260304.mbx

260304.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, March 4, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 45 Headlines 1400 WEBWARD: Hotel Violates ADA, Fultz Class Suit Says A-1 QUALITY: Johnson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA ABC CORP: Faces Moya Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in S.D.N.Y. ALABAMA: Violates 5th and 14th Amendment Rights, Suit Says ALAQSA SUPERMARKET: Shah Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, OT ALERT MEDICAL: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach AMANDA FRANCES: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Lopez Says AMAZON RETAIL: Sayeedul Suit Removed from Sup. Ct. to C.D. Cal. AMAZON.COM INC: Parties Seek to Seal Class Certification AMAZON.COM INC: Time for Unsealing Class Cert Portions Extended AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Class Suit Over Securities Laws' Violation AMERICAN AUTOMOTIVE: Laninka Office Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida AMERICAN EXPRESS: Duke Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal AMETROS FINANC: LPS Seeks Continuance of Class Cert Bid Hearing ATHENA BITCOIN: Loses Bid to Junk "Reynolds" Fraud Case AUDIOLOGY DISTRIBUTION: Discloses Private Info, Gatoff Suit Says BACK TO THE ROOTS: Website Not Blind-Friendly, Deinnocentes Says BANKERS HEALTHCARE: Dodd Files Suit in S.D. Florida BIOVIE INC: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class BJORN CAPITAL: Faces Boucher Suit Over Website's Fake Discounts BLACK & VEATCH: Hernandez Suit Removed to S.D. California BLACKFISH MEDIA: Difalco Files TCPA Suit in D. New Jersey BOEING COMPANY: Figueroa Suit Removed to W.D. Washington BON SECOURS COMMUNITY: Schlaughies Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. BRIDGECREST ACCEPTANCE: McGonigle Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona BRIGHT PEOPLE FOODS: Gordinier Sues Over Deceptive Labeling BRINDERSON CONSTRUCTORS: Culver Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BROADPEAK INSURANCE: Laninka Office Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida BRONCO UTAH OPERATIONS: Nastrom Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages BROOKHAVEN BOROUGH: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Bradley Due Sept. 4 BUMBLE INC: Omirin Sues Over Failure Secure Personal Data BUZZ LOGISTICS: Jones Suit Removed to C.D. California CAL-MAINE FOODS: Birchmans Suit Transferred to W.D. Wisconsin CALI COFFEE LLC: Awad Suit Removed to S.D. Florida CALLONDOC.COM INC: Wright Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PHI/PII CARDA HEALTH INC: Kellner Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Ellis Suit Removed to D. New Jersey CENTENE MANAGEMENT: McFarland Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois CHOE GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Davidson CAT Class Suit in Texas CIGNA HEALTHCARE: Affirms Dismissal of Discrimination Class Suit CITADEL SECURITIES: Continues to Defend Genius Group Class Suit COMMUNICARE FAMILY: $1MM Nurse Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod COMMUNICARE FAMILY: Villarin Seeks Initial OK of Settlement CONSOR PMCM INC: Singh Suit Removed to N.D. California CORECIVIC INC: Continues to Defend ICE Detainee Labor Class Suit CORECIVIC INC: Continues to Defend ICE Detainees Class Suit in Cal. CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Hesterly Suit Removed to E.D. Washington COTTAGE HOSPITAL: Stephens Files Suit Over Data Breach CURBSURE LLC: Summary Judgment Bids in Scanlon Due May 10, 2027 DANIEL L KALER: Fails to Secure Private Info, Condon Says DEXCOM INC: Faces Levens Product Suit over Glucose Devices DIAMOND LANDSCAPING: Pacheco Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DOTERRA INTERNATIONAL: Fisher Class Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. DRAGON GEAR: Bennett Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website DREAM CHASING: Evans Suit Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website EDEN PARTNERS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Bishop Alleges EOS FITNESS OPCO: Patch Suit Removed to D. Utah FEI.COM INC: Nunow Class Suit Removed to D. Minn. FERGUSON ENTERPRISES: Aldrich Suit Removed to E.D. California FIGURE TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Giles Says FIVE9 INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in California FJ MANAGEMENT: Breaches Fiduciary Duty of Prudence, Wolfe Suit Says FLORIDA INSURANCE: Bahr Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida FNU JOHNSON: Claims in Anderson Suit Dismissed with Prejudice FORWARD SUNSET INC: Kern Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California FRIED FRANK HARRIS: Franzwa Files Suit in S.D. New York FTD LLC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FULTON BANK NA: Ertl Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Virginia GEICO CASUALTY: Faces Class Action Over Auto Insurance Policies GENERAL MOTORS: Barba Suit Removed to C.D. California GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Defective Brake System GENWORTH LIFE: TVPX ARS Seeks Class Certification GENWORTH LIFE: TVPX ARS Seeks to Seal Plaintiff's Class Cert Memo GESTAMP WEST VIRGINIA: Williams Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GILMAN & BEDIGIAN: ATI Bid to Compel Deposition Testimony OK'd GNC HOLDINGS: Faces Malko Class Suit Over Unlawful Data-Sharing GOLD COUNTRY MGR: Floyd Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GOTHAM BAGELS: Bowman Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website GRUBHUB INC: Settles Delivery Fees Class Action Suit for $5-Mil. HANDI-FOIL CORP: Wins Summary Judgment v. Osdoby Suit HASELECT-WATERFORD: Inflates Fund Value to Extract Fees, Suit Says HESS BAKKEN: Must Oppose Class Cert. in Penman Suit by March 9 HIMS & HERS: Faces MacKey Suit Over Text Message Sales Calls HUSQVARNA PROFESSIONAL: Douglass Seeks Class Settlement Final Nod IGN ENTERTAINMENT: Ostini Sues Over Unlawful Recording and Capture INDIAN OIL: Judge Dismisses Class Suit Over First Nations Lands INTERNAL MEDICINE: Fails to Secure Private Info, Beaulieu Says INTERNAL MEDICINE: Fails to Secure Private Info, Sherrick Says IRON MOUNTAIN: Logan Sues Over Failure to Protect and Safeguard PII JACK LILLY: Battle Sues Over Blind User-Inaccessible Website JAN-CARE AMBULANCE: Fox Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages JEFF ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES: Fitzgerald Files Suit in D. Minnesota JOES 24 LLC: Stanley Sues Over Unlawful Architectural Barriers JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Talcum Products Can Cause Cancer, Suit Says KAS VENTURES: Barrientos-Ruiz Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages KRISTI NOEM: Must Release Colina-Rojas from Custody LA TERRA: Wins Bid to Dismiss "Vineyard" LADYFISH KENDALL: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Says LAKELAND INDUSTRIES: Purrington Sues Over 38.97% Stock Price Drop LATITUDE 36 FOODS: Valladares Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LEE AUTO GROUP: Connor Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida LOUIS VUITTON: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Butler Alleges LOWE'S HOME: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive Free Delivery Claims LOWE'S HOME: Harmon Sues Over Deceptive Mark-Up of Products LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Bradley Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio MEDICARE HEALTH: Bid to Bifurcate Discovery in Hoy Suit Partly OK'd MERCK SHARP: Seeks to Seal Class Cert Opposition in Baltimore Suit MERCK SHARP: Wins Bid to Seal Class Cert Opposition in Baltimore MERKLE INC: Prewit Files Suit in D. Maryland MICHIGAN: Cardello-Smith Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action MODERNA INC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Pending MOEHAIR USA: Bowman Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website MONTEFIORE MEDICAL: Jones Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA MORTGAGE DEPOT: Harper Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Michigan MR. COOPER: Class Cert Bid Filing in Cabezas Suit Due April 1 NATIONAL VISION: Tasker Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation NAVAN INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 24 NAVAN INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Securities Law Violations NAVAN INC: McCown Sues Over Misleading IPO Documents NEW ORLEANS, LA: Gonzalez Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Tossed NOLAN INTERIOR: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cazares Says NORTH ATLANTIC STATES: Arnot Files Suit in D. Massachusetts NORTH ATLANTIC STATES: Gillis Files Suit in D. Massachusetts NORTH SKY COMMUNICATIONS: Montiel Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NORTON HEALTHCARE: Final OK Hearing of $11MM Settlement Set May 15 NUTRA HOLDINGS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Battle Alleges OPENLOOP HEALTH: Morehart Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI OSTIN TECHNOLOGY: Gordon Sues Over Exchange Act Violations PCA CENTRAL CALIFORNIA: Rhynes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PEPSICO INC: Fargo Stopping Sues Over Unlawful Higher Prices PIM BRANDS: "Perkins" Remanded to NY State Court POSILLICO INC: Kuck Files Suit in E.D. New York PTT LLC: High5 Platform Breaches Utah Gambling Act, Beckstrom Says QUALITY NATURALLY! FOODS: Rivas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. RAMACO RESOURCES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 31 RAMACO RESOURCES: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in N.Y. RAWLINGS SPORTING: Faces Duryea Class Suit Over Baseball Bats REDDIT INC: Judge Greenlights Illegal "Pen Register" Class Suit RESTAURANT BRANDS: Continues to Defend Sherman Act-Related Suit RIVERBROOK HOSPITALITY: Castano Sues Over Unpaid Compensations ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Suit in Calif. ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Discovery in Consolidated Suit Ongoing ROBLOX CORP: Judge Sends Data Privacy Class Suit for Arbitration SAFEWAY INC: Escobar Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SHEEX INC: Faces Zeledon Class Suit Over False Reference Pricing STASH IL HOLDCO: Faces Rogoz Suit Over Tip Theft Under FLSA, IWPCA STITCH INDUSTRIES: Faces German Over False Discount Ads Scheme TEAM HEALTH: Court Grants Bid to Amend Scheduling Order THERAPY MATCH: Faces Class Action Over Overtime Pay Violations TIPS INC: Rivard Seeks to Recover Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA TRIP.COM GROUP: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims TRIZETTO PROVIDER: Cleveland Files Suit Over Data Breach UNEX CORPORATION: Fanelli Sues Over Failure to Secure Information UVA HEALTH: Fails to Secure Customers' Private Info, Patterson Says VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Yu Suit Removed to D. New Jersey VOLVO GROUP: James Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages WHITE ICEBERG: Sanchez Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA WILLIAM E. BAKER: Maxwell Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WORLD CLASS DISTRIBUTION: Moran Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WYNN RESORTS: Reed Files Data Breach Class Suit in D. Nev. ZYNEX INC: Faces Class Suit Over Insurance Overbilling Scheme ********* 1400 WEBWARD: Hotel Violates ADA, Fultz Class Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------- MARK FULTZ v. 1400 WEBWARD AVENUE LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, and SHH DETROIT OPERATIONS LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, Case No. 2:26-cv-10611-MFL-EAS (Feb. 22, 2026) is a class action seeking injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the facilities owned and operated by 1400 Webward Avenue LLC and SHH Detroit Operations LLC are non-compliant with the remedial provisions of the ADA. As Defendants own, lease, leases to, or operates a place of public accommodation as defined by the ADA and the regulations implementing the ADA, 28 CFR 36.201(a) and 36.104, Defendants are responsible for complying with the obligations of the ADA. The Defendants' facilities as a hotel and place of public accommodation fail to comply with the ADA and its regulations, as also described further herein. The hotel owned and operated by the Defendant was originally built, or the building was repurposed, altered and renovated extensively to become a hotel, by the Defendant or its predecessor commencing in 2016 and granted permits for occupancy in 2018 and is non-compliant with the remedial provisions of the ADA for newly designed and constructed or altered facilities, says the suit. The Plaintiff has patronized Defendant's hotel as an overnight guest previously as a place of public accommodation. SHH operates and owns Shinola Hotel Detroit located at 1400 Woodward Ave, Detroit, Michigan in Wayne County. The Plaintiff has patronized Defendant's hotel as an overnight guest previously as a place of public accommodation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Owen B. Dunn, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF OWEN DUNN, JR. The Offices of Unit C 6800 W. Central Ave., Suite C-1 Toledo, OH 43617 Telephone: (419) 241-9661 Facsimile: (419) 241-9737 E-mail: obdjr@owendunnlaw.com A-1 QUALITY: Johnson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- Denslow Johnson, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons v. A-1 Quality Logistical Solutions, LLC, Complete Quality Solutions, LLC, Elite EC Logistics, LLC, Complete Quality Support, LLC, William Foster, III, and Richard Mursinna, Case No. 1:26-cv-00184-DRC (S.D. Ohio, Feb. 20, 2026) seeks unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated and statutory damages, costs and attorneys' fees, service awards, as well as declaratory relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Virginia State Law. Named Plaintiff Denslow Johnson brings a nationwide FLSA collective action on behalf of himself and all other lumpers who were improperly classified as independent contractors by A-11 and not paid overtime premium pay at the rate of time and one-half for all of their hours worked over 40 in a workweek. She also brings claims under the Virginia Overtime Wage Act, Virginia Minimum Wage Law, and Virginia's statute prohibiting misclassification of workers. A-1 Quality provides freight handling, on-site management, product labeling, product liquidation, re-packaging, and banding services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com - and - Matt Dunn, Esq. Whitney Flanagan, Esq. Caroline Friedman, Esq. GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN PLLC 260 Fair St. Kingston, NY 12401 Telephone: (845) 255-9370 Facsimile: (845) 255-8649 E-mail: mdunn@getmansweeney.com ABC CORP: Faces Moya Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in S.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------- ERNESTO ANTONIO PORTILLO MOYA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. "ABC CORPORATION" d/b/a JEROME CAR WASH, name of the corporation being fictitious and unknown to Plaintiff, and SALAS SIMON, FELIX A. MONGE LOPEZ and SAUL MONGE LOPEZ, as individuals, Case No. 1:26-cv-01454 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 20, 2026)seeks to recover damages for egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of the Plaintiff's employment at ABC Corporation. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a car wash and auto detailer, while performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants, from in or around March 2023 until in or around December 2025.[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 ALABAMA: Violates 5th and 14th Amendment Rights, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM MUHAMMAD AND BRENDA LEWIS, Plaintiffs vs. STATE SENATOR JABO WAGGONER, individually, and in Official Capacity under color of State law, and FORMER GOVERNOR ROBERT BENTLEY, Individually, and in Official Capacity under color of State law, SENATOR DAN ROBERTS, Individually, and in Official Capacity under color of State law, and GOVERNOR KAY IVEY, Individually, and in Official Capacity under color of State law, Case No. 2:26-cv-00292-AMM (N.D. Ala., Feb. 20, 2026) arises from the Defendants' violation of Plaintiffs' Constitutionally Protected Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights Prohibiting the State of Alabama From Seizing Board Seats of a Privately established Public Benefit Corporation without Due Process of Law Under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The Plaintiffs are voters and property owners of the City of Birmingham. Their claims are typical of the claims of the class because they arise from the same course of conduct by Defendants and are based on the same legal theories. Each class member's claim arises from the same governing Charter provisions and the same allegedly unlawful actions affecting the authority, tenure, or constitutional protections of Board members. The Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The Plaintiffs have no interests antagonistic to those of the class and have retained counsel experienced in complex litigation and federal constitutional claims. The Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, making final injunctive and declaratory relief appropriate with respect to the class as a whole under Rule 23(b)(2). To the extent damages or individualized relief are implicated, common questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy under Rule 23(b)(3), the suit says. Furthermore, the Defendants are also sued for violation of Plaintiffs' U.S. Constitutionally Protected Rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments Prohibiting unlawful Taking without Just Compensation of: (1) the accreted Value of Their over 75 Years Investment in the Corporation providing water to their properties secured by their property right as electors for the governing body making Corporation Board appointments, (2) the property right to hold the elected governing body for the City of Birmingham accountable to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated Individuals to assure the appointment of Corporation Board members who would protect and preserve the accrued value contributed to and invested in the Corporation by Plaintiffs for their benefit, and (3) the valuable mechanism for which Plaintiffs and other investor/ratepayers, beneficial owners, intended beneficiaries and stakeholders investment in the Corporation would be protected under the Corporation's Charter which guaranteed to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated investor/ratepayers, beneficial owners, intended beneficiaries and stakeholders the right to elect a governing body for the City of Birmingham that had the sole right to elect the five governing Board members with the sole authority to manage and operate the system built with Plaintiffs', and other similarly situated investors, contributed investment dollars, by Defendants, acting collectively, individually and in concert under Color of State Laws, without Due Process of Law Guaranteed by the 5th and 14th Amendments of the U. S. Constitution" Brought Under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against each individual for Economic Damages and Injunctive Relief. JABO WAGGONER is sued in his official capacity as Alabama State Senator.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Calvin B. Grigsby, Esq. 2406 Saddleback Drive Danville CA 94506 Telephone: (415) 860-6446 E-mail: cgrigsby@grigsbying.com - and - Richard Rice, Esq. THE RICE FIRM, LLC www.thericefirmllc.com 115 Richard Arrington Jr. Blvd. N. Birmingham, AL 35203 Post Office Box 453 Birmingham, AL 35201 Telephone: (205) 618-8733 E-mail: rrice@rice-lawfirm.com - and - Johnathan F. Austin, Esq. 115 Richard Arrington Jr. Blvd N. Birmingham AL 35203 E-mail: austin@jaustinlawpc.com ALAQSA SUPERMARKET: Shah Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, OT ---------------------------------------------------------- MD FIROZ SHAH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ALAQSA SUPERMARKET INC. d/b/a ALAQSA HALAL MEAT SUPERMARKET, IBRAHIM DOE, and MOHAMMAD S. HOQUE, Case No. 1:26-cv-01461 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 20, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay, liquidated damages, statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act. Throughout his employment at Alaqsa, along with other similarly situated supermarket workers, regularly worked up to seventy-two hours per workweek. They were paid weekly salaries that fell below the statutory minimum wage and were not compensated at the required overtime rate for hours worked in excess of forty per week, the suit says. The Defendants further failed to provide Firoz and similarly situated supermarket workers with: spread-of-hours pay when they worked shifts spanning over ten hours; wage notices at their time of hiring and when their wage rates changed; and accurate wage statements with each payment of wages, says the suit. The Defendant owns, operates, and does business as Alaqsa Halal Meat Supermarket, a supermarket located at 2109 Starling Avenue, Bronx, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis Pechman, Esq. PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC Camille A. Sanchez 488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor New York, New York 10022 Telephone: (212) 583-9500 E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com sanchez@pechmanlaw.com ALERT MEDICAL: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Alert Medical Alarms data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Alert Medical Alarms data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Alert Medical Alarms Security Incident: What Happened? Alert Medical Alarms (AMA) is notifying individuals about a data breach after a network disruption on June 17, 2025 affected the functionality of its computer systems and led to unauthorized access to company information. According to a notice posted on its website, the Pennsylvania-based company, which provides safety and monitoring solutions such as in-home and wearable alert devices for seniors and others needing assistance, investigated the incident and confirmed that certain information had been acquired by an unknown individual. A review of the compromised data was completed on December 1, 2025. Though the information involved varies by person, the Alert Medical Alarms data breach potentially exposed individuals’ names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, bank account numbers, customer ID numbers, case numbers, health insurance information, Medicaid numbers and details about prescriptions and medical conditions. Those affected by the AMA data breach are being notified directly by mail. What You Can Do After the Alert Medical Alarms Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Alert Medical Alarms data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Alert Medical Alarms to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. [GN] AMANDA FRANCES: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Lopez Says --------------------------------------------------------------- JUDITH ADELA LOPEZ, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. AMANDA FRANCES INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv- 1471 (S.D.N.Y., February 21, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://amandafrances.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired person, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on February 13, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Book from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public, relates the complaint. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and visually-impaired consumers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the goods, and services Defendant offers to the public on its Website, says the complaint. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff JUDITH ADELA LOPEZ is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant AMANDA FRANCES INC. operates the Amanda Frances online retail store, as well as the Amanda Frances interactive Website which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's: books and digital courses, as well as other types of goods, pricing, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and internet pricing specials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212-228-9795 Facsimile: 212-982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal AMAZON RETAIL: Sayeedul Suit Removed from Sup. Ct. to C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB SAYEEDUL, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON RETAIL LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV01431 (Filed Jan. 14, 2026), was removed from Los Angeles County Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Central District Of California on Feb. 23, 2026. The Central California District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01933 to the proceeding. The suit alleges failure to comply with the Los Angeles Municipal Code; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to timely pay wages; wage statement violations; waiting time penalties; unreimbursed business expenses; unlawful post-employment agreements; and unfair competition. The Plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of the following putative class: "All current and former hourly-paid and/or non-exempt as well as those misclassified as salaried and/or exempt, employees who worked for Defendants in the State of California at any time during the period from four years prior to the date of the filing of this Complaint through final judgment." The Plaintiff also asserts claims on behalf of the following putative sub-class (defined as the "Former Employee Sub-Class"): "All former hourly-paid and/or non-exempt, as well as those misclassified as salaried and/or exempt, employees who worked for the Defendants in the State of California at any time during the period from four years prior to the date of the filing of this Complaint through final judgment." The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from December 2020 through June 2025 as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee. Amazon is a subsidiary of Amazon.com, Inc., focusing on the company's core e-commerce operations, including product sales, logistics, and fulfillment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sage S. Stone, Esq. Zachary T. Gershman, Esq. Debashish Bakshi, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 622-4278 Facsimile: (855) 786-6356 E-mail: sstone@blackstonepc.com zgershman@blackstonepc.com dbakshi@blackstonepc.com The Defendants are represented by: Brian D. Fahy, Esq. Mason J. Hattam, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue Twenty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Telephone: (213) 612-2500 Facsimile: (213) 612-2501 E-mail: brian.fahy@morganlewis.com mason.hattam@morganlewis.com AMAZON.COM INC: Parties Seek to Seal Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- 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 granting their joint motion to seal class certification and Daubert briefing, and sealing the redacted material identified in Exhibits A through F of the Goldmark declaration. Amazon seeks to permanently seal the redacted portions of the briefing, which quote, describe, or otherwise reflect material designated as Confidential or Highly Confidential by Amazon under the Amended Stipulated Protective Order Amazon is seeking to keep under seal only (a) minimal information derived from nonpublic, proprietary pricing information that is of minimal importance to understanding the underlying motion, and (b) portions of the briefing quoting from or otherwise referencing Amazon's business and marketing strategy documents, competitive intelligence efforts and other competitively sensitive information. Both good cause and compelling reasons justify maintaining this information under seal. There are both good cause and compelling reasons to seal the references to and quotations from Amazon's competitively sensitive documents contained in the Subject Briefs because the disclosure of this information risks competitive harm to Amazon. Amazon.com is an online retailer that offers a wide range of products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8luqqc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq. Kelly Fan, Esq. Anne F. Johnson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com barbaram@hbsslaw.com annej@hbsslaw.com kellyf@hbsslaw.com - and - Jessica Beringer, Esq. Shane Kelly, Esq. Alex Dravillas, Esq. Roseann Romano, Esq. KELLER POSTMAN LLC 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500 Austin, TX, 78701 Telephone: (512) 690-0990 E-mail: Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com ajd@kellerpostman.com roseann.romano@kellerpostman.com - and - Steig D. Olson, Esq. David D. LeRay, Esq. Nic V. Siebert, Esq. Maxwell P. Deabler-Meadows, Esq. Elle Mahdavi, Esq. Adam B. Wolfson, Esq. Matthew Hosen, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 1109 First Avenue, Suite 210 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 905-7000 E-mail: steigolson@quinnemanuel.com davidleray@quinnemanuel.com nicolassiebert@quinnemanuel.com maxmeadows@quinnemanuel.com adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com ellemahdavi@quinnemanuel.com matthosen@quinnemanuel.com The Defendant is represented by: John A. Goldmark, Esq. MaryAnn Almeida, Esq. Emily Parsons, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile: (206) 757-7700 E-mail: JohnGoldmark@dwt.com MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com EmilyParsons@dwt.com - and - Karen L. Dunn, Esq. William A. Isaacson, Esq. Amy J. Mauser, Esq. Meredith Dearborn, Esq. Kyle Smith, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1047 Telephone: (202) 223-7300 Facsimile: (202) 223-7420 E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com wisaacson@paulweiss.com amauser@paulweiss.com ksmith@paulweiss.com mgoodman@paulweiss.com mdearborn@paulweiss.com AMAZON.COM INC: Time for Unsealing Class Cert Portions Extended --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge entered an order granting extensions of time for unsealing portions of class certification, Daubert, and concurrent hearing briefing: 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. 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. Amazon.com is an online retailer that offers a wide range of products. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZkS4TM 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 AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Class Suit Over Securities Laws' Violation ------------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, a nationally recognized investor-rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: AMC; APE) and certain of its officers. This lawsuit seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired AMC Preferred Equity Units ("APEs") between August 18, 2022, and November 1, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), including those who held APEs immediately prior to the conversion of APEs to common stock on August 25, 2023 and were thereby excluded from receiving the Special Dividend issued to common shareholders on August 28, 2023. Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm’s site: bgandg.com/AMC. AMC Case Details The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the statements were materially false and misleading because the rights of APE holders were in fact constrained by the Certificate of Designations ("COD") for AMC's preferred stock, which contained a highly-technical loophole allowing AMC to exclude APE holders from distributions occurring after conversion to common stock. The Complaint continues to allege that this loophole was subtle, non-obvious, and undisclosed in the FAQ or other public investor communications. What's Next for AMC Investors? A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint, you can visit the firm’s site: bgandg.com/AMC. or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Client Relations Manager, Nathan Miller, of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 917-590-0911. If you suffered a loss in AMC you have until April 20, 2026, to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. No Cost to AMC Investors We, Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman LLC, represent investors in class actions on a contingency fee basis. That means we will ask the court to reimburse us for out-of-pocket expenses and attorneys’ fees, usually a percentage of the total recovery, only if we are successful. Why Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC for AMC Securities Class Action? Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a nationally recognized firm that represents investors in securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits. Our firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors nationwide. More at www.bgandg.com "Our practice centers on restoring investor capital and ensuring corporate accountability, which serves to uphold the essential integrity of the marketplace," said Peretz Bronstein, Founding Partner of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC. Contact Info: Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Nathan Miller, Esq. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC (917) 590-0911 info@bgandg.com [GN] AMERICAN AUTOMOTIVE: Laninka Office Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Automotive Alliance, LLC. The case is styled as Laninka Office, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. American Automotive Alliance, LLC, Case No. 8:26-cv-00429 (M.D. Fla., Feb. 17, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. American Automotive Alliance, LLC -- https://aautoalliance.com/ -- is a Florida-based company founded in 2016 that markets extended vehicle service contracts and, in some contexts, operates under the name Dealer Services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com AMERICAN EXPRESS: Duke Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Debra Duke, v. American Express Company, a New York registered corporation, Case No. 4:23-cv-00125-RM-LCK (D. Ariz.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting its motion for leave to file Exhibits under seal. The Defendant and the Plaintiff request that the Court seal confidential documents and information being filed in support of American Express's opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Contemporaneously herewith, American Express files a redacted version of the Opposition and lodges a second unredacted version of the Opposition with the documents and information that is requested to be filed under seal herein. In support of its Opposition, American Express relies on and seeks to file references to confidential material, including the Plaintiff’s Verizon billing records (Exhibit 4), a prior settlement offer (Exhibit 2), and the report of American Express's expert statistician, Dr. Elisa F. Long, Ph.D. (Exhibit 5). The Plaintiffs Verizon billing records detail an extensive call history of not only herself, but also her family. The vast majority of these call records have nothing to do with American Express or this case. Additionally, the settlement offer is confidential in nature, which ensures an open dialogue and compromises without fear of public disclosure. Finally, the Long Report contains analysis and discussion of proprietary and private information, including American Express’s customer names, communications, financial information, and call records regarding delinquent accounts. The Defendant is an American bank holding company and multinational financial services corporation. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lRo4sf at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Stephen J. Newman, Esq. Steven R. Kaplan, Esq. STEPTOE LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 980 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3086 Telephone: (213) 439-9400 Facsimile: (213) 439-9599 E-mail: snewman@steptoe.com skaplan@steptoe.com - and - John C. Marcolini, Esq. Mark D. Buchanan, Esq. IANNITELLI MARCOLINI, P.C. 5353 North 16th Street, Suite 315 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 952-6000 Facsimile: (602) 952-7020 E-mail: jcm@imlawpc.com mdb@imlawpc.com AMETROS FINANC: LPS Seeks Continuance of Class Cert Bid Hearing --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOUISIANA PAIN SPECIALISTS, LLC, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, V. AMETROS FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Case No. 3:25-cv-00391-BAJ-SDJ (M.