260305.mbx

260305.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, March 5, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 46 Headlines 37 AVE RICHOUSE: Faces Suarez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. A&A GAS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Gas Leaking ABF FREIGHT SYSTEM: Lewis Suit Transferred to C.D. California ADVANCED BUSINESS: Lopez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ADVANTAGE HOSPITALITY: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AGILON HEALTH: Faces Vandersluis Securities Class Suit in New York AJAY GLASS: FLSA Collective in Louis Conditionally Approved ALIBABA GROUP: Hopkins Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages ALORICA INC: Shelton Seeks Customer Service Advisors' Unpaid OT AMAZON.COM INC: Rose Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AMAZON.COM: Hamilton May Refile Class Cert Bid by March 20 AMERICAN EXPRESS: Agrees to Settle Antitrust Class Suit for $17.5MM AMERICAN EXPRESS: Joint Bid to File Exhibits Under Seal OK'd AMERICAN MEDICAL: Bjur Suit Removed to E.D. California AMETROS FINANCIAL: Court Continues Hearing on Class Cert Bid AMICA MUTUAL: Settlement in Whitehead Gets Initial OK APOLLO GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Stockholder Agreement Class Suit APPLE INC: Asks Court to Dismiss Class Suit Over Siri AI Fraud ARAMARK UNIFORM: Hearing on Fernandez Class Cert Bid Vacated ARIZONA LABOR: Bozek Seeks Prelim Approval of Class Settlement ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit ASCEND REHAB SERVICES: Agarwal Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: Completion of Mediation in Adams Due May 29 ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: Witness Disclosures in Baker Due April 27 AUSTIN CRYO VENTURES: Tinkle Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York AXSOME THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Gru Class Suit in New York BAD BOYS: Court Approves Bail Bond Class-Action Settlement BALL METAL BEVERAGE: Marrero Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. BANK OF AMERICA: Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action BARCLAYS PLC: Class Cert Hearing in Merritt Suit Set for April 16 BEHAVIORAL HEALTH: Bid to Continue Amended Scheduling Order OK'd BERKELEY CITY: Prado Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action BETTER DEBT SOLUTIONS: Dorado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BEVERLY HILLS, CA: Class Certification Bid Deadline Vacated BURNS & WILCOX: Mosley Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective Action CAL-MAINE FOODS: Emery Suit Transferred to W.D. Wisconsin CAL-MAINE FOODS: Huyler Suit Transferred to W.D. Wisconsin CAL-MAINE FOODS: Taylor Egg Suit Transferred to W.D. Wisconsin CAL-MAINE FOODS: Yell-O-Glow Suit Transferred to W.D. Wisconsin CALGARY, AB: Judge Approves Sexual Abuse Class Settlement CAPITOL ISLAND: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Lopez Says CAPPELLO'S LLC: Hunter Class Certification Bid Tossed CARGILL MEAT: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 12, 2027 CELLCO PARTNETSHIP: Saavedra Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CHAMPION LABORATORIES: May Face Class Suit Over WARN Act Violations CHURCH MUTUAL: Court Revives Storm Damage Payouts Class Action COCA-COLA CO: Class Cert. Bid in Palmer Suit Due June 25 COMMUNAUTE LTD: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Lopez Alleges CONSTELLATION SOFTWARE: Exploits School Lunch Programs, Dodge Says DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Allman Due June 22 DIRECT ENERGY LLC: Newman TCPA Suit Ongoing in S.D. Tex. DIRECT ENERGY LP: Settlement Reached in Burk Securities Suit DIRECT ENERGY: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Dickson DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces Suit Over Promotional Practices for Gamblers ELLIS HOSPITAL: Class Cert Filing in Davella Extended to March 31 EMERSON ECOLOGICS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Martinez Due Sept. 2 EMPOWERMENT SCHOOLS: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Class Cert. Briefing Order Entered in Copeland ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Class Cert. Briefing Order Entered in PPI ENPHASE ENERGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 20 FIGURE LENDING: Faces Class Action Over Unprotected Personal Info FLAGSTAR BANK: Agrees to Settle 2021 Data Breach Suit for $31.5MM FLOCK SAFETY: Faces Class Suit for Using License Plate Cameras FLUID MARKET: Urban Interests Wins Bid to Retransfer Case Venue FRANKLIN BSP: Faces Class Suit Over False Company Material Info GALDERMA LABORATORIES: Bruno Suit Removed to C.D. California GENEDX HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Helo Class Suit in Conn. GLOBAL ATOMIC: May Face Class Suit Over Unfair Public Disclosures GM FINANCIAL: Smith Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to D. Maine GOSHEN MEDICAL CENTER: Bass Suit Removed to E.D. North Carolina GRAND CANYON EDUCATION: Valerio Consumer Suit Ongoing in Arizona HAIR RESTORATION: Morris Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California HANNA ANDERSSON: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website HEDGEHOG INVESTMENTS: Faces Class Suit Over Ponzi Scheme in D. Utah HERSHEY COMPANY: Faces Class Suit Over Falsely Advertised Products HERSHEY COMPANY: Fields Suit Transferred to M.D. Pennsylvania HIGH PACIFIC CORP: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HIMS & HERS: Faces GLP-1 False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit HOME DEPOT INC: Martinez Suit Removed to S.D. California HON COMPANY: Installs Website Trackers Without Consent, Suit Says KEAWORLD LLC: See Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store LAKELAND INDUSTRIES: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit LAST BRAND: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over False Reference Prices LOVE FIELD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carrera Alleges LULU & GEORGIA: Correia Files Suit in S.D. California MANSUR GAVRIEL: Lewis Sues Over Unlawful Text Message and Calls MARKET EXPRESS: Removes Sweitzer Suit to W.D. Wash. MASHABLE INC: Court Junks Bid to Dismiss Fregosa SAC MASONITE INTERNATIONAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due April 7 MCLANE FOODSERVICE: Thornhill Suit Transferred to C.D. California MEGA INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Action Suit Over Meal Breaks MEREO BIOPHARMA: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit MISTPLAY INC: Hopkins Sues Over Unsolicited Referral Text Messages NABORS ENERGY: Camac Fund Sues Over Misappropriation of Payment NOVABAY PHARMACEUTICALS: Smith Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty NUSCALE POWER: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 20 OOKLA LLC: Faces Milito Labor Suit in Washington Supreme Court PACIFICORP: Oregon Jury Awards $305MM to Wildfire Survivors PENNEY OPCO: Removes Alvarado Suit to W.D. Wash. PINTEREST INC: Illegally Collects Users' Personal Info, Zhu Says QUALDERM PARTNERS: Fails to Secure Private Info, Brecklin Says QUANTUM HEALTH: Fails to Secure Private Info, Dickman Alleges QUICKEN LOANS: Court Disallows Class Suit Over Mortgage Violations RUNWAY AI: Faces Class Action Suit Over Misusing YouTube Content SALESFORCE INC: Yockey Seeks to File Class Documents Under Seal SEVEN COUNTIES: Agrees to Settle 2024 Data Breach Suit for $1-Mil. SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Kevin Due May 19 SNOWFLAKE INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 27 SNOWFLAKE INC: Faces Securities Class Action Suit in N.D. Calif. SSA HOLDINGS: Filing for Class Cert. in Gomez Due March 15 STIFEL FINANCIAL: Mismanages 401(k) Plan, Striplin Suit Alleges STRATEGIC SOLUTION: Evans Sues Over False Tribal Lending Contracts SUNTRUST BANK: Agrees to Settle Overdrafts Fees' Suit for $240MM TEVA CANADA: Federal Court Denies Class Action Certification TOP PICK: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Deinnocentes Claims TOYOTA MOTOR: Pszwaro Sues Over Defective Motor Vehicles TRUE FINANCE: Class Cert Bid in Kelly Suit Due March 13 UNITED PARCEL: Anastopoulo Sues Over Unlawful Tariff Collection UNITED PARCEL: Faces Clas Action Suit Over Illegal Tariffs UNITED THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend MSP Recovery Class Suit UWM HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Escue Class Suit in Michigan VENEZUELA: Mazzaccone Must File Class Cert Bid by March 13 VISTAGEN THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Artificially Inflated Stock Prices WEST 63 EMPIRE: Bittlingmaier Balks at Consumers' Hidden Junk Fees WESTERN FIRST: Brown Allowed Leave to Amend Complaint WESTLAKE WELLBEING: Edwards Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WYNN RESORTS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach XOOM ENERGY LLC: Mirkin Securities Suit Ongoing YARDI SYSTEMS: Mosley Sues Over Deceptive Junk Service Fees ZETA GLOBAL: Discovery in Securities Class Suit Stayed [^] Register Now for 2026 Class Action Money & Ethics Conference! ********* 37 AVE RICHOUSE: Faces Suarez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ MARY EMILIA DELGADO SUAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 37 AVE RICHOUSE LLC, 37TH AVE RICHOUSE MEMBER LLC, 3T CONSTRUCTION INC., 3T GC LLC, and JIAQI KWON and GREG GE, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01002 (E.D.N.Y., February 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, the New York State Executive Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to timely pay wages, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. Ms. Suarez was employed by the Defendants as a construction elevator operator and laborer while performing related miscellaneous duties, from in or around November 2023 until in or around January 2024. 37 Ave Richouse LLC is a construction subcontractor in Flushing, New York. 37th Ave Richouse Member LLC is a construction subcontractor in Flushing, New York. 3T Construction Inc. is a construction contractor in Flushing, New York. 3T GC LLC is a construction contractor in Flushing, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. Helen F. Dalton & Associates, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 A&A GAS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Gas Leaking ------------------------------------------------- Suzanne Phan, writing for ABC 7 News, reports that Nearly 100 small businesses in Burlingame are part of a new class action lawsuit just filed against the owner of a gas station. Authorities say the A&A Gas & Mart was responsible for gasoline leaking into electric vaults in early January causing power outages and road closures that lasted more than a week. Small businesses in Burlingame say they're still feeling the impact of extended power outages and the resulting road closures that happened in January. John Kevranian owns Nuts for Candy and is the past president of the Broadway Burlingame Business Improvement District. "I lost several thousand dollars this was not a one-day impact. This was an 11 to 12 days' worth of impact, and we are still feeling it," said Kevranian. The class action lawsuit is against A&A Gas and Mart and Mash Petroleum. The suit represents 100 small stores and restaurants along the Broadway Corridor, including Maverick Jack's. "Our customers weren't able to get to us. Our product was sitting on our shelves without power," said owner Micheál Mallie. The gasoline leak was discovered in early January, in an AT&T underground electrical vault near California Drive and Broadway. A week earlier, another petroleum product was discovered leaking into a PG&E vault. Crews shut down streets as they worked to fix the issue, creating big headaches for business owners. "We've had zero contact from those responsible. They're right across the street as you can see. No phone calls. We're supposed to be neighbors," said Mallie. The complaint pointed out about two dozen underground tank violations at the gas station over the years. Attorney Nanci Nishimura says the station was negligent. "The fact that they allowed this leak to happen. It festered. There was a leak. I think they knew there was a potential for a leak given they had all these other violations before, -- the fact that the tanks were so old," said Nishamura. State records show only three of the tank-related violations remain unresolved. Business owners say they want to see those fixed as well. "They got to take care of the problem, got to take care of the contamination, and make sure this never happens again," said Kevranian. ABC7 Eyewitness News reached out to A&A Gas and Mash Petroleum and have not gotten a response. [GN] ABF FREIGHT SYSTEM: Lewis Suit Transferred to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Spencer Lewis, individually and on behalf other members of the general public similarly situated v. ABF Freight System, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-00078 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 13, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01534-ODW-AJR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Labor/Mgmnt. Relations. ABF Freight System, Inc. -- https://www.abf.com/ -- is an American national less-than-truckload (LTL) freight carrier based in Fort Smith, Arkansas, that is a subsidiary of ArcBest.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arby Aiwazian, Esq. Brittany Michaela Wiehe, Esq. Brittany Shaw Carter, Esq. Mno Mel-Prince Bogosyan, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC 450 North Brand Blvd., Suite 900 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: 818-265-1020 Fax: 818-265-1021 Email: arby@calljustice.com b.wiehe@calljustice.com brittany@calljustice.com mno@calljustice.com The Defendant is represented by: Emily Burkhardt Vicente, Esq. Michael A Pearlson, Esq. HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP 550 South Hope Street Suite 2000 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2627 Phone: (213) 532-2000 Fax: (213) 532-2020 Email: ebvicente@hunton.com Mpearlson@hunton.com ADVANCED BUSINESS: Lopez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Judith Adela Lopez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. ADVANCED BUSINESS STRATEGIES LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-01472 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 21, 2026), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://enjoyrealcoco.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. ADVANCED BUSINESS STRATEGIES LLC, operates the Enjoy Real Coco online retail store, as well as the Enjoy Real Coco interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: jeffrey@gottlieb.legal dana@gottlieb.legal michael@gottlieb.legal ADVANTAGE HOSPITALITY: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Advantage Hospitality, LLC. The case is styled as Griselda Juarez Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Advantage Hospitality, LLC, DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 26CV004081 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Feb. 20, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Advantage Hospitality, LLC -- https://advantagehospitalitymanagement.com/ -- provide expert, honest, and actionable guidance that keeps restaurants open, profitable & running.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manny Starr, Esq. FRONTIER LAW CENTER 23901 Calabasas Rd., Ste. 1084 Calabasas, CA 91302-3392 Phone: 818-914-3433 Fax: 818-914-3433 Email: manny@frontierlawcenter.com AGILON HEALTH: Faces Vandersluis Securities Class Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------------ Agilon Health, 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 25, 2026, that the Company faces the Vandersluis securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On December 31, 2025, a separate putative securities class action, Vandersluis v. agilon health, Inc., 1:25-cv-07167 (E.D.N.Y.) was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Vandersluis). Vandersluis names the Company and certain current and former members of the Company s executive team and Board of Directors as defendants and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with statements made between February 2025 and August 2025 in the Company s quarterly reports and earnings releases related to, among other things, the Company s financial guidance, medical margin and Adjusted EBITDA results. The proposed class period is February 26 through August 4, 2025. Vandersluis was filed on behalf of stockholders who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Company s common stock between February 26 and August 4, 2025, and seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported class. Headquartered in Austin, TX, Agilon Health, Inc is a healthcare and technology company that acts as an intermediary between physician groups that provide medical services to senior citizens and Medicare and Medicare Advantage insurers.[BN] AJAY GLASS: FLSA Collective in Louis Conditionally Approved ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARDY LOUIS and SHERRON SAWYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AJAY GLASS & MIRROR CO., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00462-AJB-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Brindisi entered an order that the Plaintiffs' motion is granted in part and denied in part: 1. The Court conditionally approves the following putative Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective: "All current and former non-exempt hourly employees who were employed by the Defendants Ajay Glass & Mirror Co., Jim Stathopoulos, Steve Stathopoulos, and Dean Stathopoulos (collectively, "Defendants") from April 2, 2021 through the date of trial." 2. The Plaintiffs are ordered to submit a Proposed Publication Order, Consent to Join Form, and Notice of Lawsuit that comply with the above decision for the Court’s approval within 14 days. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the pending motions. In sum, the Court finds that plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated a common de facto policy or practice. The Plaintiffs have likewise satisfied their minimal burden and may disseminate court-authorized notice to other potentially "similarly situated" members of the collective. The Plaintiffs allege that defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of not paying plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees for all straight and overtime hours worked in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). Ajay is a glass subcontractor. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=960oiJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brett R. Gallaway, Esq. Lee S. Shalov, Esq. Jason S. Giaimo, Esq. MCLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP 260 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 448-1100 Facsimile: (212) 448–0066 E-mail: jgiaimo@mclaughlinstern.com The Defendants are represented by: William G. Bauer, Esq. WOODS OVIATT GILMAN LLP 1900 Bausch & Lomb Place Rochester, NY 14604 ALIBABA GROUP: Hopkins Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------------- CHRIS HOPKINS, individually and on behalf of the proposed class, Plaintiff v. ALIBABA GROUP HOLDING LIMITED, ALIBABA GROUP (U.S.) INC., ALIBABA (CHINA) TECHNOLOGY CO., LIMITED, and ALIBABA (SINGAPORE) LIMITED, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-05180 (W.D. Wash., February 24, 2026) is a class action seeking an injunction to end Defendants' illegal practices; an award to Plaintiff and class members of statutory and exemplary damages for each illegal text; and an award of attorneys' fees and costs. The complaint relates that Alibaba offers multiple e-commerce mobile applications used by U.S. residents, including the Alibaba.com app (B2B marketplace) and the AliExpress app (consumer retail). Based on the terms of service and privacy policies for these two apps, as well as developer information offered in the Google and Apple stores, the apps were jointly developed and operated by Alibaba China, Alibaba Singapore, and Alibaba U.S., and during the four years preceding this complaint, each company was responsible for developing and operating one or both apps. Both the Alibaba.com app and the AliExpress app include a refer-a-friend/share-and-earn feature offering order credits to both the sender and recipient upon qualifying activity. These referral programs involve coordination in the development of the apps, creation of the program terms, marketing, data-sharing with the operations of the underlying websites, and payment to United States residents. Each of the Defendants is involved in one or more aspects of the scheme, based on their respective roles in overall strategic coordination and marketing, app development, and U.S. implementation. The Defendants systematically violated the Consumer Protection Act protecting Washington residents from unsolicited text messages by implementing a series of text-based referral programs in its Alibaba.com and AliExpress apps. These referral programs prompt existing users to send pre-packaged referral messages to their contacts by text message. Defendants create the message content, provide the transmission mechanism, and financially reward successful conversions. There is no mechanism to obtain or ensure the recipient's prior consent, says the suit. Plaintiff Chris Hopkins is a citizen of Washington State who resided in Pierce County. Defendant Alibaba Group Holding Limited is a multinational technology company involved in the U.S. localization of website and app content as well as U.S. payment processing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Tack-Hooper, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 92 Lenora Street, #179 Seattle, WA 98121 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: ryan@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com ALORICA INC: Shelton Seeks Customer Service Advisors' Unpaid OT --------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM SHELTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALORICA INC. and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-00391 (C.D. Cal., February 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Shelton was employed by the Defendant as a senior customer service advisor in San Antonio, Texas from approximately August 2023 until September 2024. Alorica Inc. is a business process and outsourcing solutions company, headquartered in Irvine, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Olivia R. Beale, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 Email: obeale@mybackwages.com AMAZON.COM INC: Rose Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amazon.Com, Inc. The case is styled as Devin Rose, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Amazon.Com, Inc., Case No. 26STCV04698 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 11, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Commercial/Business Tort (Not Fraud/ Breach of Contract) (General Jurisdiction)." Amazon.com, Inc. -- https://www.amazon.com/ -- is an American multinational technology company engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James Michael Treglio, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (858) 375-7385 Fax: (888) 422-5191 Email: jimt@potterhandy.com AMAZON.COM: Hamilton May Refile Class Cert Bid by March 20 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL HAMILTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00434-PAB-STV (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Brimmer entered an order denying without prejudice the motion to certify class action. Mr. Hamilton may refile a motion for class certification on or before March 20, 2026. Because the holding in Hamilton seemingly resolved the "central issue" of this case, the briefing on superiority is outdated. Accordingly, the Court will deny the motion to certify class action without prejudice due to the outdated briefing. If Mr. Hamilton chooses to refile the motion, the parties should address whether the Colorado Supreme Court's holding has resolved issues of liability regarding Amazon and, if so, whether class certification is still appropriate. Mr. Hamilton's complaint focuses on Amazon's treatment of Holiday Incentive Pay ("HIP") for purposes of calculating the rate of overtime pay. Amazon did not include HIP when adding up the total compensation that Mr. Hamilton was paid in a week, resulting in a lower regular rate of pay than if Amazon had included HIP. Mr. Hamilton filed this action in Arapahoe County Court on Jan. 14, 2022. On Feb. 17, 2022, Amazon removed the case to federal court. On April 14, 2022, Mr. Hamilton filed a motion to certify a class action. Amazon.com provides e-commerce services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eRO5CG at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN EXPRESS: Agrees to Settle Antitrust Class Suit for $17.5MM ------------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that American Express (Amex) has agreed to a $17.5 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that it violated antitrust laws by preventing merchants from encouraging customers to use other forms of payment. The Amex settlement benefits individuals who used a Visa or Mastercard debit card to purchase goods or services from qualifying merchants in Alabama, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oregon or Utah between Jan. 29, 2015, and June 1, 2022, or in Kansas, Illinois or Mississippi between Jan. 29, 2016, and June 1, 2022. The Amex settlement also benefits individuals who used a Visa, Mastercard or Discover general purpose credit or charge card that does not offer credit card rewards or charge an annual fee to purchase goods or services from qualifying merchants in the District of Columbia, Kansas or Illinois between Jan. 29, 2015, and June 1, 2022, or in Kansas or Illinois between Jan. 29, 2016, and June 1, 2022. American Express is a payment processing company that allows merchants to accept payments from Amex-branded credit cards, debit cards and other payment methods. While Amex is a popular payment option, many consumers choose to use other cards from Visa, Mastercard and other companies. According to a class action lawsuit, American Express violated federal antitrust laws by preventing merchants from encouraging customers to pay with other cards. The plaintiffs in the case say that Amex's anti-steering rules forced merchants to raise their prices in order to cover Amex fees. As a result, consumers who did not use Amex cards ended up paying more than they would have without these rules, the class action lawsuit contends. American Express has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $17.5 million class action settlement to resolve these allegations. Under the terms of the AmEx class action settlement, class members can receive a cash payment. Exact payment amounts will vary depending on the number of claims filed with the AmEx settlement. Class members who used a Visa or Mastercard debit card to make purchases from qualifying merchants or who used a non-rewards credit card to make purchases from qualifying merchants are eligible for payments from the settlement. The deadline for exclusion and objection is April 29, 2026. The final approval hearing for the American Express antitrust settlement is scheduled for June 17, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by May 19, 2026. Who's Eligible Illinois non-rewards credit card class: Consumers with a Visa, Mastercard or Discover general purpose credit or charge card account that does not offer credit card rewards or charge an annual fee and who used the card to make a purchase from a qualifying merchant in Illinois between Jan. 29, 2016, and June 1, 2022. Debit card classes: Consumers who are Visa or Mastercard debit card holders and who used the debit card to purchase a good or service from a qualifying merchant in Alabama, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oregon or Utah between Jan. 29, 2015, and June 1, 2022, or in Kansas, Illinois or Mississippi between Jan. 29, 2016, and June 1, 2022. Potential Award TBD Proof of Purchase Illinois non-rewards credit card class: Account number and/or card number, if known, and proof of a qualifying purchase. Debit card classes: Account number and/or card number, if known, and proof of a qualifying purchase. 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 05/19/2026 Case Name Moskowitz, et al. v. American Express Co., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00566-NGG-JRC, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York Final Hearing 06/17/2026 Settlement Website AmExAntitrust.com Claims Administrator Amex Antitrust c/o A.B. Data Ltd. P.O. Box 173092 Milwaukee, WI 53217 info@AmexAntitrust.com (877) 315-0587 Class Counsel Joseph J. Tabacco Jr. Todd A. Seaver Carl N. Hammarskjold BERMAN TABACCO Gordon Ball GORDON BALL PLLC Jay B. Shapiro Samuel O. Patmore STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITTERSON PA Lewis S. Kahn Melinda A. Nicholson KAHN SWICK & FOTI LLC Christopher Lovell Gary S. Jacobson LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP Marvin A. Miller Andrew Szot THE MILLER LAW LLC Jared B. Stamell Richard J. Schager Jr. STAMELL & SCHAGER LLP Simon Paris SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY PC Eric D. Barton WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP Defense Counsel David E. Ross Steven A. Reed Timothy J. McCarthy KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP [GN] AMERICAN EXPRESS: Joint Bid to File Exhibits Under Seal OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Debra Duke, v. American Express Company, Case No. 4:23-cv-00125-RM-LCK (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Kimmins entered an order granting joint motion to File Exhibits Under Seal. Specifically, the parties ask the Court to seal the unredacted version of its Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and three exhibits filed in support of the opposition. The parties contend the exhibits are confidential because they include Plaintiff’s phone billing records, a settlement offer, and statistical analysis of Defendant’s business records involving non-customers. The Court agrees these documents are confidential. The Court further entered an order directing the Clerk of Court shall file under seal the Defendant's unredacted opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and exhibits 2, 4, and 5 attached thereto. Exhibits 1, 3, and 6 do not need to be filed under seal as the Defendant already has filed them on the public docket American Express is a global financial services corporation and bank holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=b74uou at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN MEDICAL: Bjur Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Elionora Bjur, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION WEST, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 26CV000835 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Feb. 20, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00529-DC-SCR. The complaint purports to state causes of action under the California Labor Code for: failure to pay overtime; failure to pay all wages and minimum wages; failure to provide compliant meal periods; failure to provide compliant rest periods; failure to timely pay all wages due during employment; failure to timely pay all wages due at the end of employment; and failure to provide accurate wage statements and maintain records. The Plaintiff also bring a claim for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") based on the alleged California Labor Code violations.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael S. Kun, Esq. Kevin D. Sullivan, Esq. THOMPSON COBURN LLP 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310.282.2500 Fax: 310.282.2501 Email: mkun@thompsoncoburn.com kdsullivan@thompsoncoburn.com AMETROS FINANCIAL: Court Continues Hearing on Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Louisiana Pain Specialists, LLC, et al., v. Ametros Financial Corporation, Case No. 3:25-cv-00391 (M.D. La., Filed May 6, 2025), the Hon. Judge Brian A. Jackson entered an order granting motion to continue deadline for plaintiff to supplement motion for class certification and to continue hearing on motion for class certification. The nature of suit states Diversity-Other Contract. Ametros is a professional administrator of medical insurance claim settlements, specializing in Medicare Set-Aside (MSA) accounts. Founded in 2010, the company manages funds for injured individuals, providing access to medical discounts, compliance support, and expense management, often to reduce settlement costs.[CC] AMICA MUTUAL: Settlement in Whitehead Gets Initial OK ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chase Whitehead, v. Amica Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-01978-DJH (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Humetewa entered an order granting the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Certification of the Settlement Class. 1. The Court certifies the following Class for purposes of settlement (the "Settlement Class"): "All persons insured under an insurance policy issued by the Defendant in Arizona that covered more than one vehicle for uninsured or underinsured motor vehicle insurance, and who received the limit of liability for the uninsured or underinsured benefits for only one unit of (or one vehicle's) UM or UIM coverage during the Class Period, as reflected in the agreed-upon list attached as Exhibit A to the Settlement Agreement." 2. The Court designates Chase Whitehead as Class Representative for the Settlement Class. 3. The Court appoints Robert Carey of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. 4. The Final Fairness Hearing shall be held before this Court on June 17, 2026, at 3:00 p.m. a class action is appropriate in this forum because the Court has already made preliminary rulings in this matter, the forum is geographically convenient for the parties, and other class actions related to the same issues are already before the Court. The Defendant is a mutual insurance company that offers auto, home and life insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RQLXb9 at no extra charge.