260306.mbx

260306.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, March 6, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 47 Headlines 7-ELEVEN INC: Bid to Dismiss Certain Claims in Bake Suit Tossed ACADIA HEALTHCARE: $179MM Class Settlement to be Heard on April 29 ALLIANCE LIFTBOATS: Appeals Court Order in Breaux Suit to 5th Cir. ARTSANA USA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Pelaez Claims ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: Witness Disclosures in Barbee Due April 27 ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: Witness Disclosures in Holiday Due April 27 BARRETT FINANCIAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Gross Suit Says BFSG LLC: Mismanages 401(k) and 403(b) Plans, Jervay Suit Alleges BOB EVANS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due August 26 CAL-MAINE FOODS: Hudson Suit Transferred to W.D. Wisconsin CARGURUS INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Ramirez Says CARRIAGE SERVICES: Continues to Defend Denning Labor Class Suit CATALYST RCM: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Shaheen Claims CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Karami Files Suit in Okla. Dist. Ct. CHERVON NORTH: Court Dismisses "Desparrois" Suit CHEX SYSTEMS: Extension of Class Cert Briefing Deadlines Sought CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Court Grants Arbitration of Narayan Labor Suit CLEVELAND-CLIFFS INC: Bratcher Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages CMH MANUFACTURING: James Suit Removed to E.D. California COLOR STREET LLC: Fields Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey COMMUNITY SUPPORT OPTIONS: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. COMPUTER MERCHANT: Class Settlement in Flores Gets Initial Nod CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Devettori Suit Removed to W.D. Washington COSTCO WHOLESALE: Lock Seeks More Time to File Clas Cert Bid COUNTRY CLUB INC: Chavis Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Georgia CRASH CHAMPIONS: Freudenthal Suit Removed to W.D. Washington CS DISCO: Continues to Defend Stockholder Class Suit in New York CURRICULUM ASSOCIATES: Sierra Suit Removed to C.D. California CUSTOM BUILDING: Scheduling Order Entered in Cazares Class Suit CUSTOM CALIFORNIA CRAFT: Jordan Suit Removed to C.D. California DANIEL L. KALER: Faces Hoppe Suit Over Private Data Breach DAVEY TREE SURGERY: Aldrich Suit Removed to N.D. California DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Lee Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California DR. JON FISHER: Jenkins Files Suit in Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas DRINK LMNT: Faces Gianne Suit Over Beverage's Deceptive Labeling DUKE ENERGY: Dorrell Has Until March 16 to Reply to Dismissal Bid DUKE ENERGY: Mooresville Class Suit Scheduling Order Not Yet Issued EAST BINGER: Stephenson Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES: Continues to Defend Patel Securities Suit EGO INC: Cohen Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. EI DU PONT: Court Certifies Classes in Allen Suit EJT CONSULTING LLC: Lewis Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California EMBLEM HEALTH: Kerridge Sues Over Retaliation in the Workplace ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Class Cert. Briefing Order Entered in Schuman EPIQ SYSTEMS: Faces Hunter Class Suit Over Anticompetitive Scheme ESSILORLUXOTTICA SA: Faces Ward Suit Over Tariff Surcharges EVERGREEN HOSPITALITY: Etcheverry Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. EVOLVE BANK: Financial Horizons Sues Over Data Security Failures EXAMWORKS LLC: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid EXPERIAN INFO: Parties Must Conduct Mediation by July 31 FASTLY INC: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss SAC Set for April 30 FCA US: Bids for Class Certification in Andress Due Feb. 11, 2027 FEDERAL EXPRESS: Filing of SAC Partly OK'd FEDERAL EXPRESS: Reiser Class Suit Seeks to Recover Import Duties FIDELITY NATIONAL: Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Initial OK FIRST STUDENT: Standow Suit Removed to W.D. Washington FLOATME CORP: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Burrison Tossed FORTINET INC: Continues to Defend OFPRS Class Suit FORTINET INC: Continues to Defend State of Rhode Securities Suit FOSSIL GROUP: Class Certification Bid Filing in Chancy Due July 24 FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Close of Expert Discovery Due June 19 GARDAWORLD CASH: Wallace Sues Over Illegal Tobacco Surcharges GEAUX TIME: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Servers, Sanchez Says GEICO GENERAL: Court Narrows Claims in "Marcelletti" GENERAL MOTORS: Greene Sues Over Trucks' False Advertisements GODINGER SILVER: Faces Bowman Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website GOLIATH VENTURES: Parties Must Comply with Florida's Local Rules GOOGLE LLC: Hemry Sues Over Alleged Google Play Apps' False Ads GOOGLE LLC: Must Produce Web Properties Info GPD HOLDINGS: Faces Khoury Suit Over Undisclosed BTM Fees GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT: Court Narrows Claims in Miles Suit HANDI-FOIL CORP: Wins Summary Judgment v. Osdoby HAYWARD HOLDINGS: Seeks Prelim OK of Settlement in Securities Suit HEALTH CARE: Settlement Class in Villarin Gets Certification HEATHER HILL: Hall Seek More Time to File Renewed Class Cert. Bid HOMECARE LLC: Hall Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA HOOEY LLC: Anderson Sues Over Website's Non-Compliance With ADA HOUSE OF BRANDS: Bahena Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind HUNTER WARFIELD: Class Settlement in Blizzard Gets Prelim Approval ILLUMINA INC: Reply on Opposition to Dismiss Due March 6 INNOVAGE VIRGINIA: West Seeks to Withdraw Bid for Conditional Cert INSTITUTE OF CULINARY EDUCATION: Class Cert Bid Due August 5 INSULET CORP: Mismanages 401(k) Plan, Wakefield Suit Says INSUREME INC: Klouda Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio INT'L BANCSHARES: 5th Cir. Flips Denial of Arbitration in Parrott INWOOD PROPERTY: Tonato Sues Over Unpaid Compensations JASON WOOSLEY: Must Release Aquino from Custody JELLY BELLY CANDY: Love Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. JOHN PAUL: Howell et al. Sue Over False Product Labeling KELCO CONSTRUCTION: Darcon Construction Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. KENNEDY-WILSON: Taylor Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty KEURIG DR. PEPPER: Linares Suit Removed to C.D. California KEYSTONE RV: Consumer Class Wins Certification KRISTI NOEM: Time to Respond to Immigration Complaint Extended L'OREAL TRAVEL: Rezaie Sues Over Asbestos-Contaminated Products LAIRD SUPERFOOD: Caldera Suit Removed to C.D. California LANGER JUICE COMPANY: Estrella Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LESSONS OF LIFE: Downes Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime LORETTO HEALTH: Class Cert. Bid in Aderohunmu Extended to April 3 MARATHON PETROLEUM: Faces Tejon Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages MERCADIEN P.C. CPAS: Delgado Files Suit in D. New Jersey MERCADIEN PC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Johnson Suit Says MERCARI INC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Faces Au Suit Over Defective Sunroof Systems MERRILL LYNCH: Court Certifies "Valelly" Class META PLATFORMS: Robinson Suit Removed to N.D. California MICROGENICS CORP: Appeals Denied Summary Judgment Bid to 2nd Cir. MICROGENICS CORP: Appeals Judgment Order in Steele-Warrick Suit MICROGENICS CORP: Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 2nd Circuit MICROGENICS CORP: Appeals Tossed Summary Judgment Bid to 2nd Cir. MIDWEST TAPE LLC: Smith Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio MILLIMAN INC: Michalski Suit Removed to W.D. Washington MISSAUKEE, MI: Appeals Order in Gautz Suit to Mich. Ct. of Appeals MISSISSIPPI TORNADO ALLEY: Sherif Files Suit in N.D. California MMC MASONRY GROUP: Boror Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime MONSTER RESERVATIONS: Rincon Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina MTB ACQUISITION: Bennett Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MURPHY REHABILITATION: Fleming Bid to Certify Class Tossed NATIONAL FACILITY SERVICES: Andries Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. NATIONAL RETAIL: Moore Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NATIONWIDE 3PL LLC: Ledezma Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NAVY