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- Granting the instant Motion and continuing the deadline for the Plaintiff's to supplement their motion for class certification, the Defendant's deadline to respond, and -- Continuing the hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Plaintiff further requests that a new deadline for the Plaintiff to supplement its motion for class certification, the Defendant's deadline to respond, and a new hearing date regarding the Plaintiff's motion for class certification be selected at the Scheduling Conference on April 9, 2026. The Defendant provides Medicare set-aside post-settlement administration services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qL4dJD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: George B. Recile, Esq. Matthew A. Sherman, Esq. Adam M. Stumpf, Esq. Jeremy N. Gettes, Esq. CHEHARDY, SHERMAN, WILLIAMS, RECILE & HAYES 1 Galleria Blvd., Suite 1100 Metairie, LA 70001 Telephone: (504) 830-4100 Facsimile: (504) 833-8080 E-mail: gbr@chehardy.com mas@chehardy.com as@chehardy.com jgettes@chehardy.com ATHENA BITCOIN: Loses Bid to Junk "Reynolds" Fraud Case ------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Diane Reynolds, individually and on behalf of similarly situated elderly victims, Plaintiff, v. Athena Bitcoin, Inc., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 25-cv-1318 (D. Md.), Judge Paula Xinis of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied without prejudice the Defendant's motion to dismiss a class action Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). The case arose from a fraud scheme in which elderly victims were duped into depositing funds into Athena's cryptocurrency ATM machines. A third-party scammer placed victims under duress and directed them to deposit cash, which was then converted into untraceable cryptocurrency and transferred to the scammer's Bitcoin wallet via a QR code. The Court found that Athena failed to establish the two key CAFA requirements. First, the Complaint estimated the class as several dozen Maryland seniors aged 68 and older, making it equally plausible as not that the class reached 100 members. Second, Athena arbitrarily assumed a class of 150 members and multiplied the Plaintiff's individual $13,000 loss to reach $5,850,000, which the Court deemed wholly speculative. Accordingly, the Court scheduled a status conference for March 13, 2026, to determine whether the parties would brief CAFA jurisdiction or agree that remand was warranted. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://tinyurl.com/2jw3v93v from PacerMonitor.com AUDIOLOGY DISTRIBUTION: Discloses Private Info, Gatoff Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- SHERYL GATOFF, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AUDIOLOGY DISTRIBUTION, LLC, d/b/a HEARUSA, Defendant, Case No. 9:26-cv-80184-XXXX (S.D. Fla., February 23, 2026) alleges that the Defendant aids, employs, agrees with, and otherwise enables Google LLC, Meta Platforms, Inc., and Microsoft, Inc. to intercept Plaintiff's and Class Members' communications while using the Defendant's websites. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's use of the websites, hearusa.com and hearingshop.com, has led to the unlawful interception of her medical information, including information regarding her medical condition, history, and/or treatment. Moreover, the Defendant assisted these interceptions without Plaintiff's knowledge, consent, or express written authorization. By failing to receive the requisite consent, Defendant breached its duties of confidentiality and unlawfully disclosed Plaintiff's communications. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this class action for legal and equitable remedies resulting from these illegal actions and asserts claims for intrusion upon seclusion, invasion of privacy under California's Constitution, and for violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the California Information Privacy Act, and the Federal Wiretap Act. Headquartered in Palm Beach Gardens, FL, Audiology Distribution, LLC d/b/a HearUSA facilitates a variety of hearing health care services for its patients, such as hearing aids and hearing technology. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen A. Beck, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Ave., Suite 2100 Miami, FL 33131-2800 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 E-mail: sbeck@bursor.com BACK TO THE ROOTS: Website Not Blind-Friendly, Deinnocentes Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARY ANN DEINNOCENTES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Back to the Roots, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-217 (N.D. Ind., February 20, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, https://backtotheroots.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Deinnocentes and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Deinnocentes' rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. On November 5, 2025, Deinnocentes searched online for organic gardening products. During her search, she came across the Defendant's website, Backtotheroots.com which appeared among the top search results. The company's positive reviews encouraged her to explore the Website further with the intention of making a purchase. However, while attempting to navigate the Website using her screen reader, Deinnocentes encountered multiple accessibility barriers that limited her ability to complete the transaction independently. These barriers to access have denied Deinnocentes full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, the goods, benefits, and services of the Website. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Deinnocentes 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, asserts the complaint. Deinnocentes 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 Mary Ann Deinnocentes is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Back to the Roots, 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 organic gardening products, including grow kits, planters, seeds, soils, and plant supplies such as fertilizers, soil amendments, and tools.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason B. Marshall, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 E-mail: jmarshall@ealg.law BANKERS HEALTHCARE: Dodd Files Suit in S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bankers Healthcare Group LLC. The case is styled as Christopher Dodd, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Bankers Healthcare Group LLC doing business as: BHG Financial, Case No. 0:26-cv-60421-DSL (S.D. Fla., Feb. 16, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Bankers Healthcare Group LLC doing business as BHG Financial -- https://bhgfinancial.com/ -- is a leading provider of high-value personal and business loans, primarily serving healthcare practitioners and other licensed professionals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (954) 647-1866 Email: mweekes@milberg.com BIOVIE INC: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned RE BIOVIE INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 3:24-cv-00035-MMD-CSD (D. Nev.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order (1) certifying a class action of: "All persons or entities that purchased BioVie Inc. common stock from Dec. 7, 2022 through Nov. 28, 2023 (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby"; (2) appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and (3) appointing Lead Counsel Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as Class Counsel and Aldrich Law Firm, Ltd. as Liaison Counsel. The class action lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. BioVie is a pharmaceutical company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6eR3bx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John P. Aldrich, Esq. ALDRICH LAW FIRM, LTD. 7866 West Sahara Avenue Las Vegas, NV 89117 Telephone: (702) 853-5490 Facsimile: (702) 227-1975 E-mail: jaldrich@johnaldrichlawfirm.com - and - Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com BJORN CAPITAL: Faces Boucher Suit Over Website's Fake Discounts --------------------------------------------------------------- ISAAC BOUCHER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BJORN CAPITAL GROUP LLC d/b/a THE POD COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-00860 (C.D. Cal., February 23, 2026) arises from the Defendant's false and misleading fake discounts offered on the website www.podcompany.com. The Defendant lists purported regular prices and advertises purported limited-time discounts from those regular prices. Far from being time-limited, however, the Defendant's discounts are routinely available. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks damages and, in the alternative, restitution, asserting claims for breach of contract, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, quasi-contract/unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation, and for violations of the California's False Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and Unfair Competition Law. Headquartered in Dover, Delaware, Bjorn Capital Group LLC sells and markets fitness products through the Pod Company brand and on its website. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Victor J. Sandoval, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 111 W. Ocean Blvd, Suite 426 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 534-5907 E-mail: victor@almeidalawgroup.com BLACK & VEATCH: Hernandez Suit Removed to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ursula Leon Hernandez, on behalf of the State of California, as a private attorney general v. BLACK & VEATCH CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Corporation; BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION, a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26CU000311C was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on Feb. 19, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-01070-TWR-BLM. The Complaint sets forth the following claims for penalties under California's Private Attorneys General Act: failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to properly record and provide legally required meal and rest periods; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages and sick pay wages; failure to reimburse employees for required expenses; and failure to provide wages when due, allegedly in violation of various provisions of the California Labor Code, the California Code of Regulations, and the applicable California Wage Orders.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Allison Scott, Esq. Paloma I. Acosta, Esq. Hilda A. Akopyan, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 355 South Grand Avenue., Suite 2850 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213.337.6550 Facsimile: 213.337.0651 Email: Allison.Scott@huschblackwell.com paloma.acosta@huschblackwell.com Hilda.akopyan@huschblackwell.com BLACKFISH MEDIA: Difalco Files TCPA Suit in D. New Jersey --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blackfish Media, LLC. The case is styled as Ian Difalco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Blackfish Media, LLC doing business as: Performance Golf, individually and on behalf of, Case No. 3:26-cv-01663 (D.N.J., Feb. 19, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Blackfish Media, LLC doing business as Performance Golf -- https://www.performancegolf.com/ -- is a leading online golf instruction company that provides golfers of all levels with the tools and resources.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kayla Nicole Kershen, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (989) 574-5262 Email: kkershen@shamisgentile.com BOEING COMPANY: Figueroa Suit Removed to W.D. Washington -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Levi Figueroa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE BOEING COMPANY; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 26-2-02278-0 KNT was removed from the Circuit Court of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of King, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on Feb. 13, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00539. The Plaintiff alleges that Boeing "routinely failed" to provide compliant meal and rest periods for its employees in Washington State; employees sometimes took late or short meal periods due to travel time and safety measures; employees sometimes completed off-the-clock work before shifts; and employees "often" worked through breaks or "were not given them at all." On that basis, Plaintiff brings his cause of action on behalf of himself and the putative Class for failure to pay wages as required by Washington's Industrial Welfare Act ("IWA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Andrea Delgadillo Ostrovsky, Esq. T. Ray Ivey, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 3000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 274-6400 Email: andrea.ostrovsky@morganlewis.com ray.ivey@morganlewis.com - and - Lincoln O. Bisbee, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178 Phone: (212) 309-6000 Email: lincoln.bisbee@morganlewis.com - and - Kevin F. Gaffney, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 110 N. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 324-1000 Email: kevin.gaffney@morganlewis.com BON SECOURS COMMUNITY: Schlaughies Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bon Secours Community Hospital, et al. The case is styled as Stephen Schlaughies, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bon Secours Community Hospital, Good Samaritan Hospital, St. Anthony Community Hospital, Case No. EF001761-2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Orange Cty., Feb. 20, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Torts - Other Negligence (Data Breach Class Action). Bon Secours Community Hospital -- https://www.bonsecours.com/ -- provides healthcare to patients in Port Jervis, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alyssa Tolentino, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Ave., Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (929) 632-0267 Email: atolentino@sirillp.com BRIDGECREST ACCEPTANCE: McGonigle Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation. The case is styled as Andrew James McGonigle, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation, Case No. 2:26-cv-01036-DWL (D. Ariz., Feb. 13, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation (BAC) -- https://bridgecrest.com/ -- is a licensed motor vehicle sales finance company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (615) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com BRIGHT PEOPLE FOODS: Gordinier Sues Over Deceptive Labeling ----------------------------------------------------------- Gerald Gordinier and Thomas Simmons, individuals, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated v. BRIGHT PEOPLE FOODS, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-01357 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 13, 2026), is brought to seek redress for its unlawful and deceptive practices in labeling and marketing of consumer food products, including, but not limited to, the "Mike's Might Good" brand ramen cups and the "Dr. McDougall's Right Foods" brand soup cups, and any other Bright People Foods products which make (or made) a protein claim on the front label of the product but failed to include the percent of daily value for protein in the Nutrition Facts Panel ("NFP") at any time during the last four years. The primary protein sources in the Dr. McDougall's Right Foods soup cups are split peas and black beans--which are lower quality proteins. Likewise, the primary protein source in the Mike's Mighty Good Craft Ramen cups is bone broth--which is a lower quality protein. Had Defendant included a statement of the corrected amount of protein per serving expressed as a %DV in the NFP, as required by law, it would have revealed that the Products contain lower quality protein and provide less nutritionally usable protein than the total amount represented on the front label. Accordingly, Defendant's front-of-package protein claims, such as "15g PROTEIN" on the Dr. McDougall's Right Foods Vegan Split Pea Soup cup, are unlawful in violation of parallel state and federal laws because Defendant did not comply with the regulatory requirements for making a protein claim. Reasonable consumers expect that a front-of-package protein claim reflects the amount of nutritionally usable protein the Product provides per serving. In fact, the Products do not provide the full amount of nutritionally usable protein represented and instead contain lower quality proteins. Had Defendant included the required corrected protein information in the NFP, it would have revealed that the Products provide as much as 30% less nutritionally usable protein than the stated protein quantity. This omitted information was material to reasonable consumers. Defendant's unlawful and misleading protein claims caused Plaintiffs and members of the class to pay a price premium for Defendant's products, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased the Dr. McDougall's soup products. The Defendant manufactures, distributes, markets, advertises, and sells food products, including soup cups under the brand names "Mike's Mighty Good" and "Dr. McDougall's Right Foods."[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Hayley A. Reynolds, 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 hayley@gutridesafier.com BRINDERSON CONSTRUCTORS: Culver Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brinderson Constructors Inc. The case is styled as Deandre Culver, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Brinderson Constructors Inc., Case No. 26STCV04645 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 11, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Brinderson, a subsidiary of the Brock Group -- https://www.brockgroup.com/brinderson -- is a full-service provider of maintenance, construction, turnaround, facilities, and safety services.[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 BROADPEAK INSURANCE: Laninka Office Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Broadpeak Insurance Services LLC. The case is styled as Laninka Office, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Broadpeak Insurance Services LLC, Case No. 8:26-cv-00408 (M.D. Fla., Feb. 13, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Broadpeak Insurance Services LLC -- https://broadpeak.com/ -- operates within the All Other Insurance Related Activities industry.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com BRONCO UTAH OPERATIONS: Nastrom Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Christopher Nastrom, individually and for others similarly situated v. BRONCO UTAH OPERATIONS, LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-00022-CMR (D. Utah, Feb. 23, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant. The Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours in a workweek. The Defendant pays the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees by the hour. However, the Defendant does not pay tThe Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees for all hours worked, including overtime hours. Rather, the Defendant requires the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees to prepare and put on protective clothing and safety gear fundamentally necessary to and intertwined with their job duties, while on the Defendant's premises, "off the clock." Likewise, the Defendant requires the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees to change out of and store their safety gear and protective clothing and wash up, while on the Defendant's premises, "off the clock" (together, the Defendant's "pre/post shift off the clock policy"). The Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees for the time they spend donning and doffing their safety gear and protective clothing "off the clock," before and after their shifts. The Defendant's pre/post shift off the clock policy, rounding policy, and bonus pay scheme violate FLSA by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees at rates of at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay--based on all remuneration--for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed as emergency medical technicians (EMTs). Jan-Care touts itself as "the largest EMS provider in West Virginia."[BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 - April L. Hollingsworth, Esq. HOLLINGSWORTH LAW OFFICE, LLC HC 63 Box 8715 Duchesne, Utah 84021 Phone: (801) 415-9909 Fax: (801) 303-7324 Email: april@aprilhollingsworthlaw.com BROOKHAVEN BOROUGH: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Bradley Due Sept. 4 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARMAND BRADLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BROOKHAVEN BOROUGH, Case No. 2:25-cv-00155-TJS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Savage entered a second amended scheduling order. 1. The Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint and join additional parties, if any, no later than March 13, 2026. 2. Third-Party Defendants shall file responsive pleadings, motions, and join or implead additional parties, if any, no later than April 3, 2026. 3. All fact discovery and expert discovery, including any relating to class certification, shall be completed by Aug. 14, 2026. 4. The Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class certification no later than Sept. 4, 2026. 5. The Defendants' responses to the plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be filed no later than Sept. 25, 2026. 6. The Plaintiffs shall file their reply to the defendants' response no later than Oct. 5, 2026. 7. Oral argument on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be heard on Tuesday, Nov. 3, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 9A. Brookhaven is a borough in Delaware County. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qRAbTh at no extra charge.[CC] BUMBLE INC: Omirin Sues Over Failure Secure Personal Data --------------------------------------------------------- TYRA OMIRIN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BUMBLE INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-398 (W.D. Tex., February 19, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' Personally Identifiable Information stored within Defendant's information network, including without limitation, their full names, dates of birth, addresses, home and cell phone numbers, Social Security Numbers and account numbers ("Personally Identifiable Information" or "PII"). According to the complaint, the Defendant acquired, collected, and stored Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII as a requirement for the provision of services. Therefore, at all relevant times, Defendant knew or should have known that Plaintiff and Class Members would use Defendant's services to store and/or share sensitive data, including highly confidential PII. However, the Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly and/or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent an unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. With this action, the Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack that occurred on Defendant's data servers on January 2026, during which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network servers and accessed highly sensitive PII which was being kept unprotected. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff has suffered actual injury in the form of damages to, and diminution in the value of, her PII; suffered lost time, annoyance, interference and inconvenience as a result of the Data Breach; and suffered imminent and impending injury arising from the substantially increased risk of fraud, identity theft and misuse. Plaintiff Tyra Omirin is a Texas citizen and a user of Bumble's services whose PII was accessed and acquired by unauthorized third-party hackers as a result of the Data Breach. Defendant Bumble, Inc. is an information technology services company that operates several national and international online dating sites and is headquartered in the State of Texas. Defendants designated as Does 1 to 10 the are the fictitiously named defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig D. Cherry, Esq. Tanner R. Daniels, Esq. CHERRY JOHNSON SIEGMUND JAMES PC 7901 Fish Pond Rd., 2nd Floor Waco, TX 76710 Telephone: 254-732-2242 Facsimile: 866-627-3509 - and - Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 660 S. Figueroa St., Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 E-mail: Thiago.coelho@wilshirelawfirm.com BUZZ LOGISTICS: Jones Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Andrea Jones, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. BUZZ LOGISTICS INC., a California corporation; AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., a Delaware corporation; AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware corporation; AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV32523 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 20, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01881. On March 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which is the operative pleading in this matter (the "FAC"). On behalf of Plaintiff and the putative class, the FAC asserts causes of action for: unpaid overtime; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; waiting time penalties; wage statement violations; failure to indemnify; violation of Labor Code Section 227.3; and unfair competition. The FAC also seeks civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") for alleged violations of Labor Code sections 210, 226.3, 558, 1174.5, 1197.1, and 2699.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Brian D. Fahy, Esq. Eva M. Nofri, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue Twenty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Phone: +1.213.612.2500 Fax: +1.213.612.2501 Email: brian.fahy@morganlewis.com eva.nofri@morganlewis.com - and - Sarah Zenewicz, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: +1.415.442.1000 Fax: +1.415.442.1001 Email: sarah.zenewicz@morganlewis.com CAL-MAINE FOODS: Birchmans Suit Transferred to W.D. Wisconsin ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Birchmans Parisian, LLC, individually and on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. CAL-MAINE FOODS, INC, ROSE ACRE FARMS, INC., HILLANDALE FARMS CORP., DAYBREAK FOODS, INC., VERSOVA HOLDINGS, LLC., and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Case No. 1:25-cv-14030 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin on Feb. 20, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00138-JDP to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. -- https://www.calmainefoods.com/ -- is an American fresh egg producer based in Ridgeland, Mississippi.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Vincent Briganti, Esq. Nicole Veno, Esq. Peter Demato, Esq. Raymond P. Girnys, Esq. Peter Anthony Barile, III, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERGT, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Phone: (914) 997-0500 Email: vbriganti@lowey.com nveno@lowey.com pdemato@lowey.com rgirnys@lowey.com pbarile@lowey.com - and - Amanda Marie Williams, Esq. Daniel R. Olson, Esq. BASSFORD REMELE, P.A. 100 S. 5th St., Suite 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 333-3000 Email: awilliams@bassford.com dolson@bassford.com The Defendants are represented by: Christa Cynthia Cottrell, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 300 North LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: (312) 862-7075 Email: ccottrell@kirkland.com - and - Daniel E. Laytin, Esq. Elisabeth Callaghan Logan, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 333 West Wolf Point Plaza Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: (312) 862-2198 Fax: (312) 862-2200 Email: dlaytin@kirkland.com elisabeth.logan@kirkland.com - and - Jay Leonard Levine, Esq. PORTER, WRIGHT, MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP 2020 K Street, Nw Suite 600 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 778-3000 Email: jlevine@porterwright.com - and - John I. Grossbart, Esq. Joshua Concannon, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5900 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 876-8000 Email: john.grossbart@dentons.com joshua.concannon@dentons.com - and - Christopher E. Ondeck, Esq. Jared M. DuBosar, Esq. Stephen R. Chuk, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 600S Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 525-0865 Email: condeck@proskauer.com jdubosar@proskauer.com schuk@proskauer.com CALI COFFEE LLC: Awad Suit Removed to S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Samuel Awad, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cali Coffee LLC, Case No. 50-02026-CA-001284XXXAMB was removed from 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Feb. 17, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-60425-XXXX to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor. Cali Coffee LLC -- https://www.calicoffee.com/ -- is a Florida-based, rapidly expanding drive-through and walk-up coffee chain.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Peter J. Solnick, Esq. SOLNICK LAW P.A. 17501 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 420 Aventura, FL 33160 Phone: (786) 629-6530 Fax: (786) 472-5670 Email: pete@solnicklaw.com CALLONDOC.COM INC: Wright Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PHI/PII ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jodi Wright, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CALLONDOC.COM, INC, d/b/a/ CALL ON-DOC., Case No. 3:26-cv-00411-N (N.D. Tex., Feb. 16, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the protected health information and other personally identifiable information of certain individuals including name, address, date of birth, passports or driver's licenses, medical treatment information, and/or health insurance information ("PHI/PII" or "Private Information"). The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement reasonable safeguards to protect PHI/PII from a foreseeable and preventable risk of unauthorized disclosure. Had Defendant implemented administrative, technical, and physical controls consistent with industry standards and best practices, they could have prevented the Data Breach. The Defendant's negligence resulted in the unauthorized disclosure of Plaintiff's Private Information to cybercriminals. The unauthorized disclosure of Plaintiff's PHI/PII constitutes an invasion of a legally protected privacy interest, that is traceable to the Defendant's failure to adequately secure the PHI/PII in their custody, and has resulted in actual, particularized, and concrete harm to the Plaintiff. The injuries Plaintiff suffered, as described herein, can be redressed by a favorable decision in this matter. The Defendant has not provided any assurances that: all data acquired in the Data Breach, or copies thereof, have been recovered or destroyed; or, that Defendant has modified their data protection policies, procedures, and practices sufficient to avoid future, similar, data breaches. The Defendant had obligations created by statute, contract, common law, and industry standards to keep Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII confidential and to protect it from unauthorized access and disclosure. Now, Plaintiff and Class Members face a substantial risk of future identity theft or other forms of exploitation where their identifying information was obtained by cybercriminals in a targeted attack, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a patient of Defendant. The Defendant is a Telehealth provider that offers self-pay online medical consultations and prescriptions to consumers across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 4131 North Central Expressway, Ste. 900 Dallas, TX 75204 Phone: (800) 237-1277 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com jaw@federmanlaw.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (803) 222-2222 Fax: (843) 494-5536 Email: teamvalente@poulinwilley.com paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com CARDA HEALTH INC: Kellner Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carda Health, Inc. The case is styled as Mark Kellner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Carda Health, Inc., Case No. 8:26-cv-00458 (M.D. Fla., Feb. 18, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Carda Health -- https://www.cardahealth.com/ -- is the leading virtual cardiac and pulmonary rehab specialist in the industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN, PLLC 18117 Biscayne Blvd-Ste 4152 Miami, FL 33160 Phone: (877) 333-9427 Email: law@stefancoleman.com CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Ellis Suit Removed to D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Shannon Ellis, Pedro Davila, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS; VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC.; VERIZON INC.; VERIZON NEW JERSEY INC.; VERIZON WIRELESS SERVICES LLC, and JOHN DOES 1 TO 10, Case No. HUD-L-00078-26 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on Feb. 19, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01684. The Complaint purports to state claims for: Violation of the Federal Communications Act ("FCA"), Negligence, Breach of Contract and the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Unjust Enrichment, Breach of Confidence, Invasion of Privacy, Bailment, Negligent Hiring, Retention, and/or Supervision, Negligent Misrepresentation, and Violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ("NJCFA"). The Plaintiffs allege that they were "victims of a 'SIM swapping' scam perpetrated through their Verizon cellular accounts." According to Plaintiffs, unknown third-party scammers convinced Verizon to transfer access to Plaintiffs' phone numbers from their registered SIM card to the scammer's SIM card without Plaintiffs' authorization. The Plaintiffs allege that through this fraudulent conduct, the scammers were able to access their Personal Identifying Information ("PII"), resulting in "injury to their person, property, physical and emotional health, finances, and reputation."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Philip R. Sellinger, Esq. Eric Wong, Esq. Clarissa A. Gomez, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 500 Campus Drive, Suite 400 Florham Park, NJ 07932 Phone: (973) 360-7900 Fax: (973) 301-8410 CENTENE MANAGEMENT: McFarland Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Tameka McFarland, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Centene Management Company LLC, Case No. 2026-CH-00448 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 19, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-01832. The Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated the Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA" or the "Act"), by causing the biometric data from employees' face geometry scans via FaceID and fingerprint scans via Touch ID to be recorded, collected, and stored without complying with the requirements of the Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Orly Henry, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 321 North Clark Street, Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: 312.372.5520 Facsimile: 312.372.7880 Email: ohenry@littler.com - and - Patricia J. Martin, Esq. Lillian T. Manning, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 7777 Bonhomme Ave, Suite 1220 Clayton, MO 62105 Phone: 314.659.2000 Facsimile: 816.817.5069 Email: pmartin@littler.com lmanning@littler.com CHOE GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Davidson CAT Class Suit in Texas ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cboe Global Markets, 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 the Davidson CAT class suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. A putative class action was filed on April 16, 2024 captioned Erik A. Davidson, John Restivo and National Center for Public Policy Research vs. Gary Gensler, SEC and CATLLC. Cboe and the Plan Participants are not parties to this litigation. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the SEC engaged in unlawful agency action and violated multiple provisions of the U.S. Constitution when it promulgated Rule 613 in 2012 mandating the creation and funding of the CAT. Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and stay was denied. On July 7, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas ("Texas Federal District Court") granted the SEC's opposed motion to hold the case in abeyance and stay all deadlines until January 15, 2026. On January 15, 2026, the SEC filed a status report and an opposed Motion to Continue the Abeyance for an additional six months. On January 23, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On January 30, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a Renewed Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. On February 4, 2026, the Texas Federal District Court granted the SEC's opposed Motion to Continue the Abeyance until July 15, 2026. This challenge or any other challenge to the constitutionality of the CAT may delay CATLLC’s assessment of CAT fees to recover a portion of CAT costs. As a result, the Plan Participants may continue to incur additional significant costs, and/or it may result in them not being able to collect on the promissory notes related to the funding of the implementation and operation of the CAT. Cboe Global Markets, Inc. is a leading global exchange network specializing in derivatives and securities markets. The company offers state-of-the-art trading, clearing, and investment solutions across diverse asset classes, including equities and foreign exchange, with operations spanning North America, Europe, and Asia Pacific. CIGNA HEALTHCARE: Affirms Dismissal of Discrimination Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jakob Emerson, writing for Becker's Payer Issues, reports that a federal appeals court has handed a win to Cigna, affirming the dismissal of a class action lawsuit that alleged the insurer's exclusion of weight loss drug coverage amounted to disability discrimination against members with obesity. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued its ruling Feb. 19, upholding a lower court's dismissal of the complaint last year. The plaintiff, an employee at the University of Maine enrolled in a Cigna-administered health plan, sued the insurer in June 2024 under Section 1557 of the ACA. The complaint argued that Cigna's exclusion of GLP-1s prescribed for obesity, including Wegovy and Zepbound, was illegal disability discrimination, since the same drugs were covered under Cigna plans for other conditions such as diabetes. The complaint also noted that Cigna's own internal policies recognized the drugs as medically necessary for treating obesity. The First Circuit affirmed the dismissal but on different grounds than the district court. Rather than addressing whether obesity can qualify as a disability, the appeals court held that the complaint failed to prove that obesity "substantially limits" major life activity. The ruling is the latest in a string of losses for plaintiffs attempting to use the ACA's anti-discrimination provisions to force insurers to cover GLP-1 medications for treating obesity. Insurer and employer coverage of GLP-1s for weight loss has contracted sharply in recent years amid rising costs. A companion case against Elevance Health in the same district court was dismissed in April 2025 on similar grounds. The case is also on appeal before the First Circuit and has not yet been decided. The district court in that case found that the plaintiff's obesity could qualify as a disability, but still dismissed the case because the weight loss drug exclusion applied equally regardless of disability status. [GN] CITADEL SECURITIES: Continues to Defend Genius Group 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's subsidiary Citadel Securities LLC, continues to defend itself from the Genius Group class suit in the United Sates District Court in the Southern District of New York. On November 14, 2025, the Company’s subsidiary, along with another market maker, was named as a defendant in Genius Group Limited v. Citadel Securities LLC, et al No. 1:25-CV-09546, filed in United States District Court in the Southern District of New York. The putative class action complaint alleges that defendants engaged in market manipulation of the plaintiff’s stock during a period from 2022 to 2025. The Company believes that all of these claims are without merit and is defending itself vigorously. Citadel Securities LLC operates as a capital markets firm. The Firm offers liquidity across a range of asset classes such as equities, options, fixed income, and foreign exchange. [BN] COMMUNICARE FAMILY: $1MM Nurse Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- Katz Banks Kumin reports that a federal judge granted preliminary approval for a settlement in a class action matter that will pay $1 million and provide approximately $1.2 million more in debt relief to a class of approximately 220 nurses in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Maryland, Missouri, West Virginia, and Virginia. This settlement resolves allegations that CommuniCare Family of Companies (CommuniCare) and WorldWide HealthStaff Solutions (WorldWide) failed to pay nurses for time worked and illegally forced nurses to repay immigration costs it incurred for their work visas. Plaintiff Ariane Rose Villarin alleged that CommuniCare and its recruiting agent, WorldWide, entered illegal arrangements in their recruitment efforts in hiring nurses from the Philippines. She alleged that the companies sponsored class members through the immigration process and required them to sign contracts committing to work for them for 3 years. In the event a worker left employment before three years of work, Plaintiff alleged that a worker would be expected to pay thousands of dollars to CommuniCare. CommuniCare in fact pursued a number of claims against nurses in state court, seeking tens of thousands in alleged damages. "The class of nurses in this case was brought to the United States to provide much-needed nursing support to many of our communities," said Hugh Baran, partner at Katz Banks Kumin LLP. "But the nurses were saddled with onerous stay-or-pay contracts that kept them from leaving their jobs. We believe this settlement will provide these nurses with significant relief, including that CommuniCare and WorldWide have agreed they will cancel the alleged debt of current and past employees and will not attempt to pursue this alleged debt from any current or past employee class member." "While our client’s allegations are concerning, they are not unique," said Juno Turner, litigation director for Towards Justice. "These kinds of practices are all too common in the nurse staffing industry." "This settlement affirms that workers, including those who come to the United States under work visas, deserve fair treatment under the law," said Magen E. Kellam, partner at the Law Offices of Magen E. Kellam. Subject to final court approval of this settlement, CommuniCare and WorldWide have agreed to the following: -- To pay $1,000,000 to the class of approximately 220 nurses; -- To fully forgive all outstanding amounts claimed (or that could be claimed) to be owed by Settlement Class members to Defendants. That includes both former and current nurses who decided to end their employment with CommuniCare prior to the end of the contractual term in their contracts with Defendants. -- That they shall not seek to enforce any "repayment" provisions in their contracts, or to recover or collect any amount of money damages or penalties from Settlement Class members, due to the decision to end employment with Defendants prior to the end of their contracts. In his Order, U.S. District Judge Michael Barrett preliminarily certified a settlement class and settlement collective of "all foreign-trained registered nurses sponsored by CommuniCare through the immigration process from February 17, 2013 through October 13, 2025." There are approximately 220 nurses who are members of the settlement class. "The combined compensation and relief of alleged debt will provide meaningful benefits to class members," said Patricia Kakalec, partner at Kakalec Law PLLC. "We also hope that this will send a message to other staffing agencies and medical providers that these kinds of contracts are unacceptable." Villarin and the Settlement Class are represented by Hugh Baran of Katz Banks Kumin LLP, Patricia Kakalec of Kakalec Law PLLC, Magen E. Kellam of The Law Offices of Magen E. Kellam PA; Juno Turner of Towards Justice, and Gus M. Shihab of The Law Firm of Shihab & Associates Co. LPA. Class members can consult www.communicaresettlement.com, which will be updated shortly with more information about the settlement. Judge Barrett has scheduled a final approval hearing for July 8, 2026 at 1pm, at the U.S. Courthouse in Cincinnati. [GN] COMMUNICARE FAMILY: Villarin Seeks Initial OK of Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARIANE ROSE VILLARIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. HEALTH CARE FACILITY MANAGEMENT, LLC, d/b/a COMMUNICARE FAMILY OF COMPANIES, and WORLDWIDE HEALTHSTAFF SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00097-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) provisionally certifying the Settlement Class under Rule 23(b)(3), appointing Plaintiff's counsel as Class Counsel, and Plaintiff as Class Representatives; (2) granting preliminary approval of the Rule 23 portion of this Settlement; (3) grant preliminary approval of the FLSA portion of this Settlement; (4) appoint Atticus Administration as Settlement Administrator; and (5) approve the proposed Notices for distribution. The Plaintiff moves the Court for preliminary settlement approval, preliminary class and collective certification, and additional relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The proposed settlement provides significant monetary and non-monetary relief to class and collective members and is a fair, reasonable, and adequate resolution of this bona fide dispute, the suit says Healthcare provides management services on a contract and fee basis. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a384OT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hugh Baran, Esq. Susanna Barron, Esq. KATZ BANKS KUMIN LLP 111 Broadway, Suite 1702 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (646) 759-4501 E-mail: Baran@KatzBanks.com Barron@KatzBanks.com - and - Patricia Kakalec, Esq. KAKALEC LAW PLLC 80 Broad Street, Suite 703 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 705-8730 E-mail: Patricia@KakalecLaw.com - and - Ghassan "Gus" M. Shihab, Esq. THE LAW FIRM OF SHIHAB & ASSOCIATES, CO., LPA 65 East State Street, Suite 1550 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (877) 479-4872 E-mail: gus@shihab.law - and - Juno Turner, Esq. TOWARDS JUSTICE 1580 N Logan St. Ste 660 PMB 44465 Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (720) 441-2236 E-mail: juno@towardsjustice.org - and - Magen E. Kellam, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF MAGEN E. KELLAM, P.A. 808 Wiggins Pass Road, Suite 204 Naples, FL 34110 Telephone: (239) 260-4622 E-mail: magenk@kellamlegal.com CONSOR PMCM INC: Singh Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Nitin Singh, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CONSOR PMCM, INC., a Corporation; CONSOR HOLDINGS, LLC, a Limited Liability Company; CONSOR ENGINEERS, LLC, a Limited Liability Company; CONSOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1 - 50 inclusive, Case No. 26CV163568 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 16, 2026, and assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-01372. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges nine causes of action against Defendants on behalf of himself and all allegedly similarly situated employees: Unfair Competition; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Meal Period Violations; Rest Period Violations; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Statements; Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses; Failure to Provide Wages; and Failure to Pay Sick Wages.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Samuel J. Stone, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 400 South Hope Street, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213.896.2400 Fax: 213.896.2450 Email: sam.stone@hklaw.com - and - Todd D. Wozniak, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 1180 West Peachtree St. N.W., Ste. 1800 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 817-8431 Email: Todd.Wozniak@hklaw.com CORECIVIC INC: Continues to Defend ICE Detainee Labor Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Corecivic, 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 the ICE Detainee Labor class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. On May 31, 2017, two former ICE detainees, who were detained at the Company's Otay Mesa Detention Center ("OMDC") in San Diego, California, filed a class action lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint alleged that the Company forces detainees to perform labor under threat of punishment in violation of state and federal anti-trafficking laws and that OMDC's Voluntary Work Program ("VWP") violates state labor laws including state minimum wage laws. ICE requires that CoreCivic offer and operate the VWP in conformance with ICE standards and ICE prescribes the minimum rate of pay for VWP participants. The Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, exemplary damages, restitution, penalties, and interest as well as declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of former and current detainees. On April 1, 2020, the district court certified a nationwide anti-trafficking claims class of former and current detainees who participated in an ICE VWP at a CoreCivic facility. It also certified a state law class of former and current detainees who participated in a VWP wherever the Company held ICE detainees in California. The Company has exhausted appeals of the class certification order. On May 6, 2024, the district court stayed the filing of dispositive motions on state law claims under California law pending the outcome of a related case being prosecuted by another private prison company. That case is currently on appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The claims resulting in certified classes are proceeding in all other respects in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, where the discovery process has commenced. Due to the stage of the ongoing proceedings, the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcomes, nor can it estimate the amount of loss or range of loss, if any, that may result. As a result, the Company has not recorded an accrual relating to these matters at this time, as losses are not considered probable or reasonably estimable at this stage of these lawsuits. CoreCivic is a company that owns and manages private prisons and detention centers and operates others on a concession basis.[CC] CORECIVIC INC: Continues to Defend ICE Detainees Class Suit in Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Corecivic, 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 the ICE Detainees class suit in California. On November 12, 2025, a separate putative class action case was filed by seven ICE detainees against ICE, seeking injunctive relief related to operation of the California City facility. The case was filed by attorneys affiliated with three non-governmental organizations. The Company is not a party to the lawsuit, but the injunctive relief sought by Plaintiffs could impact operation of the California City facility. On February 6, 2026, the Court provisionally granted class certification for at least 120 days, and ordered ICE to ensure access to medical care, disability accommodations, and recreation opportunities to detainees housed at the California City facility. If Plaintiffs continue to pursue injunctive relief and the Court orders such relief as requested, such relief could negatively impact the financial performance of the facility. CoreCivic is a company that owns and manages private prisons and detention centers and operates others on a concession basis.[CC] CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Hesterly Suit Removed to E.D. Washington -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Margeaux Hesterly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CORNERSTONE BUILDING BRANDS SERVICES, INC., a North Carolina corporation, Case No. 25-2- 02705-37 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of Spokane, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on Feb. 13, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00077. The Plaintiff's Complaint pleads causes of action for: failing to provide employees with the rest breaks to which they are entitled; failing to provide employees with the meal breaks to which they are entitled; failing to pay all minimum wages to employees for all hours worked; failing to pay all overtime wages to employees when they work more than 40 hours in a workweek; failing to accrue sick leave for and failing to allow the usage of paid sick leave for qualifying absences by employees; making unlawful deductions and rebates from employees' wages; failure to pay all wages due at termination; and willful refusal to pay wages.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Cornelia Brandfield-Harvey, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 206-332-1380 - and - M. Scott McIntyre, Esq. Sean P. Ryan, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 312 Walnut Street, Suite 3200 Cincinnati, OH 45202-4074 Phone: 513-852-2622 COTTAGE HOSPITAL: Stephens Files Suit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------ SABRA STEPHENS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COTTAGE HOSPITAL, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00124 (D.N.H., February 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiff's and/or Class Members' protected health information and personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network, including, without limitation, names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, and may have included bank account information, as well as medical or health insurance information (collectively, "protected health information" or "PHI" and "personally identifiable information" or "PII"). According to the complaint, the Defendant received highly sensitive Private Information from Representative Plaintiff in connection with the services and employment Representative Plaintiff obtained. As a result, Representative Plaintiff's information was among the data accessed by an unauthorized third party in the Data Breach that occurred between October 14, 2025 and October 21, 2025. The Defendant failed to inform victims when or for how long the Data Breach occurred. Indeed, the Representative Plaintiff and Class Members were wholly unaware of the Data Breach until they received letters from Defendant informing them of it. The Notice received by Representative Plaintiff was dated February 6, 2026. The complaint alleges that the Representative Plaintiff suffered lost time, annoyance, interference and inconvenience as a result of the Data Breach and has anxiety and increased concerns for the loss of privacy, as well as anxiety over the impact of cybercriminals accessing, using and selling Representative Plaintiff's Private Information. The Representative Plaintiff suffered imminent and impending injury arising from the substantially increased risk of fraud, identity theft and misuse resulting from Representative Plaintiff's Private Information being placed in the hands of unauthorized third parties/criminals. With this action, Representative Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause Representative Plaintiff and, at least, 2,156 other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendant on December 8, 2025. The Representative Plaintiff further seeks to hold Defendant responsible for not ensuring that the Private Information was maintained in a manner consistent with industry, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") Privacy Rule, the HIPAA Security Rule, and other relevant standards. Plaintiff Sabra Stephens is a resident and citizen of the State of New Hampshire and is a victim of the Data Breach. Defendant Cottage Hospital is a regional hospital that serves the Upper Connecticut Valley.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert S. Stephen, Esq. STEPHEN LAW GROUP 582 Chestnut Street Manchester, NH 03104 Telephone: (603) 663-1007 E-mail: rob@stephenlaw.com - and - Nicholas S. Guerrera, Esq. SHAHEEN, GUERRERA & O'LEARY, LLC 820A Turnpike Street North Andover, MA 01845 Telephone: (978)689-0800 E-mail: nguenera@sgolaw.com CURBSURE LLC: Summary Judgment Bids in Scanlon Due May 10, 2027 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID SCANLON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. CURBSURE, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-13434-JEK (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Kobick entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) and by the Court's Notice of Scheduling Conference must be completed by Feb. 27, 2026. -- All requests for production of documents and interrogatories must be served by April 13, 2026. -- All discovery, other than expert discovery, must be completed by Dec. 11, 2026. -- Motions for summary judgment must be filed by May 10, 2027. -- A status conference will be held remotely on Dec. 9, 2026, at 3:30 PM. The Defendant offers car insurance with personalized coverage options. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EIKCxj at no extra charge.[CC] DANIEL L KALER: Fails to Secure Private Info, Condon Says --------------------------------------------------------- STEVE CONDON, on behalf of his minor child, R.C., and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DANIEL L KALER, D.D.S., P.C., Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-04013 (N.D. Iowa, February 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated patients' personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") from criminal hackers. The complaint relates that as a condition of receiving services, the Defendant requires that its patients entrust it with highly sensitive personal and health information. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties it owed to them and knew or should have known that it was responsible for protecting Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information from unauthorized disclosure and exfiltration. On February 17, 2026, Defendant was the victim of a Data Breach that resulted in access to its IT Network by an unauthorized third-party. Since the Data Breach occurred, the notorious ransomware gang Beast Leaks has claimed responsibility for the Data Breach. Beast Leaks exfiltrated 1.7TB of data from Defendant's IT Network, compromising Plaintiff and Class Members Private Information. Therefore, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and are at an imminent, immediate, and continuing increased risk of suffering, ascertainable losses in the form of harm from identity theft and other fraudulent misuse of their Private Information, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of his minor child, R.C., and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed and/or compromised during the Data Breach. Accordingly, Plaintiff, on behalf of his minor child, R.C., and the Class, asserts claims for Defendant's failure to properly monitor and implement security practices regarding the computer network systems that housed the Private Information pertaining specifically to his minor children. Plaintiff Steve Condon, on behalf of his minor child, R.C., is a citizen of the State of Iowa, residing in Le Mars. Danial L Kaler, D.D.S., P.C. is a healthcare provider of orthodontic services to children, teens, and adults in Nebraska and Iowa. The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. Brian O. Marty, Esq. SHINDLER ANDERSON GOPLERUD & WEESE P.C. 5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100 West Des Moines, IA 50265-5749 Telephone: (515) 223-4567 Facsimile: (515)223-8887 E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com marty@sagwlaw.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive-Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com DEXCOM INC: Faces Levens Product 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 "Levens, et al. v. Dexcom, Inc.," No. 3:25-cv-02565-BJC-BLM. Plaintiffs allege they 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. Actions assert 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. DIAMOND LANDSCAPING: Pacheco Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diamond Landscaping, LLC. The case is styled as Alexander Pacheco, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Diamond Landscaping, LLC, Case No. 26STCV05126 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 18, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Diamond Landscaping -- https://www.diamondlandscaping.com/ -- is the leader in luxury residential landscaping for high-net-worth clients, in the Los Angeles area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Lavi, Esq. E&L, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., 2nd Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: 213-213-0000 Fax: 213-213-0025 Email: dlavi@ebralavi.com DOTERRA INTERNATIONAL: Fisher Class Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as JESSICA FISHER, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. DOTERRA INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a Utah domestic limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2025CUOE056888, 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 February 23, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01935 to the proceeding. In this complaint, the Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated, damages, allegedly earned and owed wages, liquidated damages, waiting time penalties, injunctive relief, interest, attorney fees and costs. Defendant doTERRA International, LLC is an American multi-level marketing company located in Utah.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Steven C. Smith, Esq. Kipp S. Muir, Esq. SMITH LC 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1050 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: 949-416-5000 Facsimile: 949-416-5555 E-mail: ssmith@smith-lc.com kmuir@smith-lc.com DRAGON GEAR: Bennett Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- LIVINGSTON BENNETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dragon Gear Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01982 (N.D. Ill., February 23, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. The class action 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 individuals. Despite readily available accessible technology, such as the technology in use at other heavily trafficked retail websites, the Defendant has chosen to rely on an exclusively visual interface that provides no meaningful accommodations for screen-reader users, says the suit. Headquartered in Severance, CO, Dragon Gear Inc. owns and operates the website, https://gobiheat.com, which offers heated apparel and accessories 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 Facsimile: (718) 554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law DREAM CHASING: Evans Suit Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES EVANS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Dream Chasing Technology, Inc., Case No. (N.D. Ill., Feb. 20, 2026) alleges that Perfect failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://grabieart.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the website contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. The Website provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Defendant. Yet, the Website contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the Website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 914-9694 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law EDEN PARTNERS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Bishop Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- CEDRIC BISHOP, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. EDEN PARTNERS LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-01518 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2026) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.foriabotanicals.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Plaintiff contends. During the Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on Jan. 20, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Passion Play Kit and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.0 Guidelines would provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the Website, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination, the suit says. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. Eden operates the Foria Botanicals online retail store, as well as the Foria Botanicals interactive Website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal EOS FITNESS OPCO: Patch Suit Removed to D. Utah ----------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Justin Patch, David To, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Eos Fitness OPCO Holdings doing business as: Eos Fitness, Case No. 260900260 was removed from the 3rd District Court, Salt Lake County, UT, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on Feb. 17, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00136-JCB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Eos Fitness OPCO Holdings doing business as Eos Fitness offers fitness goals with group classes, and equipment, great amenities, personal training.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew G. Deiss, Esq. DEISS LAW PC 10 W 100 S., Ste. 700 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone: (801) 433-0226 Email: deiss@deisslaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Brent E. Johnson, Esq. Michael Harmond, Esq. HOLLAND & HART LLP 222 S. Main St., Ste. 2200 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone: (801) 799-5807 Email: bjohnson@hollandhart.com meharmond@hollandhart.com FEI.COM INC: Nunow Class Suit Removed to D. Minn. ------------------------------------------------- The class action styled as KHADIJO NUNOW, Plaintiff vs. FEI.COM, INC., d/b/a FEI SYSTEMS, Defendant, Case No. 26-cv-1598, was removed from Ramsey County in the Second District Court of Minnesota to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on February 23, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 26-cv-1598 to the proceeding. In this complaint, the Plaintiff advances three claims for relief: negligence, breach of implied contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The complaint seeks actual, nominal, and consequential damages, along with prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs. In addition, Plaintiff's complaint includes numerous requests for injunctive, declaratory, and equitable relief. FEI.com, Inc. dba FEI Systems is a provider of health-related information technology (IT) solutions.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: John D. Sear, Esq. Adam Morris, Esq. Jesse Sater, Esq. 1600 Utica Avenue South, Suite 600 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Telephone: (612) 464-4500 E-mail: john.sear@nelsonmullins.com adam.morris@nelsonmullins.com jesse.sater@nelsonmullins.com FERGUSON ENTERPRISES: Aldrich Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Dylan Aldrich, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 26CV000389 was removed from the Superior Court of California in and for the County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Feb. 19, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-at-00322. The Complaint asserts seven causes of action for failure to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum wage; failure to pay overtime wages for daily overtime worked; failure to authorize or permit meal periods; failure to authorize or permit rest periods; failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements; failure to timely pay all earned wages and final paychecks due at time of separation of employment; and unfair business prices, all violations of California Labor Codes and in violation of Business and Professions Code sections 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Chris A. Jalian, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 515 South Flower Street, 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228 Phone: (213) 683-6000 Facsimile: (213) 627-0705 Email: chrisjalian@paulhastings.com - and - Eric Distelburger, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 101 California Street, 48th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 856-7000 Facsimile: (415) 856-7100 Email: ericdistelburger@paulhastings.com FIGURE TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Giles Says ------------------------------------------------------------ JOHN GILES, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FIGURE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, INC., and FIGURE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-01492-LJC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 20, 2026) alleges that the Defendants failed to fulfill its obligation, as unauthorized cybercriminals breached Figure's information systems and databases and stole vast quantities of private information belonging to its Account Holders, including Plaintiff and Class Members. According to the complaint, because Defendants stored and handled Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive Private Information, the had a duty and obligation to safeguard this information and prevent unauthorized third parties from accessing this data. As part of its operations, the Defendants collect, maintain, and store highly sensitive "personally identifying information" and "financial account information" from borrowers and prospective borrowers. In January 2026, the notorious hacking group ShinyHunters infiltrated Figure's systems through an employee who fell victim to social engineering attack. After gaining access to Figure's systems, the ShinyHunters gang was able to steal 2.5 gigabytes of data, which, at minimum, contained Account Holders' full names, home addresses, dates of birth, and phone numbers. ShinyHunters made a ransom demand to Figure for the stolen data, which Figure did not pay, and the ShinyHunters ultimately uploaded the entirety of the stolen data onto publicly accessible sites on the dark web, says the suit. The Defendants operate a blockchain-based lending company under the name Figure, which, together with partners including major banks, credit unions, and fintech companies, engages in lending, borrowing, and securities trading.