emails from a particular sender, and for what purpose, at the time they provide their email address, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs have received countless spam from the Defendant. The Defendant is a limited liability corporation with its principal place of business in California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com 3J INTERNATIONAL: Cazares Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------------ AMELIA CAZARES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3J International Ltd. Co., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-305 (E.D. Wis., February 23, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.hiendaccents.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Cazares and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On October 16, 2025, Plaintiff Cazares searched online for bedding sets and encountered Hiendaccents.com among the top search results. After reviewing positive ratings and customer feedback, she proceeded to browse the website with the intent to make a purchase. However, the Plaintiff encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from completing the transaction. Specifically, the navigation menu did not allow content sections to be expanded or collapsed by user control, and sub-menu elements expanded automatically when they received keyboard focus. These barriers to access have denied Plaintiff full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of the website, says the suit. Plaintiff Cazares seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to 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. 3J International Ltd. Co. operates the website that offers various bedding and home decor products, including comforters, duvet covers, quilts, blankets, pillows and shams, sheet sets and inserts, throws, curtains and drapes, bath and kitchen accessories.[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 A MODO NOSTRO: Galvez Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- BENITO RIVERA GALVEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A MODO NOSTRO LLC d/b/a BAR 314, and ANDREW B. LOPRESTO and BRUNO MOLFETTA, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01477 (S.D.N.Y., February 23, 2026) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay an additional hour of pay at minimum wage for each day worked more than 10 hours; failure to provide with a written wage notice; and failure to furnish wage statements. Plaintiff Galvez was employed by the Defendants as a cook, food preparer, cleaner, and kitchen worker, while performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants from May 2022 until December 2024. A Modo Nostro LLC, d/b/a Bar 314, is a restaurant based in New York, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 AECON GROUP INC: Wright Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Katherine Wright, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AECON GROUP, INC., a foreign corporation; AECON PACIFIC NORTHWEST, INC., a Washington corporation; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 25-2-38293-1 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of King at Seattle, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on Feb. 19, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00603. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a single cause of action for a violation of RCW 49.58.110 ("EPOA") and seeks remedies pursuant to RCW chapter 49.58. The Plaintiff's single cause of action alleges that Defendants failed to "disclose the wage scale or salary range or a general description of the benefits and other compensation to be offered to the hired applicant in job postings seeking workers for their Washington locations."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jeremy E. Roller, Esq. ARETE LAW GROUP PLLC 600 University St., Suite 2420 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 428-3250 Facsimile: (206) 428-3251 Email: jroller@aretelaw.com - and - William F. Dugan, Esq. BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP 300 E. Randolph St., Suite 5000 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 861-800 Facsimile: (312) 861-2899 Email: william.dugan@bakermckenzie.com - and - Janice W. Lin, Esq. Manda McElrath, Esq. 600 Hansen Way Palo Alto, CA 94304 Phone: (650) 856-2400 Facsimile: (650) 856-9299 Email: janice.lin@bakermckenzie.com manda.mcelrath@bakermckenzie.com ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Surreply ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Castillo v. Albert Einstein College of Medicine, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00984-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting them leave to file a supplemental sur reply to the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification, with no more than three and a half pages of argument, principally to address the "new" declaration introduced by Plaintiff on Jan. 22, 2026, and again on Feb. 10, 2026. The Defendants also request the Court strike the last three and a half pages of the Plaintiff's reply brief, as it exceeds the length requirements of Section 3.C of Your Honor's Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases. The Plaintiff moved to certify a collective comprised of persons who "held the titles of Study Coordinator or Research Coordinator." If the Court certifies that collective, the declarant would not be in it because he was not employed as a Research or Study Coordinator, nor was he employed within even the most generous FLSA limitations period. Moreover, his experiences as a Study Supervisor have no relevance to issues surrounding the proper classification of the College’s Study and Research Coordinators without some additional factual explanation and foundation. These issues deserve more than the amendment of existing briefing, which addresses how individuals employed as Study or Research Coordinators faced dissimilar hiring requirements, job duties, and work demands. Therefore, it makes sense to permit supplemental briefing to address whether the declarant’s testimony is relevant to Plaintiff’s certification motion simply because he self-identifies as a Study Coordinator, in contravention of Defendants’ records showing that he was not employed in that position. Albert Einstein is a private medical school in New York City. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NwtfVO at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: William J. Anthony, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 900 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022.3298 Telephone: (212) 471-4404 E-mail: wanthony@littler.com ALLSTATE CORP: Johnson Sues Over Illegal Third-Party Data Trackers ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARCUS JOHNSON, ABRAHAM CHIU, CRYSTAL ALLEN, AND ANESSA GRAY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02016 (N.D. Ill., February 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for fundamental expectations of privacy and several state and federal laws, including the Illinois Eavesdropping Statute, the Federal Wiretap Act, and the California Invasion of Privacy Act by knowingly deploying data tracking technologies. According to the complaint, the Defendant embeds cookies and trackers, including cookies and trackers that share the contents of communications between class members and Defendant and visitor information for the purpose of "targeted advertising," on users' browsers, even after users explicitly decline consent via the cookie banner. The Defendant surreptitiously and illegally installs website tracking tools from third parties -- including Adobe, Meta/Facebook, Pinterest, Google, DoubleClick, Invoca, Acoustic, and YouTube, that track users' browsing activities and eavesdrop on users' private communications with Defendant for the purpose of profiting through serving targeted advertising, says the suit. As a result of Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered injuries-in-fact and damages, including: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) loss of benefit of the bargain; (iii) diminution of value of private information; (iv) statutory damages; (v) continued and ongoing risks to their private information; and (vi) the potential for higher insurance rates or denial of insurance coverage. Plaintiff Johnson is a user of Defendant's website and used the website to search and apply for renters and car insurance. The Allstate Corporation is a major insurance provider in Illinois and throughout the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com ALTAMED HEALTH: Pineda-Rivas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Altamed Health Services Corporation. The case is styled as Emily Pineda-Rivas, on behalf of herself individually and all others similarly situated v. Altamed Health Services Corporation, Case No. 26STCV05347 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 19, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Personal Injury/Property Damage tort (General Jurisdiction)." AltaMed Health Services Corporation -- https://www.altamed.org/ -- is a provider of primary care, senior care, and health and human services in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM 468 N. Camden Dr., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (213) 474-3800 Fax: (213) 471-4160 Email: daniel@slfla.com AMAZON.COM INC: More Time for Unsealing Class Cert Portions Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-00424-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order regarding extensions of time for unsealing portions of class certification, Daubert, and concurrent hearing briefing as follows: 1. By Feb. 17, 2026, the parties shall meet and confer and prepare public, redacted versions of: (a) the Plaintiffs' briefs supporting certification of a class, (b) Amazon's briefs opposing certification of a class; (c) Amazon's briefs on its motion to exclude testimony of Parag Pathak, Ph.D.; (d) the Plaintiffs' brief opposing Amazon's Daubert motion; and (e) Exhibit 1 to Amazon's motion for concurrent expert hearing and the Plaintiffs' response and Amazon's reply, along with any ancillary papers; and any supporting motions to seal. 2. Non-parties may make their showing as required by LCR 5(g)(3)(B) in a declaration filed with the parties' motions to seal on Feb. 17, 2026, or in a non-party's own response brief to a party's motion to seal filed by March 10, 2026 (21 days after the due date for the parties' motion to seal). 3. All other provisions in the Stipulated Motions and Orders regarding unsealing portions of the class certification briefing and Daubert briefing and Amazon's motion for concurrent expert hearing and related briefing and materials remain unchanged. The parties require additional time to finalize proposed redactions to avoid inadvertent disclosure of confidential information. On Feb. 10, 2026, the Court granted the parties' motion stipulating to extend both deadlines to Feb. 12, 2026. Amazon.com is an online retailer that offers a wide range of products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4faAyf 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 AMERICAN ECONOMY: Glasner Wins Bid for Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY GLASNER, DWIGHT SEEELEY, PAMELA SEELEY, ARIJ ALI, and MALINA ALI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN ECONOMY INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY MUTUAL PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, and SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF INDIANA, Case No. 21-cv-11047-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." American is a property and casualty insurer. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Feb. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=saZuZ2 at no extra charge.[CC] ANISA SHAH: Standing Order Entered in Cauley Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT CAULEY, v. ANISA SHAH ENTERPRISES LLC, et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-00804-AH-ACCV (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anne Hwang entered a standing order for civil cases assigned to Judge Anne Hwang. All counsel must immediately review and comply with the Court's Civility and Professionalism Guidelines, available at http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/attorneys/admissions/civility-and-professionalism guidelines. Only one attorney for a party may be designated as lead counsel (and the designation must appear on the docket if a party has more than one attorney). Neither counsel nor a party shall initiate contact with the Court or its Chambers’ staff by telephone, or by any other improper ex parte means. All discovery matters are referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge. Motions shall be filed in accordance with Local Rules 6 and 7. This Court hears civil motions on Wednesdays, beginning at 1:30 p.m. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JzsAC2 at no extra charge.[CC] ASPIRANET: Faces Pena Class Suit in Calif. Super. ------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Aspiranet captioned as EDITH PENA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASPIRANET, Defendant, Case No. 26CUB00016 (Cal. Sup., Kern Cty., Jan. 5, 2026). The case is assigned to Judge Thomas S. Clark. Aspiranet provides foster care and adoption support, residential group home care, support for youth. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. 9811 Irvine Center Dr. Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Tel: (949) 822-9220 AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES: Gray Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Spencer Gray, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES LLC, a foreign limited liability company; NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; AT&T CORP., a foreign profit corporation; AT&T SERVICES, INC., a foreign profit corporation; AT&T, INC., a foreign profit corporation; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 26-2-02500-2 KNT was removed from the Superior Court in the State of Washington for King County, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on Feb. 19, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00597. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges a claim for alleged violation of Washington's noncompetition law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: James P. de Haan, Esq. Raymond W. Bertrand, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 4655 Executive Drive, Suite 350 San Diego, CA 92121 Phone: 1(858) 458-3000 Email: jamesdehaan@paulhastings.com raymondbertrand@paulhastings.com ATLAS CDL: Dobransky Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID DOBRANSKY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATLAS CDL TESTING, CO., THE LATTAVO COMPANY, and MICHAEL LATTAVO, Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-00424 (N.D. Ohio, February 20, 2026) arises from the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the state and federal laws by utilizing a piece-rate compensation scheme that pays Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees on a "per test" basis while failing to pay the required overtime premium of one-half the regular rate for hours worked in excess of 40 per week. Plaintiff Dobransky was employed by the Defendants as a commercial driver's license examiner in Ohio from mid-November 2022 until the end of February 2023. Atlas CDL Testing, Co. is an official commercial driver's license skills testing facility authorized by the state of Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris Wido, Esq. SPITZ, THE EMPLOYEE'S ATTORNEY 3 Summit Park Drive, Suite 200 Independence, OH 44131 Telephone: (216) 291-4744 Facsimile: (216) 291-5744 E-mail: Chris.Wido@Spitzlawfirm.com BABBEL GMBH: Cerkezoglu Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Deborah Cerkezoglu, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. BABBEL GmbH agent of BABBEL, Case No. 26-00002-00040-14 was removed from the Grays Harbor Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on Feb. 13, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05136 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor. Babbel GmbH, operating as Babbel -- https://www.babbel.com/ -- is a German company operating a subscription-based language learning app and e-learning platform.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Ave. Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com The Defendant is represented by: Damon Clay Elder, Esq. Kit W. Roth, Esq. T. Ray Ivey, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (WA) 1301 Second Ave., Ste. 3000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 274-6400 Fax: (206) 274-6401 Email: damon.elder@morganlewis.com kit.roth@morganlewis.com ray.ivey@morganlewis.com BBGCC LLC: Bryant Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Mississippi ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against BBGCC, LLC. The case is styled as Michael Bryant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BBGCC, LLC doing business as: Bob Boyte Chevrolet, Case No. 1:26-cv-00052-HSO-BWR (S.D. Miss., Feb. 19, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. BBGCC, LLC doing business as Bob Boyte Chevrolet -- https://www.bobboytechevy.com/ -- is a Chevrolet dealer in Biloxi, Mississippi.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael T. Ramsey, Esq. SHEEHAN & RAMSEY, PLLC 429 Porter Avenue Ocean Springs, MS 39564 Phone: (228) 875-0572 Email: mike@sheehanramsey.com BEATS ELECTRONICS: Saucedo Sues Over False and Deceptive Marketing ------------------------------------------------------------------ Carolina Saucedo, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. BEATS ELECTRONICS, LLC; and APPLE, INC., Case No. 4:26-cv-01363 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 13, 2026), is brought concerning the Defendants' false and deceptive marketing and sale of their Solo 4 Headphones, Studio Pro Headphones, and Powerbeats Fit Earbuds (collectively, the "Headphones"). Although Defendants market the Headphones as being capable of "seamless" compatibility with Android devices, and that consumers with Android devices can utilize the special features advertised for the Headphones, including higher quality "Personalized Spatial Audio," these representations are false. To the contrary, multiple advertised features, including the "Personalized Spatial Audio" feature, are impossible to use with any Android device, depriving consumers with Android devices of key features that were promised by Defendants. The Defendants understand the importance of audio quality to consumers, and deliberately market the Headphones in a way that deceives consumers into falsely believing that they will obtain a much higher audio quality than the Headphones can actually provide for many consumers. The Defendants made their false claims throughout the Class Period in all of their product marketing, including the product listings on Amazon.com, as well as on the specifications and marketing materials provided to other online merchants and brick and mortar stores. The Defendants never disclosed to consumers that the Headphones are incapable of providing Personalized Spatial Audio with Head Tracking to Android device users, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased one or more Headphones while located in California. Beats Electronics, LLC is a limited liability company existing under the laws of the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Todd Kennedy, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 Email: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com todd@gutridesafier.com BEIS LLC: Noble Class Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ------------------------------------------------ The case styled as KIMBERLY NOBLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEIS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 26-2-5533-1, was removed from the from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for Pierce County to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on February 18, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05149 to the proceeding. In this complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act and the Consumer Protection Act by sending an email to Washington consumer with a false and misleading subject line. The Plaintiff seeks actual damages, statutory damages, treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs. She seeks this relief on behalf of herself and a proposed class of all Washington residents who received the email. Defendant Beis, LLC is a consumer goods rental, manufacturing general, and other consumer durables company.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Tyler S. Weaver, Esq. ANGELI & CALFO LLC 701 Pike Street, Suite 625 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: 206-703-4810 E-mail: tylerw@angelicalfo.com BENEFITS MANAGEMENT: Novak Files Suit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------ JOHNATHON NOVAK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BENEFITS MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-1849 (N.D. Ill., February 19, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. The complaint relates that the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") about its consumers. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach on October 24, 2024, to December 2, 2024. The Defendant already admitted that "an unauthorized actor likely copied files from certain BMGI systems. Because of Defendant's Data Breach, at least the following types of PII/PHI were compromised: Name; Social Security number; Address; Date of birth; Driver's License or State Identification number; Pension Application Information; Financial Account Information; and Health Insurance Information. The Defendant injured thousands of persons via the exposure of their PII/PHI in the Data Breach. These injured persons include its consumers. And yet, Defendant waited until July 18, 2025, before it began notifying the class, a full 267 days after the Data Breach began. The complaint alleges that in the aftermath of the Data Breach, Plaintiff suffered from a spike in spam and scam emails, text messages and phone calls; Plaintiff suffered imminent and impending injury arising from the substantially increased risk of fraud, misuse, and identity theft; and because of the Data Breach, Plaintiff anticipates spending considerable amounts of time and money to try and mitigate his injuries. For this reason, the Plaintiff and Class Members seek all monetary and non-monetary relief allowed by law. Plaintiff Johnathon Novak is a citizen of Illinois and is a Data Breach victim. Defendant Benefits Management Group, Inc., is a for-profit corporation that provides health & welfare, retirement plan, trust administration, financial accounting administration, contribution accounting and eligibility management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com BEST INSURANCE: Class Certification Bid Filing Date Extended ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTIN CARR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BEST INSURANCE GROUP LLC, Case No. 9:25-cv-81074-AMC (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting its unopposed motion for extension of time. Pursuant to the Order Setting Trial, the deadline for completing class certification discovery is Feb. 12, 2026, and the deadline for Plaintiff to move for class certification is Feb. 26, 2026. The Plaintiff requests that the Court extend each of the above deadlines by 90 days each. The Parties have attempted to set a meet and confer regarding Plaintiffs' Deficiency Letter. However, due to circumstances beyond the Parties' control, the Parties have been unable to set such a meet and confer to date. At this time, the Plaintiff is not in possession of the class data needed to determine whether expert discovery will be necessary for the issue of class certification. Obtaining such class data is a key issue of the instant discovery dispute between the Parties. As such, the Plaintiff is requesting an extension of these expert deadlines as well, in the event expert discovery is needed on the issue of class certification. In addition, the parties have been discussing potential resolution of this case and may be able to resolve on their own without further burden to the Court. The Defendant is an association of independent insurance agencies. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uVEDLS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Mitchell D. Hansen, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street, Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (813) 340-8838 E-mail: zane@jibraellaw.com mitchell@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com BETTERMENT LLC: Hufnus Files Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Betterment, LLC. The case is styled as Matthew Hufnus, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Betterment, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-01259 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Betterment -- https://www.betterment.com/ -- is an American financial advisory company which provides digital investment, retirement and cash management services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: Gary@lcllp.com BEYOND TRUCKING: Pimentel Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beyond Trucking LLC. The case is styled as Jan Carlos Pimentel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Beyond Trucking LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-01057-GPC-SBC (S.D. Cal., Feb. 19, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Beyond Trucking LLC -- https://beyondtruckingllc.com/ -- offers exceptional dispatch services for owner-operators and small trucking companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com BREATHE DIVINITY: Hunter Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as David Hunter, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Breathe Divinity, LLC, Case No. CACE26000146 was removed from the 17th Judicial Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Feb. 19, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-60461-XXXX to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Breathedivinity -- https://breathedivinity.com/ -- is a luxury gym brand, featuring unique intricate designs, cut-and-sew garments, exclusive drops, and luxury basics.