FEDERAL: Denial of Class Cert. in Oliver Suit Upheld in Part NECTAR BRAND: Longoria Suit Removed to N.D. California NEWREZ LLC: Oct. 14 Class Cert Sched. Order in Hastings Vacated NISSAN OF STOCKTON: Johnston Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NORLAKE MANUFACTURING: Hrpcha Files Suit in N.D. Ohio NORTHERN STATES POWER: Continues to Defend Sherman Antitrust Suit ONNI NAILS: Peralta Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages OPENEDGE PAYMENTS: Valley Healthcare Sues Over Deceptive Fees OTTER TAIL: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit in Canada PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Darcy Sues Over False and Misleading Company Info PBF HOLDING: Continues to Defend Goldstein Class Suit in California PENNSYLVANIA: 3rd Cir. Affirms & Vacates Gannaway Suit Dismissal PENNSYLVANIA: Edge Appeals Court Order to 3rd Circuit PENNYMAC LOAN: Filing for Class Cert. in Cyrus Suit Due June 18 PEPSICO INC: Petretti Suit Transferred to S.D. New York PETCO ANIMAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Viviani Says PHASE 3 INTERIORS: Mena Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages PHI HEALTH LLC: King Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages PIH HEALTH: Ninth Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Rosario Class Suit PINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Joyce Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. PONY TAIL INC: Wright Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages POST UNIVERSITY: Faces Villanueva Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages PRIME BUYERS: Initial Disclosures in Amazon Suit Due March 30 PRIME SOURCE FLORAL: Argueta Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PRINCIPLE CHOICE: Smith Class Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA PRINT & DESIGN: Torres Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. QUALDERM PARTNERS: Inadequately Secures Private Info, Darche Says QUALITY CARRIERS: Alexander Suit Removed to D. New Jersey QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Continues to Defend Cole Class Suit in Calif. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Continues to Defend ERISA Class Suit in N.J. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Discovery in AMCA Data Security MDL Ongoing RAWLINGS SPORTING GOODS: Duryea Files Suit in D. Utah REDRIDGE DILIGENCE: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Graves Says REDRIDGE DILIGENCE: Fails to Secure Private Info, York Alleges REGAL CINEMAS INC: Gonzalez Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California RELATION INSURANCE: Terriquez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Must File Class Cert Response by March 10 RICCELLI HOLDINGS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Sims Due Oct. 28 RICOH USA: Mike the Printer Seeks Class Certification RICOH USA: Mike The Printer Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Bid to Modify Schedule Order in Homan Tossed ROGERS ELECTRICAL: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April 19, 2027 ROKT INC: Faces Haviland Class Suit Over Commercial Surveillance ROOT INC: Continues to Defend Fair Labor Standards-Related Suit ROUND TABLE: Marler Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages RXSIGHT INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit SAINT AGNES: Larssen Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. SALESFORCE INC: Young Seeks to File Class Documents Under Seal SATORN LLC: Nguyen Sues to Recover Minimum Wage Compensation SECURITAS SECURITY: Trial in Ulloa II Suit Set for March 8, 2027 SHAW BAKERS LLC: Barcenas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SITUSAMC HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Data Breach SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA UNITED: Bid for Class Cert. Due May 12 SOUTHERN GLAZER'S: RMI Bid for Class Certification Tossed SPARC GROUP: Peppars Suit Seeks to Extend Class Cert Deadline ST. MARY PARISH SB: Fifth Circuit Dismisses Navy Appellate Suit STAKE CENTER LOCATING: Loonsfoot Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia STANDARD FORWARDING: Verbeck Sues Over Layoff Without Prior Notice STAR H-R: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. STATE FARM: Loses Bid to Junk "Brewer" Breach of Contract Suit STOCKTON CARDIOLOGY MEDICAL: Horn Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. STOCKTON CARDIOLOGY MEDICAL: Lucero Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. STOCKTON CARDIOLOGY MEDICAL: Morga Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SUCCULENTS DEPOT: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Anderson Says SV SUPER: Seeks to File Class Cert Reply in Ruben Suit by March 6 TALCOTT RESOLUTION: Bids for Class Cert in Arbuckle Due Sept. 25 TARGET CORP: Montgomery Bid for Class Certification Tossed TD BANK: Court Dismisses "Hastings" Class Suit TEKNOR APEX COMPANY: Becerra Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TELECARE CORP: Amarok Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info TELECARE CORP: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Wayne Alleges TOBY HARRIS: Castrejon Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages TOUCAN RESTAURANT: Santos Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime TOYOTA OF BOARDMAN: Class Cert. Bid in Shafer Due May 1 TRANSFORCE INC: Garcia Suit Removed to C.D. California TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Flanagan Files Suit in N.D. Georgia U.S. BANCORP: Adams Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 8th Circuit U.S. BANK NATIONAL: Bawa Suit Removed to C.D. California ULTA SALON: Class Cert. & Discovery Deadlines in Bonezzi Extended UNDEROUTFIT INC: Walker Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers UNITED AMERICAN: Partly Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Rivas UNITED AMERICAN: Seeks to Strike Class Certification Exhibits UNITED CONCORDIA: Seeks to File Class Cert Opposition Sur-Reply UNITED STATES: Class Expert Disclosures Due Sept. 8 UNITED STATES: Faces Aceituno Suit Over Warrantless Arrests UNITED STATES: Hilton Sues Over Violation of Constitutional Rights UNITED STATES: Must Provide Class Certification Discovery US HEALTHWORKS: Class Settlement in Raines Gets Final Nod VENEZUELA: Mazzaccone Wins Bid for Class Certification VENEZUELA: Plaintiff Must Submit Class Member Notice by March 6 VERISK ANALYTICS: Faces Dinitz Personal Data Mishandling Suit WALMART INC: Fuentes Sues Over Mislabeled Pesto Products WASTE MANAGEMENT: $9MM Attys Fees Awarded to Plaintiffs' Counsel WEEZIE INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Ford Suit Says WORLDWIDE GOLF: Evans Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind WYNDHAM VACATION: Court Narrows Claims in Huskey Suit WYNN RESORTS: Fails to Safeguard Private Information, Alba Says WYNN RESORTS: Li Sues Over Unprotected Private Information X CORP: Must File Class Cert Opposition in White by March 25 YOLO TECHNOLOGIES: Carson Bride Estate Seeks Default Judgment YORK LIFE: Bids for Class Cert. in Toolan Suit Due June 22 Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Faces 3,700 Individual Claims as of Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Defends Asbestos-Related Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Has $246MM Total Reserves at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carrier Global Has $218MM Total Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Faces Personal Injury Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coty Faces Numerous Product Liability Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: Estée Lauder Has 105 Pending Cases as of Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Motor Defends Personal Injury Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Freeport-McMoRan Still Faces Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Defends 30,400 Exposure Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Still Defends Exposure Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Faces Products Liability Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l. Defends Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Otis Worldwide Estimates $11MM Total Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Defends Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Faces Product Liability Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Technologies Faces Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Reports $708MM Liability at Dec. 31 ********* 7-ELEVEN INC: Bid to Dismiss Certain Claims in Bake Suit Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA A. BAKER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. 