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive, Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com FIVE9 INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------------ Five9, 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 a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On December 4, 2024, a purported holder of its securities filed a putative class action complaint against the Company, its then-current Chief Executive Officer, and its then-current Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, based on alleged false and/or misleading statements or omissions regarding the Company and its business and seeking unspecified damages on behalf of all persons and entities (subject to specified exceptions) that purchased or otherwise acquired its securities, including call options, from June 4, 2024, through the close of trading on August 8, 2024. On February 3, 2025, Lucid Alternative Fund, LP moved to be appointed lead plaintiff of this action pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. On March 18, 2025, the court appointed Lucid Alternative Fund, LP as lead plaintiff and approved lead plaintiff’s selection of lead counsel. Per the court’s subsequent order on March 27, 2025, Lucid Alternative Fund, LP filed an amended complaint on May 30, 2025. The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint on July 29, 2025, and the court took the motion under submission after oral argument on December 18, 2025. The Company cannot predict the duration or outcome of this lawsuit at this time. As a result, it is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible losses arising from this lawsuit. It intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit. Headquartered in San Ramon, CA, Five9, Inc. provides cloud contact center software. Its common stock trades on the NASDAQ stock exchange under the ticker symbol "FIVN." [BN] FJ MANAGEMENT: Breaches Fiduciary Duty of Prudence, Wolfe Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER WOLFE, individually and on behalf of the FJ Management Inc, 401k Plan, and on behalf of all the similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the plan v. FJ MANAGEMENT INC.; FJ MANAGEMENT INC. RETIREMENT COMMITTEE; STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST COMPANY; John and Jane Does 1-30 in their capacities as fiduciaries and members of the Committee, Case No. 1:26-cv-10954-ADB (D. Mass., Feb. 23, 2026) contends that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties of prudence in multiple respects by selecting and continuing to retain a severely underperforming target date funds option across all metrics instead of removing it in favor of better and available options. During the Class Period, the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties of prudence to Plan participants, including the Plaintiff, by failing to engage in a prudent fiduciary process for monitoring the Plan's TDF and by failing to remove the imprudent American Century One Choice target date fund series ("AC TDF") investment within a reasonable period. The Defendants also made affirmative misrepresentations to participants about the security of their investments, the competence of the portfolio fund managers, the performance history of their investments, and the amount of investment fees they were being charged. As a result of the Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan and violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and in particular the Defendants' inclusion of the AC TDF, the Plaintiff was subject to underperformance and suffered tens of millions of dollars in unreasonable and unnecessary monetary losses, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class, which is defined as participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan but excluding the Defendants; any person who was or is an officer, director, employee, or a shareholder of 5% or more of the equity of any Defendant or is or was a partner, officer, director, or controlling person of any Defendant; the spouse or children of any individual who is an officer, director or owner of 5% or more of the equity of any Defendant; Plaintiff's counsel; judges of the Court in which this case is pending and their current spouse and children; and the legal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns of any such excluded person. The Plaintiff is a participant as defined by ERISA. The Plaintiff was invested in the American Century One Choice target date fund series. FJ is a privately held American corporation which operates convenience stores, oil and refining, banking, and insurance businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street, NW Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: cturner@milberg.com - and - Alexandr Rudenco, Esq. Arlene Boruchowitz, Esq. John Hughes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 800 S. Gay St., Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 E-mail: arudenco@milberg.com aboruchowitz@milberg.com jhughes@milberg.com FLORIDA INSURANCE: Bahr Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Florida Insurance Services, Inc.. The case is styled as Jonathan Bahr, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Florida Insurance Services, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-14058-AMC (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.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN PA 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com - and - Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 31 Samana Drive Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com FNU JOHNSON: Claims in Anderson Suit Dismissed with Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Samuel Anderson, v. FNU Johnson et al., Case No. 6:24-cv-00040-JCB-KNM (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Barker entered an order that all claims in the case are dismissed with prejudice. Any request for class certification is denied. Any pending motions are denied as moot. The Plaintiff, a prisoner confined in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice proceeding pro se, sued defendants for alleged constitutional and civil rights violations. The case was transferred to the Tyler Division of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, and assigned to a magistrate judge. The Magistrate Judge issued a report recommending that the Plaintiff's claims be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim and that any request for class certification be denied. No party filed written objections. When there have been no timely objections to a report, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=b0FKwB at no extra charge.[CC] FORWARD SUNSET INC: Kern Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forward Sunset, Inc. The case is styled as Steven Kern, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Forward Sunset, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-01713 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 18, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Forward Sunset, Inc. doing business as Keller Williams Realty Sunset -- https://www.kwhollywoodhills.com/ -- has redefined the business of real estate, modernizing and advancing the industry by fostering a culture of partnership.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Elizabeth Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN PA 237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Fl Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com FRIED FRANK HARRIS: Franzwa Files Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP. The case is styled as Alexis Franzwa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, Case No. 1:26-cv-01273-LGS (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 14, 2026).s The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP (known as Fried Frank) -- https://www.friedfrank.com/ -- is an international law firm headquartered in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Courtney Elizabeth Maccarone, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA One W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Email: maccarone@kolawyers.com FTD LLC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FTD, LLC, Case No. 0:26-cv-01569 (D. Minn., Feb. 23, 2026), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.ftd.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is 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 (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting the Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found the Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, the Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access the Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by the Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers floral arrangements and gifts for sale including, but not limited to, flower bouquets, plants, gift baskets, edible arrangements 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 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com FULTON BANK NA: Ertl Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Virginia ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fulton Bank, N.A. The case is styled as John Ertl, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Fulton Bank, N.A., Case No. 3:26-cv-00011-JHY-JCH (W.D. Va, Feb. 20, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Fulton Bank, N.A. -- https://www.fultonbank.com/ -- is an American regional financial services holding company, headquartered in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clinton Wes Verity, Esq. FRIEDMAN FISHER VERITY, PLLC 125 S. 14th St., Suite 120 Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: (804) 602-7388 Fax: (804) 602-7768 Email: cverity@ffvlaw.com GEICO CASUALTY: Faces Class Action Over Auto Insurance Policies --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Florida woman sued GEICO Casualty Company. Why: The plaintiff claims the company added strangers to her auto insurance policy without her consent, which increased her premiums. Where: The GEICO class action lawsuit was filed in Florida federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges that GEICO added strangers to its customers' auto insurance policies without their consent, resulting in increased premiums. Plaintiff Allison Kane filed the class action complaint against GEICO on Jan. 28 in Florida federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to Kane, GEICO used a standard practice of obtaining information from third-party sources to find licensed or permitted drivers and add them to insureds' policies for an additional premium, even when the added drivers were strangers to the insureds. The class action lawsuit seeks recovery for all victims of GEICO's unsavory practices, Kane says. Kane claims she was a named insured under a GEICO auto policy when the company added two strangers to her policy without her consent, resulting in increased premiums. GEICO sent Kane an email in February 2024, stating that a person named Carter K. Riddle may be a licensed or permitted driver with her address listed as their primary address, Kane says. When Kane did not respond within 15 days, GEICO automatically added Riddle to her policy as a covered driver, increasing her premium. GEICO allegedly refused to remove 'strangers' from insureds' policies The class action lawsuit claims GEICO did not verify the residency of the added drivers, nor did it provide the underlying data or identify the consumer reporting agency used to obtain the information. GEICO's process for disputing these additions was not as simple as the notice implied, Kane alleges. She says the company routinely refused to remove individuals based on the insured's truthful statement that the person had no connection to the household or vehicles and/or was insured elsewhere. Kane is looking to represent anyone in the United States to whom GEICO sent a document stating it would add a driver based on information obtained from a third-party source and who paid an increased premium after the driver was added by GEICO with no action taken by the insured. The class action lawsuit alleges breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment and violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Kane seeks certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. In another class action against GEICO, four policyholders filed a lawsuit alleging the insurer underpaid customers on total loss vehicle claims. What do you think of the claims made in this GEICO class action lawsuit? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiff is represented by Rachel Dapeer of Dapeer Law P.A. The GEICO class action lawsuit is Kane v. GEICO Casualty Company, Case No. 6:26-cv-00225, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. [GN] GENERAL MOTORS: Barba Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Matthew Barba, Renzo Calvo-Saez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 30-2026-01539616-CU-FR-CXC was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Orange, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 18, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:26-cv-00360 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. General Motors Company -- https://www.gm.com/ -- is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Robyn Eileen Bladow, Esq. KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP 555 South Flower Street Suite 3700 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 680-8400 Email: rbladow@kirkland.com GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Defective Brake System --------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that General Motors knowingly sold hundreds of thousands of Buick, Chevrolet and GMC vehicles with a defective vacuum pump system that can potentially compromise a driver's ability to brake. The 157-page automotive lawsuit contends that since at least 2017, General Motors (GM) has been aware of a brake defect that drastically affects its vehicles' brake booster system and results in the loss of power brake function. Per the complaint, this dangerous defect arises without warning to the driver, under any driving conditions, and poses the threat of costly damages. The GM cars at issue in the lawsuit, referred to as the "class vehicles," include model years 2016-2020 Buick Envision, model years 2018-2022 Chevrolet Equinox and model years 2018-2022 GMC Terrain vehicles. According to the case, drivers of the vehicles at issue have filed more than 300 complaints with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), describing situations where their brakes suddenly became "hard as a rock" during normal driving and were difficult or impossible to push inwards. The case cites that, of these 300+ NHTSA complaints, at least 23 incidents resulted in crashes, with eight people sustaining injuries. The vacuum-operated power brake booster, the case explains, is part of a vehicle's power-assisted braking system and crucially relies on a pressure differential between vacuum and atmospheric pressure that creates a "mechanical advantage," allowing the driver to stop a several-thousand-pound vehicle with the press of their foot. "Without vacuum assist, the driver must apply substantially more force to slow or stop the vehicle, a physical demand that can be difficult or impossible to meet, particularly in emergency braking situations," the complaint states. The lawsuit maintains that the dysfunction in the GM brake vacuum pump system is caused by a loss of vacuum pressure during normal vehicle operation. This loss of pressure leads to "chronic overwork" and stress on the pump's components, which further inhibits the system's ability to generate and maintain consistent vacuum pressure, the suit says. Worse, when excessive stress builds on the pump's components over time, their ultimate failure typically manifests as an explosion wherein parts of the pump "shatter violently," damaging other parts of the engine, the complaint explains. The case goes on to say that General Motors has been aware of the defect for years due to the data and reports it collects from service technicians, online forums and complaints, and technical service bulletins stemming back to as early as March 2017 describing the supposed vacuum pump defect. "For years, GM has concealed the Brake Vacuum Pump Defect from owners and lessees of the Class Vehicles, withholding its knowledge because once known to those owners, the Defect would diminish the Class Vehicles' intrinsic and resale value and cause GM vehicle owners to demand immediate and costly repairs," the complaint alleges. Rather than address the defect, the suit relays, GM instead characterized it as a "software anomaly" that allowed the automotive giant to issue software updates and sensor replacements that were a fraction of the cost of replacing the mechanical components. The suit further claims the company's knowledge of the defect is confirmed by its surreptitious redesign of the braking systems in 2023 Equinox and Terrain vehicles to "eliminate the defective vacuum pump entirely" while leaving owners and lessees of previous models "to fend for themselves." The plaintiffs are three drivers from Michigan, Arizona and New Jersey who allegedly paid for class vehicles from authorized GM dealerships that were either new or certified pre-owned after passing the automaker's internal 172-point inspection. They seek not only monetary relief for damage and injury stemming from the defect, but also injunctive relief that would compel GM to notify current and prospective owners and lessees of the defect. The GM brake vacuum pump lawsuit looks to represent all persons or entities who purchased or leased a class vehicle in the United States. [GN] GENWORTH LIFE: TVPX ARS Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for CONSOLIDATED WEALTH MANAGEMENT, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. GENWORTH LIFE AND ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:25-cv-00184-JAG (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff will move this Court for an Order certifying this action, which consists of a claim for breach of contract, as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) on behalf of the following class: COI Overcharge Class "All owners of universal life (including variable universal life) insurance policies issued or insured by Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company, or its predecessors, that provide that cost of insurance rates are determined according to expectations of future mortality, and that were charged for the cost of insurance on or after the start of the Class Period." COI Overcharge Class does not include and specifically excludes: -- Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company (“Genworth”), its officers and directors, members of their immediate families, and the heirs, successors, or assigns of any of the foregoing; anyone employed with the Plaintiff's counsel's firms; any Judge to whom this case is assigned, and his or her immediate family; and -- Policies issued in Alaska, Hawaii, Nevada, New York, South Carolina, Vermont, and Wyoming; and -- Policies with the following plan codes: 103A83, 103B83, 107580, 107681, 115A85, 1A7682, 1A7683, 1B7682, 1B7683, 1E7682, 1E7683, 1F7682, 1F7683, 1T7581, and 1T7681. The "Class Period" starts on the following dates through the date of final judgment in this action: -- Sept. 19, 2015, for policies issued in Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Washington D.C.; -- Sept. 19, 2014, for policies issued in California, Pennsylvania, and Texas; and -- September 19, 2013, for policies issued in all other states. In the alternative, Plaintiff requests that the Court certify the following state- and product specific classes. The alternative classes are proposed in lieu of and as applied to the proposed COI Overcharge Class, if it is not certified (e.g., if certification is denied for the COI Overcharge Class, the Four Corners Class is proposed, in the alternative, instead): Four Corners Class "All members of the COI Overcharge Class, excluding owners whose policies were issued in Arizona, California, Iowa, Montana, New Mexico, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Washington." Contender Class "All members of the COI Overcharge Class who own Contender policies (i.e., the product that Plaintiff owns)." Four Corners Contender Class "All members of the Four Corners Class who own Contender policies." Connecticut Class "All members of the COI Overcharge Class whose policies were issued in Connecticut (i.e., the state in which Plaintiff’s policy was issued)." The Plaintiff TVPX ARS Inc. requests that the Court appoint it as the class representative for the aforementioned COI Overcharge Class or alternative classes and that Susman Godfrey L.L.P. be appointed as Class Counsel for the aforementioned class or alternative classes. Genworth offers life, accident, and health insurance services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vGAi1m at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Gogal, Esq. Laurie L. Kirkland, Esq. Ian J. McElhaney, Esq. BLANKINGSHIP & KEITH, P.C. 4020 University Drive, Suite 300 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 691-1235 Facsimile: (703) 691-3913 E-mail: dgogal@bklawva.com lkirkland@bklawva.com imcelhaney@bklawva.com - and - Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. Glenn C. Bridgman, Esq. Nicholas N. Spear, Esq. Kim Page, Esq. Erik Wilson, Esq. Seth Ard, Esq. Ryan Kirkpatrick, Esq. William J. Melsheimer, Esq. Abigail K. Flanigan, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com gbridgman@susmangodfrey.com nspear@susmangodfrey.com kpage@susmangodfrey.com ewilson@susmangodfrey.com sard@susmangodfrey.com rkirkpatrick@susmangodfrey.com jmelsheimer@susmangodfrey.com aflanigan@susmangodfrey.com GENWORTH LIFE: TVPX ARS Seeks to Seal Plaintiff's Class Cert Memo ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for CONSOLIDATED WEALTH MANAGEMENT, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. GENWORTH LIFE AND ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:25-cv-00184-JAG (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order to authorize the Clerk of Court to seal the Plaintiff's memorandum of law in support of its motion for class certification and Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 to the declaration of Glenn Bridgman in support of class certification. Genworth offers life, accident, and health insurance services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PRFG1S at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Gogal, Esq. Laurie L. Kirkland, Esq. Ian J. McElhaney, Esq. BLANKINGSHIP & KEITH, P.C. 4020 University Drive, Suite 300 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 691-1235 Facsimile: (703) 691-3913 E-mail: dgogal@bklawva.com lkirkland@bklawva.com imcelhaney@bklawva.com - and - Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. Glenn C. Bridgman, Esq. Nicholas N. Spear, Esq. Kim Page, Esq. Erik Wilson, Esq. Seth Ard, Esq. Ryan Kirkpatrick, Esq. William J. Melsheimer, Esq. Abigail K. Flanigan, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com gbridgman@susmangodfrey.com nspear@susmangodfrey.com kpage@susmangodfrey.com ewilson@susmangodfrey.com sard@susmangodfrey.com rkirkpatrick@susmangodfrey.com jmelsheimer@susmangodfrey.com aflanigan@susmangodfrey.com GESTAMP WEST VIRGINIA: Williams Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gestamp West Virginia, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Lavonte Williams, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general pubic similarly situated v. Gestamp West Virginia, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0001087 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Feb. 13, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Gestamp -- https://www.gestamp.com/en/home -- is an international group dedicated to the design, development and manufacture of metal automotive components.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 Arden Ave., Ste. 20 Glendale, CA 91203-4007 Phone: 818-265-1020 Fax: 818-265-1021 Email: edwin@calljustice.com GILMAN & BEDIGIAN: ATI Bid to Compel Deposition Testimony OK'd -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ATI HOLDINGS, LLC; ATHLETIC & THERAPEUTIC INSTITUTE OF NAPERVILLE, LLC; ATI PHYSICAL THERAPY, INC.; and RAY WAHL, v. GILMAN & BEDIGIAN, LLC, and RAFAEL LAW, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02621-DRM (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Miller entered an order granting Petitioners' Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony. Respondents' Cross-Motion for Protective Order is granted in part and denied in part insofar as the Court places certain limitations on the scope of questioning. Gilman & Bedigian, LLC, and Rafael Law, LLC, shall appear for depositions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). Consistent with that rule, the choice of individual to designate as 30(b)(6) rests with the deponent organizations. The Respondents' motion for protective order is granted in part and denied in part, as set forth more specifically supra in the limitations placed on questioning and, with regard to Topic 4, in the requirement that Plaintiffs identify for the deponents in advance three insurers on which they will seek testimony. Petitioner's motion to supplement is granted. Petitioner's Motion to transfer is denied as moot. The Court is not presently convinced that Petitioners’ questions about already-produced documents will automatically invade privileged areas. The Court finds that supplementation is appropriate insofar as the proffered materials relate to the issues raised in the Motion to Compel and were developed after briefing commenced. The miscellaneous action arises from Morsberger et al. v. ATI Holdings, LLC et al., No. 1:22-cv-01181 (N.D. Ill.), a putative consumer fraud action alleging that ATI Holdings, LLC improperly billed personal-injury patients directly rather than their health insurers, resulting in higher costs to the Plaintiffs. Gilman & Bedigian is a law firm. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t6Ocet at no extra charge.[CC] GNC HOLDINGS: Faces Malko Class Suit Over Unlawful Data-Sharing --------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY MALKO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GNC HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-01833 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 20, 2026) arises from Defendant's unlawful data-sharing of American citizens' sensitive information with a foreign adversary of the United States in direct violation of the rule set by the Department of Justice. In April 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice implemented the Data Security Program, a national security program designed to restrict the transfer of bulk sensitive personal data and U.S. government-related data to "countries of concern." This prohibition, known as the "Bulk Data Transfer Rule," and more formally known as the "Rule Preventing Access to U.S. Sensitive Personal Data and Government Related Data by Countries of Concern or Covered Persons" is codified at 28 C.F.R. Part 202 (the BSDR or the DOJ Rule). The impetus for the BSDR was that the U.S. government determined that the export of Americans' behavioral data to hostile foreign regimes or entities under their jurisdiction constitutes an "unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States that has been repeatedly recognized across political parties and by all three branches of government." Accordingly, GNC knowingly and systematically used communications and associated covered personal identifiers intercepted from American citizens for the purpose of sharing U.S. consumers' data with covered persons without the safeguards required by U.S. law as evidenced by examples provided by DOJ in the BSDR. GNC, and its Chinese parent, Harbin Pharmaceutical Group, have repeatedly faced scrutiny from regulators and Congress over concerns that their data practices facilitate surveillance by the Chinese government, says the suit. GNC Holdings, LLC is a global specialty retailer of health and wellness products, including vitamins, minerals, herbal supplements, and sports nutrition, headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Victor J. Sandoval, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 111 W. Ocean Blvd Suite 426 Long Beach, California 90802 Telephone: (562) 534-5907 E-mail: victor@almeidalawgroup.com - and - David S. Almeida, Esq. 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60614 Telephone: (708) 437-6476 E-mail: david@almeidalawgroup.com GOLD COUNTRY MGR: Floyd Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gold Country MGR LLC, et al. The case is styled as Tammy Floyd, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Gold Country Mgr LLC; Golden Holdings, LLC; Does 1-100, Case No. 26CV003599 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 17, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Gold Country Mortgage LLC is a mortgage brokerage firm based in Jackson, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Colette Noelle Mahon, Esq. LAWYERS FOR EMPLOYEE AND CONSUMER RIGHTS 3500 W Olive Ave., Third Floor Burbank, CA 91505-4191 Phone: 323-375-5101 Fax: 323-306-5571 GOTHAM BAGELS: Bowman Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- TANISIA BOWMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Gotham Bagels, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-01926 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 20, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://www.gothambagels.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services the website provides to their non-disabled customers through its website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the ADA. Yet, the website contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. The access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website, says the suit. The Defendant provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Three Bird Nest.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law GRUBHUB INC: Settles Delivery Fees Class Action Suit for $5-Mil. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Grubhub has agreed to a $5 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it misled customers about delivery fees, service fees and menu prices. The Grubhub settlement benefits consumers who ordered and paid for food through the Grubhub or Seamless app or website for delivery to a California address between Jan. 24, 2019, and Jan. 12, 2026. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit accused Grubhub of making false and misleading representations about delivery fees, service fees and menu prices. These representations allegedly violated California's Unfair Competition Law. Grubhub is an online food ordering and delivery service that allows customers to order food from local restaurants. Grubhub has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $5 million settlement to resolve the class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Grubhub settlement, class members can receive a $10 Grubhub site credit for use on the Grubhub app or website. No sales taxes will be assessed on the value of this credit. If the settlement administrator determines that it is not possible to issue $10 credits to all class members who file valid claims, the delivery fees settlement awards will be adjusted downward proportionally. The deadline for exclusion and objection is March 30, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Grubhub settlement is scheduled for April 29, 2026. To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by May 12, 2026. Who's Eligible Consumers who ordered and paid for food through the Grubhub or Seamless app or website between Jan. 24, 2019, and Jan. 12, 2026, for delivery to a California address. Potential Award $10 Grubhub site credit. Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 05/12/2026 Case Name Wang, et al. v. Grubhub Inc., Case No. 23STCV24118, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. Final Hearing 04/29/2026 Settlement Website GHDeliveryFeeSettlement.com Claims Administrator Grubhub Delivery Fee Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 2349 Portland, OR 97208-2349 info@GHdeliveryfeesettlement.com (877) 522-2081 Class Counsel Jeffrey D. Kaliel Sophia G. Gold KALIELGOLD PLLC Defense Counsel Marissa Hernandez Amy P. Lally STACY R. HORTH-NEUBERT [GN] HANDI-FOIL CORP: Wins Summary Judgment v. Osdoby Suit ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MERRYL OSDOBY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HANDI-FOIL CORP, Case No. 2:22-cv-04199-NG-JMW (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gershon entered an order as follows: -- Granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment; -- Denying as moot the Plaintiff's motion for class certification because the Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted; and -- Denying the Plaintiff's request to file a sur-reply. The Plaintiff brings this putative class action for claims that Defendant Handi-Foil Corp. engaged in deceptive practices and false advertising in violation of New York General Business Law (GBL) sections 349 and 350 by labeling its retail aluminum pans "Made in the USA" when some of its raw materials were mined or processed outside of the United States prior to their domestic sourcing and manufacturing. Handi-Foil markets and sells aluminum products at retail establishments in the United States. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Feb. 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aFmBjF at no extra charge.[CC] HASELECT-WATERFORD: Inflates Fund Value to Extract Fees, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ CORI-SCHUBERT DE CORI, TRUSTEE OF THE CORI-SCHUBERT DE CORI REVOCABLE TRUST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HASELECT-WATERFORD LLC, GRIFFIN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC GRIFFIN ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC, MICHAEL GRIFFIN, and MARCUM LLP, Defendants, Case No. 7:26-cv-01513 (S.D.N.Y., February 23, 2026) arises from a systematic scheme to defraud investors in a life settlement fund through manipulation of discount rates used to value the Fund's investment portfolio of life insurance policies, inflating the portfolio's purported value and thereby enabling extraction of excessive fees that are calculated based on a percentage of the reported gains and net asset value ("NAV") of Waterford. HASelect-Waterford LLC ("Waterford" or the "Fund") is a Delaware LLC having its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. The Fund is in wind-down but remains substantially unliquidated more than four years after suspending redemptions. Griffin Asset Management LLC ("GAM") is Waterford's external advisor owned and controlled by Defendant Michael Griffin, who is the principal of GCM and GAM. Griffin is an Illinois citizen and domiciled in Illinois who personally benefited from millions in fees and redeemed his investment at inflated NAV before problems emerged. GCM, GAM and Griffin are sometimes referred to collectively as the "Griffin Defendants". Marcum LLP was Waterford's auditor at relevant times until 2025. The complaint relates that from 2017-2024, GAM extracted for itself and affiliates approximately $11.5 million in Management, Subadvisory and Platform fees from Waterford (21% of the $54.4 million in investor contributions). Additional fees charged in 2025 and 2026 have not yet been reported. GAM collected these exorbitant and inflated fees while concealing the Fund's true financial condition over a period of years, and has failed to liquidate the Fund even though Waterford announced on December 28, 2021 that it would begin an orderly wind-down. GAM has continued to collect fees throughout the extended period since December 2021, while Waterford shows no signs of completing its wind-down and liquidation. After purchasing life insurance policies for Waterford's portfolio at a given price, the Griffin Defendants, through GAM, then immediately and systemically marked up the value of the insurance policies and carried them on Waterford's books at values well above the policies' true market value, relates the complaint. Once the Fund stopped raising capital, Waterford's returns collapsed because there were no new policies to mark up and generate additional "profits". This phenomenon is evidenced by the Fund's decreases in NAV since 2022. Inflating the values of policies held by the Fund upfront also had the effect of consistently showing attractive monthly "returns" that attracted investors, who were unaware that Waterford's purported investment returns were largely based on inflated unrealized gains resulting from its overvaluation of its policy portfolio, and by-and-large not from actual gains from sale of policies in the market or maturing policies that generated cash returns. As a result of the Griffin Defendants' causing the Fund to carry its policy portfolio on its books at artificially inflated values, Waterford: (a) was depleted of funds by paying fees to GAM and the Fund's subadvisors that exceeded the fees that would have been due had the Fund's books reflected the policy portfolio's true value; and (b) is now unable to sell the policies for the inflated values it has claimed they are worth, adds the complaint. The fraud perpetrated against Waterford and its investors was thus enabled by Marcum's failure to challenge management's self-interested valuation of its policy portfolio, carried out by L&E utilizing defined portfolio assumptions (including discount rates) consistent with the approaches selected by the Fund's management. Marcum continued to issue unqualified audit opinions attesting to the accuracy of the Fund's reported financial results, despite significant red flags raised by the valuation information provided by, and valuation methodology utilized by, L & E, says the suit. Plaintiff Cori-Schubert De Cori Revocable Trust is a revocable trust for the benefit of Annette Schubert De Cori and Mauricio Cori who are domiciled in California and made net contributions of $850,000 into Waterford between 2017 and December 31, 2021 (supposedly valued at $1,096,227 on that date). Plaintiff has received redemptions of $88,347 in the four years since the December 31, 2021 wind-down began, with over $760,000 of this investor's net contributions still trapped.