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Lauren Marshall Burnette, Esq. MESSER STRICKLER BURNETTE, LTD. 12276 San Jose Blvd., Suite 718 Jacksonville, FL 32223 Phone: (904) 527-1172 Fax: (904) 683-7353 Email: slburnette@messerstrickler.com CADIA HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Contamination Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Newmont Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2026, that the Cadia Holdings, the Company it acquired in November 2023, continues to defend itself from the environmental contamination class suit in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. on February 2, 2026, a class action proceeding was commenced in the Supreme Court of New South Wales against Cadia Holdings. The proceeding has been brought on behalf of the named plaintiffs and other persons who fall within a defined class of persons who owned, leased, or occupied land located within a specified area surrounding the Cadia mine during the period from February 2, 2020 to February 3, 2026, and who allege that they have suffered loss or damage as a result of alleged injury to, or interference with, that land. The plaintiffs allege that such loss or damage arose from alleged contamination associated with Cadia Holdings, including alleged contamination of land, public waterways, groundwater, and/or air. The claims assert that the alleged impacts are attributable to dust and fluid emissions from Cadia Holdings' operations. Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. Newmont intends to vigorously defend this matter but cannot reasonably predict the outcome. Cadia Holdings Pty. Ltd. was founded in 1966. The Company's line of business includes the mining of gold ores from lode deposits. CALIFORNIA CEMETERY: Gonzalez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled Griselda Gonzalez, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. California Cemetery and Funeral Services, LLC, SCI Shared Resources, LLC; Service Corporation International; and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV01766, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on February 23, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01906 to the proceeding. The complaint alleges unfair competition in violation of the California Business and Professions Code, seeks waiting time penalties, and wage statements penalties, and also seeks statutory penalties for multiple types of alleged Labor Code violations, including: a. failure to pay wages for all hours worked; b. failure to all overtime owed; c. failure to reimburse work-related expenses; d. failure to provide compliant meal periods; e. failure to issue complete and accurate wage statements; f. failure to timely pay all wages at separation; and g. failure to provide compliant rest periods. California Cemetery and Funeral Services, LLC, is a subsidiary of ECI Capital, LLC, offering funeral services.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Carrie M. Francis, Esq. Ashley V. Cheff, Esq. TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP 2555 E. Camelback Rd, Suite 1050 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 240-3000 Facsimile: (602) 240-6600 CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Anesthesia Services Sues Over Ransomware Attack ------------------------------------------------------------------ Anesthesia Services, P.A., Monica Mehring DDS, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Change Healthcare Inc., Change Healthcare Operations, LLC, Change Healthcare Solutions, LLC, Change Healthcare Holdings, Inc., Change Healthcare Technologies, LLC, Change Healthcare Pharmacy Solutions, Inc., UnitedHealth Group Inc., UnitedHealthCare Services, Inc., Optum Insight, Inc., Optum, Inc., Optum Financial, Inc., Optum Bank, Optum Pay, Case No. N26C-02-375 KMM (Del. Super. Ct., Feb. 12, 2026), is brought against the Defendants as a result of a ransomware attack. In February 2024, as a direct result of Change Health Defendants' failure to employ even rudimentary cybersecurity precautions to authenticate the identities of people logging in to their networks, Change Health Defendants' systems were compromised in the largest health care ransomware attack in history (the "Ransomware Attack"), which compromised millions of patients' Private Information. In the aftermath of the Ransomware Attack, Change Health Defendants' systems were left in gross disrepair. Change Health Defendants had no viable backup plans or systems. And in a largely futile effort to prevent further collapse of its systems, Change Health Defendants elected to take the remaining systems--including the Change Platform—offline completely, rendering it useless to Providers. As a result of Defendants' conduct, Providers have suffered and will continue to suffer substantial harm. The event pushed many Providers to the brink of closure (and forced some Providers to close altogether). To survive, Providers necessarily incurred extra costs to make up for unpaid claims and in an attempt to submit claims without the Change Platform. Moreover, Providers will never see any compensation for claims that they were unable to submit during the shutdown, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Anesthesia Services, P.A. is an Anesthesia Practice operating in New Castle, Delaware. Change Health Defendants control the largest healthcare payment platform in United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy Devlin, Esq. Peter Mazur, Esq. DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC 1526 Gilpin Avenue Wilmington, DE 19806 Phone: (302) 449-9010 Email: tdevlin@devlinlawfirm.com pmazur@devlinlawfirm.com - and - Deepali Brahmbhatt, Esq. DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC 3120 Scott Blvd., #13 Santa Clara, CA 95054 Phone: (650) 254-980 Email: dbrahmbhatt@devlinlawfirm.com CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Alvarado Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Claudia Alvarado, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS OPERATING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; HOWARD POINTER, an individual; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV31802 was removed from the Superior Court of California in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 19, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01813. In the Complaint, Plaintiff seeks recovery for the following: failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; waiting time penalties; wage statement violations; failure to timely pay wages during employment; failure to indemnify; violation of Labor Code Section 227.3; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Joseph W. Ozmer II, Esq. J. Scott Carr, Esq. KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 4800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 493-3988 Facsimile: (404) 400-7333 Email: jozmer@kcozlaw.com scarr@kcozlaw.com CHARTIS HOLDINGS: Faces Fitzgerald Class Suit in Calif. Super. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Chartis Holdings, LLC captioned as SHERI FITZGERALD. individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHARTIS HOLDINGS, LLC; THE CHARTIS GROUP, LLC; THE GREELEY COMPANY, LLC, and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. CGC26632678 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., Jan. 5, 2026). Chartis Holdings, LLC operates as a healthcare technology consulting firm. The Firm provides healthcare advisory, digital transformation, strategic planning, clinical transformation, analytics, health equity consulting, and support for IT systems. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sayuri P. Espinosa, Esq. SOUTHWICK LAW, APC 7700 Irvine Center Drive Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92618 Tel: (949) 750-4167 Email: sayuri@southwick.law CHOICE HOTELS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Faulcon Says ----------------------------------------------------------- CARESSA FAULCON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00744-MJM (D. Md., February 23, 2026) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information that was impacted in a cyber incident on January 14, 2026. According to the complaint, the Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the private information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. The Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the private information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. As a result of the Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information was exposed to criminals, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract. Choice Hotels International, Inc. is a hotel franchising company based in Maryland.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (786) 206-9057 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com CIRCLE K. STORES: Haddad Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Natalie Haddad, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. CIRCLE K. STORES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2506383 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 19, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-00810. In this case, the Plaintiff's wage rate during the class period has been at least $23.29 per hour, which is representative of the class rate. The Plaintiff's second cause of action for failure to pay minimum wages alleges that due to "chronic understaffing," Plaintiff and the Overtime Class were required to: "clock out for their meal breaks and continue to work through their off-the clock meal breaks;" "start working before clocking in for the start of their shift;" "continue working after clocking out for the end of their shift."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Maria C. Rodriguez, Esq. Elvira R. Kras, Esq. Alexander Randolph, Esq. MCDERMOTT WILL & SCHULTE LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206 Phone: (310) 277-4110 Email: mcrodriguez@mcdermottlaw.com ekras@mcdermottlaw.com arandolph@mcdermottlaw.com CKS PACKAGING: Joint Prelim. Report & Discovery Plan Due April 13 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fares, et al., v. C.K.S. Packaging, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-04586 (N.D. Ga., Filed Oct. 9, 2024), the Hon. Judge Steven D. Grimberg entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to extend the deadline to file their Joint Preliminary Report and Discovery Plan: -- The new deadline is April 13, 2026. -- Further, the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to stay the deadline to file their motion for class certification is also granted. -- The deadline for Plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification is stayed pending the parties' submission of their Joint Preliminary Report and Discovery Plan. The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Fiduciary Duty. CKS manufactures and supplies plastic containers.[CC] CLEMENT AUTO ILLINOIS: Willis Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clement Auto Illinois LLC. The case is styled as Mia Willis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Clement Auto Illinois LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-00193-SMY (S.D. Ill., Feb. 20, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Clement Auto Illinois LLC doing business as Clement Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram Columbia -- https://www.clementchryslerdodgejeepramcolumbia.com/ -- offers an enticing array of new and used cars, a helpful finance department, and professional car service in Columbia, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com CONTINENTAL TIRE: Ct. Junks "Thompson" Bid for Injunctive Relief ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Kaelynn Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Continental Tire the Americas, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-CV-1928-NJR (S.D. Ill.), Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois dismissed Thompson's claim for injunctive relief for lack of standing while allowing her monetary claims to proceed in this putative class action alleging violations of the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act (GIPA), Section 513/1 et seq. Thompson, a former employee of Continental Tire, filed a workers' compensation claim in March 2022. Continental Tire required her to submit to a doctor's examination, during which the doctor solicited information about her family medical history. Thompson alleged that Continental Tire used that information to deny her workers' compensation claim. The Court found that Thompson had standing to pursue monetary relief. The denial of her workers' compensation claim constituted a concrete injury in fact fairly traceable to Continental Tire's conduct, satisfying the elements of standing. Regarding injunctive relief, the Court found that Thompson, no longer employed by Continental Tire, failed to allege any risk that the defendant would solicit her genetic information in the future. The Court held that Thompson could not predicate standing on injury she does not share with unnamed class members. Accordingly, the Court dismissed Thompson's claim for injunctive relief without prejudice and stated it would set a conference to discuss the discovery schedule for class certification by separate order. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7tBGRd from PacerMonitor.com CORPORACION ELECTRICA: Mazzaccone Seeks to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MASSIMO MAZZACCONE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CORPORACION ELECTRICA NACIONAL S.A., Case No. 1:24-cv-02681-JHR-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff shall move before the Honorable Jennifer H. Rearden, pursuant to Rule 23(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for an Order: (1) Certifying a plaintiff Class of all holders of the 8.5% Senior Notes due 2018 issued by C.A. La Electricidad de Caracas, succeeded by the present obligor on the Notes Corporación Eléctrica Nacional S.A., assigned ISIN No. XS0356521160, on April 9, 2024, and who continue to hold thereafter; (2) Appointing of Plaintiff as class representative for the Classes; and (3) Appointing of Duane Morris LLP as Class counsel. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OCLpMU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Costantini, Esq. Arti Fotedar, Esq. Stephanie Lamerce, Esq. Jillian Dreusike, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 22 Vanderbilt 335 Madison Avenue, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10017-4669 Telephone: (212) 692-1032 Facsimile: (212) 692-1020 E-mail: ajcostantini@duanemorris.com afotedar@duanemorris.com slamerce@duanemorris.com jdreusike@duanemorris.com CVS PHARMACY: Class Cert Order in Plumbers Suit Entered ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PLUMBERS WELFARE FUND, LOCAL 130, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. CVS PHARMACY, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-00447-JJM-PAS (D.R.I.), the Hon. Judge entered an order that CVS has not waived its ability to arbitrate with absent class members, in response to Plaintiffs' motion to clarify the Court's February 3rd Order. Though this case has now been around for over 10 years, CVS has consistently taken the position that it intends to pursue its arbitration rights. Unlike in other cases where courts have found waiver, it cannot fairly be said that CVS has "turned a blind eye" to the possibility of arbitration. In sum, the Plaintiffs have failed to persuade the Court that CVS has waived its right to pursue arbitration. If there remain any doubts, the Court resolves them in favor of arbitration, as the First Circuit has instructed. Last year, the Plaintiffs filed a motion, requesting that the Court reconsider its prior Arbitration Orders, which had the effect of placing some of the class members into subclasses and staying their claims. On Feb. 3, 2026, the Court entered an order (i.e., "the February 3rd Order"), granting the Plaintiffs' motion, lifting the Court's earlier stay, and eliminating the previously created subclasses. The Defendant is an American retail corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gUzYWX at no extra charge.[CC] CVS PHARMACY: Class Cert Order in Sheet Metal Suit Entered ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL NO. 20 WELFARE AND BENEFIT FUND; and INDIANA CARPENTERS WELFARE FUND, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CVS PHARMACY, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-00447-JJM-PAS (D.R.I.), that CVS has not waived its ability to arbitrate with absent class members, in response to Plaintiffs' motion to clarify the Court's February 3rd Order. Though this case has now been around for over 10 years, CVS has consistently taken the position that it intends to pursue its arbitration rights. Unlike in other cases where courts have found waiver, it cannot fairly be said that CVS has "turned a blind eye" to the possibility of arbitration. In sum, the Plaintiffs have failed to persuade the Court that CVS has waived its right to pursue arbitration. If there remain any doubts, the Court resolves them in favor of arbitration, as the First Circuit has instructed. Last year, the Plaintiffs filed a motion, requesting that the Court reconsider its prior Arbitration Orders, which had the effect of placing some of the class members into subclasses and staying their claims. On Feb. 3, 2026, the Court entered an order (i.e., "the February 3rd Order"), granting the Plaintiffs' motion, lifting the Court's earlier stay, and eliminating the previously created subclasses. The Defendant is an American retail corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dq6UOa at no extra charge.[CC] DEE MARK: Court Grants Partial Win in "Lorenzo" Wage Dispute ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Filogonio Bacilio Lorenzo, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff, v. Dee Mark Inc., doing business as Aroy Dee Thai, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-48 (MKV) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on February 23, 2026, granted in part and denied in part cross-motions for summary judgment on liability. Plaintiff Filogonio Bacilio Lorenzo, a former food delivery worker at a Manhattan restaurant called Aroy Dee Thai, brought this action against Defendant Dee Mark Inc., doing business as Aroy Dee Thai, along with related corporate and individual defendants, asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the New York Labor Law (NYLL), and 26 U.S.C. Section 7434(a) for allegedly filing fraudulent information returns with the IRS. Plaintiff was employed as a delivery person by Aroy Dee Thai from July 21, 2021 to June 30, 2022. His base hourly wage was $15.00, against which Defendant applied a tip credit, resulting in an effective rate of $11.65 per hour, later increased to $12.65 on October 25, 2021. The Court found it undisputed that Defendant paid Plaintiff pursuant to a tip credit without providing any tip credit notice satisfying the requirements of either the FLSA or NYLL. Defendant conceded it never provided written tip credit notices and never informed Plaintiff that the tip credit taken may not exceed the value of tips he actually received. Accordingly, the Court granted summary judgment to Plaintiff on his NYLL minimum wage claim, holding Defendant was required to pay Plaintiff the full New York state minimum wage of $15.00 per hour without applying a tip credit. However, the Court denied Plaintiff's FLSA minimum wage claim for regular hours, finding it undisputed that Plaintiff's pay rate always exceeded the federal minimum of $7.25 per hour, and therefore granted Defendant summary judgment on that discrete claim. On overtime, the Court found Plaintiff worked 10.42 hours of overtime during his employment, paid at a tip credit rate of $20.15 per hour. Because Defendant failed to satisfy tip credit notice requirements, the Court held the appropriate overtime rate was $22.50, reflecting one and one-half times Plaintiff's regular rate of $15.00. The Court therefore granted Plaintiff summary judgment on his overtime claims under both the FLSA and NYLL. Plaintiff raised two tip retention claims. First, he argued that a 15% service fee charged on Aroy Dee Thai catering orders, split between tipped and non-tipped employees, constituted an unlawful gratuity under NYLL Section 196-d. The Court denied summary judgment on this claim, finding a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether a reasonable customer would understand the charge to be a gratuity, an inquiry it characterized as fact-intensive and dependent on the totality of circumstances. On the second claim, the Court granted Plaintiff summary judgment. Defendant's own employment records showed Plaintiff was paid only a portion of documented tips through payroll checks, with the remainder to be paid by separate check. Defendant produced none of these separate checks. The Court rejected Defendant's argument that Plaintiff's signed pay receipts negated the claim, finding no authority supported that position. The Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims under NYLL Sections 195(1) and 195(3) for lack of Article III standing. Applying the Second Circuit's standard in Guthrie v. Rainbow Fencing Inc., 113 F.4th 300 (2d Cir. 2024), the Court held that Plaintiff must show a causal connection between the lack of accurate notices and downstream harm. Plaintiff's conclusory assertions, unsupported by affidavit or record evidence, were insufficient. These claims were dismissed without prejudice. The Court denied Plaintiff summary judgment on liquidated damages under the FLSA and NYLL, finding genuine disputes of material fact as to whether Defendant acted in good faith. The Court similarly denied Plaintiff's motion seeking application of the FLSA's three-year statute of limitations for willful violations, noting the evidence did not conclusively establish knowing or reckless disregard of the law. The Court granted summary judgment that Defendant Aroy Dee Thai and individual Defendant Kanruthai Makmuang, who oversaw payroll and bookkeeping, were jointly and severally liable as employers. However, the Court denied summary judgment as to individual Defendants Penkae Pornchanok Makmuang and Chatchai Huadwattana, finding disputed issues of material fact regarding the extent of their operational control over Plaintiff's employment conditions. The Court granted Defendant summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff's claim under 26 U.S.C. Section 7434, finding Plaintiff produced no information return and pointed to no specific fraudulent filing, thereby failing to raise any dispute of material fact or carry his burden on a prima facie case. The Court ordered counsel for both parties to appear for a conference at Courtroom 18C of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, on March 3, 2026, at 2:00 PM, to discuss resolution by settlement or trial. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KZwFeW from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Dee Jing Inc. Dee Mark Inc. Chatchai Huadwattana Limupoke Inc. Penkae Poolsuk Represented By Adam Casimir Weiss The Law Firm Of Adam C. Weiss, PLLC 646-489-0059 adam@acweisslaw.com Plaintiff Filogonio Bacilio Lorenzo Represented By C.K. Lee Lee Litigation Group, PLLC 212-465-1180 cklee@leelitigation.com DEXCOM INC: Faces Dalora Suit over Glucose Devices -------------------------------------------------- DEXCOM Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2026, that it is facing a putative class action complaint filed and is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California captioned "Dalora v. Dexcom, Inc.," No. 3:25-cv-03210-BJC-BLM. Plaintiff alleges he overpaid for DEXCOM's "G6" and/or "G7" glucose-monitoring devices or components that were worth less than the purchase price because, among other reasons, said devices or components they purchased were allegedly adulterated or misbranded under federal law, allegedly failed to perform as advertised and that the company allegedly misled patients and providers about their safety, accuracy, efficacy, and reliability. Action asserts various state law consumer protection, express and implied warranty, common law, and Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claims, and seek, among other things, damages for economic losses, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide classes and state-specific subclasses of individuals. DEXCOM is a medical device company primarily focused on the design, development and commercialization of continuous glucose monitoring, or CGM, systems for the management of diabetes and metabolic health by patients, caregivers, and clinicians. DEXCOM INC: Faces Dickinson Suit over Glucose Devices ----------------------------------------------------- DEXCOM Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2026, that it is facing a putative class action complaint filed and is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California captioned "Dickinson, et al. v. Dexcom, Inc.," No. 3:26-cv-00102-BJC-BLM. Plaintiff alleges he overpaid for DEXCOM's "G6" and/or "G7" glucose-monitoring devices or components that were worth less than the purchase price because, among other reasons, said devices or components they purchased were allegedly adulterated or misbranded under federal law, allegedly failed to perform as advertised and that the company allegedly misled patients and providers about their safety, accuracy, efficacy, and reliability. Action asserts various state law consumer protection, express and implied warranty, common law, and Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claims, and seek, among other things, damages for economic losses, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide classes and state-specific subclasses of individuals. DEXCOM is a medical device company primarily focused on the design, development and commercialization of continuous glucose monitoring, or CGM, systems for the management of diabetes and metabolic health by patients, caregivers, and clinicians. DEXCOM INC: Faces Estravit Suit over Glucose Devices ---------------------------------------------------- DEXCOM Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2026, that it is facing a putative class action complaint filed and is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California captioned "Estravit v. Dexcom, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-02845-BJC-BLM." Plaintiff alleges he overpaid for DEXCOM's "G6" and/or "G7" glucose-monitoring devices or components that were worth less than the purchase price because, among other reasons, said devices or components they purchased were allegedly adulterated or misbranded under federal law, allegedly failed to perform as advertised and that the company allegedly misled patients and providers about their safety, accuracy, efficacy, and reliability. Action asserts various state law consumer protection, express and implied warranty, common law, and Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claims, and seek, among other things, damages for economic losses, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide classes and state-specific subclasses of individuals. DEXCOM is a medical device company primarily focused on the design, development and commercialization of continuous glucose monitoring, or CGM, systems for the management of diabetes and metabolic health by patients, caregivers, and clinicians. DEXCOM INC: Faces Grisoli Suit over Glucose Devices --------------------------------------------------- DEXCOM Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2026, that it is facing a putative class action complaint filed and is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California captioned "Grisoli, et al. v. Dexcom, Inc.," No. 3:25-cv-03488-BJC-BLM. Complaint was originally was filed in United States District Court for the Central District of California and subsequently transferred to the Southern District of California. Plaintiff alleges he overpaid for DEXCOM's "G6" and/or "G7" glucose-monitoring devices or components that were worth less than the purchase price because, among other reasons, said devices or components they purchased were allegedly adulterated or misbranded under federal law, allegedly failed to perform as advertised and that the company allegedly misled patients and providers about their safety, accuracy, efficacy, and reliability. Action asserts various state law consumer protection, express and implied warranty, common law, and Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claims, and seek, among other things, damages for economic losses, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide classes and state-specific subclasses of individuals. DEXCOM is a medical device company primarily focused on the design, development and commercialization of continuous glucose monitoring, or CGM, systems for the management of diabetes and metabolic health by patients, caregivers, and clinicians. DNOW INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of DNOW Inc. (NYSE: DNOW) resulting from allegations that DNOW Inc. may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased DNOW Inc. securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=53946 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On February 20, 2026, StockStory published an article entitled "Why DNOW (DNOW) Shares Are Getting Obliterated Today." The article stated that DNOW shares fell "after the company reported disappointing fourth-quarter 2025 financial results, which included a significant loss and missed Wall Street's expectations." On this news, DNOW stock fell 19.1% on February 20, 2026. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] DUCASSE HOLDING: Rahman Seeks Proper Wages for Restaurant Workers ----------------------------------------------------------------- SAIDUR RAHMAN, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff v. DUCASSE HOLDING CORP. d/b/a THE DUCASSE PARIS GROUP, BB AT 55TH & 5TH, LLC d/b/a BENOIT, and ALAIN DUCASSE, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01445 (S.D.N.Y., February 20, 2026) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff brings claims for relief as a collective action pursuant to FLSA Section on behalf of all non-exempt employees, including servers, bussers, bartenders, food runners, hostesses, delivery persons, line cooks, food preparers, and dishwashers, among others. The Plaintiff and the other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are and have been similarly situated, have had substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, and are and have been subjected to Defendants' decisions, policies, plans, programs, practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and rules, all culminating in a willful failure and refusal to pay Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs their proper wages, including their overtime premiums at one and a half times their regular rates for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, due to Defendants' policy of time-shaving. Ducasse Holding Corp. owns and operates a restaurant under the trade name "Benoit" (a/k/a Benoit Bistro or Benoit New York) located at 60 West 55th Street, New York, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 EDDIE BAUER: Hearing on Bid to Compel Arbitration Set for April 15 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDON PARRA, et al., v. EDDIE BAUER LLC, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-09998-SRM-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Murillo entered an order granting motion to compel arbitration, discovery, and case deadlines: 1. The Defendant shall file a Motion to Compel Arbitration that will be set for hearing on April 15, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. with following briefing schedule: Motion Due: Feb. 25, 2026 Opposition Due: March 18, 2026 Reply Due: April 1, 2026 2. All discovery, including the Plaintiff's pending written discovery, is stayed pending resolution of the arbitration motion. If the Motion to Compel Arbitration is granted, all pending written discovery by the Parties is deemed moot and withdrawn. If the Motion to Compel Arbitration is denied, the Parties' respective responses to the outstanding discovery shall be served no later than 14 days after the Court issues its ruling. 3. Any filing deadline for Plaintiff's motion for class certification, should any class claims remain in this matter, shall not begin to run or be set until the Court has issued a scheduling order. Eddie Bauer owns and operates a chain of apparel stores. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YLj4Z3 at no extra charge.[CC] EETHO BRANDS: Gulley Sues Over Website's Tracking Tools ------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT GULLEY, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. EETHO BRANDS INC, d/b/a DOSE, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-21113-XXXX (S.D. Fla., February 19, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its use of cookies, web beacons, and similar tracking tools that enables entities to monitor users' activity, including webpage browsing activity, viewing specific products, and initiating checkout to purchase products, across the Website in real time and associate that activity with persistent identifiers. The complaint relates that Dose Daily generates revenue through the online sale of its wellness products. In connection with its operation of the Website, Dose Daily deploys and permits third-party tracking technologies that collect, intercept, and transmit users' browsing activity, interactions, and device identifiers to advertising, analytics, and marketing partners. These practices constitute an unlawful interception of electronic communications, and deprive users of control over their Sensitive Information, resulting in concrete injury. The Plaintiff accessed and used Defendant's Website for its intended consumer purposes in connection with Dose internet services. Most recently, in March 2025, Plaintiff visited the Website while physically located in Minnesota. These Tracking Tools operated without Plaintiff's knowledge or informed consent. As a result of Defendant's use of third-party Tracking Tools and its failure to provide effective and truthful disclosures regarding its data-collection practices, Plaintiff Gulley's Sensitive Information was intercepted and recorded unlawfully, relates the complaint. For this reason, the Plaintiff and the Class seek all available relief under Florida law, including compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs of litigation, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. In addition to monetary damages, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief requiring Defendant to either remove the Tracking Tools from the Website or obtain appropriate consent from users. Plaintiff Robert Gulley is a citizen and resident of the State of Minnesota who accessed and used Defendant's Website. Defendant Eetho Brands Inc. d/b/a Dose or Dose Daily owns and operates the Website, https://dosedaily.co, which allows users to browse information about its functional wellness shots and related health products, review product details and ingredient information, make online purchases, enroll in subscription offerings, manage customer accounts, and access customer support and other consumer-focused content.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Berman, Esq. Tonyia J. Johnson, Esq. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: cberman@shamisgentile.com E-mail: tjohnson@shamisgentile.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: mreich@zlk.com ENERGY TRANSFER: Continues to Defend Cline Class Suit in Oklahoma ----------------------------------------------------------------- Energy Transfer LP disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Cline class suit in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. On July 7, 2017, Perry Cline filed a class action complaint in the Eastern District of Oklahoma (the "Eastern District Court") against Sunoco, Inc. (R&M), LLC (now known as Energy Transfer R&M) and Energy Transfer Marketing & Terminals L.P. (collectively, "ETMT") that alleged ETMT failed to make timely payments of oil and gas proceeds from Oklahoma wells and to pay statutory interest for those untimely payments. On October 3, 2019, the Eastern District Court certified a class to include all persons who received untimely payments from Oklahoma wells on or after July 7, 2012, and who have not already been paid statutory interest on the untimely payments (the "Class"). Excluded from the Class are those entitled to payments of proceeds that qualify as "minimum pay," prior period adjustments and pass through payments, as well as governmental agencies and publicly traded oil and gas companies. After a bench trial, on August 17, 2020, Judge John Gibney (sitting from the Eastern District of Virginia) issued an opinion that awarded the Class actual damages of $75 million for late payment interest for identified and unidentified royalty owners and interest-on-interest. This amount was later amended to $81 million to account for interest accrued from trial (the "Order"). Judge Gibney also awarded punitive damages in the amount of $75 million. The Class is also seeking attorneys' fees. On August 27, 2020, ETMT filed its Notice of Appeal with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ("10th Circuit") and appealed the entirety of the Order. The matter was fully briefed, and oral argument was set for November 15, 2021. However, on November 1, 2021, the 10th Circuit dismissed the appeal due to jurisdictional concerns with finality of the Order. En banc rehearing of this decision was denied on November 29, 2021. On December 1, 2021, ETMT filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the 10th Circuit to correct the jurisdictional problems and secure final judgment. On February 2, 2022, the 10th Circuit denied the Petition for Writ of Mandamus, citing that there are other avenues for ETMT to obtain adequate relief. On February 10, 2022, ETMT filed a Motion to Modify the Plan of Allocation Order and Issue a Rule 58 Judgment with the trial court, requesting the Eastern District Court to enter a final judgment in compliance with the Rules. ETMT also filed an injunction with the trial court to enjoin all efforts by plaintiffs to execute on any non-final judgment. On March 31, 2022, Judge Gibney denied the Motion to Modify the Plan of Allocation, reiterating his thoughts that the order constitutes a final judgment. Judge Gibney granted the injunction in part (placing a hold on enforcement efforts for 60 days) and denied the injunction in part. The injunction has since been lifted. Despite the fact that ETMT has taken the position that the judgment is not final and not subject to execution, the Class engaged in asset discovery and actively tried to collect on the judgment through garnishment proceedings from ETMT's customers. ETMT unsuccessfully tried to deposit the funds into the Eastern District Court's Registry. Accordingly, to stop the garnishment proceedings, on December 2, 2022, ETMT wired approximately $161 million to the Plaintiff's approved Plan Administrator, which represented at the time the full amount of the judgment with attorneys' fees and post-judgment interest. ETMT did so without waiving its ability to pursue its pending appeal or its right to appeal the merits of the judgment. Plaintiff has since dismissed the garnishment actions. ETMT appealed the denial of the Motion to Modify to the 10th Circuit in an attempt to get a decision on finality. The appeal was fully briefed, and oral argument was held on March 21, 2023. On August 3, 2023, the 10th Circuit ruled in favor of ETMT and found that the Eastern District Court's plan of allocation (which was part of the final judgment) did not satisfy all finality requirements. The 10th Circuit held that the Eastern District Court abused its discretion in denying ETMT's Rule 60(b)(6) Motion to Modify and reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The case was sent back to the trial court so that the Eastern District Court could fix the finality requirements with the judgment. Further, ETMT sought and recovered a return of funds deposited with the Plan Administrator; Class Counsel did not oppose this motion. At a status hearing on September 28, 2023, Class Counsel indicated that it would seek additional interest up until the date that the final judgment is entered. The Eastern District Court asked for briefing on the issue of additional interest and held a hearing on October 17, 2023 to address this issue further and enter a ruling as to whether additional interest should be added to the judgment total. During the hearing, the Eastern District Court ruled that additional interest should be awarded at the 12% statutory rate from the date of the prior improper judgment up until October 17, 2023. However, the Judge tolled the running of interest for the time period during which the Plan Administrator was in possession of ETMT’s funds (between November 2, 2022 and October 10, 2023). Based on this ruling, the Class calculated that approximately $23 million in additional interest should be added to the final judgment. On October 19, 2023, the Eastern District Court entered the new final judgment with a corrected Plan of Allocation. Both parties agree that this newly entered judgment fixes the finality concerns and will allow an appeal to the 10th Circuit on the merits. With the inclusion of additional interest, the total amount awarded to the Class is approximately $104 million in actual damages and $75 million in punitive damages. ETMT appealed the entirety of the judgment to the 10th Circuit. Oral argument took place on November 20, 2024. On November 17, 2025, the Tenth Circuit issued its opinion, reversing on the issue of punitive damages and affirming the remainder of the district court's findings and rulings. Specifically, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's orders granting class certification and denying post-trial class decertification, along with the orders determining the actual damages awarded to the Class, including pre-judgment interest. The Tenth Circuit, however, vacated the $75 million punitive damages award and remanded to the district court to amend the judgment consistent with this opinion. ETMT intends to appeal this decision to the United States Supreme Court. ETMT cannot predict the outcome of the case, nor can ETMT predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve the appeal. Energy Transfer LP -- https://www.energytransfer.com/ -- is an American company engaged in natural gas and propane pipeline transport.[BN] ENTERGY TEXAS: Continues to Defend Dorrell Antitrust Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Entergy Texas, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Dorrell antitrust class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. On July 11, 2025, an antitrust class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of a putative class against Entergy Corporation, 26 other entities alleged to own and/or operate commercial nuclear power plants in the United States (together with Entergy Corporation, the “nuclear defendants”), and two consulting companies. The class action complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons employed in nuclear power generation by the nuclear defendants and their subsidiaries and related entities in the United States from May 1, 2003 to the present. The plaintiffs primarily allege that the nuclear defendants, together with the consulting company defendants, violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S. Code Chapter 1 by conspiring to suppress compensation and exchange collective bargaining agreement and wage information through a trade group, a consulting firm, and direct communications, including while in attendance at conferences, from May 2003 to the present. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages, including treble damages, interest, injunctive relief, attorney's fees, and costs. In December 2025 the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Entergy Texas, Inc., generates, transmits, and distributes electric power to retail and wholesale customers in Texas. It owns gas-fired generating plants in Texas; and coal-fired generating plants in Louisiana. The company is based in The Woodlands, Texas. Entergy Texas, Inc., is a subsidiary of Entergy Corporation. ENZO CUSTOM: Faces Butler Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- BENJAMIN BUTLER, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENZO CUSTOM CLOTHIERS NEW YORK, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01491 (S.D.N.Y., February 23, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, maintain, and operate its commercial website, www.enzocustom.com, in a manner accessible to Plaintiff and other blind and visually impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights Law. On November 10, 2025, November 11, 2025, and on January 20, 2026, while attempting to navigate the product pages and ordering process, Plaintiff Butler encountered multiple accessibility barriers on each visit that prevented him from reviewing product specifications, selecting fabric and style options, or adding items to his cart and completing the purchase. These barriers included missing alternative text on product images, unlabeled buttons and interactive controls, inaccessible size-selection and customization menus, improper ARIA implementation, and visual label mismatches that caused NVDA to announce incomplete, inaccurate, or meaningless information, 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. Without remediation of the barriers described herein, he will continue to be excluded from accessing Defendant's goods and services on equal terms, says the Plaintiff. Enzo Custom Clothiers New York, Inc. operates the website that offers custom-tailored shirts, suits, and accessories for men.[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 ESSENTIA HEALTH: Seeks Oral Argument on Bid to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA KRAFT, individually and as parent of minors L.K., S.K., and O.K.; SHELLI SCHNEIDER, individually and as parent of minors A.S and W.S.; ANNE BAILEY, as parent of minor D.B.; AMY LAVELLE, as parent of minors Em.L. and El.L; ELIZABETH BEATON, individually and as parent of minor M.B.; AMANDA AND TYRELL FAUSKE, individually and as parents of minors C.R.F and C.J.F.; JENNIFER REIN, individually; and JESSICA BERG, as parent of minors A.B. and S.B., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ESSENTIA HEALTH, INNOVIS HEALTH, LLC d/b/a ESSENTIA HEALTH, DAKOTA CLINIC PHARMACY, LLC, JOHN DOE MANUFACTURERS, and JOHN DOE DISTRIBUTOR, Case No. 3:20-cv-00121-PDW-ARS (D.N.D.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order to conduct an in person hearing and oral argument on the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class. Given the volume of material filed in connection with the motion to certify and with the reply brief, novel issues presented by the Plaintiffs for the proposed class, and the federal requirement that a "rigorous analysis" of Rule 23 factors is needed to justify departure from the general rule disfavoring class actions, the Defendants believe the Court and parties may benefit from oral argument and discussion of the issues, and therefore request that this Court schedule a hearing on the Plaintiff's motion to certify class. In their response to the motion, the Defendants raised many defenses, including that the named class representatives are not typical or qualified with respect to the proposed class, that the proposed class is not ascertainable, that class adjudication is not superior or manageable, and that there is no evidence of injury (and thus no standing) with respect to putative class members and even the named Plaintiffs themselves. Essentia is an integrated health system serving patients in Minnesota, North Dakota, and Wisconsin. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1H4u5O at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher R. Morris, Esq. Bryce D. Riddle, Esq. BASSFORD REMELE, PA 100 South 5th Street, Suite 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402-1254 Telephone: (612) 333-3000 E-mail: cmorris@bassford.com briddle@bassford.com - and - Angela E. Lord, Esq. Briana L. Rummel, Esq. VOGEL LAW FIRM 218 NP Avenue Fargo, ND 58107-1389 Telephone: (701) 237-6983 Facsimile: (701) 237-0847 E-mail: alord@vogellaw.com brummel@vogellaw.com ESTEE LAUDER: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned re The Estee Lauder Co., Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:23-cv-10669-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(3), and 23(g), for an order: (i) certifying a class action; (ii) appointing Lead Plaintiff as Class Representative; and (iii) appointing Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP as Class Counsel. Estee is an American multinational cosmetics company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WNPaKl at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael P. Canty, Esq. James T. Christie, Esq. Guillaume Buell, Esq. Jacqueline R. Meyers, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: mcanty@labaton.com jchristie@labaton.com gbuell@labaton.com jmeyers@labaton.com - and - Thomas C. Michaud, Esq. VANOVERBEKE MICHAUD & TIMMONY P.C. 79 Alfred Street Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: (313) 578-1200 Facsimile: (313) 578-1201 E-mail: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com FAB GLASS: Bowman Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ TANISIA BOWMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Fab Glass And Mirror, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-1890 (N.D. Ill., February 19, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, https://www.fabglassandmirror.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Bowman and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Bowman's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint relates that Bowman has made an attempt to complete a purchase on the Website. On September 10, 2025, Bowman was searching online for wall mirrors for her home. During her search, she came across the website Fabglassandmirror.com, which appeared to be a well-known company offering made-to-order glass, mirrors, and related hardware. After reviewing the company's positive ratings and customer feedback regarding the quality of its custom glass products and the convenience of ordering online, she decided to explore the website with the intent to make a purchase. However, Bowman encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from completing the transaction. The Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Bowman and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. The Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its discriminatory conduct, says the suit. Bowman seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff Tanisia Bowman is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Fab Glass And Mirror, LLC provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a wide range of custom mirrors, bathroom mirrors, vanity mirrors, wall mirrors, glass shelves, tempered glass, table tops, shower glass, and other custom glass and mirror solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 929-442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law FIGURE LENDING: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Mardikian Says --------------------------------------------------------------- GEORGE MARDIKIAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIGURE LENDING LLC d/b/a FIGURE, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00135 (W.D.N.C., February 19, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. The complaint relates that the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") about its customers. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach on February 14, 2026. Because of the Defendant's Data Breach, at least the following types of PII were compromised: customer's full names, home addresses, dates of birth, and phone numbers. Currently, the precise number of persons injured is unclear. But the size of the putative Class can be ascertained from information in Defendant's custody and control. And the putative Class is over thousands of members as it includes its customers. And yet, Defendant has yet to notify the Class. Thus, Defendant kept the Class in the dark thereby depriving the Class of the opportunity to try and mitigate their injuries in a timely manner. The complaint alleges that in the aftermath of the Data Breach, Plaintiff suffered from a spike in spam and scam text messages and phone calls. The Plaintiff suffered actual injury from the exposure and theft of his PII which violates his rights to privacy. In addition to injunctive relief, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the other Class Members, seeks compensatory damages for Defendant's invasion of privacy, which includes the value of the privacy interest invaded by Defendant, the costs of future monitoring of their credit history for identity theft and fraud, plus prejudgment interest and costs. Plaintiff George Mardikian is a citizen of Merced, California and is a Data Breach victim. He has had an active loan with Defendant for about three years. Defendant Figure Lending LLC d/b/a Figure is a blockchain-based financial technology company transforming capital markets and is the nation's largest non-bank provider of home equity lines of credit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ruth Sheehan, Esq. Joel R. Rhine, Esq. RHINE LAW FIRM 1612 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 300 Wilmington, NC 28403 Telephone: (910) 772-9960 Facsimile: (910) 772-9062 E-mail: ras@rhinelawfirm.com E-mail: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS: England Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections ------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM ENGLAND; and MAXINE ENGLAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS SERVICE TEAM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00006-TAV-JEM (E.D. Tenn., Jan. 6, 2026) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to District Judge Thomas A. Varlan, and referred to Magistrate Judge Jill E McCook. Financial Accounts Service Team, Inc. specializes in providing customized debt collection solutions. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian D Flick, Esq. DANN LAW FIRM 15000 Madison Avenue Lakewood, OH 44107 Telephone: (513) 645-3488 Facsimile: (216) 373-0536 Email: bflick@dannlaw.com - and - Brent S Snyder, Esq. DANN LAW FIRM 15000 Madison Avenue Lakewood, OH 44107 Telephone: (216) 373-0539 Email: bsnyder@dannlaw.com GILDAN ACTIVEWEAR: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Gildan Activewear USA Inc. d/b/a American Apparel, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-01535-LMP-DTS (D. Minn., February 19, 2026) arises because Defendant's Websites www.americanapparel.com and http://retail.americanapparel.comare not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations. The complaint relates that as a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Websites, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Websites have a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like her full and equal access to important Website content. The Plaintiff alleges that she was injured when she attempted to access Defendant's Websites from Minnesota but encountered barriers that denied her full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota; damages, and a damage multiplier pursuant to Minnesota Statue. Plaintiff Julie Dalton is legally blind and has been a resident of Minnesota. Defendant Gildan Activewear USA Inc. is a South Carolina Company that owns, operates, and/or controls its Websites which offers clothing and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, tops, bottoms, t-shirts, fleece, jackets, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com GOODGRAIN INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dalton Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Goodgrain Inc. d/b/a Wildgrain, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-01545 (D. Minn., February 20, 2026) arises because Defendant's website, www.wildgrain.com is not fully and equally accessible to Plaintiff and other people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff found Defendant's website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like her full and equal access to important website content --content Defendant makes available to its sighted website users. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its website fail to ensure it is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities, says the suit. In addition to her claim under the ADA, the Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. She seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota. Goodgrain Inc., d/b/a Wildgrain, operates the website that offers food subscription boxes for sale including, but not limited to, artisan breads, pasta, pastries, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com GOOGLE LLC: Shares Private Data to Ad Partners, Jenkins Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- BARBARA JENKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOOGLE LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-01481 (N.D. Cal., February 19, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its transmission of user data to advertising partners. According to the complaint, Google does not merely collect user data for its own use. It shares that data with other advertising companies as part of the process of selling advertising space on the websites where its code is embedded. Specifically, Google generates approximately $307.4 billion in annual revenue, the substantial majority of which derives from advertising. The way this works is through automated auctions. Each time a user loads a webpage that uses Google's advertising tools, Google runs a real-time bidding ("RTB") auction to determine which advertisement to display. In a fraction of a second, Google sends out "bid requests" to solicit bids from advertising companies approved to participate in its ecosystem, then selects a winning bidder, before delivering that bidder's advertisement to the user. Google controls every stage of this process: it operates the auction, serves the ad, and determines which advertising companies are eligible to participate. To enable bidders to decide how much to bid, Google provides the advertising companies with information about the user and the page being viewed. These bid requests include the URL of the page the user is viewing and referrer, the user's IP address, IP-derived geolocation, and cookie data. According to Google's own technical documentation, bid requests may also include audience classification codes drawn from the IAB TechLab Audience Taxonomy, a standardized list of over 1,999 characteristics that can be assigned to individual users (including, for example, their involvement in aerospace and defense procurement or their use of payday and emergency loans), as well as content classification codes drawn from the IAB TechLab Content Taxonomy, which categorize the subject matter of the page or app content the user is viewing and span sensitive categories including bankruptcy, mental health, substance abuse, sexual conditions, and specific religious traditions. As part of the RTB process, Google also conducts an ongoing "cookie syncing" process, which Google calls "cookie matching". The effect of Google's RTB and cookie syncing processes is that approved advertising partners receive the persistent GID advertising identifier, enabling them to recognize and track the same user over time, and, upon information and belief, the substance of the user's browsing activity through the URLs and other data included in bid requests. Google's advertising infrastructure thereby functions as a mechanism through which user data collected from third-party websites is transmitted to advertising partners that have no direct relationship with the user and that did not collect or process the data directly from the individuals to whom it relates. Google's cookie syncing mechanism and the prohibited transmission of sensitive personal data to foreign entities in bulk violate the Bulk Sensitive Data Rule ("BSDR") and invades users' privacy, asserts the complaint. Google's conduct falls expressly within the crime-tort exception, defeating any consent-based defense they may assume, it adds. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to hold Google accountable for operating the infrastructure through which Americans' sensitive online activity is transmitted to advertising entities subject to the jurisdiction of a designated foreign adversary. On behalf of a nationwide class and a Maryland subclass, Plaintiff seeks statutory and compensatory damages for millions of affected individuals. Plaintiff Barbara Jenkins is a citizen of Maryland who resides in Baltimore, Maryland. Defendant Google LLC operates the world's largest digital advertising ecosystem, generating approximately $307.4 billion in annual revenue, the substantial majority of which it derives from its online advertising business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William J. Edelman, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 227 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (771) 474-1121 E-mail: wedelman@milberg.com - and - Heather M. Lopez, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive-Penthouse, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (331) 240-3015 E-mail: hlopez@milberg.com HARVEY NORMAN: Faces Class Action Suit Over Latitude Payment Plans ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sean Cao, writing for Inside Retail, reports that Harvey Norman is facing a new class action lawsuit in connection with the promotion of Latitude Finance Australia's interest-free payment plans. The furniture and electronics retailer said in a statement on Monday, February 23, that it was listed as the second defendant in the class action. Several news sources reported that Carter Capner Law launched the suit on behalf of affected consumers. The proceedings include claims for restitution, payment of damages, to declare any relevant consumer agreements with Latitude as null and void, interest and costs for the first plaintiff, second plaintiff and group members. Harvey Norman said it intends to "defend the proceedings vigorously" and will provide further updates when available. The retailer previously ran a national advertising campaign with Latitude in 2020 and 2021 to promote a 60-month interest-free and no-deposit payment method for goods purchased at its stores. In 2024, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (Asic) commenced legal proceedings against the two firms, alleging they made false and misleading financial claims. Asic said the financial obligations under a credit card were different from what was advertised. "A continuing credit contract can involve multiple advances of credit together with monthly account service fees and high interest rates, all of which add up for consumers," Asic deputy chair Sarah Court said at the time. The Federal Court later ruled in favour of Asic, saying that consumers had to enter into a "fundamentally different" financial arrangement than the one promoted. Harvey Norman appealed to the decision, but was dismissed by the court last September. In September 2024, the retailer faced a separate class action alleging that it sold "unnecessary and worthless" extended warranties to customers. [GN] HIMS & HERS: Faces Donoho Suit Over False Product Ads ----------------------------------------------------- ANDREW DONOHO and GLORIA FERGUSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Hims & Hers Health, Inc. and Hims, Inc. Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01954 (N.D. Ill., February 20, 2026) arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act and other similar state statutes. Hims & Hers advertises and sells a product it calls "compounded semaglutide." Consumers inject this product into their bodies. The Defendant consistently advertises this product as being made with "the same active ingredient" as the weight loss and diabetes drugs Ozempic(R) and Wegovy(R). The Plaintiffs assert that such claims are false since Defendant uses a different active ingredient than the active ingredient used in the mentioned drugs. Hims & Hers's active ingredient is manufactured using a fundamentally different process which produces a different active ingredient. Although both products contain the semaglutide peptide molecule, the Hims & Hers product contains peptides that are not contained in Ozempic(R) and Wegovy(R), among other differences, say the Plaintiffs. Hims & Hers Health, Inc. provides health care software solutions. The Company offers multi-specialty tele-health platform that connects consumers to licensed healthcare providers, enabling them to access medical care for numerous conditions related to mental, sexual health, dermatology, and primary care.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John D. Polivick, Esq. POLIVICK LAW FIRM 250 Parkway Dr., Suite 150 Lincolnshire, IL 60069 Telephone: (312) 530-0085 E-mail: john@polivicklawfirm.com HOME CARE: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Mayhem Due June 26 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW MAYHEW, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. HOME CARE PULSE, LLC d/b/a Activated Insights, Case No. 2:25-cv-02657-HLT-ADM (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Mitchell entered a Phase I Class Certification Stage Scheduling Order: Event Deadline Jointly proposed protective order Feb. 20, 2026 submitted to court or contact court to request pre-motion conference (only if parties disagree about need for and/or scope of order): Motions to amend: April 24, 2026 The Plaintiff's settlement proposal: April 24, 2026 The Plaintiff's motion for class June 26, 2026 certification and disclosure of class certification experts: The Defendant's response to class Aug. 10, 2026 certification and disclosure of class certification rebuttal experts: The Plaintiff's class certification Aug. 31, 2026 reply: Home Care designs and develops software solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=due8Kv at no extra charge.[CC] HONOR HOME CARE: Brooks Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Honor Home Care Services California, Inc. The case is styled as Victor Otto Brooks, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Honor Home Care Services California, Inc., Case No. 26CV000877 (Cal. Super. Ct., Monterey Cty., Feb. 19, 2026). The case type is stated as "Civil Unlimited." Honor -- https://www.honorcare.com/ -- provides in-home senior care, helping older adults continue to live well and independently at home.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com HQ DONTICS DENTAL: Alkhal Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against HQ Dontics Dental Key Biscayne, P.A. The case is styled as Charles Alkhal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HQ Dontics Dental Key Biscayne, P.A. The case is styled as Charles Alkhal, individually and on behalf of, Case No. 1:26-cv-21135-XXXX (S.D. Fla, Feb. 19, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. HQ Dontics Dental Key Biscayne, P.A. -- https://www.hqdontics.com/ -- specialize in cosmetic dental services such as teeth whitening and prosthodontics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com I AM BEYOND: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Anderson Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ LISA ANDERSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. I Am Beyond, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-1892 (N.D. Ill., February 19, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, https://beyondyoga.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Anderson and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Anderson's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, Anderson was searching online for a high-quality versatile jacket she could wear both for light workouts and everyday activities. On November 3, 2025, Anderson visited the Defendant's Website, Beyondyoga.com, after learning about the brand's strong reputation in the activewear and lifestyle apparel market. Based on its reputation and customer feedback, Anderson decided to purchase a jacket directly from the Defendant's Website. While browsing using her screen reader, Anderson identified a jacket she wished to purchase. However, she encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from completing the transaction independently. The complaint asserts that the Website contains access barriers that deny full and equal access to Anderson, who would otherwise use the Website and who would otherwise be able to fully and equally enjoy the benefits and services of the Website in Illinois State and throughout the United States. The Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its discriminatory conduct. Anderson seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff Lisa Anderson is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant I Am Beyond, LLC provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase offers a range of women's and men's activewear and athleisure products, including dresses, bras, jackets, hoodies, pullovers, leggings, shorts, pants, T-shirts, sweaters, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 929-442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law ICONTAINERS USA: SX Can File Bid to Certify Class Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SX Holdings, LLC v. ICONTAINERS USA, INC. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-20824 (S.D. Fla., Filed March 18, 2022), the Hon. Judge Darrin P. Gayles entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion to seal. The Plaintiff may file its unredacted motion to certify class and the corresponding exhibits 2, 3, and 8 under seal. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. iContainers provides online freight forwarding services.[CC] JOEST LLC: Opposition to Mezoff's Bid to Certify Class Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mezoff v. Joest LLC. et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-10555 (D. Mass., Filed Feb. 4, 2026), the Hon. Judge Richard G. Stearns entered an order re Emergency Motion for Discovery. The Defendants' opposition to Motion to Certify Class is stayed until the court issues a ruling on Emergency Motion for Discovery. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Joest manufactures bulk material handling equipment and automated systems for the plastics processing, recycling, manufacturing, food, pharma and parcel & package handling industries.[CC] KALSHI INC: Reynolds Sues Over Alleged Online Gambling Enterprise ----------------------------------------------------------------- IAN REYNOLDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KALSHI INC., KALSHIEX LLC, KALSHI KLEAR INC., KALSHI KLEAR LLC, KALSHI TRADING LLC, SUSQUEHANNA INTERNATIONAL GROUP, LLP, AND SUSQUEHANNA GOVERNMENT PRODUCTS, LLLP, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00336-YY (D. Or., February 20, 2026), accuses the Defendants of running an illegal online gambling enterprise in violation of Oregon Gambling Loss Recovery Statute and Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act. The Plaintiff asserts that Defendants attempt to evade Oregon's gambling laws by recasting sports wagers as federally regulated "derivatives" traded on a so-called "prediction market." The Defendants assert that users are not betting on sporting events, but are instead buying and selling what Defendants call "futures", "swaps", or "options" on event outcomes--a characterization aimed at regulators and courts, not ordinary users. In reality, the derivatives framing is commercially illusory: users pay real money, select a side of a sporting event, and either lose their stake or receive a fixed cash payout based entirely on the win-loss result of the game. Kalshi monetizes this sports-wagering activity by charging transaction fees tied to user bets and by structuring the Platform to generate revenue from wagering volume. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and damages against Defendants for evading Oregon gaming laws by offering illegal, unconstitutional, unregulated, and untaxed sports betting on its mobile app and website throughout the State of Oregon. Kalshi Inc. is the parent company of the Kalshi entities, including KalshiEX LLC, Kalshi Klear Inc., Kalshi Klear LLC, and Kalshi Trading LLC. Through these subsidiaries and affiliates, Kalshi Inc. owns, controls and operates the Kalshi Platform, an online sportsbook. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marilyn A. Heiken, Esq. JOHNSON JOHNSON LUCAS & MIDDLETON 975 Oak Street, Suite 1050 Eugene, OR 97401 Telephone: (541) 484-2434 Facsimile: (541) 484-0882 E-mail: mheiken@justicelawyers.com - and - W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. James Mitchell "Mitch" Williams, Esq. Dylan T. Martin, Esq. Trenton H. Mann, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 272 Commerce Street Post Office Box 4160 Montgomery, AL 36103-4160 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com mitch.williams@beasleyallen.com dylan.martin@beasleyallen.com trent.mann@beasleyallen.com - and - Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Esq. James M. Davis, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 1490 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1100 Facsimile: (619) 338-1101 E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com toreardon@bholaw.com jdavis@bholaw.com - and - Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street 5th Floor #1520 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 377-4704 Facsimile: (888) 410-0415 E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com KASTKING GLOBAL: Website Not Accessible to the Blind, Cole Says --------------------------------------------------------------- HARON COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KastKing Global Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-1936 (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, https://kastking.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Cole and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Cole's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. On July 10, 2025, while searching online for fishing gear, Cole accessed the website Kastking.com. After reviewing the website's customer feedback highlighting its quality fishing gear, smooth and reliable reels, well-designed rods, and practical accessories that perform well out of the box, especially for beginners and budget-conscious anglers, he decided to make a purchase. However, while navigating the website, Cole encountered accessibility barriers that significantly interfered with his ability to complete a purchase. The Website contains access barriers that deny full and equal access to Cole, who would otherwise use the Website and who would otherwise be able to fully and equally enjoy the benefits and services of the Website in Illinois State and throughout the United States. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Cole and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of the Website, says the suit. Cole seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff Haron Cole is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant KastKing Global Inc. provides to the public the Website, which offers consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a range of freshwater and saltwater fishing gear including various types of fishing reels, rods, combos, lines, tools, and apparel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 718-554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law KENNECOTT UTAH: Bascom Bid Seal Conditional Cert. OK'd ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as AUSTIN BASCOM, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. KENNECOTT UTAH COPPER LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00505-DBB-JCB (D. Utah), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the motion to seal the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification and court-authorized notice, as well as Exhibit 2 to the Motion. The Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification and Court-authorized notice contains numerous references to, and information and quotations from, the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Accordingly, Plaintiff requests leave to file Plaintiff’s Motion for Conditional Certification and Court Authorized Notice under seal for the same duration, consistent with the sealing of the CBA already ordered by this Court, so that the Motion's references to the CBA remain out of the public record. Furthermore, Exhibit 2 to Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification and Court Authorized Notice is comprised of the Plaintiff's paystubs. Accordingly, Plaintiff requests the Court grant him leave to file Exhibit 2 to his Motion for Conditional Certification and Court-Authorized Notice under seal for indefinite duration, consistent with the sealing of Plaintiff's pay stub already ordered by this Court. The Defendant is an integrated copper mining operation headquartered in South Jordan, Utah. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xRXMVk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Alyssa J. White, 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 awhite@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 - and - April L. Hollingsworth, Esq. HOLLINGSWORTH LAW OFFICE, LLC 40 South 600 East Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 Telephone: (801) 415-9909 Facsimile: (801) 303-7324 E-mail: april@aprilhollingsworthlaw.com KENNECOTT UTAH: Bascom FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AUSTIN BASCOM, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. KENNECOTT UTAH COPPER LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00505-DBB-JCB (D. Utah), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting conditional certification and the issuance of Court-authorized notice to the following potential collective members: "All current and former hourly Kennecott employees who were paid a non discretionary bonus and/or shift differential during the past three years (the "Hourly Employees")." The Plaintiff Bascom filed this lawsuit on June 24, 2025, alleging that Kennecott's policy of excluding non-discretionary bonus and shift differential payments from the regular rate of pay violates the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") by failing to pay overtime at the proper rate of pay. The Defendant is an integrated copper mining operation headquartered in South Jordan, Utah. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=u2tLXo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Alyssa J. White, 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 awhite@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 - and - April L. Hollingsworth, Esq. HOLLINGSWORTH LAW OFFICE, LLC 40 South 600 East Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 Telephone: (801) 415-9909 Facsimile: (801) 303-7324 E-mail: april@aprilhollingsworthlaw.com KEOLIS TRANSIT: Class Certification Bid Filing Continued to June 15 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIAMOND ERICA PACE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KEOLIS TRANSIT AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 5:25-cv-02330-DSF-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dale S. Fischer entered an order regarding stipulation to continue class certification deadline. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification deadline is continued to June 15, 2026. Keolis is a French transportation company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=s49LDK at no extra charge.[CC] KYNDRYL HOLDINGS: Brander Sues Over Drop in Share Price ------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT BRANDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KYNDRYL HOLDINGS, INC.; MARTIN J. SCHROETER; DAVID B. WYSHNER; and VINEET KHURANA, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00782 (N.D.N.Y., Feb. 11, 2026) is a class action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Kyndryl securities between August 7, 2024 and February 9, 2026, inclusive, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendant's violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Kyndryl's financial statements issued during the Class Period were materially misstated; (2) Kyndryl lacked adequate internal controls and at times materially understated issues with its internal controls; (3) as a result, Kyndryl would be unable to timely file its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2025; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about Kyndryl's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all times. Kyndryl's stock price fell $12.90 per share, or 55%, to close at $10.59 on February 9, 2026, damaging investors. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common shares, the Plaintiff and the other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Kyndryl Holdings, Inc. operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides applications, data, AI, cloud, core enterprise, digital workplace, security, and other related services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 Email: philkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com LAYLA SLEEP: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Anderson Says --------------------------------------------------------------- LISA ANDERSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Layla Sleep Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-1893 (N.D. Ill., February 19, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, https://laylasleep.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Anderson and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Anderson's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. On October 20, 2025, Plaintiff Anderson visited the Defendant's website, Laylasleep.com. She wanted to find a mattress that could offer better support and help her sleep more comfortably through the night. After reviewing positive customer feedback regarding the brand's product quality and high-quality service, Anderson attempted to complete a purchase. However, she encountered significant accessibility barriers that prevented her from doing so. The Website contains access barriers that deny full and equal access to Anderson, who would otherwise use the Website and who would otherwise be able to fully and equally enjoy the benefits and services of the Website in Illinois State and throughout the United States, the complaint asserts. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Anderson and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of the Website, adds the complaint. Anderson seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff Lisa Anderson is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Layla Sleep Inc. provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a selection of premium sleeping products, including mattresses, pillows, bedding sheets, protectors, blankets and bases.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 929-442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law LEGACY HEALTHCARE: Stevens Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Stevens, individually and for others similarly situated v. LEGACY HEALTHCARE FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-01692 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 13, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), and Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"). The Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours in a workweek. But the Defendant does not pay them for all their hours worked. Instead, the Defendant deducts 30 minutes a day from the Plaintiff's and its other Hourly Employees' recorded hours for so-called "meal breaks," regardless of whether they actually receive a bona fide meal break (the Defendant's "auto-deduct policy"). Thus, the Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees for that time. But the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees do not actually receive bona fide meal breaks. Instead, the Defendant requires the Plaintiff and its other Hourly Employees to remain on duty and perform compensable work throughout their shifts and regularly subjects them to work interruptions during unpaid "meal breaks." Additionally, the Defendant automatically rounds the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees' clock in and clock out punches to the nearest quarter hour for its own primary benefit (the Defendant's "rounding policy"). The Defendant's auto-deduct policy and rounding policy violate the IMWL and FLSA by depriving the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees of overtime wages of at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay--based on all remuneration--for overtime hours worked. The Defendant's auto-deduct policy and rounding policy also violate the IWPCA by depriving the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees of earned wages (at their agreed hourly rates) for hours worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for The Defendant as a certified nursing assistant (CNA) in its Palos Heights, Illinois facility from October 2023 to March 2024. The Defendant touts itself as "a leading provider of outstanding post-acute and long-term skilled healthcare consulting services that currently services 118 healthcare facilities across 3 States."[BN] The Plaintiffs were represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 419-1008 Facsimile: 312-419-1025 Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com LORETTO HEALTH: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Adeyemi Aderohunmu and Alliyah Rawlins v. Loretto Health & Rehabilitation Center and CPS Recruitment, Case No. 5:24-cv-00731-DNH-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting an extension of the deadlines for them to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class, filed Jan. 30, 2026. To enable the parties to complete the document and information collection, complete depositions, and obtain transcripts for those depositions, as well as for LHR to have time to consider its expert's report prior to responding to Plaintiffs' Motion, the Defendants request the Court extend its current deadline to respond to Plaintiffs’ Motion from Feb. 20, 2026, to April 3, 2026. On Feb. 11, 2026, LHR requested the Plaintiffs' agreement on this extension. At the Plaintiffs counsel's request, we conducted a meet-and-confer today, Feb. 13, 2026, concerning same. The Plaintiffs' counsel did not agree to an extension and intends to file an opposition. LHR's and CPS's counsel are available Tuesday, Wednesday, or Friday for a virtual conference if it would be of assistance to the Court. Loretto provides comprehensive healthcare services. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jTcHQ1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Liza R. Magley, Esq. BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC One Lincoln Center Syracuse, NY 13202-1355 Telephone: (315) 218-8226 E-mail: lmagley@bsk.com MAIDEN HOLDINGS: Wigglesworth Seeks to Certify Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WIGGLESWORTH v. MAIDEN HOLDINGS, LTD. et al (re MAIDEN HOLDINGS, LTD. SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No. 1:19-cv-05296-CPO-SAK (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff, at 9:00 a.m. on July 20, 2026, will move the Court for an Order certifying the case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Maiden provides specialized property and casualty reinsurance products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mvzkY9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq. Daniel Tyre-Karp, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. One Gateway Center, Suite 2600 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 313-1887 Facsimile: (973) 833-0399 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com dtyrekarp@rosenlegal.com - and - Tor Gronborg, Esq. Trig R. Smith, Esq. Patton L. Johnson, Esq. Ashley G. Pyle, Esq. Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: torg@rgrdlaw.com trigs@rgrdlaw.com pjohnson@rgrdlaw.com apyle@rgrdlaw.com srudman@rgrdlaw.com - and - James E. Cecchi, Esq. Donald A. Ecklund, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com decklund@carellabyrne.com The Defendants are represented by: Kevin H. Marino, Esq. John D. Tortorella, Esq. MARINO, TORTORELLA & BOYLE, P.C. 437 Southern Boulevard Chatham, NJ 07928 - and - Rollo Baker, Esq. Jacob J. Waldman, Esq. Jesse Bernstein, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10010 MAIMOUN LLC: Moran Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------- Washington Benavides Moran, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. MAIMOUN LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-01269 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2026), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://maimounstore.com, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. 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. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. MAIMOUN LLC, operates the Maimoun Store online retail store and physical retail stores, as well as the Maimoun Store interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: jeffrey@gottlieb.legal dana@gottlieb.legal michael@gottlieb.legal MASSACHUSETTS BOARD: Diviacchi Sues Over Reinstatement Bid Denial ----------------------------------------------------------------- VALERIANO DIVIACCHI, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. RICHARD C. VAN NOSTRAND, Individually and in Their Official Capacity as Chair of the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers PHYLLIS FEDERICO Individually and in Their Official Capacity as Vice Chair of the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers JOSEPH S. BERMAN Individually and in Their Official Capacity as General Counsel of the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers, Case No. 1:26-cv-10910-IT (D. Mass., February 18, 2026) is a class action seeking a prospective declaration that Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Rule 4:01 on its face and as applied is unconstitutionally in violation of required due process and equal protection. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff was suspended from the Massachusetts Bar on 2 January 2016 with reciprocal discipline subsequently entered by this Court for what was supposed to be a limited term suspension of 27 months. Plaintiff continues to maintain and will always maintain that the findings that resulted in his suspension were false and he continues to maintain his innocence of any professional misconduct that would have warranted suspension. Because of the unconstitutional provisions in the subject reinstatement Rule 4:01 that are the subject of this Action, the Defendants have three times denied reinstatement of the Plaintiff to the Massachusetts Bar -- most recently on or about December 2025 -- under the undisputed facts that grant standing to challenge the constitutionality of this Rule 4:01, the complaint asserts. The Plaintiff and attorneys similarly situated are entitled to prospective declaratory relief against continued enforcement and maintenance of Defendant's unconstitutional laws, practices, procedures and policies, adds the complaint. Plaintiff VALERIANO DIVIACCHI is a resident of Boston, Suffolk County, Massachusetts. Defendants RICHARD C. VAN NOSTRAND, PHYLLIS FEDERICO, and JOSEPH S. BERMAN have an individual and official Supreme Judicial Court mandated legal duty to ensure that the Massachusetts Bar disciplinary reinstatement process is fulfilling its legal duties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Valeriano Diviacchi, Esq. 24 Holton Street Boston, MA. 02134 Telephone: 617-542-3175 E-mail: vdiviacchi@me.com MATTRESS FIRM: Wong Sues Over Unlawful & Deceptive Sale Promotions ------------------------------------------------------------------ Carmin Wong, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MATTRESS FIRM, INC.; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 3:26-cv-01364 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 13, 2026), is brought to remedy Defendants' unlawful and deceptive business practices with respect to misleading sale promotions advertised in Defendants' retail brick and mortar locations as limited time discounted offers that, in reality, never end. The Defendants manufacture, market, advertise, and/or sell mattresses, and mattress related products, including box springs and bed bases, pillows, bedding, and furniture among other related products (the "Products"). The Products are sold in store through Defendants' retail locations where Plaintiff made her purchases and online through Defendants' website, mattressfirm.com. The Defendants prominently advertise sales for mattresses and related products in their retail locations in California and online through their website. These advertisements include large discounts, such as up to 46% off purported "regular" prices, purported discounts, and sale end dates that purportedly indicate when the sale will end. In reality, everything about these advertisements is false. The sales Defendants advertise are not limited time-events where the Products are marked down from their regular retail prices because Defendants' Products never retail at the purported regular price listed in strikethrough font. In fact, the Products always retail at a much lower price than the "regular" price. And when the sale end date expires, the sales do not end. Instead, they are immediately replaced by a different sale offering comparable discounts or Defendants simply set a new purported sale end date. The Defendants' false and misleading sales practices violate provisions of the California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the UCL, and the FAL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased including but not limited to, mattress(es), from the Defendants' store(s) located in San Francisco, California, on the following dates: December 17, 2021, May 27, 2022 and December 18, 2022. The Defendants manufacture, advertise, market, and/or sell mattresses, among other related products directly to consumers through in their stores and on the website, mattressfirm.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon Brouillette, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (866) 276-763 Fax: (310) 510-6429 Email: bbrouillette@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com MICROF LLC: Deadline to File Class Cert Bid in Yukna Stayed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Yukna v. Microf LLC (RE MICROF LLC DATA SECURITY LITIGATION), Case No. L25-CV-07434-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=Iga5ce at no extra charge.[CC] MOCHI MEDICAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cioppettini Says ---------------------------------------------------------- FRANK CIOPPETTINI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOCHI MEDICAL CA, P.C.; MOCHI MEDICAL, P.A.; MOCHI HEALTH CORP.; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-01260 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 11, 2026) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. Plaintiff Cioppettini was employed by the Defendants as a licensed physician. Mochi Medical CA, P.C. operates a telehealth platform for weight management, and a professional medical group that provides prescription services based on referrals from the telehealth platform. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley L. Grombacher, 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 MUUAA INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cole Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- MORGAN COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Muuaa, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-04048-SLD-RLH (C.D. Ill., February 20, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Defendant's website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and visually- impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Muuaa, Inc. owns and operates the website, https://dermdude.com, which offers men's grooming and hygiene products for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844)731-3343 (718) 554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law NEW YORK, NY: Class Cert. Bid in United Probation Due March 6 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as UNITED PROBATION OFFICERS ASSOCIATION et al., v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 1:21-cv-00218-RA-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gorenstein entered an order that: -- Any motion for class certification shall be filed by March 6, 2026. Briefing thereafter shall be in accordance with paragraph 2.B of the Court’s Individual Practices. The parties shall also comply with paragraphs 2.C through 2.F of the Court's Individual Practices. The parties are reminded that, under paragraph 2.D, the memoranda of law must set forth all facts pertinent to the motion and that memoranda of law may not incorporate by reference any other document, including but not limited to expert reports. Finally, notwithstanding the statement to the contrary in paragraph 1.D, for the briefing of this motion, the parties shall comply with the word count limitations of Local Rule 7.1(c). SO ORDERED. New York comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wckY86 at no extra charge.[CC] NOVA BIOMEDICAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Brodeur Says ----------------------------------------------------------- ERIC BRODEUR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NOVA BIOMEDICAL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-10782 (D. Mass., Feb. 11, 2026) is a class action arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information about its current and former employees and customers. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. The cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII. In short, the Defendant's failures placed the Class's PII in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, alleges the suit. Nova Biomedical Corporation develops, manufactures, and sells blood testing analyzers. The Company provides hand held point-of-care analyzers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - 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 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com ODACITE INC: Henry Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------- CONSTANCE HENRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ODACITE INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01558 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 11, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://odacite.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Odacite Inc. sells wide range of clean, results driven skincare products, including facial cleansers, toners, serums, facial oils, moisturizers, masks, exfoliators, targeted treatments, and other plant-powered, science-backed skincare solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (929) 442-2154 Email: Achan@ealg.law ONRIN 0129: Ramirez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN RAMIREZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ONRIN 0129 INC d/b/a 42014A 7 ELEVEN d/b/a 7-ELEVEN STORE #42014 & STORE #10529, a Florida Corporation; and SYED MAHIAN HAQUE, an individual Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-21163-XXXX (S.D. Fla., February 20, 2026) accuses the Defendants of retaliation, seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and to obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants from on or about April 2025 to on or about February 2026. Allegedly, the Defendants paid Plaintiff a flat rate of $15 per hour, regardless of how many hours Plaintiff worked in a given workweek and regardless of whether Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week. In addition, Defendants did not accurately record all hours Plaintiff worked, including overtime hours, and failed to maintain true and correct time records reflecting Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees' actual start times, end times, and total hours worked each workweek. As a result of such failure, Plaintiff was not properly compensated for all hours worked, including overtime compensation, says the suit. Based in Miami-Dade County, Florida, Onrin 0129 Inc. owns and operates convenience stores in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Fabian A. Ruiz, Esq. 9100 S Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (866) 784-9247 Facsimile: (866) 487-2599 E-mail: fabian@ruiztriallaw.com - and - Giselle Gutierrez, Esq. EXHIBIT G LAW FIRM 1825 Ponce De Leon Blvd., #302 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 340-7066 E-mail: Giselle@ExG-Law.com OPENLOOP HEALTH: Fails to Safeguard Sensitive Info, Alvarez Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- MELISSA ALVAREZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OPENLOOP HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-83 (S.D. Iowa, February 19, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to take appropriate steps to safeguard the Sensitive Information of Plaintiff and Class Members from being compromised. The complaint relates that as part of its operations, Defendant collects, maintains, and stores highly sensitive personal information belonging to individuals who receive care through Defendant's network of licensed clinicians and partner platforms, including personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI"), including names, addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, email addresses, Social Security numbers, health insurance information, medical diagnoses, prescription information, treatment records, body measurements, IP addresses, and other health and medical records (collectively, the "Sensitive Information"). In January 2026, a threat actor operating under the alias "stuckin2019" posted on a cybercrime forum that it had successfully exfiltrated data from Defendant's systems, claiming to possess over 1.6 million records containing personal and medical information of customers of Defendant's partner platforms (the "Data Breach"). That information is already in the hands of cybercriminals and on information and belief is or imminently will be available on the black market. Despite the threat actor's public announcement of the breach and clear evidence that the data of Defendant's partners' customers was compromised, Defendant has failed to notify affected individuals, including Plaintiff, leaving them unaware that their most sensitive personal and medical information is in the hands of cybercriminals. As a result of the Data Breach and Defendant's failure to notify, Plaintiff and Class Members are, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, medical and financial harm. The risk will remain for their respective lifetimes, says the suit. As such, Plaintiff and Class Members bring this action to recover for the harm they suffered and assert the following claims: (i) Negligence, (ii) Invasion of Privacy, (iii) Breach of Implied Contract, (iv) Unjust Enrichment, and (v) Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Plaintiff Melissa Alvarez is a citizen of Texas, residing in San Antonio, Texas. Defendant is a digital health infrastructure company headquartered in Des Moines, Iowa that provides white-label telehealth support services, including provider staffing, clinical operations, technology platforms, and practice management, to healthcare organizations, digital health companies, retailers, and employers nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas J. Mauro, Esq. CARNEY & APPLEBY LAW FIRM 400 Homestead Building 303 Locust Street Des Moines, IA 50309 Telephone: 515-282-6803 Facsimile: 515-282-4700 E-mail: mauro@carneyappleby.com - and - David S. Almeida, Esq. Britany A. Kabakov, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Ave. Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (708) 437-6476 E-mail: david@almeidalawgroup.com ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Class Certification Order in Jan Entered ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANAZ DERAKHSHANI JAN, v. COUNTY OF ORANGE, et al., Case No. 8:26-cv-00072-SVW-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered a class certification order: The Plaintiff shall promptly serve the complaint in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and shall comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(l) and Local Rule 5-3 with respect to all proofs of service. Any defendant, including any "Doe" or fictitiously named defendant, not served within 90 days after the case is filed will be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Any Answers filed in state court must be refiled in this court as a supplement to the Notice of Removal. Lead trial counsel shall attend any proceeding before this court, including all Scheduling, Pretrial, and Settlement Conferences. All discovery matters have been referred to a Magistrate Judge, who will hear all discovery disputes. The Magistrate Judge’s initials follow the District Judge’s initials next to the case number. Pre-Filing Meet and Confer Requirement Counsel should take note of Local Rule 7-3, which requires “counsel contemplating the filing of any motion” to “first contact opposing counsel to discuss thoroughly, preferably in person, the substance of the contemplated motion and any potential resolution.” Orange County is located in the Greater Los Angeles area in Southern California. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=15OjgQ at no extra charge.[CC] PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Cupat Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Palantir Technologies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Cupat securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. On September 15, 2022, October 25, 2022, and November 4, 2022, putative securities class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, captioned Cupat v. Palantir Technologies Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-02384, Allegheny County Employees' Retirement System v. Palantir Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-02805, and Shijun Liu, Individually and as Trustee of the Liu Family Trust 2019 v. Palantir Technologies Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-02893, respectively, naming the Company and certain current and former officers and directors as defendants. The suits allege false and misleading statements about our business and prospects, and purport to allege claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and seek unspecified damages and remedies under Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20(A) of the Exchange Act and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. These three actions subsequently were consolidated as Cupat v. Palantir Technologies Inc., et al., Lead Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-02834-CNS-SKC, consolidated with civil actions 1:22-cv-02805-CNS-SKC and 1:22-cv-02893-CNS-SKC. On March 31, 2024, the Court dismissed the Cupat matter without prejudice. On May 24, 2024, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. On April 4, 2025, the Court dismissed the Cupat matter with prejudice and entered judgment for the defendants on the same day. On May 2, 2025, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal from the final judgment with the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. As of December 31, 2025, the Company was not aware of any currently pending legal matters or claims, individually or in the aggregate, that were expected to have a material adverse impact on its consolidated financial statements. Palantir Technologies Inc. builds and deploys software platforms that serve as the central operating systems for its customers. PARTS AUTHORITY: Pilabre et al. Sue Over Labor Law Breaches ----------------------------------------------------------- TANKO PILABRE, BORIS DE JESUS BERMUDEZ GIL, and MOHAMMED MUBARIK on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PARTS AUTHORITY, LLC, PARTS AUTHORITYWAW LLC, DJR LOGISTICS CORP., DRA LOGISTICS CORP., 130 ST EQUITIES LLC, AC AUTOMOTIVE, INC., AD DELIVERY & WAREHOUSING INC., and BHAGWANDIN RAM a/k/a STEVE RAM a/k/a STEVE DABIE, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01443 (S.D.N.Y., February 20, 2026), accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act. During their employment at Parts Authority's Bronx Warehouse, the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated warehouse workers worked 60 or more hours per workweek, but were not compensated with overtime pay for hours worked over 40 each workweek. Moreover, the Defendants paid Plaintiffs and other similarly situated warehouse workers regular hourly wage rates that fell below the statutory minimum wage rate. Among other things, the Defendants also failed to provide Plaintiffs and similarly situated warehouse workers with accurate wage statements accompanying each payment of wages, says the suit. Parts Authority-WAW LLC operates as distributor of automotive replacement parts, tools/equipment, and transmissions. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Louis Pechman, Esq. Galen C. Baynes, Esq. Georgia Decker, Esq. 488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 583-9500 E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com baynes@pechmanlaw.com decker@pechmanlaw.com PATTANA RESTAURANT: Guevara Seeks to Recover Bartenders' Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------------ FRANCO CLAVIJO GUEVARA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PATTANA RESTAURANT GROUP, SP LOUDOUN, INC., PARASAK CHOKESATEAN, PORNTIPA PATTANAMEKAR, and JEREMY ROSS Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00518 (E.D. Va., February 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Virginia Overtime Wage Act, and the Virginia Wage Payment Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees of Defendants regularly worked over 40 hours in a workweek but were not properly compensated for that time at the overtime rate. The Defendants knew that they were required to pay their hourly employees and other non-exempt employees at the proper overtime rate for all hours worked over 40 but failed to do so. The Defendants also failed to provide affected employees with the written notice that is required to establish a tip pool. One or more management employees took payments from tips provided by customers for the work of Plaintiff and others, meaning that there was no valid tip pool and that tips were effectively stolen from employees, says the suit. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants on approximately July 1, 2024 as a bartender. Pattana Restaurant Group is a business entity that operates at least nine restaurants in Maryland and Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Erlich, Esq. Katherine L. Herrmann, Esq. THE ERLICH LAW OFFICE, PLLC 1550 Wilson Blvd., Ste. 700 Arlington, VA 22201 Telephone: (703) 791-9087 Facsimile: (703) 722-8114 E-mail: jerlich@erlichlawoffice.com kherrmann@erlichlawoffice.com - and - Matthew B. Kaplan, Esq. THE KAPLAN LAW FIRM 1100 N Glebe Rd, Suite 1010 Arlington, VA 22201 Telephone: (703) 665-9529 E-mail: mbkaplan@thekaplanlawfirm.com PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 20 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (www.ktmc.com), a nationally recognized securities litigation law firm, informs investors that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against PayPal Holdings, Inc. (PayPal) (NASDAQ: PYPL) on behalf of those who purchased or acquired PayPal common stock between February 25, 2025, and February 2, 2026, inclusive. The lawsuit is filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and is captioned Goodman v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., et al, Case No. 3:26-cv-01381 (N.D. Cal.). Investors have until April 20, 2026, to file for lead plaintiff status. CONTACT KTMC TO DISCUSS YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS: If you purchased or acquired PayPal common stock and have lost money on your investment, you are encouraged to contact KTMC attorney Jonathan Naji, Esq. at: Phone: (484) 270-1453 Email: info@ktmc.com Website: https://sl1nk.com/ehwWw There is no cost or obligation to speak with an attorney. PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC. CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT - COMPLAINT ALLEGATION SUMMARY: The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about PayPal's business and operations. Specifically, Defendants created the false impression that they possessed reliable information pertaining to PayPal's projected revenue outlook and anticipated growth while also minimizing risk from seasonality and macroeconomic fluctuations. In truth, PayPal's optimistic plan for growth through various initiatives to bolster PayPal's Branded Checkout offerings fell short of reality as the 2027 targets were not achievable under the tenure of PayPal's CEO and required both an unrealistically stable consumer landscape and strong execution with clear direction from PayPal and its management. Why did PayPayl's Stock Drop? On February 3, 2026, PayPal announced a surprise leadership change replacing the company's CEO. The leadership change coincided with PayPal's fourth quarter and full year 2025 earnings report, wherein PayPal missed consensus estimates for both revenue and profit. On this news, PayPal's stock price fell $10.63, or 20.3%, to close at $41.70 per share on February 3, 2026. WHAT PYPL INVESTORS CAN DO NOW: 1. File to be lead plaintiff by April 20, 2026. 2. Contact KTMC for a free case evaluation. All representation is on a contingency fee basis, there is no cost to you. 3. Retain counsel of choice or take no action. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS FOR PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC. INVESTORS: PayPal investors may, no later than April 20, 2026, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys, if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages PayPal investors to contact the firm for more information. ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP (KTMC): Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (KTMC) is a leading U.S. plaintiff-side law firm focused on securities-fraud class actions and global investor protection. The firm represents individual investors as well as institutions, such as major pension funds, asset managers, and international investors. KTMC has led some of the largest recoveries in securities litigation and has been recognized by peers and the legal media with numerous accolades, including The National Law Journal's Plaintiff's Hot List and Trailblazers in Plaintiffs' Law, BTI Consulting Group's Honor Roll of Most Feared Law Firms, The Legal Intelligencer's Class Action Firm of the Year, Lawdragon's Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers, and Law360's Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar. The firm operates globally with offices in Pennsylvania and California. KTMC has recovered over $25 billion for our clients and the classes they represent. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, please visit www.ktmc.com. CONTACT: Jonathan Naji, Esq. (484) 270-1453 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 info@ktmc.com [GN] PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Bermudez Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections -------------------------------------------------------------- ROBINSON BERMUDEZ; and MICHAEL T PESTRITTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Case No. :26-cv-00089-SDW-JRA (D.N.J., Jan. 6, 2026) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Susan D. Wigenton, and referred to Magistrate Judge Jose R. Almonte. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC provides debt recovery and collection services. The Company specializes in contingency collections for national credit card issuers, consumer lenders, telecommunications providers, retail credit stores, healthcare, utilities, and commercial accounts receivables. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Angela Yu, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM 411 Hackensack Avenue Ste 701 Hackensack, NJ 07657 Telephone: (646) 369-8144 Email: ayu@kimlf.com PRIDE MANUFACTURING: Cole Sues Over Website's ADA Non-Compliance ---------------------------------------------------------------- MORGAN COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Pride Manufacturing Company, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-04046-SLD-RLH (C.D. Ill., February 20, 2026) alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to design construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. Moreover, the Defendant's website contains access barriers that include inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order, and changing of content without advance warning. As a result, Plaintiff cannot fully access the information, products and services offered online, says the suit. Pride Manufacturing Company, LLC owns and operates the website, https://gcioutdoor.com, which offers outdoor furniture and recreational gear for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 (718) 554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law RAILS INTERNATIONAL: Moran Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- Washington Benavides Moran, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. RAILS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-01270 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2026), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://www.rails.com, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. 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. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. RAILS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, operates the Rails online retail store and physical retail stores, as well as the Rails interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: jeffrey@gottlieb.legal dana@gottlieb.legal michael@gottlieb.legal RAMBOLL LIMITED: Jones and Ammerman Sue Over Alleged ERISA Breaches ------------------------------------------------------------------- DAREK JONES and MICAH AMMERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RAMBOLL LIMITED, RAMBOLL US CONSULTING, INC., BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR RAMBOLL US CONSULTING, INC., RAMBOLL US RETIREMENT & SAVINGS PLAN SETTLOR COMMITTEE, RAMBOLL US RETIREMENT & SAVINGS PLAN FIDUCIARY COMMITTEE, RAMBOLL US RETIREMENT & SAVINGS PLAN INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-40, Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-00273-BKS-ML (N.D.N.Y., February 20, 2026), arises under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period, Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan, breached the duties it owed to the Plan, to Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by, among other things, failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio, initially and on an ongoing basis, with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of performance. The Defendants allegedly allowed substantial assets in the Plan to be invested in a Guaranteed Income Fund (Prudential GIF), a group annuity insurance contract. The Prudential GIF provided a significantly lower rate of return than other comparable investments that Defendants could have made available to Plan participants. In addition, the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties of prudence by allowing a party-in-interest, Prudential, to benefit from its provision of services to the Plan by receiving excessive compensation for managing the Prudential GIF, says the suit. Ramboll Limited is an engineering, architecture and consultancy company headquartered in Syracuse, NY. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Langston McFadden, Esq. PULLANO & FARROW 401 Main Street East Rochester, NY 14445 Telephone: (585) 730-4773 E-mail: lmcfadden@lawpf.com - and - Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Maro, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com jamesm@capozziadler.com REGENXBIO INC: Kuik Sues Over Artificially Inflated Prices ---------------------------------------------------------- Andre Kuik, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. REGENXBIO, INC., KENNETH T. MILLS, CURRAN SIMPSON, STEPHEN PAKOLA, Case No. 8:26-cv-00611-DKC (D. Md., Feb. 13, 2026), is brought on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired REGENXBIO securities between February 9, 2022 and January 27, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws (the "Class") due to the Defendants' securities at artificially inflated prices. The Defendants provided investors with material Information concerning REGENXBIO's plan to develop and commercialize its product candidate RGX-111, a one-time gene therapy for the treatment of severe Mucopolysaccharidosis Type I (MPS I), also known as Hurler syndrome. Defendants' statements included, among other things, REGENXBIO's positive assertions of RGX-111's future trial success based on continuing positive biomarker and safety data from the ongoing PhaseI/II study. The Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the efficacy and safety of its RGX-111 trial study. This caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase REGENXBIO's securities at artificially inflated prices. The truth began to emerge on January 28, 2026, when REGENXBIO issued a press release announcing that the FDA placed a clinical hold on its investigational gene therapy RGX-111. In pertinent part, Defendants announced that an intraventricular CNS tumor was found in a participant treated in its RGX-111 Phase I/II study. Investors and analysts reacted immediately to REGENXBIO's revelation. The price of REGENXBIO's common stock declined from a closing market price of $13.41 per share on January 27, 2026, REGENXBIO's stock price fell to $11.01 per share on January 28, 2026, a decline of 17.8% in the span of just a single day, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased REGENXBIO common stock at artificially inflated prices. REGENXBIO is a clinical-stage biotechnology company providing gene therapies that deliver functional genes to cells with genetic defects in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Cafritz, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1101 Vermont Avenue, NW Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 524-4290 Fax: (212) 363-7171 Email: jcafritz@zlk.com - and - Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, New York 10004 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 Email: aapton@zlk.com ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Discovery in Milito Suit Ongoing --------------------------------------------------- Robinhood Markets, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K/A Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2026, that discovery is ongoing for Milito Pay Transparency class suit in the Superior Court in King County in Washington. In July 2024, RHM, RHY, and RHC were sued in a putative class action captioned John Milito v. Robinhood Markets, Inc. et. al., alleging that Robinhood violated Washington's Equal Pay and Opportunity Act, because some of the Company's job postings allegedly failed to include a wage scale or salary range. The complaint seeks unspecified total statutory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief. The case was stayed in the Superior Court in King County in Washington pending a certified question to the Washington Supreme Court. In September 2025, the Washington Supreme Court issued an opinion addressing the certified question and held that a job applicant for a job posting that failed to include a wage scale or salary range does not need to prove they are a "bona fide" or "good faith" applicant to obtain remedies under the applicable statute. The stay has been lifted and the case is proceeding in discovery. Robinhood Markets, Inc. facilitates the purchase and sale of options, cryptocurrencies, and equities through its platform based in California. ROSIE JANE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Cruz Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- GABRIELA CRUZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rosie Jane Cosmetics, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-307 (E.D. Wis., February 23, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://byrosiejane.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Cruz and other blind or visually impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On November 06, 2025, while searching online for hair mist, Plaintiff Cruz discovered the Defendant's website and decided to further explore the website and its offerings with the intent to make a purchase. During her visit, Plaintiff Cruz located the Body + Hair Mist Trio and attempted to buy it. However, she encountered multiple accessibility barriers that made it impossible for her to complete the transaction independently. The navigation menu's sub-menu elements were inaccessible via keyboard, which prevented her from accessing important links and information and caused her to unknowingly skip key sections of the website. These barriers to access have denied Plaintiff Cruz full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of the website, says the suit. Rosie Jane Cosmetics, Inc. operates the website that offers a wide range of fragrance and body care products, including perfumes, body mists, and body oils.[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 ROWMARK LLC: Battle Sues Over Website Inaccessibility ----------------------------------------------------- ANDRE BATTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Rowmark LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01908 (N.D. Ill., February 20, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. Due to Rowmark's failure and refusal to remove access barriers to its website, the Plaintiff and other blind individuals have been and are being denied equal access to Defendant's goods, services and benefits offered to the public through its website. Moreover, the access barriers prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Headquartered in Findlay, OH, Rowmark LLC owns and operates the commercial website, Jpplus.com, which offers customization products and equipment for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com RUNWAY AI: Extracts Copyrighted Videos Without Consent, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID VANCE GARDNER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RUNWAY AI, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01941 (C.D. Cal., February 23, 2026) seeks statutory damages, injunctive relief, restitution, and all other remedies allowed by law pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, and unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, the Defendant unlawfully accessed and extracted copyrighted videos from YouTube, an online video sharing platform, to train its generative AI model. To develop Runway AI's ability to generate multimedia content, Runway AI extracted and used copyrighted works from YouTube video creators without the consent of the creators. Runway AI bypassed restrictions on YouTube that protects the copyrighted works of YouTube users. Runway AI unlawfully profited from taking and using YouTube creators' works without permission, alleges the suit. The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of himself and of a nationwide class of YouTube creators whose works were accessed and extracted by Runway AI without their authorization. Runway AI, Inc. is a company specializing in generative artificial intelligence that generates videos, images, and other multimedia content.