[CC] APOLLO GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Stockholder Agreement Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Global Management, 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 25, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the stockholders agreement violation class suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On March 14, 2024, a purported stockholder of AGM filed a class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against AGM. The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain provisions of the stockholders agreement, entered into on January 1, 2022 between AGM and the Former Managing Partners, violate Delaware law. Apollo believes the claims in this action are without merit. On July 11, 2024, AGM moved to dismiss. On August 7, 2024, the court entered an order staying the motion to dismiss pending the resolution of the appeal of the decision in West Palm Beach Firefighters Pension Fund v. Moelis & Co., 311 A.3d 809 (Del. Ch. 2024). The stay expired on January 20, 2026. Pursuant to an order of the court issued on February 4, 2026, briefing on Apollo s motion to dismiss will resume with plaintiff s opposition to the motion, which is to be filed on March 6, 2026. No reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time. Apollo Global Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and individual investors. It manages client-focused portfolios. The firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC. Apollo Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and Europe. APPLE INC: Asks Court to Dismiss Class Suit Over Siri AI Fraud -------------------------------------------------------------- Marcus Mendes, writing for 9TOMAC, reports that the lawsuit accuses Apple of having misled investors about the timeline and readiness of its Apple Intelligence and Siri features, as well as in relation to the Epic Games case. Apple denies fraud claims As Reuters reported: "Apple urged a federal judge to dismiss a proposed class action claiming it defrauded shareholders twice, by overstating the artificial intelligence capabilities of its Siri voice assistant and falsely representing its compliance with an injunction governing commissions on app sales." In its filing, Apple reportedly argues that "there was no proof it knew when discussing AI at a June 2024 conference that it would take longer than expected to incorporate two advanced AI features into Siri, potentially hurting iPhone 16 sales". Interestingly, Apple's motion also addresses the Epic Games litigation. The second fraud claim centers on that case, specifically the stock decline that followed Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers' finding that Apple had violated her original injunction requiring changes to the App Store's commission rules. The report notes that Apple's defense states that the company "provided no assurance that its procedures designed to comply with [the] 2021 injunction [. . .] would be foolproof." According to Reuters, the shareholder plaintiffs are led by South Korea's National Pension Service, the world's third-largest pension fund with nearly $1 trillion in assets. As part of Apple's defense, the company's legal team reportedly said that while its stock "faced challenges and weathered ups and downs" in 2025, it would be a "massive and unsupported leap" to claim that it committed securities fraud. [GN] ARAMARK UNIFORM: Hearing on Fernandez Class Cert Bid Vacated ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTOINETTE FERNANDEZ; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ARAMARK UNIFORM & CAREER APPAREL, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-07711-CAS-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Snyder entered an order granting leave to amend the Complaint and to vacating the hearing date on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. 1) That the hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and all associated hearings and deadlines be vacated. 2) The Plaintiff may amend the complaint. 3) The Defendant shall have no obligation to answer or otherwise respond to the Second Amended Complaint, and shall not be deemed to admit any facts therein or waive any defenses thereto. 4) If the Parties' settlement does not receive full and final approval, then the Second Amended Complaint will be null and void, the original Complaint shall be the operative pleading in this matter, and the Parties will return to the litigation postures in this Action that were in place prior to reaching the settlement in principle. Aramark is a supplier of rental uniforms and workplace supplies. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9O1UNl at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. Lilit Ter-Astvatsatryan, Esq. Michael Citrin, Esq. MOON LAW GROUP, PC 725 S. Figueroa St., Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 232-3128 Facsimile: (213) 232-3125 E-mail: Kmoon@moonlawgroup.com Lilit@moonlawgroup.com Mcitrin@moonlawgroup.com The Defendant is represented by: Eric Meckley, Esq. Sarah Zenewicz, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1596 Telephone: (415) 442-1000 Facsimile: (415) 442-1001 E-mail: eric.meckley@morganlewis.com sarah.zenewicz@morganlewis.com grace.johnson@morganlewis.com ARIZONA LABOR: Bozek Seeks Prelim Approval of Class Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Daniel Bozek, an individual; Brandon Gaines, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Arizona Labor Force, Incorporated; Labor Systems, Inc.; and Does 1-10, Case No. 2:24-cv-00210-SHD (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiffs, on May 5, 2026 at 10:00 AM, will move for an order granting preliminary approval of a class action settlement reached with the Defendants Arizona Labor Force, Incorporated and Labor Systems, Inc. Arizona Labor Force provides help supply and personnel supply services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jvNZJv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brant E. Hodyno, Esq. COMPASSIONATE COUNSEL 3260 N. Hayden Rd., Ste. 210-1 Scottsdale, AZ 85251 Telephone: (602) 344-9574 E-mail: brant@compassionate-counsel.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio S., Suite 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (866) 219-3343 Facsimile: (866) 219-8344 E-mail: josh@swigartlawgroup.com - and - Ben Travis, Esq. BEN TRAVIS LAW, APC 12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (619) 353-7966 E-mail: ben@bentravislaw.com ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Array Technologies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On May 14, 2021, a putative class action (the Plymouth Action ) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain officers and directors alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act. The complaint alleges misstatements and/or omissions in the Company s registration statements and prospectuses related to the Company s October 2020 initial public offering, the Company s December 2020 offering, and the Company s March 2021 offering during the putative class period of October 14, 2020 through May 11, 2021. A consolidated amended class action complaint was filed on December 7, 2021 with additional allegations regarding misstatements and/or omissions in: (i) in the Company s annual report on Form 10-K and associated press release announcing results for the fourth quarter and full fiscal year 2020; and (ii) in the Company’s November 5, 2020 and March 9, 2021 earnings calls. On June 30, 2021, a substantially similar second putative class action was filed in the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain officers and directors alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, which was consolidated with the Plymouth Action. The plaintiffs in the consolidated action seek an award of damages and the interest thereon, any injunctive relief the court deems just and proper, and reasonable costs of bringing the litigation, including attorneys' fees. Array Technologies, Inc. is headquartered in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and manufactures and supplies solar tracking systems and related products for customers across the United States and internationally. The company, through its wholly-owned subsidiary, ATI Investment Sub, Inc., owns subsidiaries through which it conducts substantially all operations. ASCEND REHAB SERVICES: Agarwal Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ascend Rehab Services Inc. The case is styled as Judy Agarwal, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ascend Rehab Services Inc., Case No. 26CV169255 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Feb. 6, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Ascend Rehab -- https://www.ascendrehabinc.com/ -- provides specialized pediatric therapy services, including infant physical therapy, OT, and speech support.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina M. Le, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 660 S. Figueroa St., Sky Lobby Los Angeles, California 90017 Phone: (213) 381-9988 Fax: (213) 381-9989 Email: christina.le@wilshirelawfirm.com ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: Completion of Mediation in Adams Due May 29 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Adams et al., v. Atlantic Richfield Company et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-00375 (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Abizer Zanzi entered an order granting oral motion to modify schedule as follows: -- The Plaintiffs' expert witness disclosures and reports to be served by April 27, 2026; the Defendants' expert witness disclosures and reports to be served by June 8, 2026; the Plaintiffs' rebuttal expert witness disclosures and reports to be served by July 13, 2026; and the close of expert discovery is Aug. 10, 2026. -- The Plaintiffs' deadline to file any motion to enforce any third-party subpoenas is March 16, 2026. -- The deadline to complete mediation is extended to May 29, 2026. Regarding the Plaintiff's motion for class certification in S.A., Case No. 2:22-cv 359, the Court clarifies any misstatement on the record regarding the Court's Order at DE 137. The Plaintiffs must re-file their Amended Motion for Class Certification, Amended Memorandum of Law in Support of Class Certification, and any supporting exhibits which were previously filed. The Defendants' response brief remains due March 13, 2026, and Plaintiffs' reply brief remains due April 3, 2026. The Court will continue to hold regular joint status conferences in these cases, with the next one scheduled for June 15, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. Central Time. By June 9, 2026, the parties must file joint status reports concerning the status of specific discovery in each of the cases since the last status conference. Atlantic Richfield produces, refines, and markets oil and gas. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sffAnn at no extra charge.[CC] ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: Witness Disclosures in Baker Due April 27 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BAKER et al., v. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00429 (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Abizer Zanzi entered an order granting oral motion to modify schedule as follows: -- The Plaintiffs' expert witness disclosures and reports to be served by April 27, 2026; the Defendants' expert witness disclosures and reports to be served by June 8, 2026; the Plaintiffs' rebuttal expert witness disclosures and reports to be served by July 13, 2026; and the close of expert discovery is Aug. 10, 2026. -- The Plaintiffs' deadline to file any motion to enforce any third-party subpoenas is March 16, 2026. -- The deadline to complete mediation is extended to May 29, 2026. Regarding the Plaintiff's motion for class certification in S.A., Case No. 2:22-cv 359, the Court clarifies any misstatement on the record regarding the Court's Order at DE 137. The Plaintiffs must re-file their Amended Motion for Class Certification, Amended Memorandum of Law in Support of Class Certification, and any supporting exhibits which were previously filed. The Defendants' response brief remains due March 13, 2026, and Plaintiffs' reply brief remains due April 3, 2026. The Court will continue to hold regular joint status conferences in these cases, with the next one scheduled for June 15, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. Central Time. By June 9, 2026, the parties must file joint status reports concerning the status of specific discovery in each of the cases since the last status conference. Atlantic Richfield produces, refines, and markets oil and gas. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XzSoGA at no extra charge.[CC] AUSTIN CRYO VENTURES: Tinkle Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Austin Cryo Ventures, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Nicholas Tinkle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Austin Cryo Ventures, LLC, Restore Franchising, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-01051 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Austin Cryo Ventures, LLC doing business as Restore Hyper Wellness + Cryotherapy -- https://www.restore.com/ -- offers whole-body cryotherapy for pain relief, stress reduction, faster recovery and improved energy.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER - WHITE PLAINS 50 Main Street, Ste. 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Phone: (914) 874-0710 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com AXSOME THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Gru Class Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------------- Axsome Therapeutics 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 23, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Gru class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On May 13, 2022, Evy Gru filed a putative class action complaint captioned Gru v. Axsome Therapeutics, Inc., et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, or the SDNY District Court, against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and one director, which the Company refers to as the Securities Class Action. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false statements and omissions concerning the Company's chemistry manufacturing and controls practices, and its NDA with the FDA, with respect to one of its then product candidates, AXS-07, now SYMBRAVO. The named plaintiff sought unspecified damages, fees, interest, and costs. On August 11, 2022, the SDNY District Court appointed co-lead plaintiffs in the Securities Class Action, one of whom later withdrew. On October 7, 2022, the Securities Class Action plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which contained substantially similar allegations as in the initial complaint. On September 25, 2023, the SDNY District Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On October 13, 2023, plaintiffs' counsel filed a letter seeking leave to file an amended complaint and to substitute new plaintiffs. On January 22, 2024, the SDNY District Court granted that motion and ordered that the case name be changed to In re Axsome Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation. On January 26, 2024, the replacement plaintiffs renewed their request for leave to file a proposed second amended complaint, and, on February 6, 2024, the SDNY District Court granted that request. Plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint on February 7, 2024. On March 11, 2024, the defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. On March 31, 2025, the SDNY District Court entered an order granting in part and denying in part defendants' motions to dismiss, dismissing plaintiffs' claims against three of Axsome's current and former officers and allowing the claims against the Company and two current officers to proceed. On October 27, 2025, the SDNY District Court preliminarily approved the terms of a settlement resolving the Securities Class Action. On February 10, 2026, the SDNY District Court conducted a hearing on plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the settlement and the parties are awaiting the Court’s decision. Axsome is a biopharmaceutical company developing novel therapies for central nervous system conditions that have limited treatment options. BAD BOYS: Court Approves Bail Bond Class-Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- Jettie Horton, writing for Vanguard News Group, reports that the Alameda Superior Court has finalized approval of a class-action settlement and entered judgment barring Bad Boys Bail Bonds from coercing low-income families to cosign bail agreements for their imprisoned loved ones, formally closing litigation that spanned from 2019 to 2022. According to the Jan. 21, 2026, judgment entered in Alameda County Superior Court, the court approved the class-action settlement pursuant to California Rules of Court sections 3.769(h) and 3.771(a), entering judgment between BBBB Bonding Corp., doing business as Bad Boys Bail Bonds, and class representatives Kiara Caldwell and Donzahniya Pitre on behalf of the settling class. The court retained jurisdiction "to enforce the terms of the judgment, which are set forth in the Final Approval Order." Initially, the settlement was effectuated by two autonomous cosigners represented by Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area and Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP. Accordingly, the preliminary injunction was first issued in April 2021 and affirmed by the California Court of Appeal in December 2021. The judgment defines the settling class as "all Cosigners who signed a Cosigner Contract during the Release Period, who made a payment on a Cosigner Contract during the Release Period, or from whom payment was sought or allegedly owed during the Release Period." The court specified that the "Release Period" spans from Oct. 30, 2015, through April 1, 2022. Under the judgment, a "Cosigner" is defined as "an individual other than the arrestee, who signs a Cosigner Contract during the Release Period," provided the arrestee also signs the same or substantially similar contract and the cosigner is not married to the arrestee. The judgment further defines a "Cosigner Contract" as an agreement in which an individual other than the arrestee "assumes responsibility or becomes obligated, in whole or in part, for payment of the arrestee's bail bond premium (including, for example, any BBBB 'Unpaid Premium Agreement')." Excluded from the settling class are six individuals who submitted requests for exclusion, as provided in the Final Approval Order. The court also ordered that the Settlement Administrator provide notice of the judgment to the class "in the same manner as notice of preliminary approval," and set a compliance hearing for June 24, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. Since 2017, Bad Boys has violated consumer protection laws through the illicit collection of 18,000 signed consumer credit contracts, capitalizing on $38 million based solely on false promises of releasing their loved ones for a "small fee." The Court found that two statutory schemes underpin the initial appeal: consumer credit protections under the Civil Code, designed to "inform unsuspecting consumers of the consequences of cosigning consumer credit contracts for friends and family." The Bail Bond Regulatory Act is formed of two different contracts entirely: the first is a contract between a criminal defendant and a surety -- the surety must post the bail bond in exchange for the defendant's payment of a premium, or a promise to pay the full amount in the case of a nonappearance. In the second, the surety works as the defendant's guarantor in court under risk of forfeiture of the bond. The company held co-signers "under the bus," as Bad Boys failed to legally require notice, leaving families liable for the full bail amount, causing psychological trauma to ensue as co-signers were harassed, threatened and sued for thousands of dollars. Plaintiff Kiara Caldwell became a victim of this turmoil; Caldwell conducted an interview with Bad Boys and signed a $500 bail bond payment for her friend, who was being arrested and held at San Leandro Jail. However, this consultation consisted only of a 15-minute, fast-paced and highly misleading intimidation of money, charging her for a "Upaid Premium Agreement" for $5,000. Bad Boys later sued the plaintiff and threatened her job and her family. Bad Boys Bail Bonds has been permanently banned from collecting the illegally coerced money from the victims of the contracts signed before April 1, 2022. A court-appointed monitor will review all payments made to the company and require that mandatory cosigner notices be provided to all participants, alongside heightened training regimens on the importance of following consumer protection laws. "This settlement is a victory for low-income families and communities of color who have been exploited by the bail bond industry. For years, Bad Boys preyed on people at their most vulnerable, burying them in debt they never knowingly agreed to," said Nisha Kashyap, program director for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, in a statement. The result of this lawsuit became a breather for the thousands of Californians who were lied to and harassed by the bail bond industry -- acting as if they were above the law, finding loopholes to oppress the marginalized and low-income. This class-action lawsuit against Bad Boys Bail Bonds was the first of its kind in California to challenge a commercial bail bond company for violating consumer protection laws -- and surely not the last -- "until the day comes that the industry is finally eliminated for good," Niall Frizzell, attorney at Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, notes. [GN] BALL METAL BEVERAGE: Marrero Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp. The case is styled as Angel Marrero on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp., Case No. 603886/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., Feb. 20, 2026). The nature of suit stated as Other Matters - Contract. Ball Corporation -- https://www.ball.com/ -- is an American aluminum manufacturing company headquartered in Westminster, Colorado.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Garrett Dean Kaske, Esq. KESSLER MATURA P.C. 534 Broadhollow Rd Suite 275 Melville, NY 11747 BANK OF AMERICA: Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 1:25-cv-08520-JSR (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) certifying a class action pursuant to Rule 23; (2) appointing Jane Doe as the Class Representative; and (3) appointing Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and Edwards Pottinger LLC as Class Counsel. The Defendant is a U.S.-based financial institution. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=deObg7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Boies, Esq. Andrew Villacastin, Esq. Rachael Schafer, Esq. Sigrid McCawley, Esq. Daniel Crispino, Esq. Megan Nyman, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY Telephone: (212) 446-2300 Facsimile: (212) 446-2350 E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com avillacastin@bsfllp.com rschafer@bsfllp.com smccawley@bsfllp.com dcrispino@bsfllp.com mnyman@bsfllp.com - and - Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. Brittany N. Henderson, Esq. Dean Kaire, Esq. EDWARDS HENDERSON LLC 425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 524-2820 Facsimile: (954) 524-2822 E-mail: brad@cvlf.com brittany@cvlf.com dean@cvlf.com BARCLAYS PLC: Class Cert Hearing in Merritt Suit Set for April 16 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN MERRITT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. BARCLAYS PLC, JAMES E. STALEY, and NIGEL HIGGINS, Case No. 2:23-cv-09217-MEMF-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong entered an order granting stipulation regarding class certification schedule. 1. The Defendants will file their opposition to class certification 45 days after the Court issues an order on Barclays' pending motion to dismiss, and the Plaintiffs will file their reply in support of class certification 45 days after the filing of the Defendants' opposition. 2. The hearing on the motion for class certification scheduled for April 16, 2026, is adjourned; after the Court issues an order on Barclays' pending motion to dismiss, the Parties promptly shall meet and confer and propose a date for the hearing to the Court within 7 days of the Court's order on the motion to dismiss. Barclays is a London-headquartered British multinational universal bank. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7PWOQr at no extra charge.[CC] BEHAVIORAL HEALTH: Bid to Continue Amended Scheduling Order OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARGARITA CORONEL, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BEHAVIORAL HEALTH PRACTICE SERVICES LLC; LIFESTANCE HEALTH, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-03602-TLN-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Troy Nunley entered an order granting the joint stipulation to continue amended pretrial scheduling order deadlines as follows: 1. The Parties shall file a Joint Statement by Nov. 15, 2026 that: (1) notifies the Court of settlement (if the case resolves at mediation); or (2) sets forth proposed deadlines for class certification discovery, expert discovery, class certification motion, and all related pretrial dates and deadlines. 2. The Court shall issue a Second Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order thereafter, which sets pretrial dates and deadlines. 3. The case shall be stayed in all respects pending the outcome of mediation. 4. The stay shall not constitute a waiver in any respect of any defenses or issues, and neither Party shall be prejudiced by the stay. Behavioral provides behavioral health services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sP5a5U at no extra charge.[CC] BERKELEY CITY: Prado Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YESICA PRADO, et al., v. CITY OF BERKELEY, Case No. 3:23-cv-04537-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, at 1:30 p.m. on April 23, 2026, will move the Court for entry of an order: 1. Certifying that this action is maintainable as a class action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) as to: a. The Plaintiffs' First Cause of Action, discrimination against persons with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Second Cause of Action, discrimination against persons with disabilities under California Government Code Section 11135, with respect to the City of Berkeley's 72-hour parking restriction; b. Third Cause of Action, unreasonable seizure under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983; c. Fourth Cause of Action, property destruction, unreasonable search and seizure under Article I, Section 13 of the California Constitution, and d. Sixth Cause of Action, exposure to state created danger in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983; 2. Certifying the class of: "All unhoused persons who have a 'disability' as defined under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. section 12102, who reside in a vehicle or other shelter in public spaces in Berkeley, California, or who reside in temporary or transitional shelters in Berkeley, California" ("Unhoused People Class") with named Plaintiffs Amber Whitson, Monique Williams, Erin Spencer, and Jermaine White as representatives of the Unhoused People Class; 3. Certifying a subclass of: "All unhoused persons who have a 'disability' as defined under the ADA, who reside in a vehicle in a public space in Berkeley, California, and who are unable to comply with the City of Berkeley's 72-hour parking restriction due to a disability" ("Vehicle Resident Subclass") with named Plaintiff Amber Whitson as representative of the Vehicle Resident Subclass; 4. Appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel Disability Rights Advocates and East Bay Community Law Clinic as class counsel for the Unhoused People Class and the Vehicle Residents Subclass for all purposes, including discovery, pretrial litigation, and trial. Both the Unhoused People Class and the Vehicle Residents Subclass satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(g), so the Court should certify both, the Plaintiffs contend. The case challenges the City of Berkeley's discriminatory enforcement practices against its hundreds of unhoused residents with disabilities, which include people living in vehicles, in encampments, on sidewalks, and in temporary or transitional shelters. Berkeley is a city on the eastern shore of San Francisco Bay in northern Alameda County, California. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Gl1z8z at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brigitte Nicoletti, Esq. EAST BAY COMMUNITY LAW CENTER 2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 Telephone: (510) 548-4040 E-mail: bnicoletti@ebclc.org - and - Thomas Zito, Esq. Michael Nunez, Esq. Sean Betouliere, Esq. Jameelah Najieb, Esq. Emily Roznowski, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 Center Street, Third Floor Berkeley, CA 94704-1204 Telephone: (510) 665-8644 E-mail: tzito@dralegal.org mnunez@dralegal.org sbetouliere@dralegal.org jnajieb@dralegal.org eroznowski@dralegal.org BETTER DEBT SOLUTIONS: Dorado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Better Debt Solutions, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Ricardo Dorado and Jose Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Better Debt Solutions, LLC, Alleviate Financial Services, LLC, Case No. 2026DCV0802 (Tex. Dist. Ct., El Paso Cty., Feb. 10, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Civil." Better Debt Solutions -- https://betterdebtsolutions.com/ -- offers a complete range of financial relief programs designed to help individuals regain control over overwhelming debt.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian R. Rodriguez, Esq. 333 W Broadway, Ste. 1110 San Diego, CA 92101-3806 Phone: 619-557-7667 BEVERLY HILLS, CA: Class Certification Bid Deadline Vacated ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IAN GREENE, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, v. CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-05916-FMO-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Olguin entered an order granting the Parties' Joint Stipulation to Modify Scheduling Order: 1. All expert discovery shall be completed by April 21, 2026. Rebuttal expert witness disclosures shall be served no later than March 3, 2026. 2. The deadline to file any motion for class certification is vacated pending further order of the court. Beverly Hills is located in the middle of Los Angeles County, surrounded by the cities of Los Angeles, West Hollywood, Santa Monica and Culver City. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DUIiHG at no extra charge.[CC] BURNS & WILCOX: Mosley Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAIA MOSLEY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. BURNS&WILCOX, LTD., Case No. 1:25-cv-02717-AT (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. Conditionally certifying a collective action with respect to all assistant brokers, associate brokers, assistant underwriters, and associate underwriters who worked for the Defendant within the past three years and who were not paid for hours in excess of 40 hours per week. 2. Requiring the Defendant to produce to the Plaintiffs' counsel within 10 days of the Court's Order a list, in electronic, importable, and searchable format, of all such persons within the identified class; 3. Authorizing the issuance of the Plaintiff's proposed notice to be provided to all potential opt-in plaintiffs via U.S. Mail, electronic mail, and text message, to be posted on a case-specific webpage, and on social media; 4. Authorizing the conspicuous posting of the proposed notice in laminate form with all pages visible at all Burns & Wilcox locations where notices of employee rights are customarily posted, along with Consent Forms for employees to complete and return to Plaintiff’s counsel should any persons wish to join this action; 5. Approving the use of both hard copy and fillable, signable PDF Consent Forms as a means for eligible persons to opt-in to this action; and 6. Permitting putative class members 60 days from the date notice is sent to submit (or postmark) a consent form to participate in this action. Burns & Wilcox is an independent insurance wholesale broker and managing underwriter. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Lv4PaX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John L Mays, Esq. Andrew Y. Coffman, Esq. Evan P. Drew, Esq. PARKS, CHESIN&WALBERT,P.C. 1355 Peachtree St., NE, Suite 2000 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 873-8000 Facsimile: (404) 873-8050 E-mail: jmays@pcwlawfirm.com acoffman@pcwlawfirm.com edrew@pcwlawfirm.com CAL-MAINE FOODS: Emery Suit Transferred to W.D. Wisconsin --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Gloria Emery, Carol Goldberg, Casey Whalen, and all others similarly situated v. CAL-MAINE FOODS, INC., DAYBREAK FOODS, INC., EGG CLEARINGHOUSE, INC., HILLANDALE FARMS EAST, INC., HILLANDALE FARMS OF PA., INC., HILLANDALE FARMS, INC., HILLANDALE-GETTYSBURG, LLC., ROSE ACRE FARMS, INC., UNITED EGG PRODUCERS, URNER BARRY PUBLICATIONS, INC., VERSOVA HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00193 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin on Feb. 24, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00158-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: Carl Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson St., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 984-0000 Fax: (212) 545-4653 Email: malmstrom@whafh.com The Defendants appear pro se. CAL-MAINE FOODS: Huyler Suit Transferred to W.D. Wisconsin ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Brandon Huyler, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CAL-MAINE FOODS, INC., DAYBREAK FOODS, INC., DOES 1-10, EGG CLEARINGHOUSE, INC., HILLANDALE FARMS CONN, LLC, HILLANDALE FARMS CORPORATION, HILLANDALE FARMS EAST, INC., HILLANDALE FARMS OF DELAWARE, INC., HILLANDALE FARMS OF PA., INC., HILLANDALE FARMS, INC., HILLANDALE-GETTYSBURG, LLC, ROSE ACRE FARMS, INC., URNER BARRY PUBLICATIONS, INC. D/B/A EXPANA, VERSOVA HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02573 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin on Feb. 24, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00156-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: Bobby Pouya, Esq. Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Phone: (818) 788-8300 Email: bpouya@pwfirm.com dwarshaw@pwfirm.com - and - Douglas A. Millen, Esq. Robert Wozniak, Jr., Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 100 Tri-State International, Ste 128 Lincolnshire, IL 60069 Phone: (224) 632-4500 Fax: (224) 632-4521 Email: dmillen@fklmlaw.com rwozniak@fklmlaw.com - and - Kimberly A. Justice, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN 923 Fayette Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (484) 243-6335 Fax: (224) 632-4521 Email: kjustice@fklmlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Jules Harrison Cantor, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 333 Wolf Point Plaza Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: (312) 862-0708 Email: jules.cantor@kirkland.com CAL-MAINE FOODS: Taylor Egg Suit Transferred to W.D. Wisconsin -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Taylor Egg Products, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. CAL-MAINE FOODS, INC., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-02554 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin on Feb. 24, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00155-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: Edward B. Mulligan V, Esq. Irwin B Levin, Esq. Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq. COHEN & MALAD LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 636-6481 Fax: (317) 636-2593 Email: nmulligan@cohenandmalad.com ilevin@cohenandmalad.com sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com The Defendants are represented by: Jules Harrison Cantor, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 333 Wolf Point Plaza Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: (312) 862-0708 Email: jules.cantor@kirkland.com CAL-MAINE FOODS: Yell-O-Glow Suit Transferred to W.D. Wisconsin --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Yell-O-Glow Corporation, and on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., Daybreak Foods, Inc., Hillandale Farms Corp., Rose Acre Farms, Inc., Versova Holdings, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-15084 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-00139-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: Robert J Bonsignore, Esq. BONSIGNORE & BREWER 23 Forest Street Medford, MA 02155 Phone: (781) 391-9400 Email: rbonsignore@classactions.us - and - Thomas Joseph Ellis, III, Esq. NOLAN LAW GROUP 20 N Clark St., 30th Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 630-4000 Fax: (312) 630-4011 Email: tje@nolan-law.com CALGARY, AB: Judge Approves Sexual Abuse Class Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- Bill Graveland, writing for CBC News, reports that an Alberta judge approved a multimillion-dollar settlement Thursday, February 26, resulting from a class-action lawsuit filed by former students of a Calgary junior high school who alleged abuse against two former teachers. The lawsuit named the Calgary Board of Education and the teachers at John Ware School for alleged sexual, physical and psychological abuse from 1988 to 2004. Michael Gregory, who taught at the school for 20 years, was charged in 2021 with 17 counts of sexual assault and sexual exploitation. At the time, police said several former students had come forward with allegations against the teacher. A few days later, police said Gregory had died. His death was not believed to be criminal. Fred Archer worked at the school in the 1990s. He was later convicted of abusing boys at a different school where he worked previously. Calgary Court of King's Bench Justice Michele Hollins certified the payout. "I am glad to sign this order," said Hollins. "I appreciate the work that has gone into this by everyone." School division failed to act, allege plaintiffs In the statement of claim, three representative plaintiffs alleged the school division failed to act on reports of abuse by Gregory and failed to ensure appropriate policies were in place to prevent abuse and exploitation. The terms of the settlement include $15.77 million from Calgary Board of Education and a smaller amount from Gregory's estate be paid out. It also includes an opportunity for victims to collaborate with the division about policies and training. The Calgary Board of Education earlier apologized for the harm experienced by the class members and the effect it had on them. It commended the strength and courage of the class members who came forward to share their experiences and to participate in the court process. David Corrigan, a lawyer representing the students, said there are now 55 who have signed on as class-action members. The payments will be determined on the amount and severity of abuse the victims were subjected to. "The factors are the objective seriousness of the abuse, the length of the abuse and the impact of the abuse," Corrigan told reporters after court. A final breakdown on the payments will be determined April 29. Corrigan said it will be a relief for many of his clients. "It's been a long process. For the lawyers it's only been five years, but for the people who experienced this, in some cases, almost 40 years," he said. "I think the majority of people are very relieved to see this, to have some closure and to know they'll be able to move forward, get the help they need and hold their head high." [GN] CAPITOL ISLAND: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Lopez Says --------------------------------------------------------------- JUDITH ADELA LOPEZ, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. CAPITOL ISLAND, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-1553 (S.D.N.Y., February 24, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.amberjack.shop/ 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 White Leather Amberjack Sneakers 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. The Plaintiff alleges that she has been discriminated against by Defendant's conduct and violations of the statues and regulations by being treated unequally from sighted persons due to her disability and she has suffered and continues to suffer injury as a result of Defendant's discriminatory practices. 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 LOPE is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant CAPITOL ISLAND, INC. operates the Amberjack online retail store, as well as the Amberjack interactive Website which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's: footwear, 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 CAPPELLO'S LLC: Hunter Class Certification Bid Tossed ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANE HUNTER, v. CAPPELLO'S LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02487-DAD-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Drozd entered an order adopting findings and recommendations, denying the Plaintiff's motions for default judgment and for class certification. 1. The findings and recommendations issued on Dec. 17, 2025 are adopted in full; 2. The Plaintiff's motions for certification of the default class and for entry of default judgment are denied without prejudice; and 3. Should a renewed motion for default judgment to be filed it will be referred to the assigned magistrate judge class pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On Dec. 17, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the plaintiff's motions for certification of the default class and for entry of default judgment be denied without prejudice. The magistrate judge concluded that, in keeping with the weight of persuasive authority, a plaintiff seeking class certification is not relieved by a defendant's default of the burden of proving with evidence that all Rule 23 requirements are met. The pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty–one (21) days after service. To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed. Cappello's provides frozen food products. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UG2E3z at no extra charge.[CC] CARGILL MEAT: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 12, 2027 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GILLERMO CARDENAS and MEKONNEN ATSKE, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, V. CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-03736-GPG-SBP (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Susan Prose entered a scheduling order as follows: -- The Parties will serve pre-certification interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and/or admissions by Oct. 30, 2026. -- Any motions to join other parties or amend the pleadings must be filed by May 1, 2026. -- The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification deadline: Feb. 12, 2027. -- The Defendant's response to motion for class certification deadline: March 15, 2027 -- Dispositive Motions Deadline: June 11, 2027 The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant failed to pay them minimum wage, straight time wages, and overtime compensation for all hours worked as required by Colorado Wage-and-Hour Law and the FLSA. Cargill operates as a processor and distributor of fresh beef, pork, turkey, and cooked and marinated meats A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eeCyb2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Fazila Issa, Esq. Don J. Foty, Esq. FOTY LAW GROUP 2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 E-mail: dfoty@fotylawgroup.com The Defendant is represented by: Aaron Holt, Esq. Jacob M. Rubinstein, Esq. Jeremy Glenn, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR 811 Main Street, Suite 2000 Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: (832) 214-3961 E-mail: aholt@cozen.com jrubinstein@cozen.com jglenn@cozen.com CELLCO PARTNETSHIP: Saavedra Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cellco Partnetship. The case is styled as Manuel Saavedra, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Cellco Partnetship a/k/a Verizon Wireless, Case No. 26STCV04685 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 11, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Cellco Partnership doing business as Verizon Wireless -- https://www.verizon.com/ -- is the nation's leading provider of wireless communications.[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 CHAMPION LABORATORIES: May Face Class Suit Over WARN Act Violations ------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Wells of WFIW Radio reports that Strauss Borrelli PLLC, a Chicago-based class action law firm, says it is investigating Champion Laboratories Inc. following the closure at the company's Albion facility to determine whether federal notification requirements were met. According to the firm, Champion Laboratories notified the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity on February 23rd of its decision to conduct a mass layoff in Albion. The investigation focuses on the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, which generally requires covered employers to provide employees and certain government entities at least 60 days' written notice before a plant closing or mass layoff takes effect. Strauss Borrelli says it is reviewing whether Champion Laboratories provided sufficient notice before laying off 642 employees. If the company is found to have violated the WARN Act, the firm says affected workers could be entitled to up to 60 days of back pay, severance, and benefits. The WARN Act, passed by Congress in 1988, typically applies to employers with 100 or more employees and is intended to give workers and families time to prepare for job loss, seek new employment, or pursue retraining. The law can also apply in certain cases where hours are cut significantly or layoffs that are described as temporary extend beyond six months. Former Champion Laboratories employees who were impacted by the layoffs are encouraged by the firm to contact Strauss Borrelli to discuss their rights and potential legal remedies. The firm can be reached at 872-263-1100 or sam@straussborrelli.com. [GN] CHURCH MUTUAL: Court Revives Storm Damage Payouts Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Carleen Bongat, writing for Insurance Business, reports that a federal appeals court has revived a multi-state class action challenging Church Mutual's practice of depreciating labor costs in property damage payouts. The case began with a tornado. In March 2020, two properties owned by Generation Changers Church in Nashville were damaged in the storm. The church filed a claim with Church Mutual, its insurer, expecting to be paid the actual cash value of its losses -- a standard measure in property insurance that accounts for depreciation. What it got back, the church said, was less than it was owed. The dispute came down to a question that sounds technical but has real money attached to it: when an insurer calculates a depreciated payout, can it reduce the value of labor costs, not just physical materials? Church Mutual said yes -- factoring depreciation into non-material expenses like contractor overhead, profit, and equipment costs, as well as the cost of removing damaged property. The church said the policy was silent on whether that practice was permitted, and the shortfall on its own claim came to $26,749. That might seem like a modest sum to take to federal court. But Generation Changers Church did not stop there. It argued that Church Mutual was applying the same practice to policyholders across ten states -- Arizona, California, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, Mississippi, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, and Vermont -- and sought to bring a class action on behalf of all of them. The district court in Nashville partially agreed. It certified a class for four states where courts or legislatures had already clearly addressed the labor depreciation question: Arizona, California, Illinois, and Tennessee. For the remaining six states, however, the district court drew the line. The law in those states was too unsettled, it said, and working through it would make the case unmanageable. On February 23, 2026, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed -- at least in part. The court found that the district court had a duty to work through the available legal authority, even where state law was not perfectly clear, rather than using that uncertainty as a reason to avoid the analysis altogether. The appeals court pointed out that the church had presented relevant legal precedents for five of the six disputed states. For Kentucky and Ohio, those precedents came from the Sixth Circuit's own prior decisions, holding that insurers cannot depreciate labor costs unless the policy unambiguously permits it. For Mississippi and Texas, there was persuasive authority from other federal courts. For Missouri, there were intermediate state court decisions on point. The district court had brushed past all of it without adequate explanation, and the appeals court found that was a mistake. Vermont was a different story. The church had offered only a single non-binding insurance bulletin from the Vermont Department of Financial Regulation to support its position. The appeals court agreed that one advisory bulletin was not enough to carry the argument. The case now returns to the district court, which must take a fresh look at the law in Kentucky, Ohio, Missouri, Mississippi, and Texas before deciding whether to expand the class to include policyholders from those states. The central question -- whether Church Mutual's approach to labor depreciation actually violates the law -- has not yet been decided. For insurers, the case is a reminder that policy language on actual cash value calculations carries significant weight, particularly where the treatment of non-material costs is left undefined. The outcome of the remand will be worth watching. [GN] COCA-COLA CO: Class Cert. Bid in Palmer Suit Due June 25 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTORIA PALMER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, Case No. 2:25-cv-04777-GW-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wu entered an order granting the joint stipulation for briefing schedule on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and to continue hearing: 1. The Plaintiff will file a motion for class certification by June 25, 2026; 2. The Defendant will file any opposition in response to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification by Aug. 20, 2026; 3. The Plaintiff will file a reply in support of the motion for class certification by Sept. 17, 2026; and 4. The hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is to be held on Oct. 1, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. 5. There will be no further continuances granted. Coca-Cola is an American multinational beverage corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RsJqNq at no extra charge.[CC] COMMUNAUTE LTD: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Lopez Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ JUDITH ADELA LOPEZ, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. COMMUNAUTE LTD., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-1552 (S.D.N.Y., February 14, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.shopdoen.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 Doen & Bernard Candle from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and visually-impaired consumers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the goods, and services Defendant offers to the public on its Website, says the suit. 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 COMMUNAUTE LTD. operates the Doen online retail store, as well as the Doen interactive Website which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's: apparel and accessories, 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 CONSTELLATION SOFTWARE: Exploits School Lunch Programs, Dodge Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JENNIFER DODGE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CONSTELLATION SOFTWARE INC., N. HARRIS COMPUTER CORPORATION; HARRIS SCHOOL SOLTUIONS, INC. d/b/a EZSCHOOLPAY, and other related entities; Defendants, Case No. 6:26-cv-301 (AJB/MJK) (N.D.N.Y., February 24, 2026) is a class action seeking to obtain redress and prevent future harm over EZSchoolPays' business model which is to take advantage of its captive audience, children and families, by charging unjustifiable "convenience" and "service" fees at the school lunch counter ("Junk Fees"). The complaint relates that the Defendants operating as EZSchoolPay charge Junk Fees to parents like Plaintiff Dodge and students through its school lunch programs in school districts throughout New York. Hundreds if not thousands of transactions took place in the state of New York during the relevant period in which Defendants deceptively and illegally took Junk Fees from parents like Plaintiff. EZSchoolPay is the sole beneficiary of the fees it charges. EZSchoolPay does not disclose the existence of fee-free options, does not disclose that the school (and or school district) is paying a significant price to cover the cost of services, does not disclose that charging fees for access to school lunch, breakfast, and milk programs is illegal, and does not disclose that the fees reduce the amount of food and beverages available to students. According to the complaint, EZSchoolPays' Junk Fees, as assessed to Plaintiff Dodge and the putative class members, violate both Visa's Rules regarding convenience and surcharge fees. EZSchoolPay fails to comply with the rules of the credit card companies as part of their agreement as a merchant, including to properly disclose a debit or credit card surcharge and to refrain from assessing convenience, surcharge, and other fees that do not comply with the rules of the Credit Card companies. Defendants' agreements, including the material terms with the school, the school district, the credit card companies, financial institutions, and/or other entities were not disclosed to parents or students. In fact, parents and students are wrongfully led to believe their school or school district is covering and/or retaining the payments of the Junk Fees. Plaintiff and similarly situated parents, guardians, and/or students were intended beneficiaries of the contracts that EZSchoolPay, the school, and the school district entered into. The complaint further alleges that the Junk Fees allow EZSchoolPay and other payment processors to "double dip" by charging both the school district and families and prevent many children who are entitled to free and reduced lunches from being able to receive the full benefit of these programs. EZSchoolPays' Junk Fee practices are not only wrong, they are also illegal, adds the complaint. Plaintiff Jennifer Dodge is a resident and citizen of the state of New York. Defendant Constellation Software Inc. is the parent company of Defendants N. Harris Computer Corporation, Harris School Solutions, and Harris Computer Systems which control, manage, and dictate the policies of EZSchoolPay. Defendant Constellation Software Inc. is headquartered in Toronto, Canada. It transacts business in New York but has failed to register with the New York State Department of State as a business entity.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com - and - Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.* LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh PA 15222 Telephone: 412-322-9243 E-mail: nickc@lcllp.com DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Allman Due June 22 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY ALLMAN, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-02709-K (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Ed Kinkeade entered a class certification scheduling order. 1. All motions requesting leave to join parties or to amend pleadings shall be filed by March 23, 2026. 2. By May 22, 2026, all discovery regarding class certification, including discovery concerning any class certification expert witnesses, shall be completed. 3. The Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class certification by June 22, 2026. The Defendants shall file their response to the motion for class certification by July 13, 2026. The Plaintiffs may file a reply to the motion for class certification by July 27, 2026. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zlfnY6 at no extra charge.[CC] DIRECT ENERGY LLC: Newman TCPA Suit Ongoing in S.D. Tex. -------------------------------------------------------- NRG Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in February 26, 2026, that a putative class action pending against its subsidiary Direct Energy LP captioned "Holly Newman v. Direct Energy, LP," is currently ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The Newman action was initially filed in the District of Maryland and involves violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended, by receiving calls, texts or voicemails without consent in violation of the federal Telemarketing Sales Rule, and/or state counterpart legislation. On April 12, 2023, the court granted Direct Energy's Motion to Transfer Venue, moving the case to the Southern District of Texas. NRG Energy, Inc. is an energy, smart home and services company fueled by proprietary technologies and complementary sales channels across the United States and Canada. It acquired Direct Energy LP in 2021. DIRECT ENERGY LP: Settlement Reached in Burk Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ NRG Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in February 26, 2026, that the parties in the case captioned "Brittany Burk v. Direct Energy" have settled with the plaintiff on an individual basis and the plaintiff has dismissed the matter. The action involves violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), as amended, by receiving calls, texts or voicemails without consent in violation of the federal Telemarketing Sales Rule, and/or state counterpart legislation. Direct Energy filed its Motion to Dismiss asserting the ruling preempts the plaintiff's ability to file suit based on the facts surrounding its TCPA suit. The court denied Direct Energy's motion stating the court does not have the benefit of all of the facts that were in front of the court to granted Direct Energy's Motion to Transfer Venue to the Southern District of Texas. NRG Energy, Inc. is an energy, smart home and services company fueled by proprietary technologies and complementary sales channels across the United States and Canada. It acquired Direct Energy LP in 2021. DIRECT ENERGY: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Dickson --------------------------------------------------- NRG Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in February 26, 2026, that case captioned "Matthew Dickson v. Direct Energy" (N.D. Ohio Jan. 2018) was stayed pending the outcome of an appeal to the Sixth Circuit based on the unconstitutionality of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) during the period from 2015-2020. The Sixth Circuit found the TCPA was in effect during that period and remanded the case back to the trial court. Direct Energy refiled its motions along with supplements. On March 25, 2022, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Direct Energy and dismissed the case. Dickson appealed and the case was sent back to the trial court. The parties conducted fact and expert discovery and Direct Energy submitted its motion for summary judgment in August 2024. On December 16, 2025, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Direct Energy. NRG Energy, Inc. is an energy, smart home and services company fueled by proprietary technologies and complementary sales channels across the United States and Canada. It acquired Direct Energy LP in 2021 DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces Suit Over Promotional Practices for Gamblers ------------------------------------------------------------------ Yahoo Finance reports that DraftKings is facing a class action lawsuit in Massachusetts that challenges its promotional practices. A state court judge has allowed most consumer protection claims to proceed toward class certification and trial. The case focuses on how DraftKings structured and disclosed certain high profile promotional offers to users. For shareholders following NasdaqGS:DKNG, this legal development adds another layer of risk to a stock that has already seen sharp moves. DraftKings shares last closed at $23.49, with a 4.4% gain over the past week but declines of 22.0% over the past month and 34.1% year to date. Over one year the stock shows a 45.0% decline, while the three year return is 26.4% and the five year return reflects a 62.1% decline. As this lawsuit progresses toward potential class certification and trial, investors may want to pay close attention to any updates on possible financial exposure, changes to marketing practices, or regulatory responses. The outcome could influence how DraftKings and peers structure future promotions and disclosures, which may be relevant when you think about long term business risk for NasdaqGS:DKNG. Stay updated on the most important news stories for DraftKings by adding it to your watchlist or portfolio. Alternatively, explore our Community to discover new perspectives on DraftKings. Quick Assessment -- Price vs Analyst Target: At $23.49 versus a consensus target of about $36.17, the price sits roughly 35% below analyst expectations. -- Simply Wall St Valuation: Simply Wall St currently flags DraftKings as trading about 69.8% below its estimated fair value. -- Recent Momentum: The 30 day return of about a 22% decline shows weak short term sentiment around the stock. There is only one way to know the right time to buy, sell, or hold DraftKings. Head to Simply Wall St's company report for the latest analysis of DraftKings's fair value. [GN] ELLIS HOSPITAL: Class Cert Filing in Davella Extended to March 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Davella v. Ellis Hospital, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00726 (N.D.N.Y., Filed June 30, 2020), the Hon. Judge Mae A. D'Agostino entered an order granting the Letter Request for an extension of time: -- All depositions and written discovery are now due by March 3, 2026. -- The Plaintiff's Motion for Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Class Certification is now due on or before March 31, 2026. -- The parties are now directed to propose a complete briefing schedule for Defendant's response to Plaintiff's Motion for Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Class Certification and for Defendant's Motion for FLSA Decertification by March 3, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Ellis provides emergency, inpatient medical/surgical and psychiatric care.[CC] EMERSON ECOLOGICS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Martinez Due Sept. 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISHELL K. MARTINEZ, v. EMERSON ECOLOGICS, LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-03425-MWC-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michelle Williams Court entered an order vacating the Scheduling Conference scheduled for Mar. 6, 2026: Last date to hear motion to amend pleadings April 17, 2026 or add Parties: Last Date to file class certification motion : Sept. 2, 2026 Fact discovery cut-off: Dec. 4, 2026 Expert discovery cut-off: Jan. 8, 2027 Emerson offers supplements, vitamins, and natural health products. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Nhithv at no extra charge.[CC] EMPOWERMENT SCHOOLS: 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 The College of Health Care Professions 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 The College of Health Care Professions data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. The College of Health Care Professions Security Incident: What Happened? Empowerment Schools -- Healthcare Ltd. and Texas Medical Careers, Limited, collectively known as The College of Health Care Professions, has reported a data breach to the Texas Attorney General's Office. According to the report, 68,825 Texans may have been affected and are being notified by mail. The College of Health Care Professions data breach spans personal, financial and medical information including Social Security numbers, driver's license and government-issued ID numbers, health insurance details and dates of birth. The College of Health Care Professions offers training in allied healthcare on 10 campuses across Texas and online. What You Can Do After the The College of Health Care Professions Data Breach If your information was exposed in the The College of Health Care Professions 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 The College of Health Care Professions to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. [GN] ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Class Cert. Briefing Order Entered in Copeland ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DON COPELAND, et al., v. ENERGIZER HOLDINGS, INC.; AND WAL-MART, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-02087-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts entered an order regarding consolidated briefing related to the Plaintiffs' motions for class certification as modified. (1) The Defendants may file a consolidated brief in response to the Plaintiffs' motions for class certification, and any consolidated brief may exceed 25 pages. The Defendants shall not exceed an aggregate of 50 pages of Opposition briefing across the three actions, inclusive of any consolidated brief and any separate briefs that either Walmart or Energizer may file to address issues unique to a particular case. (2) The Plaintiffs may file a consolidated brief in response to the Defendants' opposition(s), and any consolidated brief may exceed 15 pages. The Plaintiffs shall not exceed an aggregate of 30 pages of Reply briefing across the three actions, inclusive of any consolidated brief and any separate briefs that any Plaintiff may file to address issues unique to a particular case. On Nov. 21, 2015, the Portable Power Plaintiffs and the Schuman Plaintiffs filed a consolidated Motion for Class Certification. On Nov. 21, 2025, the Copeland Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification. Energizer manufactures dry cell batteries and flashlights. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lhBRgZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel H. Silverman, Esq. Daniel Gifford, Esq. Mary Brown, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 769 Centre Street, Suite 207 Boston, MA 02130 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: dsilverman@cohenmilstein.com dgifford@cohenmilstein.com mabrown@cohenmilstein.com - and - Joshua P. Davis, Esq. Kyla J. Gibboney, Esq. Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (800) 424-6690 E-mail: jdavis@bergermontague.com kgibboney@bergermontague.com mdellangelo@bergermontague.com - and - Todd M. Schneider, Esq. Matthew S. Weiler, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 E-mail: mweiler@schneiderwallace.com tschneider@schneiderwallace.com - and - Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. Jeffrey Kosbie, Esq. GIBBS MURA LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, California 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 E-mail: rmr@classlawgroup.com jbk@classlawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Christopher D. Dusseault, Esq. Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq. Samuel G. Liversidge, Esq. Sarah M. Kushner, Esq. Courtney L. Spears, Esq. Rachel S. Brass, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com cdusseault@gibsondunn.com sliversidge@gibsondunn.com smkushner@gibsondunn.com cspears@gibsondunn.com rbrass@gibsondunn.com - and - Christopher S. Yates, Esq. Belinda S Lee, Esq. Brendan A. McShane, Esq. Alicia R. Jovais, Esq. Lawrence E. Buterman, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 E-mail: chris.yates@lw.com belinda.lee@lw.com brendan.mcshane@lw.com alicia.jovais@lw.com lawrence.buterman@lw.com ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Class Cert. Briefing Order Entered in PPI ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PORTABLE POWER, INC., AND GLOBAL EXPORTS U.S.A., INC., dba MICROPOWER BATTERY, CO., on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. ENERGIZER HOLDINGS, INC.; AND WAL MART, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-02091-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts entered an order regarding consolidated briefing related to the Plaintiffs' motions for class certification as modified. (1) The Defendants may file a consolidated brief in response to the Plaintiffs' motions for class certification, and any consolidated brief may exceed 25 pages. The Defendants shall not exceed an aggregate of 50 pages of Opposition briefing across the three actions, inclusive of any consolidated brief and any separate briefs that either Walmart or Energizer may file to address issues unique to a particular case. (2) The Plaintiffs may file a consolidated brief in response to the Defendants' opposition(s), and any consolidated brief may exceed 15 pages. The Plaintiffs shall not exceed an aggregate of 30 pages of Reply briefing across the three actions, inclusive of any consolidated brief and any separate briefs that any Plaintiff may file to address issues unique to a particular case. On Nov. 21, 2015, the Portable Power Plaintiffs and the Schuman Plaintiffs filed a consolidated Motion for Class Certification. On Nov. 21, 2025, the Copeland Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification. Energizer manufactures dry cell batteries and flashlights. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pfISMh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel H. Silverman, Esq. Daniel Gifford, Esq. Mary Brown, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 769 Centre Street, Suite 207 Boston, MA 02130 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: dsilverman@cohenmilstein.com dgifford@cohenmilstein.com mabrown@cohenmilstein.com - and - Joshua P. Davis, Esq. Kyla J. Gibboney, Esq. Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (800) 424-6690 E-mail: jdavis@bergermontague.com kgibboney@bergermontague.com mdellangelo@bergermontague.com - and - Todd M. Schneider, Esq. Matthew S. Weiler, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 E-mail: mweiler@schneiderwallace.com tschneider@schneiderwallace.com - and - Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. Jeffrey Kosbie, Esq. GIBBS MURA LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, California 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 E-mail: rmr@classlawgroup.com jbk@classlawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Christopher D. Dusseault, Esq. Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq. Samuel G. Liversidge, Esq. Sarah M. Kushner, Esq. Courtney L. Spears, Esq. Rachel S. Brass, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com cdusseault@gibsondunn.com sliversidge@gibsondunn.com smkushner@gibsondunn.com cspears@gibsondunn.com rbrass@gibsondunn.com - and - Christopher S. Yates, Esq. Belinda S Lee, Esq. Brendan A. McShane, Esq. Alicia R. Jovais, Esq. Lawrence E. Buterman, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 E-mail: chris.yates@lw.com belinda.lee@lw.com brendan.mcshane@lw.com alicia.jovais@lw.com lawrence.buterman@lw.com ENPHASE ENERGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 20 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims against Enphase Energy, Inc. ("Enphase" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ENPH) and reminds investors of the April 20, 2026 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company. Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading national securities law firm with offices in New York, Pennsylvania, California and Georgia. The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors since its founding in 1995. See www.faruqilaw.com. As detailed below, the complaint alleges that the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1) Enphase overstated its ability to manage its channel inventory; (2) Enphase overstated its ability to mitigate effects arising from the termination of the 25D Credit; (3) accordingly, Enphase overstated its financial and operational prospects; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On October 28, 2025, Enphase reported its financial results for the third quarter of 2025 and held a related earnings call. Among other items, Enphase's management reported that it expects 2025 to close on a weak note, with elevated channel inventory resulting in lower battery storage shipments in the fourth quarter, and that expiration of the residential solar investment tax credit would negatively impact revenues for the first quarter of 2026. On this news, Enphase's stock price fell $5.56 per share, or 15.15%, to close at $31.14 per share on October 29, 2025. The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead plaintiff or not. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding Enphase's conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. To learn more about the Enphase Energy, Inc. class action, go to www.faruqilaw.com/ENPH or call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). [GN] FIGURE LENDING: Faces Class Action Over Unprotected Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Figure Lending failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to protect sensitive customer information prior to a February 2026 cyberattack that the fintech mortgage company apparently failed to timely report. The 46-page data breach lawsuit contends that Figure Lending, described as the "nation's largest non-bank provider of home equity lines of credit," did not fulfill its duty to safeguard borrowers' data from unauthorized access. Per the lawsuit, a targeted cyberattack discovered by the defendant on or around February 14, 2026 impacted "a litany of highly sensitive personal information," including, at least, full names, home addresses, dates of birth and phone numbers. According to the complaint, the prolific hacking group called ShinyHunters claimed responsibility for the data breach and reportedly posted to the dark web 2.5 gigabytes of stolen data that was allegedly obtained through a social engineering attack that tricked a Figure Lending employee. However, the case maintains that the Figure Lending data breach was preventable and that the defendant's failure to follow industry-standard cybersecurity guidelines, including those outlined by the Federal Trade Commission, rendered borrowers' personal identifiable information (PII) an "easy target" for cybercriminals. "PII is highly valuable, and Defendant knew, or should have known, the risk in obtaining, using, handling, emailing, and storing the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members' [sic] and the importance of exercising reasonable care in handling it," the filing reads. "Defendant improperly and inadequately safeguarded the PII of Plaintiff and the Class in deviation of standard industry rules, regulations, and practices at the time of the Data Breach." The lawsuit argues that consumers who handed over their information to Figure Lending in order to obtain its services, such as home equity lines of credit and crypto-backed loans, expected that their data would be fully protected and disclosed only under authorized circumstances. Consumers lost their end of the bargain, the case claims, as they were left to deal with "widespread injury and monetary damages" after their data was not safeguarded in accordance with Figure Lending's own privacy policy and state and federal law. Potential data breach-related damages include exposure to a heightened risk of identity theft, fraud, the costs of credit monitoring and credit fees, and the diminished value of their privacy and personal data, the case adds. Furthermore, the filing contends that Figure Lending's cybersecurity failures were compounded by its failure to promptly disclose the breach to those who were impacted, as the company effectively kept consumers "in the dark" about the imminent risk of breach-related injury and deprived them of any opportunity to mitigate damages. Per the complaint, Figure Lending has confirmed the data breach to external third parties such as newsrooms, claiming it only affected a "limited number of files," and is offering free credit monitoring services only to those who received a notice. The case shares that these remedies only cover "some victims" and are "wholly insufficient" to compensate the scope of damages that punitive class members face. Cybersecurity publication Bleeping Computer has reported that the Figure Lending data breach, according to Have I Been Pwned, impacted nearly one million accounts. The Figure Lending data breach lawsuit seeks to represent all United States residents whose personally identifiable information was compromised in the February 2026 Figure Lending data breach, including all who received a notice of the breach. [GN] FLAGSTAR BANK: Agrees to Settle 2021 Data Breach Suit for $31.5MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Flagstar Bank has agreed to a proposed $31,500,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit over two separate data breaches—the first reportedly occurring in January 2021, and the second in December 2021—that may have compromised the personal information of millions of individuals. The proposed $31.5 million Flagstar Bank class action settlement received preliminary court approval on February 20, 2026 and covers all individuals in the United States whose personally identifying information was impacted by either or both data breaches Flagstar experienced in 2021, as reflected in the class list. Court documents estimate that the settlement class consists of approximately 2,187,170 individuals, including 364,000 California residents. Per the agreement, Flagstar settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form are eligible for multiple forms of reimbursement. The agreement states that class members who submit a claim form with proof of documented monetary losses are eligible to receive up to $25,000 in reimbursement. Class members making a claim for monetary losses must include supporting documentation prepared by a third party, the agreement notes, such as invoices or bank statements. All documented monetary losses must be traceable to the data breach, court documents explain, and include unreimbursed losses related to fraud or identity theft, professional fees, costs for credit repair services, credit monitoring costs, and miscellaneous expenses such as notary, fax, postage or mileage. Further, class members who resided in California at the time of the data breach are also eligible to submit a claim form for a one-time cash payment of up to $100 due to California-specific statutory legislation. Class members seeking this benefit must submit their name, address, unique class member ID number, and an attestation under penalty of perjury that they were California residents at the time of the data breach, court documents state. Additionally, all class members may submit a claim form to receive a one-time residual cash payment of up to $599, according to settlement documents. The final amount of the residual cash payment will be a pro rata (equal share) portion of the net settlement fund after the payment of attorneys’ fees, administrative expenses, lead plaintiff service awards and the cost of all other settlement benefits. Finally, the deal says that all class members may submit a claim form to enroll in three free years of credit monitoring and identity theft insurance. The agreement reports that Flagstar Bank class members may elect to receive their payments by check or electronic payment upon filing a claim, and all checks must be cashed within 90 days of insurance before they expire. Class members cannot expect to receive benefits until the court grants final approval to the Flagstar Bank data breach settlement, which will be determined following a hearing on a later date. The Flagstar Bank class action lawsuit alleged that the financial services provider failed to protect the confidential information stored on its systems, leading to two separate data breaches in 2021. [GN] FLOCK SAFETY: Faces Class Suit for Using License Plate Cameras -------------------------------------------------------------- Oakland-based law firm Gibbs Mura has filed a class action lawsuit against Flock Safety for allegedly using its license plate cameras to share millions of Californians' daily movements with law enforcement agencies, violating California privacy laws. Gibbs Mura filed the lawsuit on February 26, 2026 in San Francisco Superior Court with Milberg PLLC, another leading plaintiff-side firm. The firms continue to investigate claims on behalf of additional Californians who may have had their privacy rights violated. The lawsuit alleges that Flock, which runs networks of thousands of automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras, violated California's ALPR Privacy Act (passed as SB 34 in 2015) by sharing license plate data with out-of-state agencies, including police departments outside of California and federal authorities. The lawsuit also alleges violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, and privacy rights enshrined in California's Constitution and common law. According to the lawsuit, on streets where the ALPR cameras are mounted, Flock captures images of every vehicle passing by and uses AI-powered software to record their license plate numbers and track drivers' movements. As reported by KQED, over 200 municipal police and sheriff's departments across California use Flock's license plate readers, including San Francisco and Oakland. This effectively gives police a dragnet surveillance system, instead of having to rely on traditional investigation methods that target specific suspects. “Flock's mass surveillance system threatens Californians' privacy rights," said lead attorney David Berger. “License plate readers collect and store vast amounts of information about innocent people, and public safety cannot be a catch-all justification for overreach. We have filed this class action lawsuit to hold Flock accountable for unlawfully sharing license plate data across state lines in direct violation of California law." Who can join the Flock License Plate Camera Class Action Lawsuit? Drivers in many California municipalities may have a monetary claim for privacy violations by Flock, including: -- Oakland -- San Francisco -- Berkeley -- Fremont -- Hayward -- Mountain View -- Los Gatos -- Sacramento -- El Cajon (San Diego County) Many locations across the Bay Area, Southern California, and the Central Valley may qualify as well. Visit the Flock License Plate Reader Class Action Lawsuit webpage or call 866-407-2032 to learn more. Gibbs Mura is a Leader in Privacy Class Action Lawsuits Gibbs Mura has prosecuted some of the largest and most influential privacy and data breach cases in the country. In 2025, Gibbs Mura secured a $27.5 million settlement against Thomson Reuters alleging its CLEAR platform violated millions of Californians' privacy. Gibbs Mura also achieved the largest data breach settlement in history in the Equifax Data Breach Lawsuit, securing $1.5 billion from Equifax after its 2017 data breach exposed the data of over 145 million Americans. Gibbs Mura attorneys have been recognized with numerous awards, including "Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar," "Cybersecurity & Privacy MVP" and "Top Cybersecurity and Privacy MVP." Contacts PRESS CONTACT: CATHERINE CONROY PHONE: (510) 350-9705 EMAIL: CRC@CLASSLAWGROUP.COM [GN] FLUID MARKET: Urban Interests Wins Bid to Retransfer Case Venue --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jennifer L. Hall of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware will grant Urban Interests, LLC's motion to retransfer the case captioned as URBAN INTERESTS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. FLUID MARKET, INC., et al., Defendants, C.A. No. 25-1165-JLH (D. Del.) to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. On October 10, 2024, Plaintiff Urban Interests, a Colorado limited liability company, filed the original class action complaint against Fluid Market, Inc. and Fluid Fleet Services, LLC, and individual defendants, James Eberhard, Jenifer Snyder, and Scott Avila in the Colorado District Court. The operative Second Amended Complaint alleges that Fluid operated an on-demand vehicle rental platform that offered the public access to rent cargo vans, box trucks, and pickup trucks via a mobile app and website. Fluid also offered a Fluid Vehicle Investor Platform ("FVIP") that enabled individuals and small business owners to purchase fleets of vehicles, and then rent them out via Fluid's platform. Plaintiff Urban Interests became an FVIP owner in 2020, and over time bought 47 vehicles and placed them into the Fluid fleet. When FVIP owners like Urban Interests were ready to "decommission" their vehicles -- remove them from the Fluid fleet -- Fluid solicited those FVIP owners to allow Fluid to sell the vehicle on the owners' behalf through a third-party auction service. From the sale proceeds and any receipts from insurance claims, Fluid would deduct a decommissioning fee, the cost of any necessary repairs, and other applicable fees, and turn the proceeds over to the vehicle owner within 30 days of the sale. On behalf of itself and the putative class of FVIPs, the complaint asserted claims under Colorado statutory and common law for fraud, civil theft, conversion, money had and received, and injunctive and declaratory relief. The Complaint alleges that Fluid's founders, Eberhard and Snyder, and certain co-defendants, diverted sales and insurance proceeds from decommissioning through their own side company, Defendant HHK Vehicles, Inc., withheld payments owed to FVIPs, and transferred FVIP funds to pay themselves and fund Fluid's other operations. Six days later, Fluid filed chapter 11 bankruptcy petitions in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. The Debtors moved to transfer the action to the Delaware District Court for referral to the Delaware Bankruptcy Court where their chapter 11 cases were then pending. The Colorado District Court ultimately determined that the case was sufficiently related to a case or proceeding under title 11 to warrant transfer, and that such transfer would be in the interest of justice. This action was transferred pursuant to an order dated September 17, 2025 (the "Transfer Order"), on the basis of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1412. Thereafter, however, the funds at issue were disbursed by order of the Bankruptcy Court, the Debtors' assets (including books and records) were sold under Sec. 363, and the bankruptcy cases were converted to chapter 7 liquidation. Additionally, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the Debtors from the action. Plaintiff has now filed a motion to retransfer venue of the matter back to the Colorado District Court, based on the change of circumstances underlying the Transfer Order. Defendants oppose the Motion to Retransfer on the basis that, should their pending motions to dismiss the action be denied, they have possible cross-claims against the Debtors. Judge Hall holds, "I agree that the original purpose of the well-reasoned Transfer Order has been frustrated by intervening events in the bankruptcy proceeding and by Fluid's dismissal from the case, and that, based on this change of circumstances, granting the Motion to Retransfer is appropriate." A copy of the Court's Memorandum dated February 24, 2026, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bMHhL2 About Fluid Market Fluid Market, Inc., et al., operate and manage a technology-based, peer-to-peer truck-sharing platform across the United States with a fleet of nearly 5,500 vehicles owned by their non-Debtor affiliates or third-party owners who have elected to put their vehicles on the Debtors' platform, https://www.fluidtruck.com. Customers have quick and easy access to the right vehicle whenever they need it via the Debtors' mobile app and website. Fluid Market Inc. and Fluid Fleet Services, LLC sought relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 24-12363) on Oct. 16, 2024. In the bankruptcy petition, Fluid Market reported $50 million to $100 million in assets and liabilities. The petition was signed by T. Scott Avila as chief executive officer. Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP serves as the Debtors' counsel. Paladin Management Group, LLC acts as the Debtors' restructuring advisor; SSG Capital Advisors, LLC acts as investment banker to the Debtors; and Epiq Corporate Restructuring LLC is claims and noticing agent to the Debtors. On September 8, 2025, the Bankruptcy Court ordered the conversion of the chapter 11 cases to cases under chapter 7, effective September 23, 2025. FRANKLIN BSP: Faces Class Suit Over False Company Material Info --------------------------------------------------------------- Reflector reports that a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Franklin BSP Realty Trust, Inc. ("FBRT" or the "Company") (NYSE: FBRT). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants issued false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts regarding FBRT's business, operations, and prospects, including allegations that: (1) Defendants recklessly overstated FBRT's prospects; and (2) Defendants recklessly overstated FBRT's ability to maintain the $0.355 dividend. If you purchased FBRT's shares between November 5, 2024 and February 11, 2026, 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/franklin-bsp-realty-trust/ for more information. [GN] GALDERMA LABORATORIES: Bruno Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Perry Bruno, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. GALDERMA LABORATORIES, L.P., Case No. 26STCV01170 was removed from the Superior Court for 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-01829. This action arises from Plaintiff's alleged purchase of a Cetaphil Daily Hydrating Lotion product on June 18, 2025. The Plaintiff alleges that GLLP intentionally advertises and labels the Cetaphil Daily Lotion products (the "Products") as "oil-free" when the Products contain oils. The Plaintiff alleges that GLLP is therefore engaging in illegal conduct by intentionally labeling the Products with a false and misleading claim. The Plaintiff asserts the following two causes of action: violation of the California False Advertising Act; and violation of the Unfair Competition Law (also referred to as the "Unfair Business Practices Act" in the Complaint).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Marshall L. Baker, Esq. AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 229-1000 Facsimile: (310) 229-1001 Email: mbaker@akingump.com GENEDX HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Helo Class Suit in Conn. ------------------------------------------------------------- GeneDx Holdings Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Helo class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. On September 7, 2022, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, styled Helo v. Sema4 Holdings Corp., et al., 3:22-cv-01131 (D. Conn.) against the Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers. Following the appointment of a lead plaintiff, an amended complaint was filed on January 30, 2023. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on August 21, 2023, and that motion was granted on July 31, 2024. A second amended complaint was filed on September 13, 2024. As amended, the complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of the stockholders who purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between January 18, 2022 and August 15, 2022. The second amended complaint does not reassert most of the earlier allegations, and purports to allege that the defendants made false and misleading statements about the abilities and potential of Centrellis, the Company's proprietary intelligence platform, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, fees and costs. The Company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was denied on June 23, 2025, and the parties subsequently engaged in discovery. During the first quarter of 2026, the parties in the Helo putative class action reached an agreement in principle to resolve all claims for approximately $4.8 million, and intend to execute a formal stipulation of settlement reflecting such agreement in principle. To be finalize, the settlement must first be approved by the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. There can be no assurance that the Court will approve such settlement. During the fourth quarter of 2025, the Company reserved the aforementioned settlement and associated litigation costs, totaling approximately $6.0 million, which are reported in accounts payable and accrued expenses on the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2025. GeneDx Holdings Corp. through its subsidiaries Sema4 OpCo, Inc., formerly Mount Sinai Genomics Inc. and GeneDx, LLC, provides genomics-related diagnostic and information services and pursues genomics medical research. It provides a variety of genetic diagnostic tests, and screening solutions, and information with a focus on pediatrics, rare diseases for children and adults, and hereditary cancer screening. GLOBAL ATOMIC: May Face Class Suit Over Unfair Public Disclosures ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mariaan Webb, writing for Mining Weekly, reports that Toronto-listed uranium developer Global Atomic has been notified of a proposed class action lawsuit filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the company and its CEO, Stephen Roman. The company has received a statement of claim filed on February 19, seeking an unspecified amount of damages for alleged misrepresentations in its public disclosure between November 10, 2023 and January 23, 2025. The action has not yet been certified to proceed as a class action, and leave has not been sought under Section 138.8 of Ontario's Securities Act. Global Atomic said it intends to "vigorously defend" the claim. Separately, Toronto-based law firm Berger Montague (Canada) issued an investor alert in January, saying it was investigating the company and inviting shareholders to discuss potential claims. Global Atomic has been advancing the Dasa uranium project in Niger and has previously indicated that it requires significant project financing to complete development. According to Berger Montague, the investigation relates to disclosures made between November 10, 2023 and November 12, 2024 regarding potential financing from the US International Development Finance Corporation and Export Development Canada, which were said to be subject to various conditions and approvals. The law firm alleges that certain pre-conditions and developments affecting the financing process were not disclosed, including geopolitical factors in Niger. It further noted that on January 23, 2025, Roman told the market the company remained confident of securing major funding in the first quarter of 2025, either through bank financing or a joint venture agreement, while targeting first yellowcake production in early 2026. [GN] GM FINANCIAL: Smith Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to D. Maine ---------------------------------------------------------- The case MARISSA SMITH and NABILA SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GM FINANCIAL, Case No. AUGSC-CV-26-00007, was removed from the Superior Court for Kennebec County, Maine, to the United States District Court for the District of Maine on February 20, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the District of Maine assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00088-LEW to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs bring this suit against the Defendant for violations of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act. GM Financial is a financial services company headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Elizabeth M. Lacombe, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 100 Pearl Street, 13th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (215) 979-1577 Email: emlacombe@duanemorris.com GOSHEN MEDICAL CENTER: Bass Suit Removed to E.D. North Carolina --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jamica Bass, and all other similarly situated persons v. GOSHEN MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Case No. 25CVS2105 was removed from the Superior Court Division, Duplin County, North Carolina, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on Feb. 20, 2026, and assigned Case No. 7:26-cv-00032-BO. The Consolidated Complaint, which arose out of an alleged data breach sustained by Goshen, alleges the following causes of action: Negligence; Negligence Per Se; Breach of Implied Contract; Unjust Enrichment; Invasion of Privacy (Intrusion Upon Seclusion and Public Disclosure of Private Facts); Breach of Fiduciary Duty; and Violation of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Suzanne M. Patinella, Esq. WOOD SMITH HENNING & BERMAN, LLP 3700 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 330 Raleigh, NC 27612 Phone: 919-987-2205 Fax: 919-800-3432 Email: spatinella@wshblaw.com GRAND CANYON EDUCATION: Valerio Consumer Suit Ongoing in Arizona ---------------------------------------------------------------- Grand Canyon Education, 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 18, 2026, that it is facing a putative class action captioned "Valerio, et al. v. Grand Canyon Education, Inc., et al.," filed on December 24, 2024, in Maricopa County, Arizona Superior Court on behalf of nearly 300 plaintiffs. The plaintiffs assert various claims, including claims for violations of state law consumer protection statutes related to Grand Canyon University (GCU) Graduate Program disclosures. It is a party to several matters alleging that, in the performance of its marketing services provided on behalf of GCU, it made false or misleading representations regarding the time to complete and the costs associated with and/or accreditation issues related to certain GCU graduate programs. The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 12, 2025. On September 17, 2025, the court denied the motion to dismiss. The court held a status conference on October 9, 2025, to address issues of case management. The court ordered plaintiffs to file individual complaints for each plaintiff. The plaintiffs filed their individual complaints on December 11, 2025, and Defendants filed answers to each complaint on January 30, 2026. The court has not yet issued a case management conference. There is currently no trial date scheduled in this matter. Grand Canyon Education, Inc. is a publicly traded education services company dedicated to serving colleges and universities. HAIR RESTORATION: Morris Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hair Restoration Specialists of Atlanta. The case is styled as Stephen Morris, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Hair Restoration Specialists of Atlanta, Case No. 3:26-cv-01169-DMS-VET (S.D. Cal., Feb. 24, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit for Unsolicited Telephone Sales. Hair Restoration Specialists of Atlanta -- https://hrsatl.com/ -- is a hair transplantation clinic in Sandy Springs, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com HANNA ANDERSSON: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. United Legwear Company, LLC d/b/a Van Heusen, Case No. 0:26-cv-01610-NEB-DJF (D. Minn., Feb. 24, 2026), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.vanheusen.