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Gray, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOHER J. GRAY, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, 46th floor New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 838-3221 E-mail: chris@investorlawyers.net - and - Alexander Loftus, Esq. LOFTUS & EISENBERG, LTD. 181 W. Madison, Suite 4700 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 899-6625 E-mail: alex@loftusandeisenberg.com HESS BAKKEN: Must Oppose Class Cert. in Penman Suit by March 9 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Penman v. Hess Bakken Investments II, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00097 (D.N.D., Filed June 10, 2022), the Hon. Judge Daniel L. Hovland entered an order granting motion to Amend Scheduling Order filed by Hess Bakken Investments II, LLC. The Defendant Expert Witness Disclosures and Reports due by March 9, 2026. The Defendant Opposition to Class Certification due by March 9, 2026. The Plaintiffs Rebuttal Expert Disclosures due by June 9, 2026. The Defendant Rebuttal Expert Disclosures due by April 9, 2026. The nature of suit states Diversity-Other Contract. Hess Bakken is a Houston-based subsidiary of Hess Corporation founded in 2009, primarily focused on oil and gas exploration and production in the Bakken shale formation.[CC] HIMS & HERS: Faces MacKey Suit Over Text Message Sales Calls ------------------------------------------------------------ HUNTER MACKEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HIMS & HERS HEALTH, INC., HIMS & HERS HEALTH, INC., Case No. CACE-26-003060 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., February 20, 2026) is an action for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages in violations of the Caller ID Rules, of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. The complaint alleges that the Defendant made text message sales calls that promoted and violated the Caller ID Rules. The Plaintiff is the regular user of a cellular telephone number and receives Defendant's telephonic sales calls. Hims & Hers is an American telehealth company established in 2017. The company provides prescription medications, over-the-counter medications, and personal care products. Hims & Hers operates with a direct-to-consumer model.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 97 4 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Telephone: (202) 709-5744 Facsimile: (866) 893-0416 E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com HUSQVARNA PROFESSIONAL: Douglass Seeks Class Settlement Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLAIR DOUGLASS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. HUSQVARNA PROFESSIONAL PRODUCTS, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00771-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting final approval of the class action settlement agreement, and certifying the Settlement Class. The Plaintiff asks that the Court find the Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and enter the attached proposed order. The Defendant does not oppose the relief sought herein. Husqvarna produces outdoor power products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=428l0E at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Tucker, Esq. Kevin Abramowicz, Esq. Helen Chandler Steiger, Esq. Stephanie Moore, Esq. Kayla Conahan, Esq. Jessica Liu, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC 6901 Lynn Way, Suite 503 Pittsburgh, PA 15208 Telephone: (412) 877-5220 E-mail: ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com kconahan@eastendtrialgroup.com jliu@eastendtrialgroup.com IGN ENTERTAINMENT: Ostini Sues Over Unlawful Recording and Capture ------------------------------------------------------------------ Peter Ostini, Michael Chavarria, David Ramirez, Robert Prado, and Stacy Penning, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. IGN ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Case No. 5:26-cv-01375 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 16, 2026), is brought against IGN for unlawfully using a pen register device to record and capture the electronic communications of users visiting IGN's website, including the "routing, addressing, or signaling information" transmitted between users' devices and the website operated by IGN, in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"). When users visit the Website, IGN enables the installation of third-party tracking technologies, including those operated by Google (DoubleClick and Google Analytics Pixels) and Yahoo (collectively, the "Trackers"), on visitors' internet browsers. The Trackers are operated by separate and distinct third parties: Google and Yahoo. Each Tracker collects the Internet Protocol ("IP") addresses of website users and other device-identifier information, such as device type and browser type. IGN, together with the third parties operating these Trackers, uses the collected information to monitor user activity, analyze traffic patterns, and support advertising and marketing efforts. Because the Trackers capture Website visitors' "routing, addressing, or signaling information," the Trackers constitute a "pen register" under the CIPA. The Plaintiffs bring this action to prevent IGN from further violating the privacy rights of individuals, and to recover statutory damages for IGN's violation of the CIPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs used their personal devices to access and interact with Defendant's Website. IGN operates https://www.ign.com (the "Website"), and is a subsidiary of Ziff Davis, Inc. its parent company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DeMAY PLLC 19800 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 270 Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: (212) 946-9389 Email: tkashima@brysonpllc.com INDIAN OIL: Judge Dismisses Class Suit Over First Nations Lands --------------------------------------------------------------- Matteo Cimellaro, writing for Ottawa Citizen, reports that a Federal Court judge has dismissed a proposed class action lawsuit launched against Indian Oil and Gas Canada (IOGC) by former Indigenous employees alleging years of harassment and discrimination. Yvette Zentner and Letitia Wells, the lead plaintiffs of the proposed class action, launched the lawsuit in 2021 and claimed that they suffered harassment at the agency, which oversees the regulation of oil and gas development on First Nations lands. However, Federal Court Justice Glennys McVeigh ruled that the case did not meet the criteria of a class action. "This is not a decision that I reach easily. I have carefully considered the circumstances, including the heartbreaking stories of the women involved in this action, the hardship that they describe, and the obstacles that they must overcome in their effort to seek justice," McVeigh wrote in the decision released Jan. 27. "At the same time, I applaud the strength of the women for choosing to come forward and not stay silent. In doing so, they have given voice to experiences that many in their position might have felt unable to articulate." The decision echoed a Federal Court ruling in March that dismissed a proposed class action launched by Black public servants alleging system racism in the federal government and seeking $2.5 billion in damages. In the IOGC lawsuit, Zentner, a member of the Siksika Nation in Alberta, alleged several incidents of harassment. Wells, a former IOGC worker, alleged sexual harassment by a former executive director of the organization as well as harassment and physical assault by a supervisor. Other employees provided written testimony describing IOGC as a toxic workplace. In one testimony, a woman said she disclosed an addiction to her employer. Upon returning to the agency after seeking treatment, the woman said her manager "disclosed the addiction to other employees and external stakeholders without her consent," according to the decision. In 2022, an independent review of working conditions at IOGC found serious issues, including that employees did not believe executives were taking allegations of racism and discrimination seriously. However, McVeigh found that neither the report "(nor) the implementation of its recommendations constitute an admission of systemic negligence by (Indian Oil and Gas Canada)." In her decision, McVeigh pointed to a section of the Federal Public Service Labour Relations Act, which requires public servants to use the grievance process to redress disputes related to workplace issues. McVeigh said that this section barred the class action lawsuit and that the Federal Court didn’t have jurisdiction over the dispute. In March, the Federal Court dismissed the proposed class action of Black public servants with similar reasoning. McVeigh said that "the outcome of the case should not be understood to reflect the credibility of these women or the significance of their concerns, but only the constraints of the legal framework in which this Court must operate." Jacinthe Goulet, a spokesperson for Indigenous Services Canada (which IOGC reports to), reiterated McVeigh’s finding that the Federal Court did not have the jurisdiction to hear the dispute. "Indigenous Services Canada takes concerns about harassment and discrimination seriously, and Indian Oil and Gas Canada has process in place for employees to raise concerns and seek support," Goulet said. Goulet added that the court confirmed that existing "labour, grievance and human rights processes are the appropriate avenues for these type of concerns, and the plaintiffs may choose to appeal the decision." [GN] INTERNAL MEDICINE: Fails to Secure Private Info, Beaulieu Says -------------------------------------------------------------- SIERRA BEAULIEU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTERNAL MEDICINE OF MILFORD, P.C., Defendant, Case No. _______ (Super. Ct., New Haven, Conn., February 18, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to adequately protect and secure its patients' Private Information in accordance with industry standards. The complaint relates that as a condition of receiving medical treatment from IMMCT, its patients were required to provide Defendant with their sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI"), including their names, dates of birth, Social Security Numbers, contact information, medical and health insurance information, medical history, driver's license and other information. On February 7, 2026, it was discovered that IMMCT's systems had been infiltrated by cybercriminals, believed to be Insomnia, on November 5, 2025, in a ransomware cyberattack, resulting in the Private Information of Defendant's patients--Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members--being disclosed. Even as Defendant discovered the Data Breach occurred in November 2025, and was publicly announced by the cybercriminals, IMMCT has yet to publicly acknowledge the occurrence of the Data Breach, nor has Defendant notified its affected patients of the unauthorized disclosure of their Private Information. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered concrete injuries in fact and damages, including: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) theft of Private Information and misuse of Private Information; (iii) lost or diminished value of Private Information; (iv) lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (v) loss of benefit of the bargain; (vi) lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (vii) statutory damages; (viii) nominal damages; and (ix) the continued and certainly increased risk to their Private Information, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf all those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access by an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. Plaintiff Sierra Beaulieu is a former patient of Defendant residing in Milford, Connecticut. Defendant Internal Medicine of Milford, P.C. ("IMMCT") is a medical provider located in Milford, Connecticut which purports to provide extensive clinical care solutions to all of the individuals and families who need its services in Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Oren Faircloth, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Tanner R. Hilton, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (646) 357-1732 E-mail: ofaircloth@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. Andrew E. Mize, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com amize@stranchlaw.com INTERNAL MEDICINE: Fails to Secure Private Info, Sherrick Says -------------------------------------------------------------- SCOTT SHERRICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff V. INTERNAL MEDICINE OF MILFORD, P.C., Defendant, Case No. _______(Super. Ct., New Haven, Conn., February 19, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI") that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The complaint relates that as a condition of receiving services, Defendant required Plaintiff to provide his PII/PHI, including at least his name, date of birth, Social Security Number, and health information. On February 7, 2026, Defendant experienced a Data Breach, and the notorious ransomware group "Insomnia" has claimed responsibility for the Breach. The complaint asserts that the Defendant deprived Plaintiff of the earliest opportunity to guard himself against the Data Breach's effects by failing to promptly notify him about it. The Plaintiff suffered actual injury from the exposure of his PII/PHI -- which violates his rights to privacy. 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. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of himself, and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. Plaintiff SCOTT SHERRICK is a patient of Defendant residing in Milford, Connecticut. Defendant INTERNAL MEDICINE OF MILFORD, P.C. is a Connecticut based medical practice that provides comprehensive internal and family medicine services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Oren Faircloth, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Tanner R. Hilton, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (646) 357-1732 E-mail: ofaircloth@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Ken Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com grunfeld@kolawyers.com IRON MOUNTAIN: Logan Sues Over Failure to Protect and Safeguard PII ------------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Logan, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals v. IRON MOUNTAIN INCORPORATED, Case No. 1:26-cv 00109 (D.N.H., Feb. 16, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and the Class's highly sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII"). As a result of Defendant's negligence and insufficient data security, cybercriminals easily infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network and on or around February 2, 2026, and accessed the PII of Plaintiff and the Class (the "Data Breach" or "Breach"). Now, Plaintiff's and the Class's PII is in the hands of cybercriminals who will undoubtedly use their PII for nefarious purposes for the rest of their lives. As part of its business practices, Iron Mountain obtains, collects, uses, and derives a benefit from the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members. As such, Defendant assumed the legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. This class action seeks to redress Defendant's unlawful, willful and wanton failure to reasonably protect the sensitive PII of the Plaintiff and Class Members, in violation of Defendant's legal obligations. The Defendant failed to properly safeguard and protect the PII in its possession, thereby allowing cybercriminals the opportunity to steal Plaintiff's and Class Members' valuable PII from Defendant's inadequately protected computer and network systems., says the complaint. The Plaintiff and the Class are current and former users and employees of Defendant. Iron Mountain is company that provides storage information management and various other data and physical storage services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam H. Weintraub, Esq. WEINTRAUB LAW, LLC 170 Commerce Way, Suite 200 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Phone: (603) 212-1785 Email: aweintraub@ahwfirm.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: (800) 237-1277 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com jaw@federmanlaw.com JACK LILLY: Battle Sues Over Blind User-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ ANDRE BATTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Jack Lilly, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-01910 (N.D., Ill. Feb. 20, 2026) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://justingredients.us, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The suit contends that the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services Extra Butter provides to their non-disabled customers through its website. Accordingly, Justingredients.us contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. The access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Copine's policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. The Defendant provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Just Ingredients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. HORWITZ LAW, PLLC 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com JAN-CARE AMBULANCE: Fox Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------- Daniel Fox Jr. and Robert Sovine, individually and for others similarly situated v. JAN-CARE AMBULANCE, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-00273 (W.D. Penn., Feb. 13, 2026), is brought under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Law ("PMWL"), the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law (WPCL) and the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant. The Plaintiffs and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours in a workweek. But the Defendant does not pay Plaintiffs and the other Hourly Employees at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay--based on all remuneration--for all hours they work in excess of 40 each workweek. Instead, the Defendant deducts approximately 3 hours from Plaintiffs and the other Hourly Employees for "sleep time," during 24 hour shifts working at the Defendant's facilities (The Defendant's "sleep deduction policy"). The Defendant's sleep deduction policy and shift differential pay scheme violate the PMWL and FLSA by failing to compensate Plaintiffs and the other Hourly Employees at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay--based on all remuneration--for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Additionally, the Defendant's sleep deduction policy and shift differential pay scheme violate the WPCL by depriving Plaintiffs and the other Hourly Employees of earned wages, including overtime wages, on their regular paydays and/or following the termination of their employment, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed as emergency medical technicians (EMTs). Jan-Care touts itself as "the largest EMS provider in West Virginia."[BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 - Joshua P. Geist, Esq. William F. Goodrich, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST PC 3634 California Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Phone: 412-766-1455 Facsimile: 412-766-0300 Email: josh@goodrichandgeist.com bill@goodrichandgeist.com JEFF ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES: Fitzgerald Files Suit in D. Minnesota ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jeff Anderson & Associates, PA. The case is styled as Andrew Fitzgerald, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jeff Anderson & Associates, PA, Case No. 0:26-cv-01486-JMB-DJF (D. Minn., Feb. 17, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Jeff Anderson & Associates -- https://www.andersonadvocates.com/ -- operates as a law firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Pamela Richardson, Esq. LARSON KING 2800 Wells Fargo Place 30 East Seventh Street, Suite 2800 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Phone: (320) 282-8272 Email: rrichardson@larsonking.com - and - Rhett A. McSweeney, Esq. MCSWEENEY / LANGEVIN LLC 2116 2nd Ave S. Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 746-4646 Fax: (612) 454-2678 Email: ram@mclmasstort.com JOES 24 LLC: Stanley Sues Over Unlawful Architectural Barriers -------------------------------------------------------------- Solomon Stanley, and all other mobility-impaired individuals similarly situated v. JOES 24 LLC, A Domestic Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:26-cv-00899-SCJ (N.D. Ga., Feb. 16, 2026), is brought for Injunctive Relief, and attorney's fees, litigation expenses, costs and damages pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Plaintiff was a patron at Joes Bottle shop on November 3, 2025. There are numerous architectural barriers present at Joes Bottle shop that prevent and/or restrict access by Plaintiff, in that several features, elements, and spaces of Joes Bottle shop are not accessible to or usable by Plaintiff. The Plaintiff, upon visiting the property, personally suffered discrimination because of his disability. There are several elements and spaces that Plaintiff personally encountered and which discriminated against him based upon his disability, such as: a. The designated accessible parking is improperly marked and is unusable for a disabled individual; b. The designated accessible parking is severely sloped and creates a hazard to a disabled individual; c. There is insufficient maneuvering clearance throughout the store for a disabled individual to shop. The discriminatory violations described of this Complaint are not an exclusive list of the Defendants' ADA violations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff suffers from mobility issues. The Defendant owns, leases, leases to, or operates Joes Bottle shop.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Pete M. Monismith, Esq. 1000 Main Street, Suite 2016 Pittsburgh, PA 15215 Phone: 724-610-1881 Email: pete@monismithlaw.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Talcum Products Can Cause Cancer, Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Pharmacy Daily reports that Australian law firm Shine Lawyers has commenced a class action against Johnson & Johnson, alleging its talcum powder products were "defective, unfit for purpose and not of merchantable quality due to the potential to cause cancer". Cancers include those of the female reproductive system (such as ovarian cancer and fallopian tube cancer), cancers of epithelial tissue (commonly called carcinomas) or cancer of mesothelial tissue and/or linings of the body (including mesothelioma), and result from alleged contamination with asbestos. Similar class actions in the US have resulted in billions of dollars in legal liabilities for J&J, and while the company maintains its talc products are safe, it has switched to using cornstarch instead. [GN] KAS VENTURES: Barrientos-Ruiz Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Miguel Barrientos-Ruiz, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. KAS VENTURES LLC, SAN BERNARDO RETAIL LLC D/B/A PUMP N SHOP #31, SHILOH RETAIL, LLC D/B/A PUMP N SHOP #33, URSULA RETAIL, LLC D/B/A PUMP N SHOP #12, SAN DARIO RETAIL, LLC D/B/A PUMP N SHOP #15, AND ASHRAF MISTRY, Case No. 5:26-cv-00225 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 16, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), to remedy Defendants' unlawful wage and hour practices and unpaid overtime wages. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants at these locations and regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek. Despite requiring and permitting employees to work overtime hours, Defendants failed to pay them overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay, as required by the FLSA. The Plaintiff was paid his regular hourly rate for the hours reflected on each separate pay stub issued by Defendants. However, because Defendants failed to aggregate Plaintiff's hours worked across commonly owned and jointly operated entities within that same workweek, they did not pay him overtime compensation at one and one-half times his regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a Cashier at multiple Pump N Shop gas station and Convenience Stores locations in Laredo, Texas. The Defendants own and operate a group of retail convenience stores in Texas under the "Pump N Shop" name.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trang Q. Tran, Esq. TRAN LAW FIRM 800 Town & Country Blvd., Suite 500, Houston, TX 77024 Phone: (713) 223–8855 Email: trang@tranlf.com service@tranlf.com KRISTI NOEM: Must Release Colina-Rojas from Custody --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELENA CARMEN MARIA COLINA-ROJAS, v. KRISTI NOEM, et al., Case No. 4:26-cv-00037-RGJ (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Jennings entered an order granting Colina-Rojas's writ of habeas corpus. The United States is directed to release Petitioner Colina-Rojas immediately because of the unlawful detention in violation of her due process rights. The United States must provide her with a bond hearing before a neutral IJ pursuant to Section 1226. The United States must certify compliance with the Court’s order by a filing on the docket by February 14, 2026. The Court finds that all three Matthews factors favor Colina-Rojas. The current detention of Colina-Rojas is in violation of the Due Process Clause and the INA. As a result of her release stemming from the “unlawful detention” in violation of her due process rights, and further pursuant to Section 1226 and its supporting regulations, Petitioner must be provided with a bond hearing on the merits before a neutral IJ prior to any re-detention. Colina-Rojas has been present in the United States since May 30, 2022, when she entered without inspection. Colina-Rojas then applied, and was subsequently granted, Temporary Protected Status. Kristi Noem is an American politician. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IupDQL at no extra charge.[CC] LA TERRA: Wins Bid to Dismiss "Vineyard" ---------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Tricia Vineyard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. La Terra Fina USA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-CV-00704-NJR (S.D. Ill.), Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's amended complaint in this putative class action. The court afforded the Plaintiff a second and final opportunity to amend, with a deadline of March 30, 2026. The class has not been certified. Plaintiff Tricia Vineyard alleged that La Terra Fina USA, LLC coaxed her into buying an Everything But The Bagel Dip and Spread when the lid marketed no artificial flavors, colors or preservatives. A closer look at the ingredient list revealed citric acid, an alleged artificial preservative commonly used in commercial food production. The Plaintiff purchased the product at Schnucks in Swansea, Illinois, for $3.99. The Plaintiff alleged that citric acid in the Defendant's products is derived from a commercial, microbial/chemical manufacturing process, which produces a white powder that does not occur in nature. This industrial process ferments a fungus called Aspergillus niger and chemically converts it into citrate salt. The Plaintiff further alleged that 99% of global citric acid production occurs through this or similar fermentation processes, and that it is cheaper for food companies to manufacture citric acid than to extract it from citrus fruits directly. The Plaintiff sought to represent a nationwide class of consumers who purchased La Terra Fina brand dips during the five-year period prior to the original filing of this lawsuit on January 25, 2024. The amended complaint asserted claims for: (1) deceptive practices in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA); (2) unfair practices under the ICFA; (3) breach of express warranty; and (4) unjust enrichment. The court found that the Plaintiff's allegations of fraud failed for a simple reason: the lack of a discernible nexus between the industrial fermenting process she described generally and the citric acid production practices of the Defendant. The Plaintiff's entire theory of liability as it pertained to the products at issue was based on her information and belief. The court noted that a plaintiff who bases allegations of fraud on information and belief bears the burden of pleading plausible grounds for suspecting that the defendant was engaged in a fraudulent scheme. The court further noted that the Plaintiff had done nothing to corroborate her suspicion. Her allegations boiled down to the following: La Terra Fina is a food company; food companies generally use artificial citric acid to save money; therefore, the Defendant uses artificial citric acid in its dips. These allegations failed to offer specific facts about the Defendant's liability. Accordingly, Count I was dismissed. Count II - Unfair Trade Practices Count II, alleging unfair practices, was subject to the more forgiving standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, but failed for the same reason as Count I: the lack of any allegations tied specifically to the Defendant. The court held that Rule 8 does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions. The amended complaint, at its core, was a pleading shortcut. Count II was therefore dismissed. Counts III and IV - Breach of Warranty and Unjust Enrichment The court made short work of the remaining claims for breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment. These claims were based on the same allegations that failed to support the ICFA claims. The Plaintiff's failure to plausibly allege that the citric acid used in the dips is artificial necessarily meant that Counts III and IV also failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Counts III and IV were accordingly dismissed. The court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety. While noting some skepticism about the Plaintiff's ability to advance a cognizable claim, the court granted a second and final opportunity to amend. The Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint, if she chooses to do so, on or before March 30, 2026. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Inya5P Defendant La Terra Fina USA, LLC Represented By Amanda Catalano Tabet Divito & Rothstein LLC 312-762-9496 acatalano@tdrlawfirm.com Steven Rosenbaum Covington & Burling LLP 202-662-5568 srosenbaum@cov.com Dillon H. Grimm Covington & Burling LLP 202-662-5057 dgrimm@cov.com Daniel L. Stanner Tabet Divito & Rothstein LLC 312-762-9450 dstanner@tdrlawfirm.com Plaintiff Tricia Vineyard Represented By Matthew H. Armstrong Armstrong Law Firm LLC 314-258-0212 matt@mattarmstronglaw.com David C. Nelson Nelson & Nelson 618-277-4000 dnelson@nelsonlawpc.com Robert L. King Law Office Of Robert L. King 314-441-6580 king@kinglaw.com Stuart L. Cochran Condon Tobin Sladek Thornton Nerenberg 214-265-3804 scochran@condontobin.com LADYFISH KENDALL: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Says -------------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals, Plaintiff v. LADYFISH KENDALL LLC and 36 RESTAURANT CORP D/B/A OLD TOM'S SPORTS BAR RESTAURANT, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-21164-XXXX (S.D. Fla., February 20, 2026) is an action seeking injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint relates that the subject commercial property and restaurant are open to the public and is located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The individual Plaintiff visits the commercial property and restaurant regularly, to include visits to the commercial property and business located within the commercial property on October 19, 2025, and encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the commercial property. The Plaintiff alleges that he has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject places of public accommodation. The barriers to access at Defendants' commercial property and restaurant business have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit these places of public accommodation and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The barriers to access have likewise posed a risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff and others similarly situated. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property and restaurant business within the commercial property, as prohibited by the ADA, the complaint asserts. Plaintiff NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO is an individual with disabilities who uses a wheelchair to ambulate. He has very limited use of his hands and cannot operate any mechanisms which require tight grasping or twisting of the wrist. He has lower paraplegia, which inhibits him from walking or otherwise ambulating without the use of a wheelchair. He additionally has limitations involving his arms and hands. He is limited in his major life activities by such, including but not limited to walking, standing, grabbing, grasping and/or pinching. Defendant/landlord LADYFISH KENDALL LLC owns, operates and/or oversees the commercial property, to include its general parking lot and parking spots specific to the restaurant business operating within the commercial property and all other common areas open to the public located within the commercial property. Defendant 36 RESTAURANT CORP D/B/A OLD TOM'S SPORTS BAR RESTAURANT owns, operates and oversees the restaurant within its commercial property, to include the entrance and interior to its commercial restaurant business therein and all other interior pathway and aisles, access to commercial goods and services, and restroom areas, which are open to the public located within the commercial property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Primary E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary E-mails: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com mds@ajperezlawgroup.com LAKELAND INDUSTRIES: Purrington Sues Over 38.97% Stock Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT PURRINGTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LAKELAND INDUSTRIES, INC., JAMES M. JENKINS, CHARLES D. ROBERSON, and ROGER D. SHANNON, Case No. 1:26-cv-01501 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2026) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class consisting of all persons and entities other than the Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Lakeland securities between Dec. 1, 2023 and Dec. 9, 2025, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. The Defendants represented that Lakeland would realize significant benefits from the acquisitions of New Zealand based Pacific Helmets NZ Limited and the related companies Jolly Scarpe S.p.A. (based in Italy) and Jolly Scarpe Romania S.R.L. (collectively, "Jolly") in both the near and long term, while touting the Company's overall SSQ M&A strategy. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly made materially false and misleading statements regarding Lakeland's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that Lakeland was experiencing significant, sustained issues with its Pacific Helmets and Jolly businesses, including, inter alia, shipping-related delays, production issues, and slower than expected rollout of new products. The truth began to emerge on Sept.4, 2024, when, during post-market hours, Lakeland issued a press release reporting its financial results for the second quarter ("Q2") of its FY 2025. Lakeland reported revenue of $38.51 million for the quarter, missing consensus estimates by $1.39 million. Then, on Dec. 9, 2025, during post-market hours, Lakeland issued a press release reporting its financial results for the third quarter ("Q3") of its FY 2026. Lakeland reported Q3 2026 GAAP EPS of -$1.64, missing consensus estimates by $1.93, and revenue of $47.6 million, missing consensus estimates by $9.05 million. Following these disclosures, Lakeland's stock price fell $5.85 per share, or 38.97%, to close at $9.16 per share on Dec. 10, 2025. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the suit asserts. Lakeland, together with its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells industrial protective clothing and accessories for the industrial and public protective clothing market worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. James M. LoPiano, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com jlopiano@pomlaw.com LATITUDE 36 FOODS: Valladares Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Latitude 36 Foods, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Luz Esmeralda Valladares, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated and current and former aggrieved employees v. Latitude 36 Foods, LLC, Fairway Staffing Services, Case No. 26STCV04963 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 17, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Latitude 36 Foods -- https://www.latitude36foods.com/ -- is the leader in portion-packed salad condiments, spices, private label snacks, portioned cheese, and portioned bacon products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Lavi, Esq. E&L, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., 2nd Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: 213-213-0000 Fax: 213-213-0025 Email: dlavi@ebralavi.com LEE AUTO GROUP: Connor Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lee Auto Group Tampa Inc. The case is styled as Jay Connor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lee Auto Group Tampa Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-00357 (M.D. Fla., Feb. 13, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Lee Auto Group -- https://www.leeautotampa.com/ -- is a family-owned car dealer since 1968, offers quality used cars and pickup trucks in Tampa, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com LOUIS VUITTON: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Butler Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- BENJAMIN BUTLER, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOUIS VUITTON NORTH AMERICA, INC. and LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER S.A.S., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01497 (S.D.N.Y., February 23, 2026) arises from the Defendants' failure to design, maintain, and operate their commercial website, https://us.louisvuitton.com, in a manner accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. The Plaintiff encountered multiple accessibility barriers on Defendants' website, preventing him from understanding the appearance, features, sizing, and purchase options of the specific products he intended to buy. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now asserts claims arising under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights Law. Louis Vuitton North America owns and operates a chain of retail stores and the website which offers luxury handbags, jewelry, accessories, ready-to-wear clothing, footwear, watches, and related luxury goods for sale. [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 LOWE'S HOME: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive Free Delivery Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Emileigh Harmon filed a class action lawsuit against Lowe's Home Centers LLC. Why: Harmon claims Lowe's fails to disclose that it adds a delivery fee to the total price of products sold online. Where: The Lowe's delivery fee class action lawsuit was filed in North Carolina federal court. A new class action lawsuit claims Lowe's Home Centers fails to disclose that it adds a separate delivery fee to the total price of products sold online. Plaintiff Emileigh Harmon claims Lowe's misrepresents that it provides free delivery on online orders that meet a certain monetary threshold and that it determines delivery fees for all other online orders based on shipping method and total order weight. However, Harmon alleges Lowe's fails to disclose that it adds a separate delivery fee to the total price of its online products, meaning that the same product costs more when ordered through Lowes.com than it does when bought in the store. "This hidden markup makes Defendant's representation that its consumers are receiving 'free' delivery, or delivery based on shipping method and order weight, patently false," the Lowe's class action lawsuit says. Harmon wants to represent a nationwide class and North Carolina and Tennessee subclasses of consumers who made a purchase for delivery or pickup through Lowes.com and paid more for a product than was charged by Lowe's for the same product in store. Lowe's allegedly deceives consumers into making online orders Harmon claims Lowe's deceives consumers into making online orders that they otherwise would not make and has caused them to suffer monetary injury by paying more for items than they otherwise would have had they purchased those same items in store. "By failing to clearly and prominently disclose the truth to consumers about the real price of online ordering, Defendant deceives consumers and gains an unfair upper hand on competitors that fairly disclose their pricing," the Lowe's class action lawsuit says. Harmon claims Lowe's is guilty of breach of contract and unjust enrichment and of violating the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The plaintiff demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of compensatory, treble and punitive damages for herself and all class members. In a separate class action, Lowe's was sued for allegedly misleading consumers with perpetual discount advertising on certain products. The plaintiff is represented by David M. Wilkerson of Wilkerson Justus PLLC, Scott Edelsberg of Edelsberg Law P.A. and Sophia G. Gold, Jeffrey D. Kaliel and Amanda J. Rosenberg of KalielGold PLLC. The Lowe's delivery fee class action lawsuit is Harmon v. Lowe's Home Centers LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-00119, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. [GN] LOWE'S HOME: Harmon Sues Over Deceptive Mark-Up of Products ----------------------------------------------------------- Emileigh Harmon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, Case No. 5:26-cv-00028-SCR-WCM (W.D.N.C., Feb. 13, 2026), is brought seeking monetary damages, restitution, and injunctive and declaratory relief from Lowe's, arising from its misrepresentations and material omissions regarding its deceptive mark-up of products sold on its website, Lowes.com. The Defendant prominently advertises that it provides "free" delivery on online orders meeting a certain monetary threshold and that it determines delivery fees for all other online orders based on shipping method and total order weight. But, contrary to these promises, and unbeknownst to consumers, Defendant also furtively adds a separate, unadvertised delivery fee to the total price of its online products. In other words, the identical product costs more when ordered through Lowes.com than it does when bought in the store because of surreptitiously added costs associated with delivery. This hidden markup makes Defendant's representation that its consumers are receiving "free" delivery, or delivery based on shipping method and order weight, patently false. In reality, Lowe's bakes the operating costs of its delivery services into the price of its products offered online for delivery and in-store pickup. The Defendant's misrepresentations and omissions are material to consumers. The Defendant deceives consumers into making online orders that they otherwise would not make and has caused them to suffer monetary injury by paying more for items than they otherwise would have had they purchased those same items in-store. By failing to clearly and prominently disclose the truth to consumers about the real price of online ordering, Defendant deceives consumers and gains an unfair upper hand on competitors that fairly disclose their pricing, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has had an online account with Lowe's. The Defendant operates a website on which customers can place online delivery and pick-up orders from its stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Wilkerson, Esq. WILKERSON JUSTUS PLLC 9 SW Pack Square, Suite 301 Asheville, NC 28801 Phone: (828) 316-6902 Email: dwilkerson@wilkersonjustus.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (786) 289-9471 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Sophia G. Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 490 43rd Street, No. 122 Oakland, CA 94609 Phone: (202) 350-4783 Email: sgold@kalielgold.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Amanda J. Rosenberg, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 350-4783 Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com arosenberg@kalielgold.com LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Bradley Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Dionte Bradley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Luxottica of America, Inc. doing business as: Sunglass Hut, Case No. 3:24-cv-02401 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on Feb. 18, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00175-DRC-KLL to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Luxottica of America Inc. -- http://www.luxottica.com/-- offers prescription glasses and sunglasses.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David J. DiSabato, Esq. Lisa R. Considine, Esq. NAGEL RICE, LLP 103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Phone: (973) 618-0400 Fax: (973) 618-9194 Email: lconsidine@nagelrice.com ddisabato@nagelrice.com - and - Kyle Douglas McLean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 700 S. Flower Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 532-1091 Email: kmclean@burkelawllc.com - and - Leslie L. Pescia, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 101 North Seventh Street, Suite 827 Louisville, KY 40202 Phone: (646) 448-6466 Email: lpescia@sirillp.com The Defendant is represented by: Ana Tagvoryan, Esq. Erica Graves, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP 2029 Century Park East, Ste. 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (424) 239-3465 Email: ana.tagvoryan@blankrome.com erica.graves@blankrome.com MEDICARE HEALTH: Bid to Bifurcate Discovery in Hoy Suit Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOBY HOY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. MEDICARE HEALTH ADVISORS LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00207-RGE-HCA (S.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge Adams entered an order granting in part and denying in part Medicare Health's motion to bifurcate discovery. At this early stage of the proceedings, where the Court has not yet held a scheduling conference, and Medicare Health questions whether the only named plaintiff meets the requirements to bring suit under the TCPA, the Court determines that limited, staged discovery will not prejudice Hoy and may expedite the efficient progression of the case. The Court therefore orders staged discovery as follows: Initial, limited fact discovery shall close sixty days from the date of this order and is limited to the questions 1) whether Plaintiff Toby Hoy consented to receive the calls at issue under the TCPA, 2) whether the relevant phone line is residential, 3) whether the phone line was properly registered on the Do Not Call registry, and 4) whether Plaintiff Toby Hoy heard a “robot” or prerecorded voice during the call. The Plaintiff Hoy brings claims on behalf of himself and others similarly situated under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), alleging Medicare Health sent marketing telemarketer calls for health insurance, including one "robocall," to Hoy's residential phone number while the number was on the Do Not Call Registry. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oYH6P7 at no extra charge.[CC] MERCK SHARP: Seeks to Seal Class Cert Opposition in Baltimore Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Case No. 2:23-cv-00828-GAM (E.D. Pa.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting unopposed interim motion to seal regarding opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and related exhibits. The Plaintiff does not oppose the relief requested in this Motion. The Defendant is a research-intensive American pharmaceutical company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=REa02H at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Andrew Lazerow, Esq. Ashley Bass, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One CityCenter 850 Tenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 662-6000 E-mail: abass@cov.com alazerow@cov.com - and - Lisa C. Dykstra, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 2222 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-3007 Telephone: (215) 963-5000 E-mail: lisa.dykstra@morganlewis.com MERCK SHARP: Wins Bid to Seal Class Cert Opposition in Baltimore ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Case No. 2:23-cv-00828-GAM (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Gerald Austin McHugh entered an order granting Merck's Unopposed Interim Sealing Motion Regarding Merck's Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification and Related Exhibits. The Defendant is a research-intensive American pharmaceutical company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XB1zQf at no extra charge.[CC] MERKLE INC: Prewit Files Suit in D. Maryland -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Merkle, Inc. The case is styled as Connor Prewit, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Merkle, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-00630 (D. Md., Feb. 16, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Merkle -- https://www.merkle.com/ -- is a data broker under Texas law.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (954) 647-1866 Email: mweekes@milberg.com MICHIGAN: Cardello-Smith Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Derrick Lee Cardello-Smith, et al., v. People of the State of Michigan, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00314-HYJ-RSK (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to certify case as class action A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ixEMS9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs appears pro se.[CC] : MODERNA INC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Moderna, 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 securities class suit dismissal motion is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. In August 2024, a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed against the Company and certain officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The action was purportedly brought on behalf of a class of shareholders who purchased Moderna common stock between January 18, 2023 and June 25, 2024. The complaint asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 regarding statements about its RSV vaccine (mRNA-1345) and seeks unspecified damages. On August 25, 2025, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which, among other things, narrowed the asserted class period to February 15, 2024 to May 31, 2024. On October 24, 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, which remains pending. Moderna, Inc. operates as a biotechnology company. The Company focuses on the discovery and development of messenger RNA therapeutics and vaccines. [BN] MOEHAIR USA: Bowman Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------- TANISIA BOWMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Moehair USA, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-01927 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 20, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their Website https://moehair.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services the website provides to their non-disabled customers through its website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the ADA. Yet, the website contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. The access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website, says the suit. The Defendant provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Three Bird Nest.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law MONTEFIORE MEDICAL: Jones Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- EBONE JONES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. MONTEFIORE MEDICAL CENTER, MONTEFIORE HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-01460 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 20, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, Montefiore employs dozens of Medical Audit Analysts and Senior Medical Audit Analysts, including Plaintiff Ebone Jones. Analysts perform clerical work and do not exercise discretion. Their job is to review and correct billing codes in patient charts for insurance purposes. Their primary job duties involve reviewing and inputting data. Montefiore has a common policy and practice of assigning Analysts more work than they can complete each day. As a result of this common policy and practice, Montefiore requires that Analysts regularly work in excess of 40 hours per work week (Overtime Hours) in order to complete their assigned work. Analysts regularly work Overtime Hours; however, Montefiore does not pay Analysts their earned overtime wages. Montefiore has refused to pay Analysts overtime premiums on the basis that it uniformly misclassifies them as exempt from federal and state overtime protections. This policy and practice is illegal because Analysts perform clerical work and do not exercise discretion, they are not exempt from federal and state overtime protections, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff and other exempt-classified Analysts employed by Montefiore. Montefiore is a not-for-profit corporation comprised of ten hospitals, including Defendant Montefiore Medical Center.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Molly Brooks, Esq. Emma R. Janger, Esq. Allison I. Aaronson, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Ave., 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 MORTGAGE DEPOT: Harper Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Michigan ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mortgage Depot, LLC. The case is styled as Megan Harper, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mortgage Depot, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-10576-BRM-CI (E.D. Mich., Feb. 18, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Mortgage Depot, LLC -- https://mortgagedepot.com/ -- is a mortgage lender in Bingham Farms, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN, PLLC 18117 Biscayne Blvd-Ste 4152 Miami, FL 33160 Phone: (877) 333-9427 Email: law@stefancoleman.com MR. COOPER: Class Cert Bid Filing in Cabezas Suit Due April 1 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER CABEZAS et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. MR. COOPER GROUP, INC., and NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC d/b/a MR. COOPER, Case No. 3:23-cv-02453-N (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Godbey entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to modify class certification scheduling order. The Class Certification Scheduling Order is modified as follows: Event Deadline Deadline for the Plaintiffs to serve April 1, 2026 motion for class certification on the Defendants (and any expert reports in support thereof): Class certification discovery closes: Aug. 5, 2026 Deadline for the Defendants to serve Aug. 20, 2026 opposition to motion for class certification on the Plaintiffs (and any expert reports in support thereof): Deadline for the Plaintiffs to serve Sept. 21, 2026 reply in support of class certification (and any rebuttal experts in support thereof): Class certification briefing submission Oct. 5, 2026 date: Mr. Cooper is an American home loan servicer. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lKWv4y at no extra charge.[CC] NATIONAL VISION: Tasker Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation -------------------------------------------------------------- Rayel Tasker, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. NATIONAL VISION, INC., a Georgia corporation, Case No. 1:26-cv-00895-SCJ (N.D. Ga., Feb. 16, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). In addition to the base rate of pay, Defendant incorporated various types of routine and non-discretionary pay into its payment structure. For example, Defendant paid employees shift differential pay and commission pay. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, Defendant failed to properly calculate Plaintiff's shift differential pay, commission pay, and other non-discretionary remuneration into the regular rate for proper overtime calculation. As non-exempt employees, Defendant's Hourly Employees were entitled to full compensation for all overtime hours worked at a rate of 1.5 times their "regular rate" of pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly employee from October 2022 through January 2026. The Defendant is one of the largest optical retail companies in the United States and specializes in providing affordable eye care and eyewear.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ethan C. Goemann, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 119 East Court Square, Suite 205 Decatur, GA 30030 Phone: (248) 746-4050 Fax: (248) 936-0796 Email: egoemann@sommerspc.com NAVAN INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 24 ----------------------------------------------------------- A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Navan, Inc. ("Navan" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NAVN). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants issued false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts regarding Navan's business, operations, and prospects, including allegations that the Company had increased its "sales and marketing" expenses by 39% for the quarter ending October 31, 2025, which was the same day as Navan's initial public offering. If you purchased Navan shares in connection with its October 31, 2025 initial public offering and experienced a significant loss on that investment you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832, or by visiting the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/navan/ for more information. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is April 24, 2026. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2025, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. (888) 508-6832 cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] NAVAN INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Securities Law Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., notifies investors in Navan, Inc. ("Navan" or the "Company") (NasdaqGS: NAVN) of a class action securities lawsuit. CLASS DEFINITION: The lawsuit seeks to recover losses on behalf of investors of Navan who were adversely affected if they purchased the Company's shares pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus (collectively, the "Offering Documents") issued in connection with Navan's October 2025 initial public offering (the "IPO"). Follow the link below to get more information and be contacted by a member of our team: https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-navn/ Navan investors should contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-navn/ to learn more. CASE DETAILS: According to the Complaint, Navan and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information in the Offering Documents, violating federal securities laws. The alleged false and misleading statements and omissions include, but are not limited to, that the Company had increased its "sales and marketing" expenses for the quarter ending October 31, 2025 to nearly $95 million, or by 39% compared to $68.5 million sales and marketing expenses in the quarter ending July 31, 2025. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that the Company's shares fell sharply. The case is McCown v. Navan, Inc., Case No. 26-cv-01550. WHAT TO DO? If you invested in Navan and suffered a loss during the relevant time frame, you have until April 24, 2026 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff; however, your ability to share in any recovery does not require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. This past year, KSF was ranked by SCAS among the top 10 firms nationally based upon total settlement value. KSF serves a variety of clients, including public and private institutional investors, and retail investors -- in seeking recoveries for investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, Delaware, California, Louisiana, Chicago, and a representative office in Luxembourg. Contacts Lewis Kahn, Esq. Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC 1100 Poydras St., Suite 960 New Orleans, LA 70163 Tel: (877) 515-1850 E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN] NAVAN INC: McCown Sues Over Misleading IPO Documents ---------------------------------------------------- DAVID MCCOWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NAVAN, INC., ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-01550 (N.D. Cal., February 23, 2026) accuses the Defendants of violating the Securities Act of 1933. The Plaintiff brings this federal class action against (i) Navan, (ii) certain of the Company's senior executives and directors who signed the Registration Statement, effective October 31, 2025, issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering (IPO), and the underwriters of the IPO. The Plaintiff alleges that the Registration Statement and Prospectus -- filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on September 19, 2025, and October 30, 2025, respectively -- contained materially incorrect or misleading statements and/or omitted material information that was required by law to be disclosed. The Plaintiff further asserts that the Company's Offering Documents were false and misleading and omitted to state that the Company would increase its sales and marketing expenses by 39% just months after the IPO to sustain its revenue, Gross Booking Volume, and usage yield growth. Headquartered in Palo Alto, CA, Navan, Inc. provides booking and expense reporting software for business travelers. The company's stock trades on Nasdaq under the ticker symbol "NAVN." [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John T. Jasnoch, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-4565 E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com - and - Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq. Mandeep S. Minhas, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 233-6444 E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com mminhas@scott-scott.com NEW ORLEANS, LA: Gonzalez Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESTER JOSE GONZALEZ, v. SCOTT LADWIG, Acting Field Office Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, New Orleans Field Office, Case No. 2:26-cv-02017-MSN-atc (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Norris entered an order denying the petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. section 2241 and denying emergency motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. DHS's policy shift and the BIA’s ratification of it are, without a doubt, difficult changes for Petitioner and the multitude of other similarly situated individuals nationwide. The Court is sensitive to the impact this has on them, their families, and the ties that many of them have developed in this country. But courts are not policymakers, nor are they empowered to unilaterally change the plain text of a statute to avoid an outcome the law demands. Whatever this Court’s feelings may be, Petitioner’s right to enter and reside in "the United States depends on the congressional will, and courts cannot substitute their judgment for the legislative mandate." A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jpzOP6 at no extra charge.[CC] NOLAN INTERIOR: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cazares Says --------------------------------------------------------------- AMELIA CAZARES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Nolan Interior LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00306 (E.D. Wis., Feb. 23, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://nolaninterior.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Cazares and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the Website, the suit contends. Ms. Cazares browsed and intended to make an online purchase of a blanket on the Website. Despite her efforts, however, she was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the Website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. Unless Defendant remedies the numerous access barriers on its Website, Cazares and Class Members will continue to be unable to independently navigate, browse, use, and complete a purchase on the Website, the Plaintiff avers. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that the 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. The Defendant offers protective furniture covers, especially sofa and couch covers that are stretchy, easy to install, machine washable, and designed to help homeowners keep their furniture looking fresh even in homes with pets, kids, or everyday wear.[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 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law NORTH ATLANTIC STATES: Arnot Files Suit in D. Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against North Atlantic States Carpenters Benefit Fund. The case is styled as Keith Arnot, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. North Atlantic States Carpenters Benefit Fund doing business as: NASCBF, Case No. 1:26-cv-10901-IT (D. Mass., Feb. 18, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Contract Dispute. North Atlantic States Carpenters Benefit Fund doing business as NASCBF -- https://www.carpentersfund.org/ -- offers Great health and welfare benefits, including medical, dental, prescription drug, vision, accident and sickness coverage, and more.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Casondra R. Turner, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: cturner@milberg.com NORTH ATLANTIC STATES: Gillis Files Suit in D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against North Atlantic States Carpenters Benefit Fund. The case is styled as Neil E. Gillis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. North Atlantic States Carpenters Benefit Fund doing business as: NASCBF, Case No. 1:26-cv-10914 (D. Mass., Feb. 18, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. North Atlantic States Carpenters Benefit Fund doing business as NASCBF -- https://www.carpentersfund.org/ -- offers Great health and welfare benefits, including medical, dental, prescription drug, vision, accident and sickness coverage, and more.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary Suzutaro Ishimoto, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 33 Whitehall St., 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (201) 294-1566 Email: gishimoto@zlk.com NORTH SKY COMMUNICATIONS: Montiel Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against North Sky Communications, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Carlos Montiel, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. North Sky Communications, LLC, a Limited Liability Company, Does 1-50, Case No. 26CV003585 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Feb. 17, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." North Sky -- https://northskycomm.com/ -- is the leading full-service telecommunications contractor serving the Pacific Northwest and Northern California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman Blumenthal, Esq. BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037-3107 Phone: 858-551-1223 Fax: 858-551-1232 Email: norm@bamlawca.com NORTON HEALTHCARE: Final OK Hearing of $11MM Settlement Set May 15 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Joseph Garcia, writing for WHAS11, reports that a settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit against Norton Healthcare following a major data breach in 2023. The breach compromised individuals' personal information, including social security numbers and financial account numbers. It was deemed one of the worst cyberattacks that year with roughly 2.5 million victims. Court records show a Jefferson County judge has approved a preliminary settlement in the class action lawsuit. According to the preliminary agreement, Norton Healthcare has set aside an $11 million to issue payments in the settlement. How to claim Norton Healthcare settlement Some impacted Norton patients and employees have started receiving notices about the settlement. To file a claim, impacted individuals must fill out an online form by 11:59 p.m. on Monday, May 18, 2026. You can also print out and mail the form to the listed address, but it must be postmarked by May 18, 2026. Under the agreement, members of the class action will receive at least $5 and up to $80 for lost time, up to $2,500 for documented out-of-pocket losses, and three years of medical monitoring services. "This settlement brings resolution for those potentially affected," Norton Healthcare spokesperson Renee Murphy said in a statement. "We look forward to moving forward toward final approval." The court has scheduled a final approval hearing for May 15. [GN] NUTRA HOLDINGS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Battle Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE BATTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Nutra Holdings, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-1911 (N.D. Ill., February 20, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their Website, https://www.transparentlabs.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of protein on Transparentlabs.com. Despite his efforts, however, 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. The Website contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the Website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the Website. Because Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Nutra Holdings' 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 Andre Battle is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read Website content using the computer. Defendant Nutra Holdings, Inc. provides to the public a Website known as Transparentlabs.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a variety of dietary supplements, including protein products, creatine, synbiotics, collagens, glutamine, and isolates.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: +1 718-705-8706 Facsimile: +1 718-705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com OPENLOOP HEALTH: Morehart Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI --------------------------------------------------------------- Kathy Morehart, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. OpenLoop Health, Inc., Case No. 4:26-cv-00074-SHL-SBJ (S.D. Iowa, Feb. 16, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated patients' personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI"), including full names, email addresses, phone numbers, home addresses, dates of birth, body stats, medical information, biometric data, IP addresses, prescription information, FedEx tracking numbers, and additional metadata (the "Private Information"), from criminal hackers. Specifically, the ransomware group, stuckin2019, claimed responsibility for the breach to Defendant's systems on January 7, 2026 (the "Data Breach") and theft of Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Private Information. Most, if not all Class Members did not know that their Private Information had been compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. The risk will remain for their respective lifetimes. There has been no assurance offered by Defendant that all personal data or copies of data have been recovered or destroyed, or that Defendant has adequately enhanced its data security practices sufficient to avoid a similar breach of its network in the future. Therefore, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and are at an imminent, immediate, and continuing increased risk of suffering, ascertainable losses in the form of harm from identity theft and other fraudulent misuse of their Private Information, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, and potential out-of-pocket expenses to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that it collected and maintained, says the complaint. The Plaintiff provided their Private Information to Defendant. The Defendant based in Des Moines, Iowa, is a digital health infrastructure provider, powering virtual care delivery for healthcare organizations, employers, retailers, and consumer brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. Brian O. Marty, Esq. SHINDLER ANDERSON GOPLERUD & WEESE P.C. 5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100 West Des Moines, IA 50265-5749 Phone: (515) 223-4567 Facsimile: (515)223-8887 Email: goplerud@sagwlaw.com marty@sagwlaw.