7-ELEVEN INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-01609-X (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Starr entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss Counts I and II. Accordingly, Baker has plausibly pled standing to represent herself, the class, and the Plan itself to pursue Congress-authorized equitable relief and any questions regarding the ultimate scope of relief properly is reserved for the class-certification stage. Baker plausibly pled 7-Eleven unlawfully imposed a discriminatory tobacco surcharge, failed to provide the full reward to all similarly-situated participants, and failed to notify participants of a reasonable alternative standard for avoiding such a surcharge. Baker was employee of 7-Eleven for twelve years and voluntarily resigned in September 2024. 7-Eleven is an American convenience store chain. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Feb. 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AyncyS at no extra charge.[CC] ACADIA HEALTHCARE: $179MM Class Settlement to be Heard on April 29 ------------------------------------------------------------------ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION ST. CLAIR COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. ACADIA HEATLHCARE COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-00988 CLASS ACTION Chief District Judge William L. Cambell, Jr. Magistrate Judge Alistair E. Newbern SUMMARY NOTICE IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED ACADIA HEALTHCARE COMPANY, INC. ("ACADIA") COMMON STOCK BETWEEN APRIL 30, 2014, AND NOVEMBER 15, 2018, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"), YOU COULD RECEIVE A PAYMENT FROM A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. CERTAIN PERSONS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF THE CLASS AS SET FORTH IN THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, that in the litigation (the "Litigation"), a $179 million settlement has been proposed (the "Settlement"). A hearing will be held on April 29, 2026, at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable William L. Campbell, Jr., at the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Fred D. Thompson U.S. Courthouse and Federal Building, 719 Church Street, Nashville, TN 37203, for the purpose of determining, among other things, whether: (i) the proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate and therefore should be approved; and (iii) the application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of up to 33-1/3% of the Settlement Amount, and expenses not to exceed $5.5 million, plus interest on both amounts, and awards to Lead Plaintiffs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(4), should be granted. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THE LITIGATION, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE NET SETTLEMENT FUND. You may obtain a copy of the Stipulation of Settlement, the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), and the Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim") at www.AcadiaHealthcareSecuritiesLitigation.com or by contacting the Claims Administrator: Acadia Healthcare Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Verita Global, P.O. Box 301135, Los Angeles, CA 90030-1135; 1-888-777-6014. If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim by mail postmarked no later than April 30, 2026, or electronically via the website by that date. If you are a Class Member and do not submit a valid Proof of Claim, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will still be bound by any judgment entered by the Court in this Litigation (including the releases provided for therein). No further exclusion opportunity is being provided under the Settlement. Because no Class Member validly excluded themselves previously when notice was provided, you will be bound by any judgment entered by the Court in this Litigation (including the releases provided for therein) whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim. Any objection to the proposed Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and/or the fee and expense application must be filed with the Court and sent to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel no later than April 8, 2026, in the manner and form explained in the Notice. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement, you may contact Lead Counsel at the following address: ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP ELLEN GUSIKOFF STEWART 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com Telephone: 1-800-449-4900 DATED: January 15, 2026 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE ALLIANCE LIFTBOATS: Appeals Court Order in Breaux Suit to 5th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Alliance Liftboats, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled In re: Alliance Liftboats, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-1000, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendant for unpaid overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. On Jan. 13, 2026, the Defendant filed a motion to certify or alter interlocutory collective action order as immediately appealable and a motion to stay interlocutory collective action order pending request to certify interlocutory order as immediately appealable and pending subsequent appeal. On Feb. 12, 2026, Judge Susie Morgan entered an Order denying the Defendant's motion to certify or alter interlocutory collective action order as immediately appealable. Moreover, the Defendant's motion to stay interlocutory collective action order pending request to certify interlocutory order as immediately appealable and pending subsequent appeal is denied as moot. The appellate case is entitled In re: Alliance Liftboats, LLC, Case No. 26-30091, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on February 24, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent PATRICK BREAUX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Thomas More Flanagan, Esq. FLANAGAN PARTNERS, LLP 201 Saint Charles Avenue New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 569-0235 - and - Harry E. Morse, Esq. BOHMAN MORSE, LLC 400 Poydras Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 930-4030 - and - Cayce Peterson, Esq. JJC LAW, LLC 111 Veterans Memorial Blvd. Heritage Plaza Metairie, LA 70005 Telephone: (504) 513-8820 Defendant-Petitioner ALLIANCE LIFTBOATS, LLC is represented by: Rebecca Sha, Esq. PHELPS DUNBAR, LLP 365 Canal Street 1 Canal Place New Orleans, LA 70130-6534 Telephone: (504) 584-9258 ARTSANA USA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Pelaez Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- JUDITH PELAEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Artsana USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00075 (N.D. Ind., February 25, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Defendant's website contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. As a result, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant’s policies, practices, and procedures. The Plaintiff also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Headquartered in Lancaster, PA, Artsana USA, Inc. owns and operates the website, https://www.chiccousa.com, which offers baby gear and infant care products for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason B. Marshall, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 E-mail: jmarshall@ealg.law ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: Witness Disclosures in Barbee Due April 27 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBEE, et al., v. Atlantic Richfield Company et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00193 (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Abizer Zanzi entered an order granting he 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=mmmZYS at no extra charge.[CC] ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: Witness Disclosures in Holiday Due April 27 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Holiday et al., v. Atlantic Richfield Company et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00525 (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=osw6ze at no extra charge.