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 Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found 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 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 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 men's apparel for sale including, but not limited to, tops, bottoms, polos, jackets, outerwear, sweaters, 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 HEDGEHOG INVESTMENTS: Faces Class Suit Over Ponzi Scheme in D. Utah ------------------------------------------------------------------- Coral Springs, Florida - Attorney Scott Silver of Securities Fraud Attorneys (Silver Law Group) has filed a proposed class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on behalf of investors nationwide who lost money in promissory notes issued by Lehi, Utah-based Hedgehog Investments. The case, Robert Klingler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Matthew Morrison Bates et al., was filed Jan. 15, 2026, according to the federal court docket. The complaint names defendants, including Hedgehog CEO Matthew Morrison Bates, Wilfred Jose Manuel Vigil, Joshua Curtis Bishop, Frances Palacios, Stronghold Capital Partners LLC, Stronghold Wealth Partners LLC and others. Securities Fraud Attorneys alleges that Hedgehog Investments raised millions of dollars through promissory notes by promising investors their funds would be used to help growing companies obtain financing and generate returns. Instead, as alleged in the complaint, investor money was misused in a scheme resembling a Ponzi scheme, with new investor funds used to pay returns to earlier investors. In May 2025, the Utah Division of Securities issued an emergency order to cease and desist against Hedgehog Investments and affiliated individuals and entities. The order accused the respondents of unlicensed securities activity, securities fraud, making untrue statements and omitting material facts. It found that bank records showed little to no evidence of investor funds being used for the promised purpose of financing growing companies. The order and related public records also highlighted serious red flags, including Bates' prior felony conviction and status as a registered sex offender, Vigil's lengthy criminal history and placement on Utah's Buyer Beware list, and professional reprimands against other affiliated individuals. A July 2025 news report on the state action described the operation as using new investor money to pay older obligations, characteristic of a Ponzi scheme. "As alleged in the complaint, plaintiffs believe this was a massive Ponzi scheme based in Utah that affected investors nationwide," said Scott Silver, managing partner of Silver Law Group. "Scott Silver is proud to represent the investors and victims in this case and looks forward to helping them recover their investment losses." This lawsuit is part of Silver Law Group's ongoing efforts to hold promoters of fraudulent promissory-note and private investment schemes accountable and to recover losses for defrauded investors across the country. The lawsuit seeks to proceed as a class action and recover losses for affected investors. No class has been certified, and the court has not ruled on the merits of the allegations. Securities Fraud Attorneys continues to investigate claims and seeks to represent additional investors who suffered losses in Hedgehog Investments' promissory notes. The lawsuit was filed with co-counsel from JurisLaw LLP and Peiffer Wolf Carr Kane Conway & Wise LLP. CASE INFORMATION Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Utah Case: Robert Klingler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Matthew Morrison Bates et al. Case No. 2:2026cv00043 Filing date: Jan. 15, 2026 Securities Fraud Attorneys (Silver Law Group) represents investors nationwide in securities arbitration, class actions and litigation, focusing on recovery from investment fraud and financial misconduct. Learn more at https://securitiesfraudattorneys.com/. Securities Fraud Attorneys 11780 W Sample Rd # 103 Coral Springs, Florida 33065 (800) 975-4345 Securities Fraud Attorneys [GN] HERSHEY COMPANY: Faces Class Suit Over Falsely Advertised Products ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that a group of consumers filed a class action lawsuit against The Hershey Co. Why: The plaintiffs allege Hershey falsely advertised its Reese's themed products by depicting them as having carved designs when they do not. Where: The Reese's class action lawsuit was filed in New York federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Hershey falsely advertised that its Reese's themed products contained carved artistic designs when they did not. Reese's themed products include Reese's Peanut Butter Pumpkins, Reese's White Pumpkins, Reese's Peanut Butter Ghosts, Reese's White Ghosts, Reese's Peanut Butter Bats, Reese's Peanut Butter footBalls, Reese's Medals, Reese's Pieces Pumpkins and Reese's Peanut Butter Shapes. Lead plaintiff Jaimie Lane claims Hershey's packaging for these products misled consumers by showing detailed carvings that were not present on the actual candies. Hershey's deceptive packaging induced consumers to purchase the themed products because they highly valued and wished to buy Reese's products containing the advertised carved designs, the Reese's class action alleges. The plaintiffs claim they would not have purchased the themed products, or would have paid less for them, if the products had been truthfully advertised on the packaging and wrappers. Packaging 'materially misleading,' Reese's class action alleges The Hershey class action lawsuit says the company's packaging was "materially misleading," causing consumers to believe they were purchasing candies with carved designs. The plaintiffs point to several YouTube videos where consumers expressed disappointment upon discovering that the candies did not match the images on the packaging. Hershey's decision to change the packaging in or around 2021 to include carved designs was a deliberate attempt to mislead consumers and boost sales, the plaintiffs allege. They claim the company knew or believed that consumers would be drawn to the attractive carved designs and would be willing to pay a premium for such products. The plaintiffs argue that Hershey's misleading packaging caused them and other consumers to pay a premium for the themed products, which were sold at similar price points to Reese's standard Peanut Butter Cups but contained significantly less candy by weight. The lawsuit argues that consumers acting reasonably would not have paid the same price for 7.2 ounces of candy that they would pay for 9 ounces of candy unless the smaller candy had an additional attribute, such as carved designs, that was highly valued by the consumers. The plaintiffs assert claims for violations of consumer protection laws in New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Oregon and Washington, D.C. In another class action, Hershey was sued over allegations its wrappers contain unsafe levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly known as "forever chemicals." The plaintiffs are represented by Alexander H. Schmidt of Alexander H. Schmidt Esq. The Reese's class action lawsuit is Lane, et al. v. The Hershey Company, Case No. 1:26-cv-824, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. [GN] HERSHEY COMPANY: Fields Suit Transferred to M.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Narguess Noohi, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. The Hershey Company, Case No. 2:25-cv-04723 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Feb. 24, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00460-JFS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. The Hershey Company -- https://www.thehersheycompany.com/ -- often called just Hershey or Hershey's, is an American multinational confectionery company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian R Bacon, Esq. Todd Michael Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC 23586 Calabasas Rd., Suite 105 Calabasas, CA 91302 Phone: (323) 306-4234 Email: abacon@toddflaw.com tfriedman@toddflaw.com - and - Steven G. Perry, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC 707 Skokie Boulevard, Suite 600 Northbrook, IL 60062 Phone: (224) 218-0875 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: steven.perry@toddflaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Shawn R. Obi, Esq. WINSTON AND STRAWN LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Suite 3800 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 615-1763 Fax: (213) 615-1750 Email: sobi@winston.com - and - Jared Reed Kessler, Esq. WINSTON AND STRAWN 200 S Biscayne Blvd, Suite 2400 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 910-0500 Fax: (305) 910-0505 Email: jrkessler@winston.com - and - Ronald Y. Rothstein, Esq. WINSTON AND STRAWN LLP 300 N. LaSalle Drive, Suite 4400 Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: (312) 558-7464 Email: rrothste@winston.com HIGH PACIFIC CORP: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against High Pacific Corp. The case is styled as Javier Hernandez, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. High Pacific Corp., Wiseman Management LLC, Case No. 26STCV05882 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 24, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nazo Koulloukian, Esq. KOUL LAW FIRM 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010-2003 Phone: 213-761-5484 Fax: 818-561-3938 Email: nazo@koullaw.com HIMS & HERS: Faces GLP-1 False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Hims & Hers has falsely advertised that its injectable compounded semaglutide product contains the same active ingredient as Ozempic and Wegovy. The 37-page false advertising lawsuit contends that the active ingredient in Hims & Hers' purported "knock-off" GLP-1 product is made using a "fundamentally different process" -- one that, per the lawsuit, has never been meaningfully tested for safety or effectiveness, or evaluated by the FDA -- that produces an entirely different active ingredient. Although the Hims & Hers product at issue contains the same semaglutide peptide molecule as Ozempic and Wegovy, the class action lawsuit says that the Hims & Hers GLP-1 treatment nevertheless contains a different active ingredient made with "little to no oversight." "Consumers do not want to inject substances into their body without reasonable assurances that the substance is safe and effective," the filing stresses, arguing that if Hims & Hers "told consumers the truth," then they would not buy the product, or would pay far less for it. According to the filing, Hims & Hers "heavily" advertises its GLP-1 medication on "nearly all media channels," and the company additionally promotes the product through paid influencers on platforms such as Facebook, TikTok, Instagram and YouTube. This "massive media blitz," the lawsuit says, is intended to "funnel" consumers to either the Hims or Hers website, which the complaint alleges both misleadingly represent that the compounded GLP-1 medication is made with "the same active ingredients as Ozempic and Wegovy." The case points to language found on both the Hims and Hers websites that says the product only "differs from brand-name weight-loss injections" because it does not come in a "preloaded injection pen." These claims are manifestly false, the lawsuit insists. Per the case, Novo Nordisk, which manufactures both Ozempic and Wegovy, uses a biological process that alters yeast cells to produce the peptide GLP-1, a naturally occurring hormone that triggers the body's satiety signals. The suit states that this process yields "extremely pure" semaglutide peptides that, when injected, can reduce appetite, promote satiety, and support weight loss. The lawsuit asserts that Hims & Hers does not use this biological method to create the active ingredients in its GLP-1 medication; instead, the company allegedly uses a cheaper "synthetic chemical process" whereby amino acids are added to a chain one by one to create a "compounded semaglutide." This method is used to produce semaglutide peptides but also creates peptides that are "different than semaglutide, having missing [sic] amino acids, extra amino acids, and/or truncated amino acid sequences," the lawsuit says. As a result, the suit states, the imperfect semaglutide peptides can have "serious" side effects, including a consumer's potential immune response to the foreign, "novel" amino acids. An immune response can lead to dangerous symptoms such as a rash, flu-like symptoms, inflammation, and anaphylactic shock, "among others," the lawsuit states. Moreover, an immune system response to Hims & Hers' compounded GLP-1 medication could potentially lead to cross-reactions with other GLP-1 medications and even a consumer's own naturally occurring GLP-1 peptide hormones, with "serious health consequences." Hims & Hers compounded semaglutide additionally contains benzyl alcohol, an ingredient that has not yet been studied for potential negative interactions with the manufactured active ingredients in the product, the complaint adds. The lawsuit says that Novo Nordisk has responded to Hims & Hers' marketing of its compounded semaglutide, saying that the chemically synthesized active ingredients are "meaningfully different" from biologically produced semaglutide. Novo Nordisk further petitioned that semaglutide be added to the FDA's list of drugs that present "demonstrable difficulties" for compounding, due to a significant difference in the active ingredients produced by both processes. Additionally, the case says that in the pharmaceutical industry, "[i]t is well established that, particularly with biological molecules like peptides and proteins, 'the process defines the product.'" Testing of Hims & Hers' GLP-1 medication has indicated that it contains both a different active ingredient that is not found in Ozempic or Wegovy and semaglutide peptides, the filing states. The plaintiffs purchased "compounded semaglutide" from the Hims and Hers websites, respectively, in reasonable reliance on the claims that the product contained the same active ingredients as Ozempic and Wegovy, the case states. Had they been aware of the meaningful difference in the amino acid makeup of the GLP-1 medication, the suit says, they would have paid significantly less for the product or not purchased it at all. Furthermore, the case says that the plaintiffs never spoke to a licensed medical provider at any point in the process -- a conversation that may have revealed the differences between "compounded" GLP-1 medications and Ozempic or Wegovy. The Hims & Hers class action lawsuit seeks to cover all individuals in the United States who purchased the telehealth company's "compounded semaglutide." [GN] HOME DEPOT INC: Martinez Suit Removed to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Lani Martinez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. THE HOME DEPOT, INC., Case No. 26CU002055C was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on Feb. 24, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-01180-GPC-SBC. The action arises from Plaintiff's allegations that Defendant includes a "hidden markup" of items listed for sale on its website and mobile app, where Defendant advertises that it provides "Fast, Free, & Flexible Delivery." The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant "inflates the prices of its online products" compared to the prices offered for the same products in-store. Because Defendant allegedly "adds the cost of delivery to the price of its online products," Defendant falsely represented Home Depot "consumers are receiving 'free' delivery." The Plaintiff argues that these "misrepresentations and omissions are material to consumers," convincing them to make "online orders that they otherwise would not make," and causing "them to suffer monetary injury by paying more for items than they otherwise would have had they purchased those same items in-store." The Plaintiff brings five claims against Defendant: violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), violation of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"), violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), common law breach of contract, and common law unjust enrichment.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jason D. Russell, Esq. Hillary A. Hamilton, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 2000 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 200N Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (213) 687-5000 Facsimile: (213) 687-5600 Email: jason.russell@skadden.com hillary.hamilton@skadden.com - and - Michael W. McTigue Jr., Esq. Meredith C. Slawe, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP One Manhattan West New York, NY 10001-8602 Phone: (212) 735-3000 Facsimile: (212) 735-2000 Email: michael.mctigue@skadden.com meredith.slawe@skadden.com HON COMPANY: Installs Website Trackers Without Consent, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW SORENSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE HON COMPANY LLC and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01876 (C.D. Cal., February 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the California Trap and Trace Law. The case arises from the Defendant's installation and use of tracking software on its website, www.hon.com, without obtaining consent from website users. According to the complaint, website visitors have no idea that their website visit and subsequent web activity is being matched to their identity and being studied by the Defendant and the tracking companies it shares information with. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful surveillance, the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals have been injured including invasion of privacy, loss of control over personal identifying information, unauthorized creation of their detailed behavioral profiles, and chilling effects on their free online expression and inquiry, says the suit. The HON Company LLC is a company that sells office furniture, seating, and workplace organization products, headquartered in Iowa. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. Camrie Ventry, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 Email: rtauler@taulersmith.com cventry@taulersmith.com KEAWORLD LLC: See Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store ---------------------------------------------------------------- AARON SEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KEAWORLD, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00343-RLY-TAB (S.D. Ind., February 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://keababies.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy, inadequate focus order, inaccessible contact information, changing of content without advance warning, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Keaworld, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in Indiana. [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 Email: jmarshall@ealg.law LAKELAND INDUSTRIES: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who acquired Lakeland Industries, Inc. ("Lakeland" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:LAKE) securities during the period of December 1, 2023 through December 9, 2025, inclusive ("the Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your Lakeland investments, you have until April 24, 2026 to request lead plaintiff appointment. Courts do not consider lead plaintiff applications submitted after this deadline. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. For more information about the lawsuit: What Is This Lawsuit About? The lawsuit alleges that (i) 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; (ii) accordingly, the Company overstated the anticipated and actual positive impact of these businesses on Lakeland's financial results, as well as the overall strength and quality of Pacific Helmets' and Jolly's respective operations; (iii) Lakeland's business and financial results were significantly deteriorating because of, inter alia, tariff-related headwinds and timing, certification delays, and material flow issues in its acquired businesses; and (iv) accordingly, Defendants overstated the strength of their tariff mitigation measures and SSQ M&A strategy. On September 4, 2024, Lakeland reported its financial results for the second quarter of FY 2025. Among other results, Lakeland reported revenue of $38.51 million for the quarter, missing consensus estimates by $1.39 million. Defendant James M. Jenkins, the Company's President, Chief Executive Officer, and Executive Chairman, revealed "the shortfall was due to shipment timing," and that, inter alia, Jolly had "substantial fire orders delayed to the late third and early fourth quarter." On this news, the price of Lakeland shares declined by $1.86 per share, or approximately 7.82%, from $23.78 per share on September 4, 2024 to close at $21.92 on September 5, 2026. On April 9, 2025, Lakeland reported its financial results for its fourth quarter and FY of 2025. Among other results, Lakeland reported Q4 GAAP earnings per share of -$2.42, missing consensus estimates by $2.80, and FY 2025 adjusted EBITDA, excluding FX losses, of only $17.4 million -- significantly below reiterated guidance of EBITDA of at least $18 million. Defendant Jenkins blamed these disappointing results on, inter alia, "a large Jolly fire boots order that was initially expected to ship in Q2 of FY25 [that] has now slipped into FY26," "weakness . . . at Pacific Helmets resulting from production issues and product offering updates[,]" and "slower than expected" "rollout of new products from Pacific Helmets and Jolly Boots[.]" On this news, the price of Lakeland shares declined by $2.63 per share, or approximately 14.3%, from $18.35 per share on April 9, 2025 to close at $15.72 on April 10, 2025. Then, on June 9, 2025, Lakeland reported financial results for the first quarter of its FY 2026. Lakeland reported Q1 GAAP EPS of -$0.41, missing consensus estimates by $0.60, as well as revenue of $46.74 million, missing consensus estimates by $2.1 million. Defendant Jenkins blamed these disappointing results on, inter alia, its Pacific Helmets business "resulting from production issues and updates to product offerings[,]" as well as "shipment timing" and "tariff-related delays[.]" Defendant Roger D. Shannon, Lakeland's Chief Financial Officer, blamed "elevated freight costs resulting from tariff-related inventory build, and dilution from acquisitions." On this news, the price of Lakeland shares declined by $4.29 per share, or approximately 22.16%, from $19.36 per share on June 9, 2025 to close at $15.07 on June 10, 2025. On September 9, 2025, Lakeland reported financial results for Q2 of FY 2026. Among other results, Lakeland reported revenue of $52.5 million, missing consensus estimates by $2.09 million. Defendant Jenkins once again blamed these disappointing results on, inter alia, "Pacific Helmets resulting from updates to product offerings and production issues[,]" as well as "continued delays in purchasing decisions due to tariff uncertainty[.]" On this news, the price of Lakeland shares declined by $0.64 per share, or approximately 4.4%, from $14.44 per share on September 9, 2025 to close at $13.80 on September 10, 2025. Then, on December 9, 2025, during post-market hours, Lakeland reported financial results for the third quarter of its FY 2026. Among other results, 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, blaming, inter alia, "timing, certification delays, and material flow issues" in its acquired businesses, as well as tariff-related headwinds. Lakeland also withdrew its previously issued financial guidance for FY 2026 and would not provide financial guidance going forward because the foregoing "challenges have affected our forecasting ability[.]" The same day, Lakeland disclosed that Defendant Shannon's employment had been terminated. On this news, the price of Lakeland shares declined by $5.85 per share, or approximately 39%, from $15.01 per share on December 9, 2025 to close at $9.16 on December 10, 2025. The Lead Plaintiff Appointment Process. The federal securities laws permit any investor who acquired eligible securities during the class period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit. Courts typically appoint the investor(s) with the largest financial loss in the case and the ability to represent the class rather than investors with simply the largest investment portfolio. Courts regularly appoint individual investors, whether acting alone or as a group, as lead plaintiffs. The rights of any investor who bought shares during the class period are generally already protected. However, lead plaintiffs have the power to influence case strategy and have a say in settlement decisions, as well as decisions concerning allocation of settlement funds among class members. What Should I Do? If you purchased or otherwise acquired Lakeland securities, have information, or would like to learn more about this investigation, please contact Lauren Molinaro of Kirby McInerney LLP by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or fill out the contact form below, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters at no cost. Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at Kirby McInerney LLP's website. [GN] LAST BRAND: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over False Reference Prices ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Ben Fabrikant filed a class action lawsuit against Last Brand Inc., doing business as Quince. Why: Fabrikant claims Quince misleads consumers with false reference prices. Where: The Quince class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Quince misleads consumers with a false reference pricing scheme that makes it appear as if its products are being sold at a significant discount. Plaintiff Ben Fabrikant claims Quince advertises its garments, accessories, home goods and other consumer products with a strikethrough price labeled "traditional retail" next to the actual sale price of the item. Fabrikant argues the "traditional retail" price does not represent the former price of the product being sold, but rather a higher price of what Quince claims is a comparable product sold by another brand. "Consumers shopping on Quince.com reasonably believe the 'traditional retail' price is a legitimate former price that Quince previously offered for the same product, when in reality, the product has never been sold by Quince, or by any retailer, at that strikethrough price," the Quince class action lawsuit says. Fabrikant wants to represent a nationwide class of consumers who purchased Quince products advertised with a "traditional retail" strikethrough price. He claims Quince is guilty of violating California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. False reference prices inflate product valuation, Quince class action says Fabrikant argues Quince's alleged false reference prices inflates consumers' internal valuation of the product and induces them to make purchases under the mistaken impression that they are receiving a substantial discount. Fabrikant argues he would not have purchased a "Vintage Wash Tencel Camp Shirt" for $39.90 from Quince.com in November 2025 had he known the "traditional retail" price of $108.00 was not the price of the same product. "Quince's fictitious comparison pricing scheme creates the false impression that consumers are receiving substantial discounts, which induces purchases they otherwise would not make," the Quince class action lawsuit says. Fabrikant demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of restitution and disgorgement of all profits obtained by Quince as a result of its allegedly unlawful conduct. In December, a customer filed a similar complaint against Quince in California federal court, alleging the company uses a "traditional retail price" referencing scheme. The plaintiff is represented by Mark L. Javitch of Javitch Law Office and Kevin J. Cole of KJC Law Group A.P.C. The Quince class action lawsuit is Fabrikant v. Last Brand Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-10519, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] LOVE FIELD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carrera Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ LUIS XAVIER FLORES CARRERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOVE FIELD INC. d/b/a Sunrise Mart; LOVE FIELD INC. D/b/a WakuWaku a/k/a WakuWaku + Oldies; TADAO YOSHIDA; and TAKUYA YOSHIDA, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00843 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 12, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Carrera was employed by the Defendants as a server. Love Field Inc. d/b/a Sunrise Mart is a specialty supermarket that sells Japanese food, groceries and related merchandise. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence I. Cohen, Esq. SANDERS LAW GROUP 333 Earle Ovington Blvd, Suite 402 Uniondale, NY 11553 Telephone: (516) 203-7613 Email: lcohen@sanderslaw.group LULU & GEORGIA: Correia Files Suit in S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lulu & Georgia, Inc. The case is styled as Elizabeth Correia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lulu & Georgia, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-01186-GPC-JLB (S.D. Cal., Feb. 24, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Lulu and Georgia -- https://www.luluandgeorgia.com/ -- offers the latest in rugs, furniture, home accents, lighting, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alec M. Leslie, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Email: aleslie@bursor.com - and - Ines Diaz Villafana, Esq. Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Email: idiaz@bursor.com sbogdanovich@bursor.com MANSUR GAVRIEL: Lewis Sues Over Unlawful Text Message and Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MANSUR GAVRIEL, LLC, Case No. CACE-26-003013 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Feb. 20, 2026), is brought for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for violations Of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA"). In direct contravention of the Caller ID Rules, however, many callers, such as Defendant, make Telephonic Sales Calls a central part of their marketing strategy, and in doing so, intentionally transmit telephone numbers to recipient's Caller ID services that are not capable of receiving telephone calls. As such, Plaintiff, brings this action alleging that Defendant violated the FTSA's Caller ID Rules by transmitting a phone number that was not capable of receiving phone calls when it made Telephonic Sales Calls by text message ("Text Message Sales Calls"). Specifically, Defendant made Text Message Sales Calls that promoted Mansur Gavriel ("Mansur Gavriel Text Message Sales Calls") and violated the Caller ID Rules when it transmitted to the recipients' caller identification services a telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is the regular user of a cellular telephone number that receives Defendant's telephonic sales calls. Mansur Gavriel, LLC, is registered as a Foreign Limited Liability Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Phone: (202) 709-5744 Fax: (866) 893-0416 Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com MARKET EXPRESS: Removes Sweitzer Suit to W.D. Wash. --------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of MARK SWEITZER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARKET EXPRESS, LLC, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Pierce (Case No. 26-2-05693-1) to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on February 12, 2026. The clerk of court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05129. The case is assigned to Judge Michelle L. Peterson. Market Express, LLC was founded in 2016. The company's line of business includes providing trucking transportation services. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Robert E. Barton, Esq. MILLER NASH LLP 1140 SW Washington St, Ste 700 Portland, OR 97205 Telephone: (503) 224-5858 Facsimile: (503) 224-0155 Email: robert.barton@millernash.com MASHABLE INC: Court Junks Bid to Dismiss Fregosa SAC ---------------------------------------------------- Ziff Davis, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in February 26, 2026, that on December 17, 2024, a putative class action captioned "Dawn Fregosa v. Mashable, Inc.," (24CV103566) was filed against Mashable, Inc., a subsidiary of the company, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda. The complaint alleges that the Mashable website uses third-party "trackers" in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and seeks statutory damages, interest, attorney’s fees, expenses, and costs of suit. On February 3, 2025, Mashable removed the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, case number 25-cv-01094. On April 10, 2025, the court granted Mashable's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint with leave to amend. On October 9, 2025, the court denied Mashable's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. Ziff Davis, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is a vertically focused digital media and internet company whose portfolio includes technology, shopping, gaming and entertainment, health and wellness, connectivity, cybersecurity, and marketing. MASONITE INTERNATIONAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due April 7 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bernstein Liebhard LLP announces that a shareholder has filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of investors (the "Class") who sold the common stock of Masonite International Corporation ("Masonite" or the "Company") (Formerly NYSE: DOOR) between June 5, 2023 and February 8, 2024, inclusive. Should You Join The Masonite Class Action Lawsuit: 1. Do you, or did you, own shares of Masonite International Corporation (DOOR)? 2. Did you sell your shares between June 5, 2023 and February 8, 2024, inclusive? 3. Did you lose money in your investment in Masonite International Corporation? What To Do Next: If you sold Masonite common stock, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Masonite International Corporation Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Investor Relations Manager Peter Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the Class, you must file papers by April 7, 2026. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on other class members' behalf in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About The Lawsuit: According to the lawsuit, Defendants made misrepresentations concerning Owens Corning's offers to purchase all of Masonite's outstanding stock. About Bernstein Liebhard: Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for sixteen consecutive years. Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. Contact Information: Peter Allocco Bernstein Liebhard LLP (212) 951-2030 pallocco@bernlieb.com https://www.bernlieb.com[GN] MCLANE FOODSERVICE: Thornhill Suit Transferred to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as John Thornhill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. McLane Foodservice Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-07475 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 23, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-00921-SSS-SP to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor. McLane Company, Inc. -- https://www.mclaneco.com/ -- is one of the largest supply chain services leaders, providing grocery and foodservice supply chain solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eugene Zinovyev, Esq. Gabriella Sole, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 381-9988 Fax: (213) 381-9989 Email: eugene.zinovyev@wilshirelawfirm.com gabriella.sole@wilshirelawfirm.com - and - John Sprague Brown, Esq. John G. Yslas, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 660 S. Figueroa St., Ste Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 381-9988 Email: jbrown@wilshirelawfirm.com john.yslas@wilshirelawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Amy E. Beverlin, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 1800 Century Park East, 8th Fl Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 315-8200 Fax: (310) 315-8210 Email: abeverlin@bakerlaw.com - and - Kerri Sakaue, Esq. Matthew Charles Kane, Esq. BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-4508 Phone: (310) 820-8800 Fax: (310) 820-8859 Email: ksakaue@bakerlaw.com mkane@bakerlaw.com - and - Sylvia J. Kim, Esq. BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 659-2618 Fax: (415) 659-2601 Email: sjkim@bakerlaw.com MEGA INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Action Suit Over Meal Breaks ------------------------------------------------------------ bamlawca.com reports that in a recent California class action lawsuit, an employee alleged that Mega International failed to provide employees with appropriate meal breaks and rest periods. Case: Deana Sinforosa Garcia Hernandez v. Mega International, LLC, MCO Services LLC Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California Case No.: 25STCV30670 Get to Know the Plaintiff: Garcia Hernandez v. Mega International, MCO Services LLC The plaintiff in the case, Deana Sinforosa Garcia Hernandez, was jointly employed by Mega International and MCO Services from May 2024 through September 2025. Garcia Hernandez was employed as an hourly, non-exempt employee, which means she is entitled to legally required meal breaks and rest periods, as well as minimum wage and overtime pay protections under labor laws. In the California class action, Garcia Hernandez claims the company failed to provide meal periods and rest breaks mandated by federal and state labor laws. Who is the Defendant in the Case? According to court documents, the defendants in the case were joint employers of the plaintiff, Garcia Hernandez, who worked for the company for a year and 4 months. Their business services included offering California corporate clients with business support and operational oversight. The Plaintiffs Allege the Defendants Violated Multiple Labor Laws The plaintiff alleged that Mega International/MCO Services violated labor laws governing meal breaks, rest periods, premium pay for missed breaks, etc. The Main Question in the Case: Did the Company Provide Lawful Meal and Rest Periods? The California class action lawsuit claims that the company failed to provide its employees with timely off-duty meal breaks and rest periods as required by labor law. As such, the court needed to consider whether the company complied with the applicable requirements of the California Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Orders. Specifically, the court must decide whether workers were relieved of duties and free of employer control during breaks and meal periods. The plaintiffs claim the company did not relieve employees of all their work duties during breaks due to workplace demands, standard policies, and business practices. In direct correlation to compliant breaks, the court must also consider whether the company complied with Labor Code section 226.7 by offering the proper premium pay to employees when compliant breaks were not provided. To determine compliance, the court is likely to consider time records, written policies, witness testimony, and workplace practices to pinpoint isolated incidents or a broader pattern of violations affecting multiple employees. FAQ: Garcia Hernandez v. Mega International Q: When are California employees legally entitled to a meal break? A: California employees are entitled to a meal break (unpaid, off-duty, and at least 30 minutes) when they work over five hours (meal with the meal break starting no later than the end of the fifth hour). If the employee works a shift longer than 10 hours, they are entitled to a second 30-minute minimum meal break (off duty and unpaid). Q: How many rest periods are California employers required to provide their employees? A: California employers are legally required to provide all non-exempt employees with one paid 10-minute rest period (uninterrupted) for every four hours they work. Working a 3.5- to 6-hour shift entitles employees to one 10-minute break; working 6 to 10 hours entitles them to two 10-minute breaks; and working 10 to 14 hours entitles them to three 10-minute breaks. Q: When discussing meal breaks and rest periods, what is the legal definition of "off duty?" A: When discussing labor law and meal breaks/rest periods, "off duty" means an employee is relieved of all their work duties and job-related tasks, as well as control by the employer for the full break. Q: What is the "premium pay" provided for missed rest periods at work in California? A: In California, employers are required to provide compliant rest periods (10 minutes for each 4-hour work shift), and when they fail to comply with this requirement, employees are entitled to one additional hour of pay (referred to as "premium pay") at their regular rate of compensation. Premium pay is required for each workday a violation occurs, regardless of the number of missed breaks. Q: What sort of evidence can employees offer the California court to show meal break/rest period violations? A: California employees attempting to present effective evidence of meal break/rest period violations to the court can present unrounded timecard records, personal logs of hours and breaks, testimony from co-workers, emails/texts showing work occurring during breaks, etc. Q: Do many California employers violate labor laws governing meal breaks and rest periods? A: Yes, meal and rest break violations are some of the most common, frequent, and costly labor law violations in California workplaces, frequently triggering class-action lawsuits and PAGA claims. If you believe you were misclassified as exempt, worked more than 40 hours without overtime pay, or were denied legally required meal and rest breaks, the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Contact one of our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today to learn how to hold your employer accountable. [GN] MEREO BIOPHARMA: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, a nationally recognized investor-rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Mereo BioPharma Group plc (NASDAQ: MREO) 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 Mereo securities between June 5, 2023 and December 26, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: bgandg.com/MREO. Mereo Case Details The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants provided overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of the Phase 3 ORBIT and COSMIC programs; neither of which hit its primary endpoints of reducing annualized clinical fracture rate compared to the placebo or bisphosphonate control groups, respectively. What's Next for Mereo 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/MREO 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 Mereo you have until April 6, 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 Mereo 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 Mereo 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] MISTPLAY INC: Hopkins Sues Over Unsolicited Referral Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHRIS HOPKINS, individually and on behalf of the proposed class, Plaintiff v. MISTPLAY, INC. & MISPLAY, USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-05181 (W.D. Wash., February 24, 2026) is a class action seeking an injunction to end the illegal practices, statutory and exemplary damages for each illegal text, and attorneys' fees and costs. The complaint relates that Defendant Misplay, Inc. developed and operated the Mistplay app at issue in this complaint, while Defendant Mistplay USA, Inc. provided U.S. localization and payment services in connection with the referral program. Mistplay is a mobile gaming loyalty platform available for download in the United States, including in Washington State, through the Google Play Store and Apple Store. The Defendants contract with U.S. app developers, paying U.S. residents for gameplay and referrals, and collecting data from U.S. users. Mistplay rewards users with "units" for playing featured mobile games. These units can be redeemed for gift cards to retailers such as Amazon, Google Play, and others. Mistplay's app includes a refer-a-friend feature that offers bonus units to existing users ("referrers") and new users ("referred friends") upon qualifying activity. Referred friends receive 100 bonus units, in addition to the standard 200 welcome units, for joining through a referral link. The referral program is designed to exploit the contact lists of app users by prompting them to share their unique referral links with personal contacts via text message. Mistplay enables users to transmit referral invitations directly through their device's text messaging applications. It supplies prepackaged or auto-generated referral text and links that populate into the message and contain tracking parameters unique to the sender. It financially rewards the sender when the recipient downloads the app and takes qualifying actions that financially benefit Defendants through increased platform engagement and advertiser revenue. It tracks the delivery and success of referral attempts. It provides no safeguards to prevent users from sending unsolicited referral messages to telephone numbers assigned to Washington residents. The Defendants' scheme foreseeably resulted in promotional texts targeting thousands of Washington residents. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff received an unsolicited commercial electronic text message transmitted through Mistplay's referral system on October 3, 2025, containing Mistplay's standardized promotional language and a link to the Mistplay app inviting Plaintiff to download the Mistplay app and earn bonus units using the sender's referral link. The Plaintiff did not provide clear and affirmative consent in advance to receive the text message. Plaintiff's privacy was, hence, invaded by the unsolicited promotional text message. The text message occupied space on Plaintiff's phone and wasted Plaintiff's time. For this reason, the Plaintiff and members of the Class seek injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from committing further violations of the Washington's Consumer Protection Act (CPA)and the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("CEMA"). Plaintiff Chris Hopkins is a citizen of Washington who resided in Pierce County. Defendant Mistplay, Inc. is a company incorporated in Canada with its principal offices at 1001 Boulevard Robert-Bourassa, #200, Montreal, QC H3B 4L4, Canada. Defendant Mistplay USA, Inc. is the United States subsidiary of Mistplay, Inc. and is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Tack-Hooper, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 92 Lenora Street, #179 Seattle, WA 98121 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: ryan@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com NABORS ENERGY: Camac Fund Sues Over Misappropriation of Payment --------------------------------------------------------------- Camac Fund, LP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NABORS ENERGY TRANSITION SPONSOR II LLC, ANTHONY G. PETRELLO, WILLIAM J. RESTREPO, GUILLERMO SIERRA, COLLEEN CALHOUN, STEPHEN M. TRAUBER, and COLIN RICHARDSON, Defendants, and NABORS ENERGY TRANSITION CORP. II, Nominal Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01289 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2026), is brought involving the misappropriation of a $29 million termination payment by the managers of a special purpose acquisition company, or SPAC, at the expense of public stockholders. The SPAC was formed to complete a business combination with a private company. The structure is a boom or bust proposition: if Defendants successfully completed a business combination, they would own twenty percent of the public portion of the acquired company; if Defendants failed to complete a business combination, they would lose their entire investment in the SPAC. In February 2025, Defendants announced a proposed transaction with e2Companies LLC ("e2"), an energy management firm. The transaction valued e2 at $500 million and Defendants touted the company as a "needle in a haystack." Three months later, in October 2025, Defendants announced that they had agreed to a mutual termination of the e2 transaction and a resolution of the Merger Litigation, through which the SPAC waived all rights to enforce the transaction agreement and released all claims against the counterparty. In return, e2 agreed to pay a break-up fee of at least $29.23 million, payable in two installments over the course of three years, with potentially additional payments if e2 were to enter into a subsequent merger transaction. In November 2025, the Company announced that it would redeem all outstanding Class A shares for a per-share redemption amount from distribution of the Trust Account and not including the value of the break-up fee. Defendants claimed that the "redemption will completely extinguish public shareholders' rights as shareholders (including the right to receive further liquidation distributions, if any)," and thus any remaining assets (including the break-up fee) would be diverted to Defendants. The Defendants' misappropriation is expressly prohibited by the SPAC's governing documents. Defendants failed to complete a business combination, and thus have "no right, title, interest or claim" to the SPAC's assets pursuant to agreements that Defendants themselves drafted. This action seeks the distribution of all residual assets of the SPAC solely to public stockholders and monetary damages for the harm caused by Defendants to the SPAC and its investors, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Camac Fund, LP is a Delaware limited partnership with its principal place of business in Jacksonville, Florida. Nabors is a global oil and gas drilling contractor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron T. Morris, Esq. Andrew W. Robertson, Esq. MORRIS KANDINOV LLP 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 431-7473 Email: aaron@moka.law andrew@moka.law NOVABAY PHARMACEUTICALS: Smith Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty ---------------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD SMITH, individually on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders of NOVABAY PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Plaintiff v. NOVABAY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., MICHAEL KAZLEY, PAUL FREIMAN, SWAN SIT, and YENYOU ZHENG, Defendants, Case No. 2026-0260 (Chancery Ct., Del., February 24, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty. NovaBay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. long held itself out as a company that "develops and sells scientifically-created and clinically-proven eyecare, and wound care products. Over the past two years, NovaBay has undergone an extraordinary transformation. The Company sold off all its legacy business lines, proposed to stockholders and then abandoned a corporate dissolution, effected a substantial special dividend, and hazarded into an entirely new direction by pursuing "opportunities within emerging decentralized financial infrastructure and network-based markets," which will subject the Company to "significant operational risks." In October 2025, R01 and Framework acquired shares of NovaBay preferred stock from David E. Lazar ("Lazar"), the Company's then-CEO and controlling stockholder, that upon conversion resulted in R01 and Framework each owning approximately 44% of the Company's common stock. NovaBay also issued R01 and Framework pre-funded warrants to purchase 5,405,406 shares of common stock for a total purchase price of approximately $6 million. Now, subject to stockholder approval at a special meeting scheduled for March 12, 2026, R01 and Framework stand to cement their control over a revamped NovaBay. On January 16, 2026, just after markets closed, NovaBay announced a private placement in which the Company issued to R01, Framework, and two other cryptocurrency investors a total of 837,696,130 pre-funded warrants -- respecting shares numbering 6.5 times the Company's then-outstanding share count -- for mixed consideration consisting of $25 million in cash, $51 million in USDS and USDT stablecoins, and $58 million in volatile SKY tokens. NovaBay valued the Private Placement consideration at $134 million, or $0.17 per underlying share of common stock, a staggering 98% discount to the contemporaneous trading value of NovaBay's common stock, which had closed that day trading at $14.77 per share. Under applicable listing rules, NovaBay must obtain stockholder approval to issue the shares of common stock underlying the warrants sold in the Private Placement. On February 10, 2026, NovaBay filed a Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy Statement with the SEC in connection with the Company's Special Meeting. Via the Proxy, the Board is seeking stockholder approval of, among other things, the issuance of 837,696,130 shares of common stock upon exercise of the warrants issued in the January 16, 2026 Private Placement (i.e., "Proposal One"). The issuance, if approved, will reduce existing public stockholders' stake in the Company by approximately 90%. NovaBay's minority stockholders face a decision with almost no information on which to base it, the complaint contends. In soliciting stockholder approval of the stock issuance, each of NovaBay's directors is required to fully and fairly disclose all material information in their possession to the Company's stockholders. Defendants fall far short of fulfilling that duty as the barebones Proxy discloses the terms of the Private Placement but otherwise contains almost none of the information that stockholders need to cast informed votes at the Special Meeting. NovaBay minority stockholders should not have to guess whether it is in their interest to approve a transaction that will uniquely benefit certain insiders and large stockholders while permanently diluting minority stockholders' interests in the Company pursuant to a process that has not been described, on terms that have not been explained, and in furtherance of a business strategy pivot the Proxy does not attempt to justify, adds the complaint. In addition, the Director Defendants owe Plaintiff and the Class the fiduciary duties of due care, good faith, and loyalty, the complaint asserts. These duties require the Director Defendants to fully and fairly disclose all material information in their possession concerning the subjects of Proposal One at the Special Meeting. The Director Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to fully and fairly disclose all material information in their possession necessary to allow Plaintiff and the Class to cast fully informed votes on Proposal One at the Special Meeting. As a result of the Director Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty, Plaintiff and the Class have been and will be harmed, says the suit. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to preliminarily and permanently enjoin the vote on Proposal One at the Special Meeting until the Board provides the complete disclosure to which NovaBay's minority stockholders are entitled. Plaintiff Edward Smith is a NovaBay stockholder and is entitled to vote at the Special Meeting. He has held NovaBay common stock continuously since December 2025. Defendant Michael Kazley has served as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of NovaBay since October 2025. Kazley is also the managing member of R01 Capital Manager LLC, which serves as the investment manager of R01 Capital LLC, the general partner of R01 Fund LP, one of the primary investors in the Private Placement. Defendant Paul Freiman has served as a NovaBay director since May 2002 and served as Chairman of the Board from March 2019 until October 9, 2025, when he was replaced as Chairman by Kazley. Defendant Swan Sit has served as a NovaBay director since December 2019. Defendant Yenyou Zheng has served as a NovaBay director since September 2019.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ned Weinberger, Esq. Michael Wagner, Esq. 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1510 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 573-2540 E-mail: nweinberger@labaton.com mwagner@labaton.com - and - John Vielandi, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 - and - Douglas E. Julie, Esq. W. Scott Holleman, Esq. JULIE & HOLLEMAN LLP 157 East 86th Street, 4th Floor New York, NY 10028 Telephone: (917) 325-3798 NUSCALE POWER: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 20 --------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP reminds stockholders that a class action was filed on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired NuScale Power Corporation (NYSE: SMR) Class A shares between May 13, 2025 and November 6, 2025. NuScale is a nuclear technology company focused on scalable, modular reactors. For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that NuScale Power Corporation (SMR) Mislead Investors Regarding its Business Prospects According to the complaint, NuScale's core technology, the NuScale Power Module ("NPM"), is a small modular nuclear reactor designed to generate energy within a broader power plant. Prior to the start of the class period, NuScale entered into a global commercialization partnership with ENTRA1 Energy LLC ("ENTRA1"). Defendants claimed that this critical partnership would allow the Company to take its NPM technology from development to deployment, enabling NuScale's NPMs to serve as meaningful, revenue-generating components in power plants. During the class period, defendants emphasized ENTRA1's purported wide-ranging capabilities and deep experience in power plant development in their communications with investors. However, during its entire operating history ENTRA1 had never built, financed, or operated any significant project, let alone one in the highly technical and difficult field of nuclear power generation. On November 6, 2025, NuScale surprised investors by revealing that the Company's general and administrative expenses had ballooned more than 3,000% to $519 million during its third fiscal quarter, up from $17 million in the prior year period, due largely to NuScale's payment of $495 million to ENTRA1 for its TVA agreement. As a result, NuScale's quarterly net loss skyrocketed to $532 million, up from $46 million in the prior year period. On this news, the price of NuScale Class A shares declined more than 12% over a two-day trading period, from approximately $32 per share on November 6, 2025 to approximately $28 per share on November 10, 2025. The price of NuScale Class A stock continued to fall in subsequent days, dropping to a low of just $17 per share by November 21, 2025 -- more than 70% below the class period high of more than $57 per share. Plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to disclose that: (i) ENTRA1 had never built, financed, or operated any significant projects -- let alone projects in the highly technical and complicated field of nuclear power generation -- during its entire operating history; (ii) NuScale had entrusted its commercialization, distribution, and deployment of its NPMs and hundreds of millions of dollars of NuScale capital to an entity that lacked any significant prior experience owning, financing, or operating nuclear energy generation facilities; (iii) the purported experience and qualifications attributed to ENTRA1 by defendants during the class period in fact referred to the purported experience and qualifications of the principals of the Habboush Group, a distinct entity without significant experience in the field of nuclear power generation; and (iv) as a result, NuScale's commercialization strategy was exposed to material, undisclosed risks of failure, delays, regulatory challenges, or other negative setbacks. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against NuScale Power Corporation. Shareholders who wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the class must submit their papers to the court by April 20, 2026. The lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. For more information, visit https://robbinsllp.com/nuscale-power-corporation/ All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. To be notified if a class action against NuScale Power Corporation settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today. Contact: Aaron Dumas, Jr., Esq. Robbins LLP 5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92122 (800) 350-6003 adumas@robbinsllp.com www.robbinsllp.com [GN] OOKLA LLC: Faces Milito Labor Suit in Washington Supreme Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Ziff Davis, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in February 26, 2026, that on June 13, 2025, a putative class action against one of its brands, Ookla LLC, captioned "John Milito v. Ookla, LLC, et al.," 25-2-17772-6 SEA, was filed against certain subsidiaries of the company in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County, alleging that subsidiaries of the Company posted certain job openings without disclosing either wage scales or salary ranges in violation of Washington law and seeking statutory damages, interest, attorney's fees, expenses, and costs of suit, as well as injunctive and other relief. Ziff Davis, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is a vertically focused digital media and internet company whose portfolio includes technology, shopping, gaming and entertainment, health and wellness, connectivity, cybersecurity, and marketing. PACIFICORP: Oregon Jury Awards $305MM to Wildfire Survivors ----------------------------------------------------------- April Ehrlich, writing for OPB, reports that an Oregon jury has awarded $305 million to 16 wildfire survivors harmed by the Santiam Canyon wildfire that burned across hundreds of thousands of acres in 2020. This is the largest jury verdict issued in relation to the James v. PacifiCorp class-action lawsuit, pushing PacifiCorp's total liability past $1 billion. PacifiCorp -- the parent company of Pacific Power, Oregon's second-largest electric utility -- kept its lines charged over the 2020 Labor Day weekend, despite fire officials' warnings about hot, windy weather. Five people died in the Santiam Canyon fire, and more than 400,000 acres burned across four counties. In 2023, a jury found PacifiCorp was reckless and acted in "gross negligence" in relation to multiple wildfires, including the Santiam fire. In addition to the 17 plaintiffs who sued the company in that case, the jury found a broader class of thousands of people can bring additional claims against PacifiCorp for those wildfires. This is the 15th trial to conclude so far. Another 167 trials are scheduled through 2027. PacifiCorp has appealed the class-action lawsuit and filed its opening brief last year. Its executives continue to deny liability. In court documents, it repeatedly points to a 2025 state report that found no evidence connecting PacifiCorp's equipment to the Santiam Canyon fire. "Today's verdict is an irresponsible outcome related to damages caused by a fire that PacifiCorp did not start or contribute to as determined by the Oregon Department of Forestry," PacifiCorp said in an emailed statement to OPB. "This is why we have been and will continue to challenge these verdicts." Plaintiffs' attorneys have accused the Oregon Department of Forestry staff of ignoring testimony from key witnesses, including federal firefighters who were first to respond to the fire. Outside of the class-action lawsuit, PacifiCorp continues to settle claims with other agencies and businesses. Last week, the company agreed to pay the federal government $575 million over public lands that burned in Oregon and California. [GN] PENNEY OPCO: Removes Alvarado Suit to W.D. Wash. ------------------------------------------------ The Defendant in the case of CHANTAL ALVARADO; and ALETHIA KISTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PENNEY OPCO LLC; and DOES 1-20, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of King (Case No. 26-2-01780-8 KNT) to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on Feb. 12, 2026. The clerk of court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00526 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Richard A Jones. Penney OpCo LLC is a major American department store chain specializing in apparel, home furnishings, jewelry, and beauty products. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kyle Nelson, Esq. Matthew Kelly, Esq. Trinh Tran, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4700 Seattle, WA 98104-4041 Telephone: (206) 393-4058 Email: knelson@seyfarth.com mrkelly@seyfarth.com trtran@seyfarth.com PINTEREST INC: Illegally Collects Users' Personal Info, Zhu Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- KEN ZHU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PINTEREST, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01529 (N.D. Cal., February 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for intrusion upon seclusion and violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The case arises from the Defendant's collection and sale of the confidential data and personal information of its software users without consent. According to the complaint, the Defendant, through its software products, tracks in real time and records indefinitely non-anonymous personal information and specific web activity of hundreds of millions of Americans. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages. Pinterest, Inc. is a social media platform company, headquartered in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 50 Main St., Ste. 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 874-0710 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Joshua R. Wilner, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: jwilner@bursor.com - and - Max S. Roberts, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10069 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: mroberts@bursor.com QUALDERM PARTNERS: Fails to Secure Private Info, Brecklin Says -------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN BRECKLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUALDERM PARTNERS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00220 (M.D. Tenn., February 26, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive 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 the Plaintiff and Class Members provided their Private Information to Defendant with the reasonable expectation and on the mutual understanding that Defendant would comply with its obligations to keep such information confidential and secure from unauthorized access. On December 24, 2025, Defendant became aware of unauthorized activity within certain systems in its network. Upon detection, Defendant launched an investigation with the assistance of third-party cybersecurity experts to determine the nature and scope of the incident. The investigation determined that an unauthorized actor gained access to a limited numbers of systems within Defendant's network between December 23, 2025, and December 24, 2025, and removed certain information stored within those systems. The following types of Private Information may have been compromised in the Data Breach: names, email addresses, dates of birth, medical treatment information, health insurance information, and government-issued identification information. The Defendant has begun notifying affected individuals and on February 24, 2026, Defendant reported the incident to the Attorney General of Texas. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries, including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons whose Private Information was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for: gross negligence and negligence per se; unjust enrichment; breach of implied contract; and invasion of privacy. Plaintiff John Brecklin is a patient of Pinnacle Dermatology, one of the hundreds of Qualderm supported providers. Defendant QualDerm Partners, LLC is a healthcare organization specializing in dermatology services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. Sam Douthit, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com sdouthit@stranchlaw.com QUANTUM HEALTH: Fails to Secure Private Info, Dickman Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- MORGAN DICKMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUANTUM HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00224 (S.D. Ohio, February 24, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII" or "Private Information") that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The complaint relates that in its regular course of business, the Defendant collects, stores, and maintains substantial amount of Private Information and has a resulting duty to ensure that Private Information remains secure and safeguarded from unauthorized disclosure. In December 2025, the Defendant experienced a data breach, wherein an unauthorized third-party accessed its IT Network, and exfiltrated data containing sensitive Private Information. On February 18, 2026, Defendant reported the Data Breach to the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation. The following types of Private Information were compromised as a result of the Data Breach: name and Social Security number. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose Private Information was compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to: (i) adequately protect the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members; (ii) warn Plaintiff and Class Members of Defendant's inadequate information security practices; (iii) effectively secure hardware containing protected Private Information using reasonable and adequate security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents; and (iv) timely notify Plaintiff and Class Members of the Data Breach. Defendant's conduct amounts to at least negligence and violates federal and state statutes, the complaint asserts. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Nationwide Class of similarly-situated individuals against Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff Morgan Dickman is a citizen and resident of Columbus, Ohio. Defendant Quantum Health, Inc. is a leading care coordination and benefits navigation solutions provider for self-insured employers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Terence R. Coates Esq. Dylan J. Gould, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com dgould@msdlegal.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 QUICKEN LOANS: Court Disallows Class Suit Over Mortgage Violations ------------------------------------------------------------------ Daily Legal News reports that a Hamilton County man is entitled to a $250 payment from his mortgage lender for the company's failure to report within 90 days that the mortgage had been paid off, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled February 2026. However, a class-action lawsuit by others experiencing the same issue during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic cannot proceed. In a 6-1 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed part of a First District Court of Appeals decision allowing Samuel Voss to collect the penalty from Quicken Loans, but reversed the First District's ruling that a class-action lawsuit against the lender could proceed. Writing for the Court majority, Justice Daniel R. Hawkins noted Quicken's late filing of mortgage release notices occurred in 2020 when county offices were closed because of COVID-19. State lawmakers revised R.C. 5301.36 in 2023 to prevent the collection of the $250 fine through class-action lawsuits only for late filings in 2020. Justice Hawkins wrote that because the law does not restrict lawsuits against lenders for late filings, but only prohibits class-action lawsuits, it does not violate the Ohio Constitution. Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices Patrick F. Fischer, R. Patrick DeWine, Jennifer Brunner, and Megan E. Shanahan joined Justice Hawkins' opinion. Ninth District Court of Appeals Judge Jill Flagg Lanzinger, sitting for Justice Joseph T. Deters, agreed that Voss should be paid, but maintained the First District correctly found that the class-action lawsuit could proceed. Lender Challenged Buyer's Right to Payment In 2020, Voss purchased a home from a seller who had obtained a loan from Quicken. The proceeds of the sale allowed the mortgage to be paid off at the time of the sale. The payment triggered a requirement under R.C. 5301.36(B) for Quicken and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems to "record a release of the mortgage evidencing the fact of its satisfaction." The law required the recording to take place within 90 days of the mortgage being paid off. The deadline for Quicken to record the release was May 5, 2020, but Quicken did not record it until May 27. Under the law, the borrower or the owner of real property can file a lawsuit and seek $250 in damages if the release is not recorded within 90 days. Voss initiated a class-action lawsuit in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court in August 2020 on behalf of himself and all others whose release notices were not recorded on time by Quicken. The case was delayed by a number of procedural motions. While the issue of whether to certify the class was pending, state lawmakers amended R.C. 5301.36, adding a provision that prevents seeking $250 in damages via a class-action lawsuit for mortgage-release violations that occurred in 2020. The new provision took effect in April 2023. Quicken asked the trial court for summary judgment, arguing Voss did not have standing to seek the damages because he could not prove he was actually harmed by the 22-day delay in the reporting of the mortgage being paid off. The lender also cited the new law and asked that the court prevent the class-action suit. The trial court ruled in February 2023, two months before the law took effect, that Voss could pursue $250 in damages and the class-action suit could move forward. Quicken appealed to the First District, which upheld the trial court's decision. Quicken then appealed to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Examined Homeowner's Rights Justice Hawkins explained that under the Ohio Constitution, a person must have standing to file a lawsuit, meaning a party must have a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy. Quicken argued the standing requirement must include proof that Voss suffered an actual injury from the failure of the company to record the release on time. Voss countered he did not need to show the delay actually harmed him, because the legislature granted him the right by law to seek the $250 penalty. The Court agreed with Voss, noting the legislature has the power to create a "legal injury" that provides a person the right to sue for damages even if the person is not actually harmed. "Here, the legislature has imposed a legal duty on Quicken to record a release of mortgage within 90 days, created a right in Voss to have the release recorded, and made the duty and the right enforceable by creating a right in Voss to recover $250 if Quicken fails to fulfill its duty," the opinion stated. Class-Action Prohibition Provision Analyzed Quicken indicated the closure of government offices due to the COVID-19 pandemic slowed the process of recording documents with the county recorder's offices around the state. While the General Assembly does not have complete the power to pass retroactive laws, the Court has upheld such laws under limited circumstances and has required lawmakers to expressly indicate that the law is meant to be applied retroactively. The Court stated the legislature clearly indicated that the law, which took effect in April 2023 and applies only to actions occurring in 2020, is retroactive. The Court also said that a retroactive law is permissible if it does not impair or take away an existing right. The Court indicated the statute only limits the ability to collect damages for mortgage-release violations that occurred in 2020 through a class-action lawsuit. It does not prevent anyone else who was impacted by the delay from pursuing a case through a different form of lawsuit, the opinion stated. And when the case reached the appeals court, the new law had taken effect. The appeals court should have considered the new version of the law before approving the certification of the class, the opinion stated. The Court noted its opinion might have been different if, by the time the new provision took effect, a court had already awarded damages to the class members, or if the damages had already been paid. "But, in this case, damages have not been assessed, let alone paid," the opinion stated. Because the new law took effect, the class must be decertified because it is not possible to obtain the $250 damage award through a class-action lawsuit for 2020 violations, the Court concluded. Law Excluding Class Invalid, Dissent Maintained In her opinion dissenting in part, Judge Flagg Lanzinger stated that the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure have long established that class-action lawsuits are permissible, especially when a large number of people are seeking a small amount of compensation. Because R.C. 5301.36(C)(2) deals with court procedures and conflicts with court rules, the prohibition has "no force and effect," she wrote. She wrote that by upholding the revised law, the Court is encouraging lawmakers, in response to a real or perceived crisis, to enact retroactive laws that prohibit class-action lawsuits. "In other words, it encourages the legislature to usurp this court's constitutional rulemaking power. This court should avoid setting this ill-fated precedent," Judge Flagg Lanzinger wrote. 2024-0257. Voss v. Quicken Loans, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-531. [GN] RUNWAY AI: Faces Class Action Suit Over Misusing YouTube Content ---------------------------------------------------------------- Blake Brittain of Thomson Reuters reports that artificial intelligence video startup Runway AI has been hit with a proposed class action lawsuit in California federal court for allegedly misusing YouTube content to train its video generation platform. YouTube creator David Gardner said in the complaint, filed in Los Angeles on Monday, February 23, that Runway bypassed YouTube's copyright protections to illegally download user videos for its AI training. Gardner, who lives in Los Angeles County, accused Runway of violating YouTube's terms of service and California's unfair competition law. The lawsuit, which seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, is one of dozens of copyright cases brought by authors, visual artists and other creators against tech companies over their AI training. Other YouTubers have brought similar ongoing lawsuits against OpenAI, Nvidia, Snap, Meta and ByteDance. Spokespeople for Runway did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the complaint, nor did Gardner and his attorneys. A spokesperson for YouTube's parent company Google (GOOGL.O), which is not directly involved in the case, also did not immediately respond to a request for comment. New York-based Runway has been valued at over $5.3 billion following rounds of funding from SoftBank, Nvidia and others. The lawsuit said that Runway utilized data-scraping tools to download YouTube videos unlawfully and used the content without permission to teach its generative AI systems how to respond to human prompts. Gardner asked the court for permission to represent a larger group of rightsholders whose YouTube videos were allegedly scraped by Runway. The Runway case is Gardner v. Runway AI Inc., U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, No. 2:26-cv-01941. For Gardner: Tina Wolfson of Ahdoot & Wolfson and Carter Greenbaum of Greenbaum Olbrantz LLP [GN] SALESFORCE INC: Yockey Seeks to File Class Documents Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Yockey v. Salesforce, Inc., Case No. 4:22-cv-09067-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order allowing them to file under seal documents containing information or references to information that they designated as either "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential – Attorneys' Eyes Only" pursuant to the Protective Order. The present motion only seeks consideration of documents designated as "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential – Attorneys' Eyes Only" by the Plaintiffs, or references thereto by Plaintiffs' experts or by the Plaintiffs in their Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification or in the Plaintiffs' Opposition to the Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Expert Opinions of David A. Hoffman, J.D. Plaintiffs state that the "compelling reasons" standard applies at class certification. Salesforce operates as a cloud-based software company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9GDLgA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Daniel S. Guerra, Esq. Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Max S. Roberts, Esq. Israel Rosenberg, Esq. Caroline C. Donovan, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com dguerra@bursor.com jmarchese@bursor.com mroberts@bursor.com irosenberg@bursor.com cdonovan@bursor.com SEVEN COUNTIES: Agrees to Settle 2024 Data Breach Suit for $1-Mil. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Seven Counties Services has agreed to pay up to $1,000,000 to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the Kentucky-based mental health provider failed to implement adequate cybersecurity safeguards to protect sensitive patient information stored on its networks from a data breach between July 2024 and August 2024. The Seven Counties Services class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on December 16, 2025 and covers all individuals impacted by the data breach that occurred from July 19, 2024 to August 12, 2024, including those who received notice of the breach. Per court documents, approximately 132,609 individuals are set to be included in the settlement class. The court-approved website for the Seven Counties Services (SCS) data breach settlement can be found at SCSSettlement.com. According to the website, SCS settlement class members who file a timely, valid claim form have multiple options for reimbursement. The agreement notes that benefits to class members are subject to an aggregate $1 million cap, and all administrative expenses will be paid independently of this restriction. Class members who submit a claim form with proof of documented losses stemming from the data breach are eligible to receive a cash payment of up to $5,000 from the settlement. According to the agreement, claims for documented loss must be supported by documentation prepared by a third party, and reimbursable expenses include those related to fraud, identity theft, professional fees, credit repair services, credit freezes, credit monitoring and other miscellaneous expenses such as postage or mileage. In addition to a documented-loss payment, the site reports that SCS class members may also file a claim for reimbursement for up to four hours of lost time spent mitigating the effects of the data breach at a rate of $25 per hour, subject to the $5,000 documented-loss cap. In lieu of a documented loss or lost-time payment, SCS settlement class members may instead submit a claim form to receive an alternative cash payment of up to $75. SCS class members may choose to receive their cash payouts via check or electronic payment upon filing a claim, the agreement notes, and all checks must be cashed within 90 days of issuance before expiration. In addition to any monetary benefits, all SCS settlement class members may file a claim to receive an enrollment code for three free years of CyEx credit monitoring which, per the agreement, includes one-bureau credit monitoring and identity theft protection. To file an SCS settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the notice ID and confirmation code as provided on their received copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF of the claim form to print, fill out and return by mail to the address of the settlement administrator listed on the first page of the document. All Seven Counties Services settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by April 20, 2026. Finally, as part of the settlement, SCS has also agreed to implement certain business practice enhancements to better secure its network and computer systems following the data breach. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Seven Counties Services settlement following a hearing on April 20, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals are resolved. The Seven Counties Services class action lawsuit claimed that the mental health and therapy services provider, which operates throughout Kentucky, failed to implement proper cybersecurity safeguards to protect confidential patient information, which led to a data breach between July 19, 2024 and August 12, 2024. Per court documents, private information that may have been compromised during the data breach included full names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, addresses, contact information, medical history, diagnoses, dates of service and other clinical health information. [GN] SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Kevin Due May 19 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kevin Bmich Electric LLC, et al, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. Siemens Industry, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01229-MHC (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Cohen entered an order modifying the scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline Close of class expert discovery: April 10,2026 Motion for class certification: May 19,2026 Opposition to class certification: Aug. 4, 2026 Reply in support of class certification: Sept. 15, 2026 Deadline for settlement conference: Sept. 25, 2026 Siemens provides engineering and technological solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7L6rdE at no extra charge.[CC] SNOWFLAKE INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 27 --------------------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises Snowflake, Inc., ("Snowflake" or the "Company") (NYSE: SNOW) investors off a class action on behalf of investors that bought securities between June 27, 2023, and February 8, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Snowflake investors have until April 27, 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/snowflake-inc. The Portnoy Law Firm can provide a complimentary case evaluation and discuss investors' options for pursuing claims to recover their losses. The Snowflake class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) product efficiency gains, Iceberg Tables, and tiered storage pricing were expected to have a material negative impact on consumption and revenues; and (ii) the headwinds caused by product efficiency gains, Iceberg Tables, and tiered storage pricing put Snowflake's ability to reach $10 billion in revenue and product revenue in 2029 in doubt. The Snowflake class action lawsuit further alleges that on February 28, 2024, Snowflake announced its financial results for the quarter ended January 31, 2024 and full fiscal year 2024, disclosing that Snowflake was forecasting increased revenue headwinds associated with product efficiency gains, tiered storage pricing, and the expectation that some of Snowflake's customers will leverage Iceberg Tables for their storage. On this news, the price of Snowflake Class A common stock fell more than 18%, according to the complaint. 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. The Portnoy Law Firm (310) 692-8883 lesley@portnoylaw.com www.portnoylaw.com [GN] SNOWFLAKE INC: Faces Securities Class Action Suit in N.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP (www.kaplanfox.com) has filed a class action suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Snowflake Inc. ("Snowflake" or the "Company") (NYSE: SNOW) on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the Snowflake Class A common stock during the period June 27, 2023 through the close of the market on February 28, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"). DEADLINE REMINDER: If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court no later than April 27, 2026 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the proposed Class. You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in order to share in any possible recovery. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff, please e-mail attorneys Jason A. Uris (juris@kaplanfox.com) or Laurence D. King (lking@kaplanfox.com), or contact them by phone, regular mail, or fax. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly made positive statements about the state of its business, including positive statements about customer usage of, and new developments for, its products. At the same time, Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) product efficiency gains, Iceberg Tables and tiered storage pricing were expected to have a material negative impact on consumption and revenues, and (2) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about consumption patterns, revenues, and demand for Snowflake products lacked a reasonable basis. On February 28, 2024, Snowflake shocked investors when, after the market closed, the Company issued a press release that announced its financial results for the fourth quarter and full fiscal year 2024, as well as guidance for the full fiscal year 2025. During the subsequent earnings call, Defendant Scarpelli stated that they were forecasting increased revenue headwinds associated with product efficiency gains, tiered storage pricing and the expectation that some of their customers will leverage Iceberg Tables for their storage. On that same day, Snowflake also announced that Defendant Frank Slootman had retired as Chief Executive Officer of Snowflake Inc. On this news, the price of Snowflake's Class A common stock declined $41.72, or 18.14%, from a closing price of $230.00 per share on February 28, 2024, to close at $188.28 per share on February 29, 2024. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the proposed Class and is represented by Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP (www.kaplanfox.com). Our firm, with offices in New York, Oakland, California, Los Angeles, Chicago, and New Jersey, has decades of experience in prosecuting investor class actions and actions involving violations of the Federal securities laws. If you have any questions about the action, your rights, or your interests, or would like a copy of the Complaint, please e-mail attorneys Jason A. Uris (juris@kaplanfox.com) or Laurence D. King (lking@kaplanfox.com), or contact them by phone, regular mail, or fax: Jason A. Uris, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 38th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (646) 315-9007 Facsimile: (212) 687-7714 E-mail: juris@kaplanfox.com - and - Laurence D. King, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560 Oakland, California 94612 Telephone: (415) 772-4704 Facsimile: (415) 772-4707 E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com [GN] SSA HOLDINGS: Filing for Class Cert. in Gomez Due March 15 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDRES GOMEZ, SHANIEL DOUGLAS, THOMAS ANDO, KAIA BARON, and MARQUIS BOLDEN individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SSA HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03740-NYW-SBP (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Susan Prose entered an order -- The Parties will serve their first set of interrogatories, requests for production of documents and/or admissions on or before May 1, 2026. -- Deadline for joinder of Parties and amendment of pleadings: Aug. 3, 2026 -- Discovery Cutoff: Feb. 15, 2027 -- The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification filed: March 15, 2027 -- The Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification filed: April 13, 2027 (or 30 days after the motion is filed, if sooner) -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion for class certification filed: May 17, 2027 (or 30 days after the opposition is filed, if sooner) -- A Status Conference is set for Jan. 5, 2027, at 9:30 a.m., The Plaintiffs allege entitlement to relief based on an unauthorized actor gaining access to its systems and the personal information of certain individuals on Sept. 15, 2025 ("Data Security Incident"). The Plaintiffs bring this Class Action Lawsuit on behalf of a nationwide class of individuals who received Notice from the Defendant that their data was impacted in the data security incident on the Defendant's systems. The Defendant provides detective, guard, and security services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jIWOpl at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com - and - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 E-mail: abm@murphylegalfirm.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: Michelle R. Gomez, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1801 California Street, Suite 4400 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 861-0600 E-mail: mgomez@bakerlaw.com STIFEL FINANCIAL: Mismanages 401(k) Plan, Striplin Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- AMBER STRIPLIN, individually and as representative of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of STIFEL FINANCIAL PROFIT SHARING 401(K) PLAN, Plaintiff v. STIFEL FINANCIAL CORP., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF STIFEL FINANCIAL CORP. and its members, STIFEL FINANCIAL PROFIT SHARING PLAN 401(K) INVESTMENT COMMITTEE and its members, and DOES 1-20 and DOES 21-40, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-00255 (E.D. Mo., February 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of duty of prudence and failure to monitor pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendants for breaching the duties they owed to the Stifel Financial Profit Sharing 401(k) Plan and to the participants and beneficiaries of the Plan by failing to prudently select and monitor a menu of investment options for the Plan. Instead of funding secure retirements for loyal workers, Stifel inexplicably wasted Plan participants' 401(k) assets on investments with lackluster performance. The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence. Stifel Financial Corp. is a multinational independent investment bank and financial services company, headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Emmett Bhatia ("E.E.") Keenan, Esq. KEENAN & BHATIA, LLC 4625 Lindell Blvd., Ste. 200 St. Louis, MO 63108 Telephone: (314) 987-2273 Email: ee@keenanfirm.com - and - Charles Field, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP MCKNIGHT, LLP 7911 Herschel Avenue, Suite 300 La Jolla, CA, 92037 Telephone: (619) 577-4252 Facsimile: (619) 577-4250 Email: cfield@sanfordheisler.com - and - Sharon Kim, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP MCKNIGHT, LLP 17 State Street, 37th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 402-5660 Email: sharonkim@sanforheisler.com STRATEGIC SOLUTION: Evans Sues Over False Tribal Lending Contracts ------------------------------------------------------------------ HITNEY EVANS, MICHAEL GOETTING, DAWN FAMIGLIETTI, LACEY SALCIDO, FELICIA WHITE, RUBIN STONE, on behalf of themselves and all individuals similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STRATEGIC SOLUTION SERVICES, INC. d/b/a LINE OF CREDIT NOW, ARROW MOUNTAIN FUNDING, and ARROW VALLEY LOANS; GREEN FUNDS GROUP d/b/a GREEN FUNDS GO; SPEEDY SERVICING d/b/a UNCLE WARBUCKS; KAPITAL SOLUTIONS, INC.; WATERS LAW OFFICE, PLLC d/b/a WLO PAYMENTS; TRAVIS JACOBS; and JOHN DOES 1-40, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00145 (E.D. Va., February 24, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"). The complaint relates that like other actors in the tribal lending industry, Defendants created several lending fronts under different tradenames, including Line of Credit Now, Arrow Mountain Lending, Arrow Valley Lending, Green Funds Go, and Uncle Warbucks. These Lending Fronts then targeted, advertised, and issued -- and continue to target, advertise, and issue -- high-interest loans to Plaintiffs and thousands of other consumers across the United States, with rates as high as 736%. In an attempt to shield their blatantly usurious loans from state regulators, Defendant Travis Jacobs, along with other John Doe Defendants, conspired together to establish the First Nations Lenders' Authority ("FNLA") as an umbrella organization that claimed to be an established authority of the MCK. Mr. Jacobs and the John Doe Defendants then established, recruited investors for, funded, and operated various entities under the FNLA umbrella, including Defendants Strategic Solution, Speedy Servicing, and Green Funds Group. These entities were then funded and capitalized by investors recruited by Mr. Jacobs in return for a share of the profits from the various Lending Fronts. The complaint alleges that the Defendants, including Mr. Jacobs, drafted loan contracts that claimed each Lending Front "IS A MOHAWK OR FIRST NATIONS ENTITY, LOCATED ON THE MOHAWK TERRITORY OF KAHNAWKAE AND IS SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF KAHNAWAKE AND THOSE OF THE FIRST NATIONS OF CANADA." But this claim, and the existence of the tribal/First Nation facade, was entirely false. Indeed, the MCK has never formed, owned, operated, or authorized anyone to make loans in the name of Strategic Solution Services or any other usurious lender. Nor has the MCK, "received any benefits, compensation or contributions from any company known as Strategic Solution Services or from any other company involved in lending. The FNLA masquerade established by Defendant Jacobs and his co-conspirators was nothing more than a pay-to-play scheme that allowed any nefarious actor to deceptively claim First Nation affiliation and ownership without having any relationship or financial obligation to a Native American tribe or First Nation, the complaint contends. Faced with Defendants' unlawful attempts to use a First Nation lending model to evade state usury protections, Plaintiffs bring claims against the named Defendants -- the lending entities and the known coconspirators behind them -- as well as yet-to-identified John Doe Defendants, the other coconspirators behind the scheme, whose identities Defendants have intentionally concealed—for violations of the RICO. The Plaintiffs also assert class common law claims for unjust enrichment and civil conspiracy and a claim seeking to void the debts issued in states whose laws provide for such a remedy. Plaintiff Whitney Evans is a resident of Alabama. Plaintiff Michael Goetting is a resident of North Carolina. Plaintiff Dawn Famiglietti is a resident of New Hampshire. Plaintiff Lacey Salcido is a resident of California. Plaintiff Felicia White is a resident of Alabama. Plaintiff Rubin Stone is a resident of Kentucky. Defendant Strategic Solution Services, Inc. ("Strategic Solution") operates several lending fronts under various tradenames, including Arrow Mountain Funding, Line of Credit Now, and Arrow Valley Loans. Defendant Green Funds Group ("GFG") has conducted business as a lending entity under the tradename Green Funds Go. Defendant Speedy Servicing does business under the tradename Uncle Warbucks, and has also conducted business under the tradenames Money Messiah, Rapital Capital, Dash of Cash, and Speedy Mohawk Financial Servicing. Defendant Kapital Solutions Inc. is an ecommerce software development company that, upon information and belief, knowingly entered into agreements with Strategic Solution, Speedy Servicing, Green Funds Group, Defendants Travis Jacobs, Lazarus Legal, and the John Doe Defendants behind the Lending Fronts to provide the technological, underwriting, payment processing, and electronic funds transfer support necessary for the Lending Fronts to advertise, issue, and collect the unlawful debts at issue in this litigation. Defendant Waters Law Office, PLLC d/b/a WLO Payments is a Montana professional limited liability company with its principal business address at 11 West Main Street, Suite 217, Belgrade Montana 59714. Defendant Travis Jacobs is one of the main participants behind the creation, development, and implementation of the Lending Fronts, including its attempts to use the facade of a First Nation to shield the Fronts from state usury laws. The John Doe Defendants Nos. 1-40 are the as-yet unknown individuals and business organizations that designed, are operating, and have extracted most of the revenue from the Lending Fronts alleged herein.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq. Casey S. Nash, Esq. Patrick McNichol, Esq. Matthew G. Rosendahl, Esq. KELLY GUZZO PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7572 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com E-mail: aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com E-mail: casey@kellyguzzo.com E-mail: pat@kellyguzzo.com E-mail: matt@kellyguzzo.com - and - Bryan J. Geiger, Esq. Thomas M. Bonan, Esq. SERAPH LEGAL, P.A. 3505 East Frontage Road, Suite 145 Tampa, FL 33607 E-mail: bgeiger@seraphlegal.com tbonan@seraphlegal.com SUNTRUST BANK: Agrees to Settle Overdrafts Fees' Suit for $240MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that SunTrust Bank, now known as Truist Bank, has agreed to a $240 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it charged illegal overdrafts on ATM and debit card transactions which harmed Georgia consumers. The SunTrust settlement benefits Georgia citizens who had one or more accounts with SunTrust Bank that were not closed before June 1, 2010, and who had at least one overdraft of $500 or less resulting from an ATM or debit card transaction between July 12, 2006, and April 15, 2014, paid any of excess fees as a result of the transaction and did not receive a refund of those fees. According to a class action lawsuit, SunTrust Bank charged illegal overdraft fees on ATM and debit card transactions. Plaintiffs in the case say these fees violated Georgia's usury laws, which limit the amount of interest a lender may charge. SunTrust Bank, now known as Truist Bank, is a bank with locations in 11 states and the District of Columbia. The bank offers checking and savings accounts, loans, credit cards and other financial services. SunTrust Bank has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $240 million class action settlement to resolve these allegations. Under the terms of the SunTrust settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the amount they paid in overdraft fees. Exact payments will vary, but class members are estimated to receive between $5 and $1,000. Rewards associated with joint accounts may be split amongst the eligible account owners. The deadline for exclusion and objection is April 20, 2026. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for May 26, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by the deadline. The claim form deadline is currently unknown but is expected to be in August 2026. Who's Eligible Georgia citizens who had one or more accounts with SunTrust Bank that were not closed before June 1, 2010, and who had at least one overdraft of $500 or less resulting from an ATM or debit card transaction between July 12, 2006, and April 15, 2014, paid any of these fees as a result of the transaction and did not receive a refund of those fees. Potential Award $5 to $1,000 Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form Deadline 08/31/2026 (estimated) Case Name Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank, Case No. 10EV010485, in the Georgia State Court of Fulton County Final Hearing 05/26/2026 Settlement Website SunTrustOverdraftClassAction.com Claims Administrator SunTrust Overdraft Class Action Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 2873 Portland, OR 97208-2873 info@SunTrustOverdraftClassAction.com (877) 239-8765 Class Counsel Michael B. Terry Jason J. Carter Patrick C. Fagan Jeffrey W. Chen Jennifer L. Peterson BONDURANT, MIXSON & ELMORE LLP C. Ronald Ellington C. RONALD ELLINGTON, ATTORNEY P.C. J. Benjamin Finley THE FINLEY FIRM P.C. Defense Counsel Steven M. Pyser WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP [GN] TEVA CANADA: Federal Court Denies Class Action Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ JDSupra reports that the Federal Court has dismissed a request to certify a proposed class proceeding against a large number of generic drug companies named as defendants under sections 45 and 46 of the Competition Act: Eaton v Teva Canada Limited, 2026 FC 239. The plaintiff alleged a vast, industry-wide conspiracy in North America in which the defendants conspired to allocate the generic drug market and fix prices at the maximum public formulary price in Canada. Proposing a class of persons who purchased generic drugs out-of-pocket or through private drug plans since January 1, 2012, the plaintiff sought $5 billion in damages for the class. While the existence of an identifiable class was not in dispute, the Court (Fothergill J.) found the plaintiff failed to satisfy the four other criteria for certifying a proceeding as a class action, namely that: (a) the statement of claim discloses reasonable causes of action against the defendants; (b) there are common issues of law or fact; (c) a class proceeding is the preferable procedure for determining the claims of class members; and (d) there is a suitable class representative. In particular, the Court found that the statement of claim did not plead any particulars of the acts of each alleged co-conspirator. Many of the allegations appeared to have been derived from legal proceedings in the United States, without material facts of how the alleged conspiracy extended into Canada. The statement of claim also asserted only baldly that all defendants compete with each other. Considering the range of products sold by generic drug manufacturers in Canada and the fact that many defendants market only a small subset of generic drugs, the Court held it could not reasonably be said that defendants "compete with respect to a product" with defendants that do not market similar or interchangeable products. Further, the plaintiff's evidence did not meet the standard to show "some basis in fact" to support the existence of the alleged conspiracy. None of the documentation from US litigation relied upon by the plaintiff suggested that the conspiracy extended throughout North America or into Canada, and there are important differences between the regulatory frameworks governing the sale of generic drugs in Canada versus in the US. The Court dismissed the motion to certify the proceeding as a class action, without leave to amend, and dismissed the action with prejudice against some of the defendants. [GN] TOP PICK: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Deinnocentes Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- MARY ANN DEINNOCENTES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOP PICK GLOBAL INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00219 (N.D. Ind., February 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.rocketdog.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, inaccessible dropdown menus, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Top Pick Global Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in Indiana. [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 Email: jmarshall@ealg.law TOYOTA MOTOR: Pszwaro Sues Over Defective Motor Vehicles -------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD PSZWARO; JAVIER DIAZ; AMANDA PETERSON; and CHRISTOPHER HOVEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES U.S.A. INC.; and TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01400 (D.N.J., February 12, 2026) alleges violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendant failed to disclose to the Plaintiff and the Class of a defect within the UA80 8-speed automatic transmissions and torque converters and related software. The Defendants were aware of this manufacturing defect and, knowing that the vehicles at issue are unreliable and unsafe, failed to disclose it, says the Plaintiff. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. retail and sells new and used automotive. The Company offers cars, trucks, SUVs, crossovers, hybrids, hybrid cars, and accessories. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bruce H. Nagel, Esq. Lisa R. Considine, Esq. David J. DiSabato, Esq. NAGEL RICE LLP 103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 618-0400 Email: bnagel@nagelrice.com lconsidine@nagelrice.com ddisabato@nagelrice.com - and - Joseph Santoli, Esq. 340 Devon Court Ridgewood, NJ 07450 Telephone: (201) 926-9200 Email: josephsantoli002@gmail.com TRUE FINANCE: Class Cert Bid in Kelly Suit Due March 13 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STERLING KELLY, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TRUE FINANCE LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-01284-MA (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Micaela Alvarez entered an order setting a routine scheduling order, as follows: Pretrial Events Deadlines Deadline for the Plaintiff to file a March 13, 2026 class certification motion: Deadline for the Defendant to file a April 3, 2026 motion to enforce arbitration agreement: True Finance provides a money app for borrowing, earning, and saving. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rh2g8W at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED PARCEL: Anastopoulo Sues Over Unlawful Tariff Collection --------------------------------------------------------------- HALI ANASTOPOULO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00754-RMG (D.S.C., February 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, the Defendant breached its contracts with the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals by charging, collecting and retaining tariff-related fees from them without statutory authority. Beginning in 2025, the Defendant imposed and collected tariff-related charges purportedly authorized under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). However, on February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States held that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs and that such tariffs were unlawful and imposed without statutory authority. The Plaintiff and Class members suffered economic injury as a direct result of the Defendant's conduct, suit says. United Parcel Service, Inc. is an American multinational shipping, receiving and supply chain management company, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com UNITED PARCEL: Faces Clas Action Suit Over Illegal Tariffs ---------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that United Parcel Service Inc. (UPS) faces a proposed class action lawsuit that alleges the shipping giant, in light of a recent United States Supreme Court ruling, has collected unlawful tariffs from consumers imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The 11-page breach-of-contract lawsuit claims that UPS wrongfully collected tariff-related charges from consumers and increased overall shipping costs based on "now-invalid" tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), but has failed to reimburse consumers. The case was filed on the same day as the February 20 ruling by the Supreme Court that determined that the president is not authorized to impose tariffs under IEEPA, and that many of Trump’s tariffs were "unlawful" and imposed "without statutory authority." Prior to the Supreme Court ruling, the class action lawsuit says, "record levels" of tariff revenue were collected on all goods imported into the United States, generating a massive $30 billion revenue in January 2026 alone, equivalent to a 304 percent increase from the previous year. Importers in the United States, the filing says, paid the tariffs to U.S. Customs and passed the costs on to consumers and importers. While the Supreme Court ruling has ended the unlawful collection of tariffs under the IEEPA, the Court "provided no guidance regarding whether, when, or how" the federal government should return the "billions of dollars" of tariff fees collected from importers and consumers, the complaint emphasizes. The case further notes that at the time of filing, no automatic refunds had been issued to consumers by UPS. This week, UPS rival FedEx stated that it will return to shippers and customers any tariff refund it might receive. Per NBC, more than 1,000 companies have filed suit in the U.S. Court of International Trade in an attempt to recover costs from the illegal tariffs. The UPS tariffs lawsuit seeks to cover all United States residents who paid unlawful tariffs to the shipping and receiving company under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. [GN] UNITED THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend MSP Recovery Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- United Therapeutics Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2026 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the MSP Recovery class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. In July 2020, MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC; MSPA Claims 1, LLC; and Series PMPI, a designated series of MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC, filed a class action complaint against Caring Voices Coalition, Inc. (CVC) and the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint alleged that it violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and various state laws by coordinating with CVC when making donations to a PAH fund so that those donations would go toward copayment obligations for Medicare patients taking drugs manufactured and marketed by the Company. The plaintiffs claim to have received assignments from various Medicare Advantage health plans and other insurance entities that allow them to bring this lawsuit on behalf of those entities to recover allegedly inflated amounts they paid for its drugs. In April 2021, the court granted its motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. In October 2021, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that includes state antitrust claims based on alleged facts similar to those raised by Sandoz and RareGen in the matter described above. The amended complaint added MSP Recovery Claims Series 44, LLC as a plaintiff and Smiths Medical and CVC as defendants. In December 2021, it filed a motion to dismiss all of the plaintiffs' claims in the amended complaint, including the new antitrust claims. Smiths Medical also filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims against Smiths Medical. In September 2022, the court dismissed all of the plaintiffs’ claims against the Company and Smiths Medical without prejudice. In October 2022, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which added federal antitrust claims and consumer protection claims under other states' laws to the claims previously asserted. The second amended complaint also named Accredo Health Group, CVS Health Corporation, Express Scripts, Inc., and Express Scripts Holding Company (collectively, the Specialty Pharmacies), and the Adira Foundation as additional defendants. In March 2023, it filed its motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. The Specialty Pharmacies filed their own motion to dismiss, as did Smiths Medical. On March 22, 2024, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint against all defendants in its entirety with prejudice, and for administrative purposes, issued an order dismissing the complaint. On April 12, 2024, the plaintiffs filed an objection to the magistrate judge's recommendation. On May 10, 2024, the Company filed a response to the plaintiffs' objection, as did the other defendants. If the district court judge adopts the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismisses the case, the plaintiffs will have the right to appeal. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend itself against the claims made in this lawsuit. United Therapeutics Corporation is a biotechnology company focused on the development and commercialization of innovative products to address the unmet medical needs of patients with chronic and life-threatening conditions. UWM HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Escue Class Suit in Michigan -------------------------------------------------------------- UWM Holdings Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Escue class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. On April 2, 2024, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against UWM, the Company, SFS Corp., and Mat Ishbia, individually (collectively, the UWM Defendants ) by Therisa D. Escue, et al. (collectively, the Escue Plaintiffs ). The Escue Plaintiffs seek class certification, monetary damages, attorneys fees and equitable and injunctive relief. The Escue Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that for mortgage loans originated through UWM, UWM improperly influenced mortgage brokers in its network to steer prospective borrowers to obtain their mortgage loans from UWM at pricing and subject to fees substantially in excess of that charged by competitors, and that such mortgage brokers did not act independently but instead were captive to UWM. On June 21, 2024, the UWM Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case. On August 30, 2024, the Escue Plaintiffs filed a first amended class action complaint in the case. On September 17, 2024, the UWM Defendants filed a motion for sanctions. On October 15, 2024, the UWM Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the first amended class action complaint and a motion to strike class allegations in the case. On December 13, 2024, the UWM Defendants filed a motion for sanctions based on the new allegations contained in the first amended class action complaint. The Court entered an opinion and order on September 30, 2025 (the Order) granting the UWM Defendants motion to dismiss the first amended class action complaint as to nearly all claims and dismissing the Company, SFS Corp., and Mat Ishbia from the case. The Order denied the motion for sanctions filed by the UWM Defendants and denied the motion to strike class allegations in the case without prejudice allowing UWM to file a renewed motion limited to the surviving claims. UWM filed its renewed motion to strike class allegations and answer to the first amended class action complaint on October 28, 2025. UWM regularly accepts and processes mortgage loan applications submitted by Plaintiff and each of the Class Members. Additionally, UWM regularly funds mortgage loans based on such mortgage loan applications.[BN] VENEZUELA: Mazzaccone Must File Class Cert Bid by March 13 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MASSIMO MAZZACCONE, v. THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA, Case No. 1:24-cv-09114-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Schofield entered an order that by March 13, 2026, the Plaintiff shall file the motion for class certification. By April 17, 2026, the Defendant shall file a memorandum in opposition. By May 1, 2026, the Plaintiff shall file a reply in support of the motion. The Defendant is a South American nation on the Caribbean coast. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VtUXuL at no extra charge.[CC] VISTAGEN THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Artificially Inflated Stock Prices ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Craik, writing for TipRanks, reports that a class action lawsuit was filed against Vistagen Therapeutics VTGN -1.11% on January 15, 2026. Plaintiffs in the federal securities class action allege that they acquired Vistagen stock at artificially inflated prices between April 1, 2024 and December 16, 2025, known as the "Class Period." They are now seeking compensation for financial losses incurred upon public revelation of the company's alleged misconduct during that time. To learn whether you may be eligible for a recovery under this class action, visit https://zlk.com/pslra-1/vistagen-therapeutics-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?wire=16 Company Background Vistagen (NASDAQ:VTGN) is a late clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company. It uses "a deep understanding of nose-to-brain neurocircuitry" to produce and market new drug candidates known as pherines. According to Vistagen, these prospective medications are designed to have therapeutic benefits without blood absorption or brain. This potentially makes them safer alternatives to other pharmacological options given successful development and approval, the company says. Vistagen claims that its pherine pipeline now includes five investigational drug candidates meant to improve the current standard of care for several conditions. These include social anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and vasomotor symptoms (hot flushes) due to menopause. The company's plans to develop and commercialize one of these drugs -- fasedienol -- for the acute treatment of social anxiety disorder (SAD) are at the crux of the current complaint. Why are Shareholders Angry? Vistagen and two of its senior officers (the "Individual Defendants") are now accused of deceiving investors by lying and withholding important information about the company's business and prospects during the Class Period. Specifically, they are accused of omitting truthful information about Vistagen's Phase 3 PALISADE-3 trial study of fasedienol from SEC filings and related material. By knowingly or recklessly doing so, they allegedly caused Vistagen stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the time in question. The truth, according to shareholders, emerged on December 17, 2025. That's when the company issued a press release about the PALISADE-3 Phase 3 study of intranasal fasedienol. In this context, Vistagen admitted that the study "did not demonstrate a statistically significant improvement on the primary endpoint of change on the Subjective Units of Distress Scale (SUDS)." Vistagen also acknowledged that "the trial did not achieve its primary endpoint and there was no treatment difference between fasedienol and placebo for the secondary endpoints." This prompted not only an immediate reaction by analysts and investors, but also a significant drop in Vistagen's stock price. Taking a Closer Look As alleged, the company and/or Individual Defendants repeatedly made false and misleading public statements throughout the Class Period. In a press release issued at the beginning of the Class Period, for example, the company stated in relevant part: "Initiating PALISADE-3 is another major milestone in our plan to develop and commercialize fasedienol as the first treatment of its kind for social anxiety disorder." Next, during a June 11, 2024 earnings call, the company's CEO (an Individual Defendant) stated in pertinent part: "We believe success in either PALISADE-3 or PALISADE-4, combined with the positive results from PALISADE-2 and additional open-label safety data from all fasedienol clinical trials to be completed next year, may provide substantial evidence of fasedienol's effectiveness and safety to support submission of a potential U.S. new drug application for the acute treatment of SAD during the first half of 2026 which, if approved, could be the first approval of its kind." Finally, in a February 13, 2025 press release, Vistagen's CEO stated in relevant part: "We had a very productive quarter, with both PALISADE-3 and PALISADE-4 advancing towards expected top-line results later this year. . . . As always, we remain optimistic about the potential of our product candidates to transform standards of care and address multiple significant unmet needs." Actions You Can Take If you have purchased the company's stock during the Class Period, you may join the class action as a lead plaintiff, remain a passive class member, or opt out of this litigation and pursue individual claims that may not be available to the class as a whole. To learn more about your options, visit https://zlk.com/pslra-1/vistagen-therapeutics-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?wire=16 The deadline to file for lead plaintiff in this class action is March 16, 2026. [GN] WEST 63 EMPIRE: Bittlingmaier Balks at Consumers' Hidden Junk Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------ DYLAN BITTLINGMAIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WEST 63 EMPIRE ASSOCIATES LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01209-RA (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 12, 2026) is an action arising from the Defendant's unfair and deceptive practice of using drip pricing to hide junk fees from consumers, and misleading consumers into believing that its hotel rooms are cheaper than they actually are. West 63 Empire Associates LLC was founded in 2003. The company's line of business includes operating public hotels and motels. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 874-0710 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Julian C. Diamond, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: jdiamond@bursor.com WESTERN FIRST: Brown Allowed Leave to Amend Complaint ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Samanatha Shaunee Brown v. Western First Aid & Safety et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-06238-CAS-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Snyder entered an order granting leave to amend the Complaint and to vacating the hearing date on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. 1) That the hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and all associated hearings and deadlines be vacated. 2) The Plaintiff may amend the complaint. 3) The Defendant shall have no obligation to answer or otherwise respond to the Second Amended Complaint, and shall not be deemed to admit any facts therein or waive any defenses thereto; and 4) If the Parties' settlement does not receive full and final approval, then the Second Amended Complaint will be null and void, the original Complaint shall be the operative pleading in this matter, and the Parties will return to the litigation postures in this Action that were in place prior to reaching the settlement in principle. Western is a provider for first aid and safety services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iOFUU2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. Lilit Ter-Astvatsatryan, Esq. Michael Citrin, Esq. MOON LAW GROUP, PC 725 S. Figueroa St., Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 232-3128 Facsimile: (213) 232-3125 E-mail: Kmoon@moonlawgroup.com Lilit@moonlawgroup.com Mcitrin@moonlawgroup.com The Defendant is represented by: Eric Meckley, Esq. Sarah Zenewicz, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1596 Telephone: (415) 442-1000 Facsimile: (415) 442-1001 E-mail: eric.meckley@morganlewis.com sarah.zenewicz@morganlewis.com grace.johnson@morganlewis.com WESTLAKE WELLBEING: Edwards Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Westlake Wellbeing Properties, LLC. The case is styled as Nyderrista C. Edwards, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Westlake Wellbeing Properties, LLC, Case No. 26STCV04847 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 13, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Westlake Wellbeing Properties, LLC doing business as California Health & Longevity Institute is a medical center in Thousand Oaks, California.[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 WYNN RESORTS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- Rachel Zalucki, writing for FOX 5, reports that a California man has filed a federal class action lawsuit against Wynn Resorts, alleging the casino failed to protect the information of more than 800,000 customers in a data breach earlier February. The complaint, filed February 21, alleges that a hacking group called "ShinyHunters" announced that it had stolen more than 800,000 records from the resort containing customers' personally identifiable information, including names, Social Security numbers, and dates of birth. The lawsuit alleges Wynn Resorts stored the data without encryption and failed to implement adequate cybersecurity measures, including multi-factor authentication and staff security training. The complaint also alleges the company's breach notification letter omitted the identity of the attackers, the root cause of the breach, and what remedial steps were taken. The complaint states Wynn Resorts offered affected customers 24 months of identity monitoring services, but argues the length of services offered is insufficient. The lawsuit further argues that most victims of data breaches face identity theft and financial fraud for multiple years, but the offer would expire far before then. FOX5 asked Wynn Resorts for a response. They say after the discovery of the cyber issue, they immediately activated their "incident response protocols" and launched an investigation. "The unauthorized third party has stated that the stolen data has been deleted. We are monitoring and to date have not seen any evidence that the data has been published or otherwise misused," a spokesperson for Wynn Resorts said. "This incident has had no impact on our guest experience, our operations or our physical properties, which are all fully operational and open for business. Our guests can continue to expect the customer experience for which Wynn Resorts is known." The lawsuit brings seven counts against Wynn Resorts, including negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, and a request for declaratory judgment. Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and consequential damages, injunctive relief requiring Wynn Resorts to strengthen its data security systems, mandatory annual security audits, and continued credit monitoring for all class members. As of Tuesday, February 24, a court hearing has not yet been set. Wynn Resorts statement says that while the investigation is ongoing, they are offering complimentary credit monitoring and identity protection to their employees. "The security and confidentiality of our employees, as well as our guest data, is our top priority," Wynn Resorts said. "While no company can ever eliminate the risk of a cyberattack, we are taking appropriate steps and working with industry-leading third-party IT advisors to strengthen our systems to protect against future incidents." [GN] XOOM ENERGY LLC: Mirkin Securities Suit Ongoing ----------------------------------------------- NRG Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in February 26, 2026, that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York is considering whether class certification is still appropriate for the case captioned "Mirkin v. XOOM Energy" (August 2019, E.D.N.Y.) which was filed against its subsidiary, Xoom Energy LLC. NRG Energy Inc. acquired retail electricity, renewable and natural gas provider XOOM Energy LLC in 2018. Said court denied XOOM's motion for summary judgment and granted class certification. The Second Circuit denied XOOM's request to appeal the class certification grants. XOOM prevailed in its challenge to Mirkin's expert reports. The court granted XOOM's motion to exclude both reports on damages. As a result, Mirkin has no method to establish damages for its class. Recently, this matter was moved to a new judge for further handling. A trial setting has not yet been scheduled. NRG Energy, Inc. is an energy, smart home and services company fueled by proprietary technologies and complementary sales channels across the United States and Canada. YARDI SYSTEMS: Mosley Sues Over Deceptive Junk Service Fees ----------------------------------------------------------- Phaness Mosley, William Foxx, and Karen Picardi, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. YARDI SYSTEMS, INC., and RENTCAFE, LLC, Case No. 26CV00952 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Barbara, Feb. 9, 2026), is brought seeking monetary damages, punitive damages, restitution and injunctive relief arising from Defendants' deceptive and unfair imposition of junk "Service Fees" on rent payments completed through RentCafe's Resident app. The Service Fee is added, at the very last step of the checkout process, using a "negative option" process. This process--condemned by the FTC as inherently deceptive--automatically lards online checkout flows with supposedly optional junk fees, then forces consumers to find a way to remove them. Worse, Defendant provides no fair disclosure on how to remove the add-on fees. Further, the Service Fee is deceptively mis-named, as there is no additional "service" provided by Defendants that is not reasonably already included in a residential lease, viz. the ability to make a payment under that lease. RentCafe's Service Fee is a classic example of a company imposed "junk fee" that serves as a profit generator for RentCafe, while providing no added value to consumers. RentCafe's Service Fee is additionally deceptive because RentCafe does not inform consumers that there is no additional "service" being provided and, in fact, the fee is not permitted by, or disclosed in, their residential leases. At no point during the rental payment process in the RentCafe Resident app are consumers informed of alternative means to pay their rent to avoid the Service Fee, leading consumers to believe that the fee is mandatory and unavoidable. Indeed, the Service Fee amounts to additional, unexpected rent for tenants that is undisclosed in lease agreements. RentCafe's knowing and intentional imposition of the Service Fee over and above the contracted-for rent constitutes a tortious interference with contract, says the complaint. The Plaintiff were tenants of a property in California and was assessed Service Fees for paying rent payments through RentCafe. RentCafe is a real estate listing platform and property management software that streamlines leasing and living functions for prospective and current renters including, application and lease signing tools, actionable move-in checklists, work order submissions, rewards programs, and an online rent payment portal.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sophia G. Gold, Esq. Amanda J. Rosenberg, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 490 43rd Street, Suite 122 Oakland, CA 94609 Phone: (202) 350-4783 Email: sgold@kalielgold.com arosenberg@kalielgold.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (202) 350-4783 Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com ZETA GLOBAL: Discovery in Securities Class Suit Stayed ------------------------------------------------------ Zeta Global Holdings Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York stayed the discovery for securities class suit. On November 22, 2024, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and the Company s Chief Executive Officer, David A. Steinberg, and the Company s Chief Financial Officer, Christopher Greiner, which is captioned In re Zeta Global Holdings Corporation Securities Litigation. On February 26, 2025, the Court appointed putative stockholders Amir Konigsberg and the Allegheny County Employees Retirement System as co-lead plaintiffs. The co-lead plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint on May 12, 2025, which also named other officers of the Company. The Amended Complaint alleges, based in part on the report from Culper Research, that the defendants made false and misleading statements and omissions about the Company s business, operations, and prospects between February 27, 2024 and March 10, 2025. The Company is vigorously defending itself against this lawsuit, and it believes the claims made in the report are without merit. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, damages in connection with the Company s allegedly artificially inflated stock price between February 27, 2024 and March 10, 2025 as a result of those allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions, as well as interest, attorneys fees, and costs. The Company and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on July 11, 2025; briefing on that motion was completed on September 9, 2025. Discovery is stayed while the parties are awaiting a decision on the motion to dismiss. This matter is still in the early stages of the legal process, and as a result, the Company is not able to estimate a range of possible loss. Zeta is an American marketing technology company. [^] Register Now for 2026 Class Action Money & Ethics Conference! ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mark your calendar for the 10th Annual Class Action Money & Ethics Conference, presented by Beard Group, Inc. #CAME2026 will be held May 20-21, 2026, at The Harmonie Club, in New York City. This exclusive in-person gathering brings together the industry's top professionals to explore the latest trends, challenges, and opportunities in class action litigation. #CAME2026 features: Insightful keynote presentations from leading experts Dynamic live panel discussions tackling cutting-edge issues Valuable networking opportunities with peers and influencers This year's event kicks off with the Opening Night Cocktail Reception on May 20th from 5:00–7:00 p.m. Whether you're a plaintiff attorney, defense counsel, funder, or industry stakeholder, this is the must-attend event of the year for staying ahead in class action practice. Register today and secure your spot at this value-packed conference! Click here -- https://www.classactionconference.com/2025-video-replays.html -- for the 2025 conference videos, available to purchase and download. Last year's confab was sponsored by: Major Sponsors: Atticus Claimscore Duane Morris Esquire Bank Labaton Keller Sucharow SMIaware Tremendous Patron Sponsors: AB Data Darrow Miller Kaplan Supporting Sponsors: EisnerAmper Verita Media Partners: Class Action Insight PacerMonitor Contact Will Etchison at 305-707-7493 or will@beardgroup.com, or visit https://www.classactionconference.com/ for more information. CLE accreditation will be submitted upon request -- details available on the website. ********* 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 ***