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Tanner R. Hilton, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (212) 532-1091 Email: tbean@sirillp.com thilton@sirillp.com - and - Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Ave. S., STE 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-7300 Email: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com OSTIN TECHNOLOGY: Gordon Sues Over Exchange Act Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- Ilay Gordon, Uday Parmar, Maurie Daigneau, Marijana Ivezic, Lilly Cheung, Raju Chekka, and Claude Ritzmann on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. OSTIN TECHNOLOGY GROUP CO., LTD., TAO LING, LAI KUI SEN, QIAOYUN XIE, XIAOHONG YIN, XIAODONG ZHAI, BO YUAN, HEUNG MING WONG, JOHN CARL MEIN, and QIANG HE, Case No. 1:26-cv-01288 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2026), is brought on behalf of a class of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired OST ordinary shares on the Nasdaq Stock Market (the "Nasdaq") between May 11, 2025, and June 26, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"), arising under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). OST's ordinary shares are listed on the Nasdaq under the ticker symbol "OST." All references herein to prices of OST ordinary shares are to prices on the Nasdaq. From at least December 2024, and continuing throughout the Class Period, the Defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in a multifaceted securities fraud scheme involving OST which resulted in significant investor losses exceeding $950 million in market capitalization. These securities offerings were synchronized with a fraudulent campaign to artificially inflate the price and trading volume of the OST stock through social media and messaging service applications, including paid promotions that impersonated actual investment advisors and financial professionals. The scheme employed sophisticated tactics including AI generated deepfake videos, coordinated WhatsApp groups, false acquisition rumors, and guaranteed return promises to lure unsuspecting retail investors. In a period of roughly two months, the fraudulent promotional campaign artificially inflated the value of OST from an approximately $22 million company (based on a stock price of $0.78 on April 14, 2025) into a greater than $1 billion company by market capitalization (based on a peak stock price of $9.40 on June 26, 2025). As OST's stock price rose, Yan Zhao and Lai Kui Sen facilitated the opening of brokerage accounts on behalf of co-conspirators, which were used to hold the millions of OST shares that were obtained through non-bona fide securities offerings to the co-conspirators. At the height of the fraud, the Defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in a massive selloff of their fraudulently obtained securities, obtaining more than $110 million in proceeds from the sale of OST stock which victimized unwitting investors. On June 26, 2025, OST investors suffered devastating losses when the selloff destroyed over $950 million (representing over 94%) of OST's market capitalization in a single day. The stock plummeted from an intraday high of $9.40 to a closing price of $0.55, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased OST shares. OST is a Cayman Islands corporation with its principal executive offices purportedly in Nanjing, China.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron T. Morris, Esq. Andrew W. Robertson, Esq. William H. Spruance III, Esq. MORRIS KANDINOV LLP 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 431-7473 Email: aaron@moka.law andrew@moka.law william@moka.law - and - Leonid Kandinov, Esq. MORRIS KANDINOV LLP 550 West B Street, 4th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 780-3993 Email: leo@moka.law - and - Tyler Highful, Esq. HIGHFUL LAW PLLC 5900 Balcones Drive, Suite 100 Austin, TX 78731 Phone: (512) 666-7426 Email: tyler@highful.com PCA CENTRAL CALIFORNIA: Rhynes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against PCA Central California Corrugated, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Christopher Rhynes, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. PCA Central California Corrugated, LLC, Packaging Corporation of America, Sacramento Container Corporation, Does 1-50, Case No. 26CV003725 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Feb. 17, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." PCA Central California Corrugated, LLC is a container supplier in Kingsburg, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman Blumenthal, Esq. BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037-3107 Phone: 858-551-1223 Fax: 858-551-1232 Email: norm@bamlawca.com PEPSICO INC: Fargo Stopping Sues Over Unlawful Higher Prices ------------------------------------------------------------ Fargo Stopping Center LLC, and Bjornson Oil Company, Inc., individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated v. PepsiCo, Inc., and Walmart Inc., Case No. 7:26-cv-01283 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2026), is brought on behalf of a nationwide class of direct purchasers to recover treble damages for the overcharges paid and to enjoin Defendants' unlawful conduct which caused Wholesale Customers who purchase Pepsi Soft Drinks directly from Pepsi, including Plaintiffs, to pay higher prices than they would have paid absent the unlawful conduct. Beginning at least as early as 2018, Pepsi and Walmart entered into a scheme (the "Scheme") designed to suppress wholesale and retail competition for Pepsi Soft Drinks, thereby allowing both companies to charge supracompetitive prices. The Scheme has two principal components. First, Pepsi agreed to raise its wholesale prices for Pepsi Soft Drinks above competitive levels for wholesale customers other than Walmart ("Wholesale Customers"). Wholesale Customers purchase Pepsi Soft Drinks directly from Pepsi and compete with Walmart at the retail level. The inflated wholesale prices enabled Walmart to increase its retail prices above competitive levels and forced Wholesale Customers to raise their own retail prices. The Scheme reduced competition at the wholesale level and disadvantaged Pepsi's Wholesale Customers who directly purchased from Pepsi, including grocery stores, local convenience stores, mid-tier grocers, and independent retailers. As a result, these Wholesale Customers, including Plaintiffs, were forced to pay inflated prices for Pepsi Soft Drinks. The Scheme benefited both Pepsi and Walmart. Pepsi obtained supracompetitive profits from its sales of Pepsi Soft Drinks to Wholesale Customers, while Walmart was able to sell Pepsi Soft Drinks at inflated retail prices without facing price competition from other retailers. As a result, the Scheme reduced inter-brand competition at the wholesale level by preventing Walmart from lowering retail prices and demanding lower wholesale prices, and by dampening competition between Pepsi and its primary rivals. This increased Pepsi's market power and further raised the prices it charged its direct purchasers, including Plaintiffs, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Fargo Stopping Center LLC operates a full service grocery store located in Fargo, North Dakota. Pepsi is among the largest soft drink companies in the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Landau, Esq. Miles Greaves, Esq. TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP 123 William Street, Suite 1900A New York, NY 10038 Phone: 646-873-7654 Facsimile: 212-931-0703 Email: klandau@tcllaw.com mgreaves@tcllaw.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Michelle J. Looby, Esq. Joshua J. Rissman, Esq. Bailey Twyman-Metzger, Esq. Joe E. Nelson, Esq. Adam J. Kolb, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK LLP Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com mlooby@gustafsongluek.com jrissman@gustafsongluek.com btwymanmetzger@gustafsongluek.com jnelson@gustafsongluek.com akolb@gustafsongluek.com PIM BRANDS: "Perkins" Remanded to NY State Court ------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Susan Perkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PIM Brands USA Inc., Defendant, Case No. 25-CV-2280 (NGG) (JAM) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York adopted in part and rejected in part a Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Marutollo, granted Plaintiff's motion to remand to state court, and awarded Plaintiff attorneys fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c). Plaintiff Susan Perkins commenced this putative class action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County, on February 5, 2025. She brought one cause of action under Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law (NY GBL) for deceptive business practices, seeking actual damages and discretionary attorneys fees. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant's packaging and labeling of its Real Strawberry Fruit Bars misled her and others similarly situated in two ways: (1) by causing purchasers to expect that the Fruit Bars are made only from strawberries, when they are made from strawberries, apples, and grapes; and (2) by conveying, including through pictures of ripe strawberries, that the Fruit Bars are made from a predominant and/or relatively significant amount of strawberries, when strawberries are the smallest fruit component. Plaintiff further alleged that Defendant sold the Fruit Bars at a premium price higher than what they would have been sold for if the fruit ingredients were represented in a non-misleading way. Defendant removed the case to federal court on April 24, 2025, asserting federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. Plaintiff filed her motion to remand on April 27, 2025. The court referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Marutollo, who recommended remand on November 15, 2025, but did not recommend an award of attorneys fees. Federal question jurisdiction over a state law claim requires that a federal issue be: (1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress. All four requirements must be met. First Requirement - Necessarily Raised: The Court found that this requirement was not satisfied. Defendant argued that every allegation of deception in the Complaint arose by reason of Defendant's purported violation of a specifically enumerated provision of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). The Court rejected this argument, finding that whether Defendant violated the FDCA is not a necessary element of Plaintiff's NY GBL claim. Under the NY GBL, whether a challenged act or practice is materially misleading is governed by the reasonable consumer standard -- what a reasonable consumer finds misleading under the circumstances -- and not by FDCA standards. Violations of the FDCA are not per se material misrepresentations under Sections 349 and 350, and the FDCA's implementing rules and regulations are without consequence when stating a claim under these sections. Second Requirement - Actually Disputed: The Court also found this requirement unmet. Whether Defendant complied with the FDCA is neither the only nor a central issue in the case, because each of the three necessary elements of Plaintiff's NY GBL claim is disputed without requiring resolution of any FDCA question. The Court further rejected Defendant's federal preemption defense as a basis for federal jurisdiction, noting that a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense, including the defense of preemption, even if the defense is the only question truly at issue. Third and Fourth Requirements: The Court adopted Magistrate Judge Marutollo's findings that the substantiality and federal-state balance requirements were also not met. The case presents a fact-specific inquiry, not a pure question of law, which lessens its potential precedential value and its importance to the federal system as a whole. Accordingly, the Court found that no federal question jurisdiction existed for four independent reasons and therefore granted Plaintiff's motion to remand. The Court disagreed with Magistrate Judge Marutollo's recommendation against awarding attorneys fees. The standard for awarding fees turns on the reasonableness of the removal: absent unusual circumstances, courts may award attorneys fees under Section 1447(c) only where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal. The Court found it was not objectively reasonable for Defendant to disregard the necessary elements of Plaintiff's NY GBL claim or to overlook extensive case law finding those elements could be met without reference to the Federal Trade Commission Act or the FDCA. It was also not objectively reasonable for Defendant to assert its purported federal preemption defense as a basis for removal, given binding authority establishing that a federal defense cannot render removal proper. The parties were required to litigate these claims, the court was required to decide them, and the litigation was multiplied and delayed. Under these circumstances, the Court found it appropriate to require Defendant to pay just costs and any actual expenses, including attorneys fees, incurred by Plaintiff as a result of removal. Therefore, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to remand and remanded the action to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County. The Court also granted Plaintiff's request for attorneys fees and costs, referring the calculation to Magistrate Judge Marutollo for a report and recommendation. The Court retained jurisdiction for the limited purpose of resolving the motion for fees and costs. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SMTqqR from PacerMonitor.com Defendant PIM Brands USA Inc. Represented By Elizabeth A. Mancuso Herrick, Feinstein LLP 973-274-2000 emancuso@herrick.com Ronald Jay Levine Herrick, Feinstein LLP 973-274-2000 rlevine@herrick.com David R. King Herrick, Feinstein LLP 609-452-3802 dking@herrick.com Plaintiff Susan Perkins is Represented By: Spencer I. Sheehan Sheehan & Associates, P.C. 516-268-7080 spencer@spencersheehan.com POSILLICO INC: Kuck Files Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Posillico, Inc. The case is styled as Kenneth Kuck, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Posillico, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-00873 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Posillico Inc. -- https://posillicoinc.com/ -- is the premier heavy civil construction contractor in New York, Long Island, New Jersey, Texas, Florida and the Mid-Atlantic.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark S. Reich, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Email: mreich@zlk.com PTT LLC: High5 Platform Breaches Utah Gambling Act, Beckstrom Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ KYLE BECKSTROM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PTT, LLC; and HIGH 5 ENTERTAINMENT LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00024-DAO (D. Utah, February 23, 2026) is a class action seeking redress for Defendants' widespread violations of Utah's Gambling Act. The complaint relates that while Defendants advertise and promote the High5 Gambling Platform to persons in Utah as a legitimate online business, giving it an aura of legitimacy and legality to Plaintiff and Class members, the High5 Gambling Platform is actually a dangerous and plainly unlawful gambling enterprise. The scheme: the Defendants sell digital "coins" to consumers on the High5 Gambling Platform - including consumers in Utah - and then immediately accept those coins back (from by the consumers who purchased them) as wagers on the outcomes of the various casino-style games of chance offered on the High5 Gambling Platform. Consumers who purchase and then wager "coins" on the High5 Gambling Platform do so in the hopes of winning more "coins," which can be used to place more wagers and, in some instances, are redeemable for cash. Plaintiff and numerous other Utah residents have lost significant sums of their hard-earned money placing wagers on the High5 Gambling Platform, and Defendants have in turn reaped enormous profits from the losses these people have sustained. The Defendants violated Utah's Gambling Act by operating and amassing enormous revenue from the losses sustained by Utah residents on the illicit "fringe gambling devices," "video gaming devices," and "gambling devices or records" offered on its High5 Gambling Platform. The named Plaintiff and all Class members suffered monetary loss as a result of the games offered on Defendants' High5 Gambling Platform, says the suit. Plaintiff Kyle Beckstrom is a citizen and resident of Logan, Utah. Defendants PTT, LLC and High 5 Entertainment LLC, both doing business as "High 5 Games," own, operate, and receive significant revenue from the online "sweepstakes" casino available at www.high5casino.com and on various mobile apps, where they offer casino-style slots games to anyone willing to spend real money wagering on them (the "High5 Gambling Platform").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elliot O. J Ackson, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131-3302 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 E-mail: ejackson@hedinllp.com - and - David W. S Cofield, Esq. PETERS ❘ SCOFIELD A Professional Corporation 7430 Creek Road, Suite 303 Sandy, UT 84093-6160 Telephone: (801) 322-2002 E-mail: dws@psplawyers.com - and - Adrian G Ucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI L AW F IRM , PLLC 140 BROADWAY , FL 46 NEW YORK, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 E-mail: adrian@gr-firm.com QUALITY NATURALLY! FOODS: Rivas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quality Naturally! Foods Inc. The case is styled as Brayan E. Rivas, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated and current and former aggrieved employees v. Quality Naturally! Foods inc., Employee Force Provider Inc., Case No. 26STCV04990 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 17, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Quality Naturally Foods -- https://www.qnfoods.com/ -- specializes in custom blending and offers over fifty types of bakery mixes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Lavi, Esq. E&L, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., 2nd Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: 213-213-0000 Fax: 213-213-0025 Email: dlavi@ebralavi.com RAMACO RESOURCES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Portnoy Law Firm advises Ramaco Resources, Inc., ("Ramaco" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: METC) investors off a class action on behalf of investors that bought securities between July 31, 2025 and October 23, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Ramaco investors have until March 31, 2026 to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, by phone 844-767-8529 or email: lesley@portnoylaw.com, to discuss their legal rights, or join the case via https://portnoylaw.com/ramaco-resources-inc. The Portnoy Law Firm can provide a complimentary case evaluation and discuss investors' options for pursuing claims to recover their losses. Ramaco Resources engages in the development, operation, and sale of metallurgical coal. Historically, Ramaco Resources dealt primarily in coal, but in 2025, Ramaco Resources pivoted into rare earth minerals and the centerpiece of this pivot was Ramaco Resources' Brook Mine, the complaint alleges. Ramaco Resources allegedly officially broke ground on the Brook Mine on July 11, 2025. The Ramaco Resources class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) defendants had not commenced any significant mining activity at the Brook Mine after groundbreaking; (ii) no active work was taking place at the Brook Mine; and (iii) as a result, Ramaco Resources overstated development progress at the Brook Mine. The Ramaco Resources class action lawsuit further alleges that on October 23, 2025, Wolfpack Research published a report alleging, among other things, that Brook Mine is a "hoax" and a "Potemkin Mine" which was not, in fact, mined after its July groundbreaking. On this news, the price of Ramaco Resources shares fell by nearly 10%, the complaint alleges. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Portnoy Law Firm (310) 692-8883 lesley@portnoylaw.com www.portnoylaw.com [GN] RAMACO RESOURCES: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ramaco Resources, Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report for the for February 13, 2026 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 Southern District of New York. On February 13, 2026, Ramaco Resources, Inc. (the "Company") was served with a summons in connection with a putative class action complaint filed on January 30, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:26-cv-00846, naming as plaintiff Lynn Henning, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and naming as defendants the Company, Randall W. Atkins (the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer), and Jeremy R. Sussman (the Company's Chief Financial Officer), alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder arising from allegedly materially false and/or misleading statements concerning the development and active mining status of the Company's Brook Mine rare earth and critical minerals project in Wyoming during the class period of July 31, 2025 through October 23, 2025. The plaintiff seeks determination of class action status under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an award of compensatory damages against all defendants jointly and severally for all damages sustained (including interest), reasonable costs and expenses including counsel fees and expert fees, and such other relief as the court deems just and proper. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to all claims in this matter and intends to defend the case vigorously. Ramaco Resources, Inc. is a mining company, with its principal executive offices located in Lexington, Kentucky. [BN] RAWLINGS SPORTING: Faces Duryea Class Suit Over Baseball Bats ------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN DURYEA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RAWLINGS SPORTING GOODS COMPANY, INC., a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri, Case No. 1:26-cv-00023-DBP (D. Utah, Feb. 20, 2026) contends that Defendant marketed material and specific improvements to bat components to consumers while simultaneously representing to certifying bodies that the bats had changed only cosmetically. According to the complaint, a reasonable consumer would consider it important to know that a manufacturer denied material changes in its certification submissions while advertising those same changes to consumers as being improvements on the bat's performance. The Defendant markets and advertises the Brands by representing that these bats are certified for use under various governing standards, the suit says. The Defendant does not disclose to consumers whether its Bats were approved through performance testing or instead based on representations that the Bats had not materially changed from prior models, added the suit. The Defendant sells baseball and fastpitch bats under the brand names Rawlings, Easton, Combat, Miken, and Worth.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kennedy D. Nate, Esq. RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER P.C. 36 South State Street, Suite 1400 Post Office Box 45385 Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0385 Telephone: (801) 532-1500 E-mail: knate@rqn.com REDDIT INC: Judge Greenlights Illegal "Pen Register" Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Westlaw Today reports that a San Diego federal judge has allowed a proposed class action to proceed against Reddit Inc. over its alleged use of a tracking tool that the plaintiff claims is an illegal "pen register" under state privacy law. Nelson v. Reddit, Inc., No. 25-cv-1470, (S.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2026). U.S. District Judge Janis L. Sammartino of the Southern District of California on Feb. 17 denied Reddit's motion to dismiss the suit, finding that plaintiff Dominique Nelson plausibly alleged that the LiveRamp tracker falls within the statutory definition of a pen register. LiveRamp tracker Nelson sued Reddit in the San Diego County Superior Court in April 2025, and the company later removed the case to federal court. He alleges that the popular social media site violates the California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code Sec. 630, by installing the LiveRamp tracker on visitors' internet browsers without their consent. The tracker captures the IP addresses of website visitors and transmits the data to LiveRamp, a third-party data collaboration platform, the complaint says. According to the complaint, LiveRamp also places a cookie in the user's browser cache, which allows it to retrieve stored data and the user's IP address on subsequent visits to Reddit's site for "ongoing analysis and personalized ad delivery." Nelson says this process constitutes the use of a pen register in violation of CIPA, which defines the term as a "device or process that records or decodes dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling information." Reddit's arguments fail Reddit moved to dismiss the lawsuit on several grounds, arguing that the LiveRamp tracker is not a pen register and that Reddit is exempt from liability. Judge Sammartino rejected each argument, joining a growing consensus among federal district courts in California that have allowed similar CIPA claims to proceed. The social media company first argued that pen registers are designed to collect only "outgoing" information, such as a dialed phone number, not a user's IP address, a numeric designation identifying a location on the internet. Judge Sammartino was unpersuaded, saying that by the "plain meaning of Sec. 638.50(b), collection of the recipient phone number or IP address is not a required element." The judge noted that in enacting CIPA, the California Legislature intended "to protect the right of privacy of the people of this state from what it perceived as a serious threat to the free exercise of personal liberties." She noted that in Flanagan v. Flanagan, 27 Cal. 4th 766 (Cal. 2002), the California Supreme Court instructed courts to interpret CIPA in a manner that gives "greater protection to privacy interests." Judge Sammartino also rejected Reddit's arguments that a CIPA claim requires a communication with substantive "content" and must involve a person-to-person exchange. She determined that the company was improperly conflating the requirements of CIPA's wiretapping provisions with its pen register rules. Finally, the judge refuted Reddit's contention that it is exempt from liability as a "party to the communication." Nelson did not allege that Reddit violated CIPA simply by receiving IP addresses as part of a normal online exchange, the judge explained. Rather, Nelson alleges that Reddit "affirmatively embedded third-party trackers that recorded and transmitted users' identifying information to outside entities for profiling and advertising purposes." In her analysis, Judge Sammartino cited several decisions rejecting similar arguments, including Fregosa v. Mashable Inc., (N.D. Cal. 2025), and Camplisson v. Adidas America Inc., (S.D. Cal. 2025). Yevgeniy Y. Turin of McGuire Law PC represents Nelson. Attorneys from Perkins Coie LLP represent Reddit Inc. [GN] RESTAURANT BRANDS: Continues to Defend Sherman Act-Related Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Restaurant Brands International 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 the from Sherman Act-related class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Burger King Company, and various affiliates, including RBI, are defendants in a class action lawsuit brought by former Burger King employees in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The lawsuit, which was consolidated from four separate claims filed in October and November 2018, alleges that the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by incorporating an employee no-solicitation and no-hiring clause in the Burger King standard form franchise agreement. Each plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages for himself or herself and other members of the class. In March 2020, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, but in August 2022 the decision was reversed on appeal and remanded for further proceedings. In March 2025, the defendants filed a supplemental brief in support of its motion to dismiss, which was denied. In April 2025, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and in May 2025, the defendants filed an answer. In December 2025, the court ordered the parties to attempt to resolve the case through mediation. While the Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims, it is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this case or estimate the range of possible loss, if any. Restaurant Brands International, Inc. is a fast food restaurant company based in Oakville, Canada. RIVERBROOK HOSPITALITY: Castano Sues Over Unpaid Compensations -------------------------------------------------------------- Paola Castano, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. RIVERBROOK HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-01284 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2026), is brought for damages and other redress based upon willful violations that Defendant committed of Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to her by: the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the overtime provisions of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968 ("PMWA"), and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law ("PWCL"), and any other claim(s) that can be inferred from the facts set forth herein. Throughout her employment, Defendant required Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did work, in excess of forty hours each workweek, or virtually each week, yet in exchange, Defendant paid Plaintiff in lodging and with a flat daily rate that did not change regardless of how many hours she worked in a day or in a week. Thus, Defendant did not pay Plaintiff at the rate of one and one-half times her regular rate for the hours that she worked over forty in a week, in violation of the FLSA's and the PMWA and PWCL's overtime provisions. The Defendant paid and treated all of its nonmanagerial housekeepers who worked in at least its Pennsylvania and New Jersey locations in this same manner, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a housekeeper at Defendant's hotel in Essington, Pennsylvania, from November 27, 2023, until April 12, 2024. The Defendant is a New York limited liability company that operates hotels in at least New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edgar M. Rivera, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 248-5550 Fax: (516) 248-6027 ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Suit in Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 the Company continues to defend itself from an IPO-related class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In December 2021, Philip Golubowski filed a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against RHM, the officers and directors who signed Robinhood's IPO offering documents, and Robinhood's IPO underwriters. Plaintiff's claims are based on alleged false or misleading statements in Robinhood's IPO offering documents allegedly in violation of Sections 11 and 12(a) of the Securities Act. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages, rescission of shareholders' share purchases, and an award for attorneys' fees and costs. In February 2022, certain alleged Robinhood stockholders submitted applications seeking appointment by the court to be the lead plaintiff to represent the putative class in this matter, and in March 2022, the court appointed lead plaintiffs. In June 2022, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. In August 2022, Robinhood filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In February 2023, the court granted Robinhood's motion without prejudice. In March 2023, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. In January 2024, the court granted Robinhood's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint without leave to amend. In February 2024, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit. On August 29, 2025, the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion affirming in part and reversing in part the district court. Robinhood’s petition for rehearing en banc was denied. In December 2025, Robinhood requested an extension of time to file its petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. Robinhood Markets, Inc. facilitates the purchase and sale of options, cryptocurrencies, and equities through its platform based in California. ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Discovery in Consolidated 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 the discovery is ongoing for the consolidated Dey and Deeney class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In October 2024, RHM, RHF, and RHS were sued in a putative class action captioned Dey v. Robinhood Markets, Inc. et. al., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiff asserts breach of fiduciary duty, gross negligence, negligent misrepresentation and omissions, breach of implied covenant of good faith and dealing, and violation of California's unfair competition law based on allegations that defendants failed to pay a reasonable rate of interest to non-Robinhood Gold brokerage account holders on cash balances swept to program bank deposit programs. The complaint seeks, among other things, certification of the class, unspecified monetary, punitive, treble, and statutory damages, restitution, disgorgement, attorneys' fees and costs, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief. In January 2025, Robinhood filed a motion to dismiss. On April 28, 2025, the court granted in part and denied in part Robinhood’s motion to dismiss. In May 2025, RHM, RHF, and RHS were sued in a putative class action captioned Deeney v. Robinhood Markets, Inc. et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which also made allegations related to Robinhood's cash sweep program. The complaint sought, among other things, certification of the class, unspecified monetary damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and restitution. The parties in Dey and Deeney have agreed to consolidate the matters and Plaintiffs have filed an amended consolidated complaint. The complaint seeks, among other things, certification of the class, unspecified monetary, punitive, treble, and statutory damages, restitution, disgorgement, attorneys' fees and costs, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief. Robinhood moved to dismiss the complaint, which was granted in part and denied in part. 