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505-4521 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Carter Greenbaum, Esq. GREENBAUM OLBRANTZ LLP 160 Newport Center Drive, Suite 110 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (212) 732-6837 E-mail: carter@greenbaumolbrantz.com SCHNEIDER SADDLERY: Demaio Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Desiree Demaio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SCHNEIDER SADDLERY, LLC, Case No. CACE-25-014356 was removed from the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Feb. 13, 2026, and assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-60411-MD. In the Complaint, Plaintiff seeks recovery for statutory damages under the FTSA and injunctive relief. Notwithstanding that Florida didn't outlaw the use of short codes, she alleges that all text messages sent by a short code violate the FTSA's caller identification rules--including texts a consumer affirmatively requests from known companies--because a short code cannot receive voice telephone calls.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Matthew A. Keilson, Esq. WATSTEIN TEREPKA LLP 218 Northwest 24th Street, 3rd Floor Miami, FL 33127 Phone: 404-782-0695 Facsimile: 404-418-8307 SLM CORPORATION: Continues to Defend Zappia Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- SLM Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from Zappia securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On December 19, 2025, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against SLM Corporation and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Zappia v. SLM Corporation, et al. The complaint asserts claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities who purchased (or otherwise acquired) the Company's securities. The complaint contends that certain statements made by the Company and certain of its officers were allegedly false or misleading, and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of the putative class. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously. At this time, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this matter or estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this action. SLM, more commonly known as Sallie Mae, primarily originates and services private education loans to students and their families.[BN] SMG FOOD: Ordono Suit Seeks To Certify Class -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN ORDONO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SMG FOOD & BEVERAGE, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-05019-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class. Class certification is appropriate because it presents a challenge to a common company policy, which has been repeatedly recognized by the courts to be appropriate for class litigation. Mr. Ordono challenges the Defendants' failure to remit the proceeds of service charges collected at banquets events held on the premises to those employees providing the food and beverage service for such events. Mr. Ordono now to certify a class of similarly situated banquet service staff, including servers, bussers, and bartenders who have worked for the Moscone Center from June 20, 2019, through the present. The Plaintiff has worked as a banquet server at the Moscone Center. SMG provides contracted food service, catering, and management for venues, nonprofits, and businesses. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hkllpV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com SOUTHERN COMPANY: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- The Southern Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from an antitrust class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. On July 11, 2025, a purported class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against two nuclear consulting companies and all U.S. commercial nuclear power operators, or affiliated entities, including Southern Company. The purported class of plaintiffs includes all persons employed in nuclear power generation by the defendants, including nuclear operators, nuclear engineers, and nuclear technicians, from May 1, 2003 to the present. The complaint alleges that, since at least May 2003, the nuclear power industry conspired to fix and suppress employee compensation for nuclear power generation employees in violation of federal antitrust law. Although not named as defendants, other entities are accused of having participated in the plaintiffs' alleged conspiracy. The plaintiffs seek to recover, among other relief, unspecified monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief. On October 15, 2025, Southern Company moved to dismiss the complaint. On November 6, 2025, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint naming Southern Nuclear, among others, as a defendant. On December 19, 2025, Southern Company and Southern Nuclear filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. An adverse outcome could have a material impact on Southern Company's financial statements. The Southern Company provides electricity for millions of homes and businesses in the U.S.[BN] STATE FARM: Safont Suit Seeks to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANDRA SAFONT f/k/a SANDRA S. MARIN, THOMAS BARBATO and YVONNE BARBATO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:22-cv-22891-EA (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting class certification. The Barbatos seek to certify the following class: "All persons insured by a residential property insurance policy issued by State Farm Florida Insurance Company (State Farm) with an effective date before March 1, 2023, including such persons who are not residents of Florida, who, on or after Sept. 9, 2017, (1) gave notice of a claim for loss insured under the policy; (2) had the amount of loss payable on the claim determined by an appraisal award (Award); (3) received payment on the Award from State Farm without a legal challenge made to the Award; and (4) were paid sent payment more than 90 days after giving notice of the claim and more than 15 days after the amount of the loss was determined by the Award, but were not paid interest." The claims of the Barbatos and class members arise squarely from the same pattern or practice, and rest upon the same legal theory. Plaintiffs' and class members’ Policies contain the identical Loss Payment Provision. And like the other Class members, Plaintiffs are owed interest under the Policy because State Farm failed to timely pay Plaintiffs' appraisal Award that resolved valuation issues arising from their insurance claim. The case was filed Sept. 9, 2022, by Sandra Safont. On Nov. 8, 2022, an Amended Complaint was filed adding the Barbatos as plaintiffs. In November 2022, Safont voluntarily dismissed her claim, leaving the Barbatos as the two remaining plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs sue for breach of contract. The Policy contains a Loss Payment provision that expressly promises that interest will be paid in accordance with Section 627.70131(5)(a), Fla. Stat. State Farm provides insurance and financial service products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PzCHDJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason K. Kellogg, Esq. Marcelo Diaz-Cortes, Esq. LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN SCHNEIDER + GROSSMAN LLP 200 Southeast Second Avenue Miami Tower, 36th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 403-8788 Facsimile: (305) 403-8789 E-mail: jk@lklsg.com md@lklsg.com - and – Paulino A. Núñez Jr., Esq. Frank R. Rodriguez, Esq. RODRIGUEZ TRAMONT & NUÑEZ P.A. 255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 1150 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 350-2300 Facsimile: (305) 350-2525 E-mail: pan@rtgn-law.com frr@rtgn-law.com - and – Michael C. Knecht, Esq. KNECHT LAW GROUP 658 W. Indiantown Road, Suite 211 Jupiter, FL 33458 Telephone: (561) 745-2110 E-mail: mck@mikeknecht.com STATE FARM: Safont Suit Seeks to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANDRA SAFONT f/k/a SANDRA S. MARIN, THOMAS BARBATO and YVONNE BARBATO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:22-cv-22891-EA (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to file under seal unredacted motion for class certification and exhibits. Accordingly, Plaintiffs request that the Motion for Class Certification and its exhibits be sealed and/or redacted until the end of the case or until such time that the parties elect to challenge or otherwise change the confidentiality status. State Farm provides insurance and financial service products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0ClCPE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason K. Kellogg, Esq. Marcelo Diaz-Cortes, Esq. LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN SCHNEIDER + GROSSMAN LLP 200 Southeast Second Avenue Miami Tower, 36th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 403-8788 Facsimile: (305) 403-8789 E-mail: jk@lklsg.com md@lklsg.com - and – Paulino A. Núñez Jr., Esq. Frank R. Rodriguez, Esq. RODRIGUEZ TRAMONT & NUÑEZ P.A. 255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 1150 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 350-2300 Facsimile: (305) 350-2525 E-mail: pan@rtgn-law.com frr@rtgn-law.com - and – Michael C. Knecht, Esq. KNECHT LAW GROUP 658 W. Indiantown Road, Suite 211 Jupiter, FL 33458 Telephone: (561) 745-2110 E-mail: mck@mikeknecht.com STOCKTON CARDIOLOGY: Olvera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stockton Cardiology Medical Group Complete Heart Care, Inc. The case is styled as Amanda Olvera, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Stockton Cardiology Medical Group Complete Heart Care, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UPI-2026-0001199 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Feb. 19, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil PI/PD/WD (Other)." Stockton Cardiology -- https://stocktoncardiology.com/ -- provides the care to improve and maintain heart health, from preventive checkups and on-site diagnostic testing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Dr. Beverly Hills, CA 92102 Phone: (858) 209-6941 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: jnelson@milberg.com STRATEGY INC: Continues to Defend Dodge Class Suit in Delaware -------------------------------------------------------------- Strategy Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Dodge class suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On July 21, 2025, David Dodge filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company and the Company's Board alleging violations of the Delaware General Corporation Law (the "DGCL"), and asserting a claim against the Company's Board for breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the purported DGCL violation. Plaintiff Dodge purports to assert claims on behalf of himself and similarly situated holders of the Company's common stock alleging that pursuant to Section 242 of the DGCL ("Section 242"), the holders of the Company's common stock were entitled to vote on the STRK Amendment (as defined in Note 12, Redeemable Preferred Stock) the Company filed on July 7, 2025 with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware. Refer to Note 12, Redeemable Preferred Stock, for additional information on the STRK Amendment. Plaintiff Dodge seeks, among other things, an order (i) finding, determining and declaring that the Company violated Section 242; (ii) finding, determining and declaring that the Board has breached its fiduciary duties; (iii) deeming the STRK Amendment ineffective and requiring that the Company file a certificate of correction with the Delaware Secretary of State invalidating the STRK Amendment; (iv) awarding unspecified damages to Plaintiff Dodge and the class, including interest; (v) awarding attorneys' fees and costs; and (vi) granting other relief. At this time, the Company cannot predict the outcome or provide a reasonable estimate or range of estimates of the possible outcome or loss, if any, in this matter. STRIDES PHARMA: Painter Seeks Prelim Nod of Settlement Deal ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAY PAINTER, NICOLE HESLIP, MATHIAS CONDUFF, NATHANIEL MENDEZ-GUTIERREZ, RODNEY SHAW, MYLES THOMASON and JEFFREY DUPREX, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. STRIDES PHARMA, INC., Case No. 7:25-cv-04189-NSR (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting preliminary approval of the parties' class Settlement Agreement and the certification of a Settlement Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, as set out in the accompanying brief and supporting materials. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class representatives, appoint The Block Firm LLC as class counsel, appoint Verita Global, LLC as claims administrator, and approve the Notice Plan. The Defendant manufactures pharmaceutical products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=T4C8ig at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Aaron K. Block, Esq. Max Marks, Esq. THE BLOCK FIRM LLC 309 East Paces Ferry Rd NE Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 997-8419 TOWER RECORDS: Faces Rice Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- LUCAS RICE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tower Records, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00285 (E.D. Wis., February 20, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of vinyl records on Defendant's website. Despite his efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages to compensate blind or visually-impaired individuals for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. The Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Tower Records, Inc. owns and operates the website, https://www.tower.com, which offers physical sound recordings and related merchandise, including vinyl records, compact discs, and cassettes, as well as branded apparel such as T-shirts, long-sleeve shirts, and beanies. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 (718) 554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law TRB OILFIELD: Faces Macumba Class Suit in Calif. Super. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against TRB Oilfield Services, Inc. captioned as NICKY RAY MACUMBA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRB OILFIELD SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 26CUB00039 (Cal. Sup., Kern Cty., Jan. 6, 2026). The case is assigned to Judge Bernard C. Barmann, Jr. TRB Oilfield Services, Inc. was founded in 2004. The company's line of business includes providing oil and gas services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. 725 S. Figueroa St. Ste 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Tel: (213) 320-0519 Fax: (213) 232-3125 TRIPLE CANOPY: Jackson Seeks Collective Conditional Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHYHIRA JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, v. TRIPLE CANOPY, INC. and CONSTELLIS, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-04268-MAK (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting conditional certification of the following the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective: "All persons, who were employed by Triple Canopy, Inc. and/or Constellis, LLC at Naval Support Activity Philadelphia in the positions of Guard Level 1, Guard Level 2, Guard Level 3, Guard Specialist, Lieutenant, Corporal, Armed Protective Security Officer, or Armed Security Officer at any point in the past three (3) years." The Plaintiff has met the lenient "modest factual showing" standard by pointing to evidence showing the prospective collective members were subject to a common policy denying them pay for compensable work activities performed before and after their scheduled shifts. Conditional certification and the sending of opt-in notices will ensure that prospective members of the FLSA collective are promptly notified of the existence of this lawsuit and of their right to join the lawsuit. Triple is an American private security and military contractor. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vYKSJJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jake Daniel Novelli, Esq. MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC 1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 2000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 273-1054 Facsimile: (215) 525-0210 E-mail: jnovelli@phillyemploymentlawyer.com TRONOX HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Conn. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Tronox Holdings PLC disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. On September 3, 2025, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against the Company and certain individual defendants. The complaint alleges that defendants violated the U.S. federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements in public filings and other public statements during the period February 12, 2025 and July 30, 2025 with respect to the Company's financial outlook and demand for its pigment and zircon products. The case is in its very early stages. No specific amount of damages has been alleged. The Company and the individual defendants intend to defend themselves vigorously against this lawsuit. Tronox is the world's leading vertically integrated manufacturer of TiO2 pigment. TSG 89 CORP: Barreto Sues Over Unpaid Compensation -------------------------------------------------- Francisco Flores Barreto, Victor M. Gloria, Jose Manuel Barreto Cortez, Leonel Mutzutz, Gilberto Tuc Sir, and Pablo Sipac, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. TSG 89 CORP. d/b/a MIDNIGHT EXPRESS, ARISTIDIS SANTIS, THEODORE SANTIS, and MICHAEL VASILIADIS, Case No. 1:26-cv-01257 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2026), is brought for unpaid wages, liquidated damages, statutory notice/statement damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), including applicable wage orders and regulations. The Defendants treated Plaintiffs as tipped employees and claimed a tip credit, as reflected on Defendants' wage statements. The Plaintiffs performed substantial non-tipped work and non-tip-producing duties--including purchasing items for the business; cleaning mats and the restaurant; washing dishes; food preparation; carrying food between the basement and the restaurant; and other errands/purchases for the business--for more than 20% of each shift. The Plaintiffs further allege Defendants unlawfully deducted time for meal breaks that were not taken, resulting in unpaid hours and inaccurate wage statements. The Plaintiffs also allege Defendants required delivery workers to purchase and maintain necessary "tools of the trade," including bicycles/e-bikes, batteries, delivery bags, hats, and maintenance--expenses which reduced Plaintiffs' net pay and were not properly reimbursed, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as delivery workers. TSG 89 Corp. is a New York corporation that operates Midnight Express in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Clifford Tucker, Esq. SACCO & FILLAS LLP 31-19 Newtown Ave., 7th Floor Astoria, NY 11102 Phone: 718-269-2243 Email: CTucker@SaccoFillas.com ULTA SALON: Parties Seek More Time for Class Certification Bids --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA ELIZABETH BONEZZI, an individual on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC., a Delaware Corporation; TIFFANY TUCKER, an individual; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 4:24-cv-06916-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint stipulation to continue the case management conference, class certification, and discovery deadlines, as follows: 1. The further case management conference, currently set for Feb. 20, 2026 at 1:30 p.m., is continued to Oct. 30, 2026, or to a date and time thereafter that is convenient to the Court. 2. The Parties' joint status report re mediation is due one week prior to the continued Further Case Management Conference. 3. All class certification-related and discovery deadlines are continued by 180 days as follows: a. Feb. 28, 2027: Class Certification Motion and Plaintiff's expert disclosures due. b. Apr. 23, 2027: Class Certification Opposition and Defendants' expert disclosures due. c. May 20, 2027: Expert discovery cutoff. d. June 17, 2027: Class certification reply due. e. July 27, 2027: Fact discovery cutoff. On Aug. 30, 2024, the Plaintiff filed this wage and hour class action against the Defendants in Marin County Superior Court, which was removed to the Court under the Class Action Fairness Act on Oct. 2, 2024. Ulta is an American chain of cosmetic stores. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CNDAch at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Natalie Haritoonian, Esq. Matthew J. Carraher, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 880 E. Broadway Glendale, CA 91205 Telephone: (818) 962-6465 Facsimile: (818) 962-6469 E-mail: n.haritoonian@d.law m.carraher@d.law The Defendants are represented by: Jon D. Meer, Esq. Leo Q. Li, Esq. Sofya Perelshteyn, Esq. Justin J. Jackson, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 E-mail: jmeer@seyfarth.com lli@seyfarth.com sperelshteyn@seyfarth.com jujackson@seyfarth.com UNIQURE NV: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 13 ------------------------------------------------------------ Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP informs investors that the firm has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit against uniQure N.V. (NASDAQ: QURE) (uniQure) on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired uniQure ordinary shares between September 24, 2025, and October 31, 2025, inclusive (the Class Period). This action, captioned Scocco v. uniQure N.V., et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-01124, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Important Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired uniQure ordinary shares during the Class Period may, no later than April 13, 2026, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff for the class. CONTACT KTMC TO DISCUSS YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS: If you purchased or acquired uniQure ordinary shares and experienced losses, you are encouraged to contact KTMC attorney Jonathan Naji, Esq. at: (484) 270-1453 info@ktmc.com https://l1nq.com/5oQfL There is no cost or obligation to speak with an attorney. UNIQURE N.V.CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT -- COMPLAINT ALLEGATION SUMMARY: uniQure is a biotechnology company developing gene therapies for rare diseases, including Huntington's disease (HD). uniQure's leading drug candidate is AMT-130, a novel gene therapy being developed to slow the progression of HD. During the Class Period, uniQure misled investors about its Phase I/II clinical trials (Pivotal Study) of AMT-130 as well as the prospects and timeline of uniQure's Biologics License Application (BLA) submission to the FDA for approval to use AMT-130 to treat patients with HD. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts, about uniQure's business and operations. Specifically, Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the design of uniQure's Pivotal Study -- including comparison of the Pivotal Study results to the ENROLL-HD external historical data set -- was not fully approved by the FDA; (2) Defendants downplayed the likelihood that, despite purportedly highly successful results from the Pivotal Study, uniQure would have to delay its BLA timeline to perform additional studies to supplement its BLA submission; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about uniQure's business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis. WHAT QURE INVESTORS CAN DO NOW: 1. File to be lead plaintiff by April 13, 2026. 2. Contact KTMC for a free case evaluation. 3. Retain counsel of choice or take no action. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS FOR UNIQURE N.V. INVESTORS: uniQureinvestors may, no later than April 13, 2026, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys, if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages uniQure investors to contact the firm for more information. ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP (KTMC): Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (KTMC) is a leading U.S. plaintiff-side law firm focused on securities-fraud class actions and global investor protection. The firm represents individual investors as well as institutions, such as major pension funds, asset managers, and international investors. KTMC has led some of the largest recoveries in securities litigation and has been recognized by peers and the legal media with numerous accolades, including The National Law Journal's Plaintiff's Hot List and Trailblazers in Plaintiffs' Law, BTI Consulting Group's Honor Roll of Most Feared Law Firms, The Legal Intelligencer's Class Action Firm of the Year, Lawdragon's Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers, and Law360's Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar. The firm operates globally with offices in Pennsylvania and California. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, please visit www.ktmc.com. CONTACT: Jonathan Naji, Esq. (484) 270-1453 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 info@ktmc.com [GN] UNITED COLLECTION: Braver Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections ----------------------------------------------------------- JOEL BRAVER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., Defendants, Case No. 7:26-cv-00080-PMH (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 6, 2026) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. United Collection Bureau Inc. provides debt collection and accounts receivable management services to creditors. The Company offers services to various market sectors including financial, health care, utilities, communications, and government. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201)-282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Must Amend Complaint w/o Leave by Dec. 23 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Steve Sheresky, Jeffrey Samsen, and Nicholas Sutro, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Lori Chavez-Deremer, in her official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Labor; Daniel Aronowitz, in his official capacity as Assistant Secretary of the United States Department of Labor, and Janet Dhillon, in her official capacity as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the United States Department of Labor, Case No. 1:25-cv-08935-PGG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gardephe entered an case management and scheduling order. The Plaintiffs may amend their complaint without leave of the Court no later than Dec. 23, 2025. U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ciQM5C at no extra charge.[CC] UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Dr. Kallas Dental Sues Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Kallas Dental Center PLLC, DKDC Falls Church PLLC, DKDC Merrifield PLLC, Smile Dental Center PLLC, Park Avenue Dental Center PLLC, and Leesburg Dental Center PLLC (d/b/a "SMDC"), individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED; UNITEDHEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.; OPTUM INSIGHT, INC.; CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC.; CHANGE HEALTHCARE OPERATIONS, LLC, CHANGE HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, LLC; CHANGE HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC.; CHANGE HEALTHCARE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC; CHANGE HEALTHCARE PHARMACY SOLUTIONS, INC.; OPTUM, INC.; OPTUM FINANCIAL, INC.; OPTUM BANK; and OPTUM PAY, Case No. 1:26-cv-00439 (E.D. Va., Feb. 13, 2026), is brought seeking redress for the Defendants' conduct due to a data breach and its failure to protect confidential information. To operate the Change Platform, Change Health Defendants transact in and store huge volumes of confidential information including highly sensitive and confidential patient information including full names, phone numbers, addresses, Social Security numbers, emails, and payment information, referred to "Personally Identifying Information" or "PII." They also store patients' medical records, claims information, provider information, diagnoses, medicines, test results, images, care and treatment, and billing, claims and payment information including health insurance information (such as health plans and policies, insurance companies, member and group ID numbers, and Medicaid-Medicare-government payer ID numbers)—collectively known as "Private Health Information" or "PHI" (PII and PHI together are referred to as "Private Information"). In February 2024, as a direct result of Change Health Defendants' failure to employ even rudimentary cybersecurity precautions to authenticate the identities of people logging in to their networks, Change Health Defendants' systems were compromised in the largest health care ransomware attack in history (the "Ransomware Attack"), which compromised millions of patients' Private Information. Exacerbating this crisis, Change Health Defendants did not provide adequate transparency and guidance to Providers during the shutdown. Specifically, Change Health Defendants published misleading statements with significant omissions during the shutdown to lead Providers and the public to believe that the Change Platform would be offline only briefly. These statements were designed to pacify Providers to keep them from defecting to competitors and to hide Change Health Defendants' incompetence from the public--all while Change Health Defendants knew that the outage would continue for much longer. Almost a year after the Ransomware Attack and a claimed $2.5 billion in remediation costs, Change Health Defendants still have not fully restored their systems. As a result of Defendants' conduct, Providers have suffered and will continue to suffer substantial harm. The event pushed many Providers to the brink of closure (and forced some Providers to close altogether). To survive, Providers necessarily incurred extra costs to make up for unpaid claims and in an attempt to submit claims without the Change Platform. Moreover, Providers will never see any compensation for claims that they were unable to submit during the shutdown, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs operate six Virginia locations in Tysons, Bailey's Crossroads, Fairfax, Woodbridge, City of Falls Church, and Leesburg, respectively. SMDC Plaintiffs' principal place of business is in Tysons. UHG "is a vertically integrated healthcare company" comprised of non-defendant United Healthcare Insurance Co. ("UHIC"), the largest commercial health insurer in America, and three Optum divisions: Optum Health, Optum Insight, and Optum Rx.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew R. Strauser, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 2445 M Street NW, Suite 740 Washington, DC 20037 Phone: 202.577.3977 Fax: 469.444.5002 Email: mstrauser@burnscharest.com - and - Warren T. Burns, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 900 Jackson Street, Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75202 Phone: 469.904.4550 Fax: 469.444.5002 Email: wburns@burnscharest.com - and - Adam Polk, Esq. GIRARD SHARP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: (415) 981-4800 Email: apolk@girardsharp.com VALVOLINE INC: Campbell Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VALVOLINE INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00291-JRS-TAB (S.D. Ind., Feb. 11, 2026) alleges violation of the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Class went to Valvoline to have their engine oil changed and were given oil that did not meet the vehicle manufacturer's specifications. Unbeknownst to the Plaintiff and the Class whose vehicles have the same or similar oil specifications, Valvoline used oil of a different viscosity thereby causing them out of pocket loss for the amounts they paid for the service in addition to decreased performance, engine damage and loss of warranty coverage. Valvoline Inc. provides automotive preventive maintenance services. The Company offers bulb and wiper replacements, car oil changes, battery, tire rotations, and other manufacturer recommended maintenance services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William M. Sweetnam, Esq. SWEETNAM LLC 230 Northgate Street, Suite 103 Lake Forest, IL 60045 Telephone: (847) 877-2970 Email: wms@sweetnamllc.com VF OUTDOOR: Silvey Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Victoria Silvey, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons v. VF OUTDOOR, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 30-2026-01538442-CU-NP-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of California in and for the County of Orange, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 13, 2026, and assigned Case No. 8:26-cv-00399-FWS-KES. The Complaint alleges that VF Outdoor collected certain information about users visiting it its website www.vans.com by using third-party "tracking software" that "functions as unlawful pen registers and/or trap and trace devices." The Complaint asserts claims for violations of the California Information Privacy Act ("CIPA"), California Constitution's right to privacy, California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Business & Professions Code, and common law intrusion upon seclusion and unjust enrichment.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Oliver M. Gold, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1888 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-1721 Phone: +1.310.788.9900 Facsimile: +1.310.788.3399 m Email: OGold@perkinscoie.com - and - Hayden M. Schottlaender, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 500 N. Akard Street, Suite 3300 Dallas, TX 75201-3347 Phone: +1.214.965.7700 Facsimile: +1.214.965.7799 Email: HSchottlaender@perkinscoie.com VF OUTDOOR: Silvey Suit Removed to E.D. Washington -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Victoria Silvey on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons v. VF OUTDOOR, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 30-2026-01538442-CU-NP-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 13, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01563. The Complaint alleges that VF Outdoor collected certain information about users visiting it its website www.vans.com by using third-party "tracking software" that "functions as unlawful pen registers and/or trap and trace devices." The Plaintiff claims that VF Outdoor did not provide adequate notice or receive consent from users before collecting their information. The Complaint asserts claims for violations of the California Information Privacy Act ("CIPA"), California Penal Code, California Constitution's right to privacy, California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Business & Professions Code, and common law intrusion upon seclusion, and unjust enrichment.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Oliver M. Gold, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1888 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-1721 Phone: +1.310.788.9900 Facsimile: +1.310.788.3399 Email: OGold@perkinscoie.com - and - Hayden M. Schottlaender, Esq. 500 N. Akard Street, Suite 3300 Dallas, TX 75201-3347 Phone: +1.214.965.7700 Facsimile: +1.214.965.7799 Email: HSchottlaender@perkinscoie.com VIMEO.COM INC: Deliyannides Balks at Illegal Data Trackers ---------------------------------------------------------- SAVVA DELIYANNIDES, FRED RAMOS, FAITH PRITCHARD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VIMEO.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01915 (N.D. Ill., February 20, 2026) arises from Vimeo's disclosure of Plaintiffs and other subscribers' sensitive information to third parties in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act and the Federal Wiretap Act. According to the complaint, consumers like the Plaintiffs and putative Class Members pay for Defendants' Over-The-Top websites subscription or access fees to view their video content. Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and millions of subscribers who exchanged information or money for exclusive access to pre-recorded video content, when they access video content through or on the OTT Websites, tracking technologies embedded on the OTT Platform capture their identity, video viewing history, viewing times, and search activity. These disclosures to Meta, Google, and other third-party analytic providers and/or advertisers happen in one of two ways: (1) via interception, duplication, and transmission of communications between subscribers and the OTT websites performed instantaneously by the tracking tools placed on subscribers' web browsers; and/or (2) the OTT Platform stores IP addresses, detailed URLs, search queries, and the titles of video content being watched or purchased, and subsequently discloses that information to the tracking entities, says the suit. Vimeo does not obtain subscribers' informed, written consent -- provided in a form distinct and separate from other legal agreements or consequences -- to share their sensitive information. Nor does Vimeo disclose to subscribers who access video content on the OTT Websites that it discloses such information to third parties, the suit alleges. Vimeo.com, Inc. operates a revenue-sharing and subscription-based video streaming service offering an streaming solution.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick O. Muench, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 318 W. Adams Street, Suite 1512 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 500-8680 Facsimile: (304) 342-1110 E-mail: pmuench@baileyglasser.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: mreich@zlk.com - and - John Roddy, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 101 Arch Street, 8th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 439-6730 Facsimile: (617) 951-3954 E-mail: jroddy@baileyglasser.com - and - Michael L. Murphy, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson St., Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 Facsimile: (202) 463-2103 E-mail: mmurphy@baileyglasser.com VIRTU FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Asia Broadband Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Virtu Financial, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from Asia Broadband class suit in the United Sates District Court in the Central District of California. On January 7, 2026, the Company, along with several other parties, was named as a defendant in Asia Broadband, Inc. v. Virtu Financial Inc. et al No. 2:26-cv-00175, filed in United States District Court in the Central District of California. The putative class action complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in market manipulation of the plaintiff’s stock during a period from 2021 to 2025. The Company believes that all of these claims are without merit and is defending itself vigorously. Virtu Financial, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides market making and liquidity services through its proprietary, multi-asset, and multi-currency technology platform to the financial markets worldwide. Virtu Financial, Inc. was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in New York, New York. VISION OF HOPE MINISTRIES: Miller Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HOSANNA MILLER AND FAITH RUSSELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, V. VISION OF HOPE MINISTRIES, INC. AND FAITH CHURCH OF LAFAYETTE, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00033-PPS-JEM (N.D. Ind.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class action. A) Certify this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; B) Appoint the named Plaintiffs as the class representatives; and C) Appoint the undersigned counsel as class counsel; and The proposed class action meets all the requirements for certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(A), Class actions, the Plaintiff contends. The case arises from the Plaintiff's allegations that the Defendants obtained the forced labor of the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated by the threat of serious harm, including threats of serious psychological, reputational, and even physical harm. Vision of Hope provides humanitarian aid. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wp4oX4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason R. Ramsland, Esq. RAMSLAND LAW LLC 38 W. Main Street, Suite 124 Carmel, IN 46032 Telephone: (765) 267-1240 E-mail: jason@rams.land W.W. GRAINGER INC: Jackson Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Alexis Jackson, and others similarly situated v. W.W. GRAINGER, INC., A CORPORATION; GRAINGER CORPORATE SERVICES LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; GRAINGER INTERNATIONAL, INC., A CORPORATION; AND DOES 1THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, Case No. C25-02397 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Ventura, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 19, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-at-00320. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts individual and class claims for: Unfair Competition; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Statements; Failure to Reimburse Employees for Required Expenses; Failure to Provide Wages When Due; and Failure to Pay Sick Pay Wages.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael J. Nader, Esq. George J. Theofanis, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2800 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916-840-3150 Facsimile: 916-840-3159 Email: michael.nader@ogletree.com george.theofanis@ogletree.com WASHINGTON FINE: Class Cert Bid Filing in Branson Due May 4 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA BRANSON and CHERIE BURKE, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. WASHINGTON FINE WINE & SPIRITS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company doing business as TOTAL WINE & MORE; and DOES 1-20, Case No. 2:24-cv-00589-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting request to extend the class certification deadlines set in its Order Granting Parties Stipulated Proposed Case Schedule. The Parties do not seek an extension of any other deadline, and this motion does not affect the scheduled trial date of June 1, 2027. The Parties propose the following deadlines for briefing class certification: Event Deadline Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their May 4, 2026 motion for class certification: Deadline for the Defendant to file its June 3, 2026 response: Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their June 18, 2026 reply: Good cause exists to extend these deadlines to allow the Parties sufficient time to conduct depositions in advance of the class certification deadline. Moreover, the proposed deadlines do not impact any other case schedule deadlines, including the trial setting in June 2027. Total is an American alcohol retailer. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yN5zJo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. EMERY | REDDY, PLLC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 442-9106 E-mail: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com - and - Rebecca L. Solomon, Esq. Kim D. Stephens, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 E-mail: rsolomon@tousley.com kstephens@tousley.com The Defendants are represented by: Malaika M. Eaton, Esq. McNAUL EBEL NAWROT & HELGREN PLLC 600 University Street, Suite 2700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 467-1816 E-mail: meaton@mcnaul.com - and - William J. Murphy, Esq. John J. Connolly, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 100 East Pratt Street, Suite 2440 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 332-0444 E-mail: wmurphy@zuckerman.com jconnolly@zuckerman.com WESTERN UNION: Continues to Defend Money Transfer Fees Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Western Union Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 20, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a money transfer fees class suit in Argentina's National Commercial Court No. 19. In October 2015, Consumidores Financieros Asociacion Civil para su Defensa, an Argentinian consumer association, filed a purported class action lawsuit in Argentina's National Commercial Court No. 19 against the Company's subsidiary Western Union Financial Services Argentina S.R.L. ("WUFSA"). The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that WUFSA's fees for money transfers sent from Argentina are excessive and that WUFSA does not provide consumers with adequate information about foreign exchange rates. The plaintiff is seeking, among other things, an order requiring WUFSA to reimburse consumers for the fees they paid and the foreign exchange revenue associated with money transfers sent from Argentina, plus punitive damages. The complaint does not specify a monetary value of the claim or a time period. In November 2015, the Court declared the complaint formally admissible as a class action. The notice of claim was served on WUFSA in May 2016, and in June 2016 WUFSA filed a response to the claim and moved to dismiss it on statute of limitations and standing grounds. In April 2017, the Court deferred ruling on the motion until later in the proceedings. The process for notifying potential class members has been completed, and the case is in the evidentiary stage. Due to the stage of this matter, the Company is unable to predict the outcome or the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with this matter. WUFSA intends to defend itself vigorously. The Western Union Company is an American worldwide financial services and communications company, headquartered in Denver, Colorado. Until it discontinued the service in 2006, Western Union was the leading American company in the business of transmitting telegrams.[CC] WISNER BAUM LLP: Hernandez Files Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wisner Baum LLP. The case is styled as Rafael Hernandez, on behalf of his minor child D.H. and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wisner Baum LLP, Case No. 2:26-cv-01527 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 13, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Wisner Baum LLP -- https://www.wisnerbaum.com/ -- is a top rated law firm in Washington, DC specializing in Personal Injury - General.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Dr. Beverly Hills, CA 92102 Phone: (858) 209-6941 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: jnelson@milberg.com WITH PRIDE: Faces Edilson Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------- LUCAS CARRILLO EDILSON, HECTOR SAGASTUME CORNEL and ISMAR R. RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WITH PRIDE AIR CONDITIONING & HEATING INC. and MICHAEL DOLAN, as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-01032 (E.D.N.Y., February 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay proper overtime, failure to provide written wage notice, and failure to furnish wage statements upon each payment of wages. The Plaintiffs were previously employed by the Defendants as installers. With Pride Air Conditioning & Heating Inc. provides residential and commercial heating ventilation, and air conditioning solutions.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 WOODRIDGE CAPITAL: Class Cert. Bid Continued to August 3 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDGAR CIFUENTES, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated and similarly aggrieved employees, v. WOODRIDGE CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, an active California Limited Liability Company; ARYA STAFFING SERVICES, INC., an active California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 8:24-cv-01312-JWH-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Holcomb entered an order continuing class certification briefing and hearing dates. 1. The Plaintiff's class certification motion filing deadline, currently set for Mar. 16, 2026, is continued to Aug. 3, 2026. 2. The Defendants' opposition filing deadline, currently set for May 15, 2026, is continued to Oct. 2, 2026. 3. The hearing on the class certification motion, currently set for June 16, 2026, is continued to Nov. 3, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. Woodridge is a broad-based real estate investment and development company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BuNsks at no extra charge.[CC] X CORP: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Filing Due March 25 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WHITE COAT CAPTIONING, LLC, YES CONSULTING, LLC, AUTUMN COMMUNICATIONS, INC., BUSINESS TRAINING WORKS, INC., MEASURING USABILITY LLC, AND FOSTER & FORGE LTD. on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. X CORP. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS TWITTER, INC.) Case No. 3:23-cv-01594-SK (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending deadlines in connection with class certification briefing schedule. 1. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be filed and served on or before Feb. 23, 2026; 2. The Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be filed and served on or before March 25, 2026; and 3. All other deadlines remain the same. On Feb. 12, 2026, the Plaintiffs' counsel notified the Defendant's counsel that lead counsel for the Plaintiffs is currently dealing with a family medical emergency that arose earlier that day, which would prevent her from finalizing the Plaintiffs' forthcoming motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs believe that they require a short extension of their deadline to file their forthcoming motion in light of the Plaintiffs' counsel's circumstances; X Corp. is an American technology company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=48YpQZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail sliss@llrlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: J. Jonathan Hawk, Esq. Erica Lang, Esq. Ari Swazer, Esq. MCDERMOTT WILL & SCHULTE LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 788-4181 Facsimile: (310) 277 4730 E-mail: jhawk@mwe.com elang@mwe.com aswazer@mwe.com X CORP: Plaintiff Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. X CORP., (f/ka/ Twitter, Inc., d/b/a X), and X.AI CORP., (d/b/a xAI), Case No. 4:25-cv-01282-O (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting class certification, designation of Plaintiff as class representative, appointment of class counsel, and authorization of notice to the class. X Corp. is an American technology company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0nbef2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rosalyn Sia Baker-Barnes, Esq. John Scarola, Esq. F. Gregory Barnhart, Esq. T. Hardee Bass, III, Esq. SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Telephone: (561) 686-6300 Facsimile: (561) 200-1087 E-mail: rsb@searcylaw.com jsx@searcylaw.com fgb@searcylaw.com thb@searcylaw.com - and - T. Hardee Bass, III, Esq. Charla G. Aldous, Esq. Caleb M. Miller, Esq. ALDOUS LAW 4311 Oak Lawn Ave., Suite 150 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 526-5595 Facsimile: (214) 526-5525 E-mail: caldous@aldouslaw.com cmiller@aldouslaw.com ZEALTHY INC: Brown Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zealthy, Inc. The case is styled as Julie Brown, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Zealthy, Inc., Case No. 4:26-cv-00386-MWB (M.D. Pa., Feb. 17, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Zealthy -- https://getzealthy.com/ -- is a telehealth company connecting patients with US-licensed professionals entirely online.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Max S. Morgan, Esq. WEITZ FIRM LLC 1515 Market St., Ste. 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (267) 587-6240 Fax: (215) 689-0875 Email: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.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 ***