[CC] BARRETT FINANCIAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Gross Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- BERNARD GROSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BARRETT FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-01328-DJH (D. Ariz., Feb. 25, 2026) arises out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against BFG on or around February 9, 20261 (the Data Breach), which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and other individuals associated with Defendant BFG, the putative Class Members. According to the complaint, these individuals include consumers who engaged in financial services provided by BFG and employees with BFG. The Private Information was compromised in a cyberattack on BFG's inadequately protected computer network. In other words, the cybercriminals intentionally targeted BFG for the highly sensitive Private Information it stores on its computer network, attacked the insufficiently secured network, then had unfettered access to Defendant's computer network, exfiltrating highly sensitive PII, including Social Security numbers. As a result, the Private Information of Plaintiff and the Class remains in the hands of those cybercriminals. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information with which it was entrusted, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and all persons who are similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that it collected and maintained, for failing to promptly detect the cyberattack, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access and exfiltration by cybercriminals. BFG, founded in 2002, is a company providing financing services for consumers looking to purchase home or refinance an existing mortgage.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 14648 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 130 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (480) 348-6400 Facsimile: (480) 348-6415 E-mail: Hart.Robinovitch@zimmreed.com - and - Danielle L. Perry, Esq. MASON & PERRY LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: dperry@masonllp.com BFSG LLC: Mismanages 401(k) and 403(b) Plans, Jervay Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT JERVAY and MERITA GETHERS, individually, as the representatives of a proposed class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES' 401(K) AND 403(B) PLANS, Plaintiffs v. BFSG, LLC, CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL LOS ANGELES and its RETIREMENT BENEFITS COMMITTEE, DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-01905 (C.D. Cal., February 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty of prudence, breach of fiduciary duty to investigate and monitor, and prohibited transactions pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. According to the complaint, the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by failing to prudently monitor: (1) the share classes of the Plans' mutual funds; (2) the cost of the Plans' administrative expenses, including BFSG's investment advisory fees and third-party recordkeeping fees; (3) the fees and performance of the Plans' stable value options; and, (4) the fees and performance of certain underperforming mutual fund options. As a result of the Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties, the Plaintiffs and members of the Putative Class suffered substantial losses in the form of higher fees or lower returns on their investments than they would have otherwise experienced. BFSG, LLC is a provider of investment advisory services based in Irvine, California. Children's Hospital Los Angeles is a children's hospital in Los Angeles, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina A. Humphrey, Esq. CHRISTINA HUMPHREY LAW, PC 1117 State Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 618-2924 Email: christina@chumphreylaw.com - and - James H. White, IV, Esq. JAMES WHITE FIRM, LLC 2100 Morris Avenue Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 317-2551 Email: james@whitefirmllc.com - and - Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP 31365 Oak Crest Dr., Suite 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805) 618-2924 Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com BOB EVANS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due August 26 -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL DOTSON, v. BOB EVANS FARMS, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-11993-MWC-DSR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Court entered a civil trial order vacating the Scheduling Conference scheduled for Feb. 27, 2026. Trial: June 1, 2027 Final Pretrial Conference (“FPTC”) [L.R. 16], May 21, 2027 Hearing on Motions in Limine: Last Date to File Class Certification Motion: Aug. 26, 2026 Fact Discovery Cut-Off: Dec. 4, 2026 Expert Discovery Cut-Off: Jan. 8, 2027 Bob Evans is a producer of refrigerated and frozen "farm-inspired" food products. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ykD28s at no extra charge.[CC] CAL-MAINE FOODS: Hudson Suit Transferred to W.D. Wisconsin ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Mary Hudson, Amy Sparrow, on behalf of themselves 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. 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: 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 - and - Rachele R. Byrd, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 750 B Street, Suite 1820 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 239-4599 Fax: (619) 234-4599 Email: byrd@whafh.com - and - Thomas Burt, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 545-4600 Email: burt@whafh.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 CARGURUS INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Ramirez Says --------------------------------------------------------- DAVID RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CARGURUS, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-11003 (D. Mass., Feb. 26, 2026) alleges that CarGurus failed to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' personally identifying information, which includes names, email addresses, phone numbers, physical addresses, IP addresses, pre-qualifying finance applications and auto finance application outcomes. According to the complaint, by collecting, storing, and maintaining Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, CarGurus has a resulting duty to secure, maintain, protect, and safeguard the Private Information that it collects and stores against unauthorized access and disclosure through reasonable and adequate data security measures. Despite CarGurus' duty to safeguard the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, their Private Information in Defendant's possession was compromised in February 2026, by the hacker group using the online moniker "ShinyHunters," who posted on its official dark web leak website that it "stole 1.7 million records from the company, and have since leaked a 6.1GB archive that contains information pertaining to approximately 12.5 million accounts," says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members are individuals who were required to indirectly and/or directly provide Defendant with their Private Information in the regular course of business. CarGurus is online automotive marketplace that operates a digital platform connecting consumers with dealers for the purchase and sale of new and used vehicles, and related automotive services, throughout the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Pastor, Esq. PASTOR LAW OFFICE, LLP 63 Atlantic Avenue, 3d Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 742-9700 Facsimile: (617) 742-9701 E-mail: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Stephen E Connolly, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 609-6910 Facsimile: (267) 609-6955 E-mail: jerry@lcllp.com steve@lcllp.com CARRIAGE SERVICES: Continues to Defend Denning Labor Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Carriage Services, 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 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Denning labor class suit in the Superior Court of California, Ventura County. Denning v. Carriage Services, Inc., et al., Superior Court of California, Ventura County, Case No. 2024 CU OE 028098. On July 29, 2024, a wage and hour class action was filed against the Company and several of its subsidiaries. Plaintiff, a former employee, seeks monetary damages on behalf of herself and other similarly situated current and former non-exempt employees as the putative class for the alleged failure to pay legally mandated compensation and reimbursement expenses. As of December 31, 2025, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or ranges of loss, if any. The prospective class has not been certified by a court of competent jurisdiction and the Company intends to vigorously defend itself in all respects. Carriage Services of Virginia LLC is a provider of funeral and cemetery services and merchandise in Fairfax, Virginia. [BN] CATALYST RCM: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Shaheen Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- MARY SHAHEEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CATALYST RCM LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-01510 (S.D. Tex., February 24, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach between November 8 and 9, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Catalyst RCM LLC is a revenue cycle management company based in Fulshear, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, PC One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 Email: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Karami Files Suit in Okla. Dist. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Change Healthcare Pharmacy Solutions, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Moe Karami, D.D.S., Inc., and all other similarly situated v. Change Healthcare Pharmacy Solutions, Inc., Change Healthcare Holdings, Inc., Change Healthcare Inc., Change Healthcare Operations, LLC, Change Healthcare Solutions, LLC, Change Healthcare Technologies, LLC, Optum Insight, UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, UnitedHealthCare Services, Inc., Case No. CJ-2026-237 (Okla. Dist. Ct., Cleveland Cty., Feb. 13, 2026). The case type is stated as "Civil Relief More Than $10,000: CLASS ACTION." Change Healthcare Inc. -- https://www.changehealthcare.com/ -- is a provider of revenue and payment cycle management that connects payers, providers, and patients within the U.S. healthcare system.[BN] CHERVON NORTH: Court Dismisses "Desparrois" Suit ------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Anthony Desparrois, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Chervon North America, Inc., and Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-CV-551-NJR (S.D. Ill.), Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint without prejudice, finding that while Plaintiff has Article III standing, he failed to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff was granted leave to further amend his complaint on or before March 25, 2026. On December 19, 2024, Chervon recalled approximately 63,000 SKIL 40V 5.0Ah Lithium-Ion Batteries manufactured before May 1, 2021, due to their ability to overheat and create fire and burn hazards. The products, made in China and imported by Chervon, were sold at home improvement stores nationwide and through online retailers from October 2019 through December 2024, at approximately $170 individually and $400 when sold in combination with lawnmowers. The recall followed 100 reports of thermal incidents, eight reports of minor burns and/or smoke inhalation, and 49 reports of property damage received by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. At some unknown time, Desparrois purchased the product, which overheated and melted, causing minor injuries to his hand and destruction of the product. Contending that the remedy offered by Chervon was inadequate, Plaintiff filed this putative class action on behalf of a Nationwide Class of all persons in the United States who purchased the products within the applicable statute of limitations, as well as an Illinois Subclass of all persons within Illinois who did the same. He asserted five causes of action: Unjust Enrichment (Count I), Breach of Express Warranty (Count II), Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose (Count III), Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability (Count IV), and a Violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Count V). The class has not been certified. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of standing, arguing Plaintiff suffered no injury-in-fact and that the recall negated any justiciable case or controversy. The court disagreed. Aligning the case more closely with In re Aqua Dots Products Liability Litigation than with In re Recalled Abbott Infant Formula Products Liability Litigation, the court found Plaintiff had alleged a universal defect across all 63,000 batteries, not merely a potential risk. The court therefore held that Plaintiff sufficiently alleged a financial injury when he purchased a product he would not have purchased, or paid substantially less for, had he known of the defect. On mootness and ripeness, the court found Plaintiff's claims were not speculative, since Chervon offered no compensation for property damage, personal injury, required storage of the products, consumers' time spent packing the products, or for consumers whose batteries incinerated and could not be returned. However, as Plaintiff had not pleaded a likelihood of future injury, the court dismissed the request for injunctive relief. Failure to State a Claim On the breach of warranty claims in Counts II, III, and IV, the court dismissed all three because Plaintiff failed to provide pre-suit notice to Defendants of any issues with the specific product he purchased, as required under Section 2-607 of the Uniform Commercial Code. The court held that general knowledge of problems with a product line is not sufficient to satisfy the notice requirement, and that neither recognized exception applied here. Even setting aside the notice issue, the court dismissed the express warranty claim in Count II because Plaintiff failed to identify any specific statement by Defendants promising the product was safe, and did not state the terms of the warranty or attach it to the complaint. On Count V, the court found Plaintiff failed to plead his Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act claim with the specificity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). The Amended Complaint did not identify who made the alleged false statements, what was specifically said, when or where the statements were made, or how they were communicated to Plaintiff. Because the warranty and fraud claims were dismissed, the court also dismissed the unjust enrichment claim in Count I, finding it was tied to the fate of those failed claims. A copy of the Court's Order dated February 25 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cnhmhN from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Chervon North America, Inc. Represented By: Scott Stirling Walker, Wilcox Et Al. 312-244-6754 sstirling@walkerwilcox.com Defendant Lowe's Home Centers, LLC Represented By Scott Stirling Walker, Wilcox Et Al. 312-244-6754 sstirling@walkerwilcox.com Plaintiff Anthony Desparrois Represented By Troy E. Walton Walton Telken, Llc - Edwardsville 618-307-9880 twalton@waltontelken.com Paul J. Doolittle Poulin Willey Anastopoulo LLC 803-222-2222 paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com CHEX SYSTEMS: Extension of Class Cert Briefing Deadlines Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- Joint Motion to enlarge the remaining class certification briefing deadlines and enlarge the page limits with respect to the remaining briefing on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARON K. RIDDICK, v. CHEX SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00700-EWH-RJK (E.D. Va.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint motion to enlarge the remaining class certification briefing deadlines and enlarge page limits with respect to the remaining briefing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Defendant is an American check verification service and consumer reporting agency. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PnBvkQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leonard A. Bennett, Esq. Mark C. Leffer, Esq. Craig C. Marchiando, Esq. Emily Connor Kennedy, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com mark@clalegal.com craig@clalegal.com emily@clalegal.com The Defendant is represented by: David M. Gettings, Esq. Amanda K. Blackmon, Esq. Kathleen M. Hutchenreuther, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP 222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 2000 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Telephone: (757) 687-7500 Facsimile: (757) 687-7510 E-mail: david.gettings@troutman.com amanda.blackmon@troutman.com kathleen.hutchenreuther@troutman.com CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Court Grants Arbitration of Narayan Labor Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cinemark Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the year ended December 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2026, that it is facing case captioned "Latishma Narayan, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated vs. Cinemark USA, Inc., Century Theatres, Inc., et al." On July 31, 2025, the court granted Cinemark's motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff's claims and on August 30, 2025, she voluntarily agreed to arbitrate her individual claims. This class action lawsuit was filed December 27, 2024, in the Superior Court in the State of California for the County of San Mateo alleging violations of the California Labor Code for failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay wages and overtime, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to pay vacation wages, failure to maintain payroll records, and failure to reimburse necessary expenditures. Cinemark Holdings, Inc. is a holding company. Its wholly-owned subsidiary, Cinemark USA, Inc., operates in the motion picture exhibition industry, with theatres in the United States, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Peru, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Guatemala, Bolivia and Paraguay. CLEVELAND-CLIFFS INC: Bratcher Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Bratcher, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CLEVELAND-CLIFFS INC., a corporation and CLEVELAND CLIFFS PLATE LLC, a limited liability company, Case No. 1:26-cv-00457 (N.D. Ohio, Feb. 24, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendants, Defendants failed to properly calculate Plaintiff's shift differential pay, incentive bonus pay, and other remuneration in the regular rate for proper overtime calculation. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendants, he and Defendants' Hourly Employees earned shift differential pay, incentive bonus pay, and other remuneration. As non-exempt employees, Defendants' Hourly Employees were entitled to full compensation for all overtime hours worked at a rate of 1.5 times their "regular rate" of pay. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendants, Defendants failed to properly calculate Plaintiff's shift differential pay, incentive bonus pay, and other non-discretionary remuneration into the regular rate for proper overtime calculation, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a non-exempt, Hourly Employee with the job title of Senior Operations Technician. The Defendants represented themselves as the "leading North-America based steel producer with focus on value-added sheet products, particularly for the automotive industry."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ethan C. Goemann, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 746-4050 Fax: (248) 936-0796 Email: egoemann@sommerspc.com CMH MANUFACTURING: James Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ryan James, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. CMH MANUFACTURING WEST, INC., a Nevada corporation; CMH HOMES, INC., a Tennessee corporation; CLAYTON HOMES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25CV031430 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, 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-00527-AC. The Complaint asserts 10 causes of action based on the following: unpaid overtime; unpaid minimum wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to authorize and permit rest period; non-complaint wage statements and failure to maintain payroll records; wages not timely paid upon termination; failure to timely pay wages during employment; unreimbursed business expenses; unlawful business practices; and unfair business practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael A. S. Newman, Esq. MAYNARD NEXSEN LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 650 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 596-4500 Email: mnewman@maynardnexsen.com - and - Drew L. Alexis, Esq. ALEXIS LAW FIRM 100 W. Broadway, Suite 250 Long Beach, CA 90802 Phone: (562) 544-2495 Email: dalexis@alexislawfirm.com COLOR STREET LLC: Fields Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kristy Fields, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Color Street LLC; Incoco Products LLC; Incoco Capital LLC; Fa Park; Brian J. Lee; Brick Bergeson; Matt Warner; Does 1-50, inclusive; Case No. 2:25-cv-03864 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on Feb. 24, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01784 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights for Other Contract. Color Street -- https://www.colorstreet.com/ -- offers innovative nail polish strips that provide an easy and flawless manicure experience without the need for drying time.[BN] COMMUNITY SUPPORT OPTIONS: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Community Support Options Inc. The case is styled as Michael Martinez, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Community Support Options Inc., Case No. 26CUB00556 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Feb. 13, 2026). The case type is stated as "Civil Unlimited for Other Employment." Community Support Options, Inc. (CSO) -- https://cso-svd.org/ -- is a private nonprofit corporation that serves and supports adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carter Cordura, Esq. MARA LAW FIRM 3160 Camino Del Rio S., Ste. 207 San Diego, CA 92108-3834 Phone: 619-234-2833 Email: ccordura@maralawfirm.com COMPUTER MERCHANT: Class Settlement in Flores Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIKA FLORES and SARAH GARNER, individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. THE COMPUTER MERCHANT, LTD., Case No. 3:25-cv-00038-AJB-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Battaglia entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Court grants the Plaintiffs' request for conditional certification of the Settlement Classes and defines the Settlement Classes as set forth supra § IV.A. The Court appoints Plaintiffs Erika Flores and Sarah Garner as Class Representatives and appoints Swigart Law Group, APC, and Ben Travis Law, APC, as Class Counsel. The motion for final approval of class action settlement and motion for attorneys' fees and costs must be filed and served on all parties no later than May 18, 2026. Responses—including either an opposition or a notice of non-opposition by the Defendant (only with regard to any motion not filed jointly) and any Objections by Settlement Class Members—must be filed and served on counsel for all parties no later than May 26, 2025. Any reply by the Plaintiffs must be filed and served on counsel for all parties no later than June 2, 2026. The Court sets a Final Approval Hearing on Thursday, July 9, 2026, at 10:00 AM. This putative class action centers around the Plaintiffs' allegations that Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard the personal identifiable information of former and current employees. Pursuant to the Settlement, Defendant will transfer $610,000 to an Escrow Account to set up the Settlement Fund. The Plaintiffs seek provisional certification of the putative Class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The proposed settlement classes are defined as: Settlement Class: "All persons in the United States whose Private Information was potentially compromised as a result of the Data Incident and who were sent notice of the Data Incident." California Settlement Subclass: "Those individuals who are California Settlement Class Members and are eligible to receive a CCPA Cash Payment under the Settlement." The Defendant is an IT staffing company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EjfxbU at no extra charge.[CC] CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Devettori Suit Removed to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Humberto Devettori and Clifford German, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CORNERSTONE BUILDING BRANDS SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 26-2-02351-4-SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of King, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on Feb. 20, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00613. The Plaintiff's Complaint pleads causes of action for: failure to compensate for noncompliant meal and rest periods; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; violations of Seattle Wage Theft Ordinance; and Seattle Secure Scheduling Ordinance violations. The Plaintiff's prayer for relief seeks an award of compensatory and exemplary damages, attorney's fees and costs, and pre-judgement interest.