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. ROBLOX CORP: Judge Sends Data Privacy Class Suit for Arbitration ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a California federal judge ruled that Roblox Corp. can arbitrate a proposed class action filed against it by parents Michael and Salena Garcia and their minor child identified as "R.G." Why: The proposed class action lawsuit alleged Roblox secretly harvests users' personal data, including users under the age of 13. Where: The Roblox data privacy class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. How to get help: In separate litigation, the makers of Roblox are facing claims over injuries allegedly caused by addiction to the platform. Parents whose children suffered harm as a result of alleged Roblox addiction may be eligible to file or join a lawsuit. A California federal judge has ordered a proposed class action lawsuit against Roblox to arbitration, finding that users received sufficiently conspicuous notice that clicking "Sign Up" or "Continue" on the platform bound them to the company's terms of use, including its arbitration clause. Plaintiffs Michael and Salena Garcia filed the class action lawsuit on behalf of their minor child, identified as "R.G.," alleging that Roblox secretly collected and harvested personal data from users, including children under age 13. Roblox moved to compel arbitration, arguing that the Garcias created three separate accounts and clicked "Sign Up," "Continue," "Redeem" and "Buy" buttons on the platform multiple times between May 2023 and March 2025. Each time, Roblox said, the family was notified that proceeding constituted acceptance of the company's terms of use and arbitration provision. U.S. District Judge Wesley Hsu granted Roblox's motion, finding that the plaintiffs assented to the arbitration clause. The court relied on a 2024 Ninth Circuit decision, Keebaugh v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., which held that users had reasonably conspicuous notice of an arbitration provision through a sign-in wrap agreement in a mobile app. Judge Hsu determined that Roblox's sign-up page similarly provided clear notice that clicking "Sign Up" or "Continue" would bind users to the terms of use, including arbitration. The court also rejected arguments that the arbitration provision was procedurally or substantively unconscionable. Court rejects unconscionability arguments in Roblox class action lawsuit The plaintiffs argued that the arbitration agreement's waiver of public injunctive relief rendered it unconscionable. However, the court noted that Roblox's 2025 terms of use expressly allow an arbitrator to award such relief if permitted by law and warranted by the individual claims. Because the court compelled arbitration, Roblox's pending motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit was deemed moot. The Garcias' class action lawsuit accuses Roblox of violating privacy laws by collecting children's personal data without proper consent and failing to adequately disclose its data practices. Roblox has denied the allegations. In a separate class action, two parents also sued Roblox, alleging it violated children's privacy by tracking their data without consent. The Garcias are represented by Morgan D. Ross and Robert B. Salgado of Counterpoint Legal. The Roblox data privacy class action lawsuit is Garcia, et al. v. Roblox Corp., Case No. 2:25-cv-03476, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. [GN] SAFEWAY INC: Escobar Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Safeway, Inc. The case is styled as Nery Del Aguila Escobar, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. Safeway, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0001171 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Feb. 18, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Safeway, Inc. -- https://www.safeway.com/ -- is an American supermarket chain founded by Marion Barton Skaggs in April 1915 in American Falls, Idaho.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER LLP 31365 Oak Crest Dr., Ste. 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Phone: 805-270-7100 Fax: 805-270-7589 Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com SHEEX INC: Faces Zeledon Class Suit Over False Reference Pricing ---------------------------------------------------------------- BONNIE ZELEDON, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. SHEEX, INC., a Delaware company, Case No. 5:26-cv-00883 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 24, 2026) is a class action lawsuit brought to address the Defendant's alleged misleading and unlawful pricing, sales, and discounting practices on its website www.Sheex.com. The products at issue are all goods that have been offered on the website at a sale or discounted price from a higher advertised "reference price" -- namely, Sheex's in-house brand bedding (including sheets, comforters, duvets, pillows, and pillowcases) and sleepwear. The Defendant advertises its products with false, misleading, and inflated comparison reference prices to deceive customers into believing the sale price is a genuine, discounted, bargain price, the Plaintiff contends. Additionally, and alternatively, consumers are misled because the advertised reference price is not the market price. Indeed, because the products are regularly available on the website at discounted prices, the prevailing market price cannot be the higher price. By using false reference pricing, the Defendant artificially drives up demand for the products, and by extension drives up the price of the products. As a result, consumers received a product worth less than the price paid, the suit asserts. Plaintiff Zeledon is a resident of the State of California and County of San Bernardino. She also resided in San Bernardino County at the time she made her purchases from the website. Sheex is a bedding and clothing brand, and e-commerce retailer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander E. Wolf, Esq. William J. Edelman, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 South Beverly Drive, Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (872) 365-7060 E-mail: awolf@milberg.com wedelman@milberg.com STASH IL HOLDCO: Faces Rogoz Suit Over Tip Theft Under FLSA, IWPCA ------------------------------------------------------------------ OLIVIA ROGOZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STASH IL HOLDCO, LLC and WITLON PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-02061 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 24, 2026) alleges that the Defendants engaged in tip theft by keeping portions of these cash tips and distributing them to management employees, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. Plaintiff Rogoz and other budtenders regularly received cash tips from customers. Near the end of each workweek, the Defendants' managers and/or Agents in Charge collected and combined all cash tips received during the week. The weekly tip pool included not only budtenders who directly served customers, but also Agents in Charge, who functioned as managers or supervisors and who routinely received a share of the pooled tips regardless of whether they worked the register or directly served customers during those shifts, the suit claims. Plaintiff Rogoz was employed by the Defendants at their Stash Dispensaries location in Orland Hills from June 2025 to January 2026. Stash is a cannabis company engaged in the distribution and retail sale of cannabis products in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Kunze, Esq. Martin Stainthorp, Esq. WORKPLACE LAW PARTNERS 155 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 719 Chicago, IL 60601  Telephone: (312) 861-1800  E-mail: kunze@fishlawfirm.com  mstainthorp@fishlawfirm.com  docketing@fishlawfirm.com  STITCH INDUSTRIES: Faces German Over False Discount Ads Scheme -------------------------------------------------------------- SHALEY GERMAN, SHANNON SOLANDER, and BRIAN STERE, for themselves, as private attorneys general, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STITCH INDUSTRIES, INC. d/b/a JOYBIRD, Case No. 2:26-cv-01820 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 20, 2026) alleges that Joybird has engaged in a massive and consistent false discount advertising scheme across its website and in its retail stores. According to the complait, Joybird advertises perpetual or near-perpetual discounts -- typically 30% to 50% off -- on all its products. These discounts are taken from Joybird's inflated and self-created strikethrough reference prices for its products. Joybird represents these reference prices to be the regular and normal prices of the products. However, unbeknownst to its customers, Joybird's discounts are never-ending, and the products are never or almost never offered at the supposed regular price -- and never in good faith. Joybird also falsely advertises that the purported savings are for a limited time and indicates that its products will return to the full price after the sale ends, when in fact the advertised savings are perpetual and never-ending, the uit says. Joybird's false discount advertising is so pervasive across all of its products and its advertising that it is apparent that the heart of Joybird's marketing plan is to deceive the public. Plaintiff German is a citizen and resident of the city of Littleton, in Arapahoe County, Colorado, and is an unsophisticated consumer party. Ms. German made a purchase from the Joybird website and is a victim of Joybird's alleged false discount advertising scheme. Joybird is a direct-to-consumer manufacturer and e-commerce retailer of upholstered furniture including sofas, sectionals, and other furniture. Joybird primarily sells its products on the Joybird website, www.joybird.com.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel M. Hattis, Esq. HATTIS LUKACS & CORRINGTON 11711 SE 8th Street, Suite 120 Bellevue, WA 98005 Telephone: (425) 233-8650 Facsimile: (425) 412-7171 E-mail: dan@hattislaw.com TEAM HEALTH: Court Grants Bid to Amend Scheduling Order ------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Buncombe County, North Carolina, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Team Health Holdings Inc., et al., Defendants, No. 3:22-CV-420-DCLC-DCP (E.D. Tenn.), Magistrate Judge Debra C. Poplin of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee granted Defendants' Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. Defendants requested that the deadline for their expert disclosures be extended from March 3, 2026, to March 20, 2026, and that the remaining Phase 1 deadlines be extended by approximately a month. Plaintiff's disclosures included reports from four expert witnesses spanning 324 pages, not counting exhibits and appendices. Plaintiff also served additional backup material, including fifteen data files and six Statistical Analysis System scripts with over 2,800 lines of code. The Court found that Defendants established good cause. Defendants retained their experts prior to Plaintiff disclosing its witnesses and sought additional time before receiving those disclosures. Upon receiving Plaintiff's expert disclosures, Defendants proceeded diligently, and their experts took approximately two weeks to complete the process of replicating and validating the backup material. The Court also found no prejudice to Plaintiff, noting that a mere one-month extension of Phase 1 deadlines in this complex putative class action would not cause any prejudice. Accordingly, the Court ordered: Defendants shall serve expert disclosures on or before March 20, 2026; Plaintiff shall serve expert disclosures on or before April 17, 2026; expert depositions shall be completed on or before May 15, 2026; class certification or Daubert motions shall be filed on or before June 15, 2026; responses due July 20, 2026; and reply briefs due August 10, 2026. The Court admonished the parties that it is unlikely to grant another extension, absent extraordinary circumstances. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ojUFYi from PacerMonitor.com THERAPY MATCH: Faces Class Action Over Overtime Pay Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Headway, a platform that matches patients with high-quality mental healthcare professionals to meet their needs, is accused of violating labor laws in a California class-action lawsuit. Case: Tessa Brower-Walsh v. Therapy Match, Inc. dba Headway Court: San Diego County Superior Court of the State of California Case No.: 25CU053855C Get to Know the Plaintiff: Tessa Brower-Walsh v. Therapy Match, Inc. dba Headway. The plaintiff in the case, Tessa Brower-Walsh, filed a class action complaint alleging that the defendant failed to pay its employees for all hours worked accurately. Headway employed the plaintiff from August 2024 to May 2025. Who is the Defendant in the Case? The defendant in the case is Therapy Match, Inc.; however, hereinafter we'll refer to them as Headway. Headway is a Delaware-based company doing significant business in California, including San Diego County. The company owns and operates a platform that connects patients with mental health care professionals. The Plaintiffs Allege the Defendants Violated Multiple Labor Laws As is often the case with California employment law claims, the plaintiffs allege that their employer violated multiple labor laws. The following labor law violation allegations were included in the complaint: -- Failure to pay minimum wage -- Failure to pay accurate overtime wages -- Failure to provide employees with required meal breaks and rest periods -- Failure to provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements -- Failure to pay wages promptly -- Failure to reimburse workers for required business expenses The Main Question of the Case: Tessa Brower-Walsh v. Therapy Match, Inc., dba Headway In Tessa Brower-Walsh v. Therapy Match, Inc., dba Headway, the main legal question was whether or not Headway's wage statements complied with labor law. According to the plaintiff, Headway failed to provide all the required information on their wage statements (violating California Labor Code Section 226). Additionally, the court needs to consider the company's history of wage payments, overtime calculations, and compensation practices to determine whether it violated labor laws governing minimum wage rates, overtime pay, and exempt classification. FAQ: Tessa Brower-Walsh v. Therapy Match, Inc. dba Headway Q: Has the Court decided on the Headway Overtime Class Action? A: As of October 2025, the case, Tessa Brower-Walsh v. Therapy Match, Inc. dba Headway, was still pending in San Diego County Superior Court. Q: Are California employers required to provide their employees with specific pay and wage information? A: Yes, labor law is very specific about what data is required on an "accurate itemized wage statement." Q: What information is required on wage statements to comply with California Labor Code Section 226? A: California employers must include the following information on wage statements to comply with labor laws: gross wages earned, total hours worked, the number of piece-rate units earned and the applicable piece-rates, any deductions, net wages earned, the dates of the pay period, employee name, last four digits of the employee's social security number (or employee id number), name and address of the employer, hourly rates that apply to the pay period, and number of hours worked at each specified hourly rate. Q: What qualifies as an exempt employee in California? A: To qualify as an exempt employee, California workers must pass a two-part test. First, the duties test. They must be "primarily" engaged in the duties that meet the test of the exemption. Second, the salary test. They must earn a monthly salary of at least twice California's minimum wage for full-time employees (Labor Code § 515). If you believe you were misclassified as exempt and denied overtime pay, or you were not paid for all hours worked, the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can evaluate your wage-and-hour claims and explain your options. Contact the firm's offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago to discuss how you may be able to recover unpaid wages and pursue accountability under the law. [GN] TIPS INC: Rivard Seeks to Recover Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- ROGER RIVARD JR., individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. TIPS, INC., TIPS INVESTMENTS LLC, and TIPS LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00762 (D. Colo., Feb. 24, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to the Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers employed by the Defendants at their Domino's stores under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Colorado Wage Claim Act, and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act. The Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, the Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks (nominal wages - unreimbursed vehicle costs = subminimum net wages), the suit asserts. The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants since August 2013 as a delivery driver at Defendants' store located in Aurora, CO. The Defendants operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Colby Qualls, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (469) 399-1070 E-mail: cqualls@foresterhaynie.com TRIP.COM GROUP: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Trip.com Group Limited (NASDAQ: TCOM) resulting from allegations that Trip.com may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Trip.com Group 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=50668 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 January 14, 2026, Investing.com published an article entitled "Trip.com stock falls after Chinese regulators launch antitrust probe." The article stated that Trip.com stock fell after "the Chinese travel service provider disclosed it is under investigation by China's market regulator for potential antitrust violations." On this news, Trip.com's American Depositary Shares ("ADS") fell 17% on January 14, 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. 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] TRIZETTO PROVIDER: Cleveland Files Suit Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------- SHIRLEY CLEVELAND and GRACE AYANDIBU, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TRIZETTO PROVIDER SOLUTIONS, LLC, and COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-00264 (E.D. Mo., February 23, 2026) arises out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendants, which held in their possession certain personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") of Plaintiffs and Class Members. According to the complaint, the Defendants stored Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Private Information on behalf of Plaintiffs' and Class Members' healthcare providers, and in some cases, these healthcare providers' contractor OCHIN. The Defendants owe Plaintiffs and Class Members an affirmative duty to adequately protect and safeguard this private information against theft and misuse. Despite such duties created by statute, regulation, and common law, at all relevant times, Defendants utilized deficient data security practices, thereby allowing sensitive and private data to fall into the hands of strangers. On October 2, 2025, Defendants "became aware of suspicious activity within a web portal that some healthcare provider customers use to access its systems." The Defendants later learned that starting November 2024, "an unauthorized actor began accessing some records related to insurance eligibility verification transactions that healthcare providers process to access insurance coverage for treatment services they provide to patients." The Defendants began notifying affected healthcare providers on December 2025. However, Defendants did not notify states' attorneys general until February 2026 and the full scope of the Data Breach is still not known. It is estimated that 700,000 individuals have been impacted thus far. Through the Data Breach, the cybercriminal gained unauthorized access to highly sensitive Private Information, including names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, health insurance member numbers, Medicare beneficiary numbers, health insurer names, information about the primary insured or beneficiary, and other demographic health and health insurance information. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff Cleveland has suffered imminent and impending injury arising from the heightened risk of fraud, identity theft, and misuse resulting from her Private Information being placed in the hands of criminals. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, actual damages for all monies paid to Defendants and attorneys' fees. Plaintiff Shirley Cleveland is a resident and citizen of Casscoe, Arkansas who received notice of the Data Breach on February 6, 2026, informing her that her sensitive information was part of Defendants' Data Breach. Plaintiff Grace Ayandibu is a medical doctor with a dermatology practice in Wichita Falls, Texas, residing in Witchita Falls, Texas. Defendant TriZetto Provider Solutions, LLC provides services such as claims management, billing and coding services, patient engagement, credentialing, as well as denials and contract management.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maureen M. Brady, Eaq. McSHANE & BRADY, LLC 4006 Central Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 888-8010 Facsimile: (816) 332-6295 E-mail: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com - and - Amber L. Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union St, Ste 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: 415-788-4220 Facsimile: 415-788-0161 E-mail: aschubert@sjk.law UNEX CORPORATION: Fanelli Sues Over Failure to Secure Information ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Fanelli, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNEX CORPORATION d/b/a HYTORC DIVISION OF UNEX CORPORATION, Case No. 2:26-cv-01499 (D.N.J., Feb. 16, 2026), is brought on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII" or "Private Information") and that was impacted in a data breach (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"), arising from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. In the course of its ordinary business practices, Defendant collects, retains, and stores significant amounts of Private Information. Defendant is responsible for ensuring that the Private Information entrusted to it is kept confidential and safeguarded from unauthorized access. On November 2, 2025, Defendant experienced a Data Breach. In response, Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach On January 5, 2026, Defendant's investigation determined that "personal information was contained within the potentially affected data." The following types of Private Information were compromised: names and Social Security numbers. On or around February 5, 2026, Defendant began sending Notice of Data Security Incident letters ("Notice") to impacted individuals. The Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' Private Information secure. The Plaintiff's Private Information is available on the dark web as a result of the Data Breach. 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. Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals, says the complaint. The Plaintiff provided their Private Information to Defendant. The Defendant is an industrial bolting company based in New Jersey that provides calibration, repair, equipment rental, custom engineering, software, and training services to its clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 475-2299 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com UVA HEALTH: Fails to Secure Customers' Private Info, Patterson Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN PATTERSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UVA HEALTH, EPIC SYSTEMS CORPORATION, HEALTH GORILLA, AND MAMMOTH PATH SOLUTION, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-01938 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 23, 2026) sues the Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard the Representative Plaintiff's and/or Class Members' personally identifiable information stored within the Defendants' information network(s), including contact information and any other information that is maintained in medical records (diagnoses, notes, medications, test results, etc.). The Plaintiff seeks to hold the Defendants responsible for the harms they caused and will continue to cause the Plaintiff and thousands of other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable incident purportedly discovered by the Defendants on Jan. 13, 2026, by which unauthorized entities allegedly accessed the Defendants' inadequately protected network and accessed the Private Information which was being kept under-protected. As a condition of being direct customers and/or employees of Defendants, the Plaintiff and Class Members provided and entrusted their Private Information to the Defendants. While the Defendant UVA claims to have discovered the breach as early as Jan. 13, 2026 (when it was informed of said breach by the Defendant Epic) the Defendant UVA did not begin informing victims of the Data Breach until Feb. 12, 2026, in which the Defendant UVA stated that the breach occurred sometime between September 2024 and November 2025, the suit alleges. As a result, the Plaintiff spent time dealing with the consequences of the Data Breach, which included and continues to include, time spent verifying the legitimacy and impact of the Data Breach, exploring credit monitoring and identity theft insurance options, self-monitoring the Plaintiff's accounts and seeking legal counsel regarding the Plaintiff's options for remedying and/or mitigating the effects of the Data Breach. This time has been lost forever and cannot be recaptured, the suit asserts. UVA is an academic health care center associated with the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edward Cole, Esq. Laura Grace Van Note, Esq. Mark T. Freeman, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 Facsimile: (510) 891-7030 E-mail: sec@colevannote.com lvn@colevannote.com mtf@colevannote.com VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Yu Suit Removed to D. New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Christopher Yu, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC., VERIZON NEW JERSEY INC., VERIZON WIRELESS SERVICES LLC, CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, and JOHN DOES 1 TO 10, Case No. HUD-L-000181-26 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on Feb. 19, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01685. On behalf of Plaintiff and the proposed class, the Complaint purports to state claims for: Violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ("NJCFA"); Violations of the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act ("TCCWNA"); Violation of the Federal Communications Act ("FCA"); Breach of Contract; Fraud; Negligent Misrepresentation; Unjust Enrichment; Promissory Estoppel; and Declaratory Relief.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Philip R. Sellinger, Esq. Eric Wong, Esq. Clarissa A. Gomez, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 500 Campus Drive, Suite 400 Florham Park, NJ 07932 Phone: (973) 360-7900 Fax: (973) 301-8410 VOLVO GROUP: James Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------- Anna James, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VOLVO GROUP NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00169 (M.D.N.C., Feb. 16, 2026), is brought arising from Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act ("North Carolina Wage Act") and common law, seeking to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. The Defendant violated the FLSA, North Carolina Wage Act, and common law by systematically failing to compensate their CSRs for work tasks completed before and during their scheduled shifts, when they were not logged into Defendant's timekeeping system. This timekeeping procedure resulted in CSRs not being paid for all overtime hours worked and in workweeks in which CSRs worked overtime, for straight time. More specifically, Defendant failed to compensate CSRs for the substantial time they spent turning on and booting up their computer and computer systems prior to the start of their scheduled shifts and when returning from their meal periods, says the complaint. The Plaintiff began working for Defendant at its Greensboro, North Carolina office location in June 2019 through a staffing agency, Aerotech. The Defendant is a motor vehicle manufacturer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ethan C. Goemann, Esq. Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Paulina R. Kennedy, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: 248-355-0300 Email: egoemann@sommerspc.com kstoops@sommerspc.com pkennedy@sommerspc.com WHITE ICEBERG: Sanchez Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- TOMAS HERNANDEZ SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE WHITE ICEBERG CORP., and JIMMY J. CORTEZ and ANA GUARACA, as individuals, Case No. 1:26-cv-01054 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Although the Plaintiff worked 66 hours per week from December 2020 until December 2024, the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL. Moreover, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the legally prescribed minimum wage for all his hours worked from January 2025 until March 2025, a blatant violation of the minimum wage provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL. As a result of the violations of Federal and New York State labor laws, the Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and liquidated damages. The Plaintiff also seeks interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal and equitable remedies this Court deems appropriate. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a machinery maintenance worker, painter, mason, multitasking laborer, and driver's helper from December 2020 until March 2025. White is manufacturer and dealer of ice cubes and ice blocks.[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 WILLIAM E. BAKER: Maxwell Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against William E. Baker, Jr., et al. The case is styled as Emiranda Maxwell, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. William E. Baker, Jr., Paige Merrill Baker, Kheradmand Faramarz, Randall L. Randall, Brett M. Sternad, Case No. 26SMCV00886 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 19, 2026). The case type is stated as "Motor Vehicle - Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death (General Jurisdiction)."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric T. Goldie, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ERIC T. GOLDIE 12604 Layhill Rd. Silver Spring, MD 20906-3428 Phone: 818-851-2341 Email: egoldie39@gmail.com WORLD CLASS DISTRIBUTION: Moran Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against World Class Distribution Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jose Alfredo Aguilar Moran, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. World Class Distribution Inc., Workforce Management Group Incorporated, Case No. 26STCV05152 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 18, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." World Class Distribution Inc. was founded in 2009. The Company line of business includes the warehousing and storage of a general line of goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Lavi, Esq. E&L, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., 2nd Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: 213-213-0000 Fax: 213-213-0025 Email: dlavi@ebralavi.com WYNN RESORTS: Reed Files Data Breach Class Suit in D. Nev. ---------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD REED, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. WYNN RESORTS, LIMITED, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00482 (D. Nev., February 21, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including Plaintiff's and Class Members' name and Social Security number (collectively "PII" or "Private Information"). The complaint relates that the Defendant operates casinos and other entertainment facilities throughout the United States. In order to obtain services from Defendant, Plaintiff and Class Members were required to provide Defendant with their sensitive and confidential Private Information. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. On February 20, 2026, the notorious hacking group ShinyHunters announced it had stolen over 800,000 records from Defendant containing the personal information of Plaintiff and Class Members. In breaching its duties to properly safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information and give them timely, adequate notice of the Data Breach's occurrence, Defendant's conduct amounts to negligence and/or recklessness and violates federal and state statutes, asserts the complaint. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injury as a result of Defendant's conduct, including: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) theft of their Private Information; (iii) lost or diminished value of Private Information; (iv) lost time associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (v) loss of benefit of the bargain; (vi) lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (vii) actual misuse of the compromised data consisting of an increase in spam calls, texts, and/or emails; (viii) nominal damages; and (ix) the continued and certainly increased risk to their Private Information. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. Plaintiff Richard Reed is a resident and citizen of California and is a Data Breach victim. Defendant Wynn Resort Limited is a Nevada-based hospitality and entertainment company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: George Haines, Esq. FREEDOM LAW FIRM 8985 South Eastern Avenue, Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89213 Telephone: (702) 880-5554 Facsimile: (702) 385-5518 E-mail: ghaines@freedomlegalteam.com - and - Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Dr. Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com ZYNEX INC: Faces Class Suit Over Insurance Overbilling Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------- Tez Romero, writing for Insurance Business, reports that a federal securities class action filed on February 20, 2026 has laid bare what prosecutors describe as an $873 million insurance billing fraud machine run by the former top executives of medical device maker Zynex, Inc. The case, Beidel v. Sandgaard et al. (Case No. 1:26-cv-00714, US District Court for the District of Colorado), pulls together allegations from lawsuits by Travelers, Allstate, and a federal criminal indictment to tell a story that should trouble every claims department in the country. Here is the short version: Zynex, a Colorado-based manufacturer of electrotherapy devices for pain management, allegedly made its money not by selling good products but by flooding patients with supplies they never asked for -- electrode pads, batteries, the works -- and then billing insurers for all of it. According to a federal indictment unsealed on or about January 21, 2026, former CEO Thomas Sandgaard and former COO Anna Lucsok caused the company to collect more than $873 million, with over $600 million of that coming from supplies. The indictment states the vast majority of those supply billings were unnecessary and improperly billed, with volumes reaching as high as 32, 64, or even 128 electrode pairs per patient per month. The scale of the alleged scheme drew action from some of the biggest names in insurance. Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America and its affiliates filed suit under seal in August 2023 in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, alleging violations of the California Insurance Frauds Prevention Act and attaching more than 140 pages of alleged fraudulent claims. Travelers alleged Zynex had an internal policy to automatically ship supplies every month without checking whether patients actually needed them. Patients who tried to stop the shipments were allegedly told to keep the supplies so Zynex could continue billing their carriers. Allstate Insurance Companies and its affiliates filed their own 138-page complaint in September 2025, alleging Zynex employees filled out prescription forms themselves, bypassing medical professionals entirely. Allstate identified apparent signature forgery on order forms and called the pattern "an intent to defraud." Tricare -- the US military's health insurance program and Zynex's largest customer at 20–25% of revenue -- suspended payments after detecting fraud that had been flagged as early as 2022. A 2023 investigation by The Capitol Forum found that Zynex's annual Tricare billings for electrodes alone skyrocketed from $1.7 million to $90.5 million between 2015 and 2022. The fallout was swift. Zynex filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on December 15, 2025. Its NASDAQ-listed stock was suspended nine days later and delisted on January 13, 2026. Sandgaard and Lucsok now face federal charges including conspiracy to commit health care fraud, mail fraud, and securities fraud. No court has made findings on the merits of any of these claims. The case remains in its earliest stage. [GN] ********* 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 ***