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Cornelia Brandfield-Harvey, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, WA 98104-4076 Phone: 206-332-1380 Email: cbrandfieldharvey@bakerlaw.com - and - M. Scott McIntyre, Esq. Sean P. Ryan, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 312 Walnut Street, Suite 3200 Cincinnati, OH 45202-4074 Phone: 513-852-2622 Email: smcintyre@bakerlaw.com spryan@bakerlaw.com COSTCO WHOLESALE: Lock Seeks More Time to File Clas Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lock, et al., v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-07904-SJB-ST (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time to initiate the anticipated motion for class certification from February 20 to March 6. The Plaintiffs also request that the Defendant's time to oppose the motion be set to April 10. No other deadlines will be affected by granting this request. The Plaintiffs seek this additional time to focus the Parties' time and resources on settlement negotiations, now that post-deposition discovery is complete. Costco operates a chain of membership-only big-box warehouse club retail stores. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3r4CCV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Garrett Kaske, Esq. KESSLER MATURA P.C. 534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 499-9100 COUNTRY CLUB INC: Chavis Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Georgia -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Country Club, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Kisha Chavis, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Country Club, Inc. doing business as: Goldrush Showbar, a Georgia Domestic Profit Corporation; Mike Kap, an individual; Dennis Williams, an individual; Case No. 1:26-cv-00867-ELR (N.D. Ga., Feb. 13, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act for Minimum Wage or Overtime Compensation. Country Club, Inc. doing business as Goldrush Showbar -- https://goldrushatl.com/ -- offers Private VIP areas for reservation, valet parking, and an award-winning restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos V. Leach, Esq. Jordan Patrick Rose, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 631 S. Orlando Avenue, Suite 300 Winter Park, FL 32789 Phone: (407) 574-4999 Fax: (833) 423-5864 Email: cleach@theleachfirm.com jrose@theleachfirm.com CRASH CHAMPIONS: Freudenthal Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Betsy Freudenthal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CRASH CHAMPIONS, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, Case No. 26-2-02351-4-SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of Snohomish, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on Feb. 20, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00621. The Complaint set forth eight causes of action against Defendant: Failure to Provide Rest Breaks in violation of RCW 49.12.020 & WAC 296-126-092; Failure to Provide Meal Breaks in violation of RCW 49.12.020 & WAC 296-126-092; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages in violation of RCW 49.46.130; Payment of Wages Less than Entitled in violation of RCW 49.46.090; Failure to Accrue and Allow Use of Paid Sick Leave in violation of RCW 49.46.210 & WAC 296-128-620; Unlawful Deductions and Rebates in violation of RCW 49.52.060 & WAC 296-126-028, with double-damages remedy under RCW 49.52.070; Failure to Pay All Wages Due at Termination in violation of RCW 49.48.010; and Willful Refusal to Pay Wages in violation of RCW 49.52.050, triggering double-damages under RCW 49.52.070.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Breanne Sheetz Martell, Esq. Gray Jeong, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One Union Square 600 University Street, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101.3122 Phone: 206.623.3300 Facsimile: 206.447.6965 Email: bsmartell@littler.com gjeong@littler.com CS DISCO: Continues to Defend Stockholder Class Suit in New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- CS Disco 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 a stockholder class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On September 19, 2023, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court in the Southern District of New York, alleging violations under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleges that the Company made materially false or misleading statements about the factors that were driving its revenue growth between July 21, 2021 and August 11, 2022. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, interest, attorneys fees, expert fees, costs, and other relief as the court may deem just and proper. On December 12, 2023, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On January 8, 2024, the Court transferred the case to the United States District Court in the Western District of Texas. On March 8, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On May 10, 2024, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which was fully briefed as of August 12, 2024. On January 30, 2025, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the Company s motion to dismiss. On February 27, 2025, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration on the Court's order denying in part the Company s motion to dismiss, which was denied on April 9, 2025. CS Disco provides cloud-based, artificial intelligence-powered technologies to simplify electronic discovery, legal document review, legal hold and case management for enterprises, law firms, legal services providers, and governments.[BN] CURRICULUM ASSOCIATES: Sierra Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kathrynne Sierra, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated vs. CURRICULUM ASSOCIATES, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2025-01534071-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 20, 2026, and assigned Case No. 8:26-cv-00398. The Complaint brings putative class claims for the alleged: Unfair Competition in Violation of Business & Professions Code; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages in Violation of Labor Codes; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods in Violation of Labor Codes and the Applicable Wage Order; Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods in Violation of Labor Codes and the Applicable Wage Order; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Statements in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Reimburse Employees for Required Expenses in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Pay Sick Pay Wages in Violation of Labor Code; and Discrimination and Retaliation in Violation of FEHA.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael J. Nader, Esq. Alexandra Asterlin, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2800 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916-840-3150 Facsimile: 916-840-3159 Email: Michael.Nader@ogletree.com alexandra.asterlin@ogletree.com CUSTOM BUILDING: Scheduling Order Entered in Cazares Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUANA MARTINEZ CAZARES, v. CUSTOM BUILDING PRODUCTS, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-10422-FMO-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Olguin entered a scheduling order as follows: Any motion(s) for class certification shall comply with all Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules, as well as this Order. The parties shall work cooperatively to create a single, fully integrated joint brief covering each party's position, in which each issue (or sub-issue) raised by a party is immediately followed by the opposing party's / parties’ response. All citation to evidence in the joint brief shall be directly to the exhibit and page number(s) of the evidentiary appendix, (see infra at ¶ 5), or page and line number(s) of a deposition. Parenthetical explanations are encouraged. The parties need not include a "procedural history" section, since the court will be familiar with the procedural history. The joint brief shall be accompanied by one separate, tabbed appendix of declarations and written evidence (including documents, photographs, deposition excerpts, etc.). Custom manufactures building products. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=weqPmQ at no extra charge.[CC] CUSTOM CALIFORNIA CRAFT: Jordan Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Joshua Jordan, an individual on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CUSTOM CALIFORNIA CRAFT BEER, LLC, dba GOLDEN ROAD BREWERY, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 30-2025-01528092-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 20, 2026, and assigned Case No. 8:26-cv-00388. The Plaintiff's Complaint pleads eight causes of action, and seeks special and general damages on behalf of Plaintiff including compensatory, consequential, general and special damages, statutory fines and penalties, liquidated damages, restitution, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys fees, costs and other relief the Court deems proper. The Plaintiff seeks the recovery of unpaid wages (including minimum wages and overtime wages); meal and rest period premium pay; waiting time penalties; itemized wage statement penalties; unfair competition; and attorneys fees.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Spencer C. Skeen, Esq. Tim L. Johnson, Esq. Andrew J. Deddeh, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: 858-652-3100 Facsimile: 858-652-3101 Email: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com tim.johnson@ogletree.com andrew.deddeh@ogletree.com DANIEL L. KALER: Faces Hoppe Suit Over Private Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- CHAD HOPPE, on behalf of himself, his minor child S.H., and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DANIEL L. KALER, D.D.S., P.C., Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-04016 (N.D. Iowa, February 24, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data about its current and former patients. On or around, February 17, 2026, the Defendant was hacked in the data breach. However, Defendant has not begun notifying the victims of the data breach. Further, the lack of Defendant's notice of the data breach shows that Defendant cannot--or will not--determine the full scope of the data breach, as Defendant has been unable to determine precisely what information was stolen and when. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act. Based in Sioux City, IA, Daniel L. Kaler, D.D.S., P.C. is an orthodontic practice that offers services in Iowa and Nebraska. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. Brian O. Marty, Esq. SHINDLER ANDERSON GOPLERUD & WEESE P.C. 5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100 West Des Moines, IA 50265-5749 Telephone: (515) 223-4567 Facsimile: (515) 223-8887 E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com marty@sagwlaw.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com DAVEY TREE SURGERY: Aldrich Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Dante Brumsey, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. DAVEY TREE SURGERY COMPANY, a Corporation; THE DAVEY TREE EXPERT COMPANY, a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26CV00093 was removed from the Superior Court of California in and for the County of Santa Cruz, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 19, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-01443-SVK. The Complaint asserts nine causes of action against Defendants for: unfair competition in violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide required meal periods; failure to provide required rest periods; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to reimburse required business expenses; failure to provide wages when due upon termination of employment; and failure to pay sick pay wages.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ruth Zadikany, Esq. C. Mitchell Hendy, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 333 South Grand Avenue, 47th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503 Phone: (213) 229-9500 Facsimile: (213) 625-0248 Email: rzadikany@mayerbrown.com mhendy@mayerbrown.com DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Lee Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diversified Adjustment Service, Inc. The case is styled as Emmanuel Lee, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Diversified Adjustment Service, Inc., Case No. 5:26-cv-00864 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 23, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Diversified Adjustment Service -- https://diversifiedadjustment.com/ -- offers expert debt collection services to help your accounts receivable team recover funds efficiently.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Edelsberg, I, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park E, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com DR. JON FISHER: Jenkins Files Suit in Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dr. Jon Fisher Medical Weight Loss & Aesthetic Centers. The case is styled as J Curtrenna Jenkins, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Dr. Jon Fisher Medical Weight Loss & Aesthetic Centers, Case No. 260203030 (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas, Philadelphia Cty., Feb. 23, 2026). The case type is stated as "Negligence." Dr. Jon Fisher has been the most renowned and successful weight loss physician in Philadelphia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY 1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 496-8282 Email: phoward@smbb.com DRINK LMNT: Faces Gianne Suit Over Beverage's Deceptive Labeling ---------------------------------------------------------------- NATALIE GIANNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DRINK LMNT, INC., and DRINK LMNT DISTRIBUTION, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02029 (C.D. Cal., February 25, 2026) seeks to address Defendants' unlawful, unfair, and deceptive labeling, marketing, distribution and sale of their beverage mix and beverage products. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants misrepresented that LMNT's products provide cognitive benefits and that these products are "Made in the USA" and/or "Manufactured in the USA." In addition, Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants failed to provide clear and adequate disclosure that the said products contain foreign ingredients and components, as required by federal and state laws and regulations. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendants' unlawful conduct and asserts claims for intentional misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and False Advertising Law. Headquartered in Billings, MT, Drink LMNT, Inc. formulates, markets and sells beverage and beverage mix products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com - and - Jason A. Ibey, Esq., Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 321 N Mall Drive, Suite R108 St. George, UT 84790 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: jason@kazlg.com - and - Gil Melili, Esq., Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: gil@kazlg.com DUKE ENERGY: Dorrell Has Until March 16 to Reply to Dismissal Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- Duke Energy disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2026, that the plaintiffs has until March 16, 2026 to reply to the Nuclear Compensation class suit omnibus dismissal motion. On July 11, 2025, plaintiffs Leo Dorrell and John Dunn filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against all U.S. commercial nuclear power operators, including Duke Energy Corporation (Parent) and Progress Energy. The plaintiffs allege that the nuclear power industry engaged in a conspiracy to suppress compensation by exchanging salary information since 2003, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages, including treble damages, on behalf of current and former employees in the nuclear power industry as well as injunctive relief. On October 15, 2025, all defendants jointly filed an omnibus motion to dismiss all claims in the complaint and Duke Energy also joined a motion filed by several defendants to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. On November 5, 2025, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Business Services as defendants and including more factual allegations to support their complaint. Although not named as a defendant, Duke Energy Progress is accused of having participated in the alleged conspiracy. The defendants filed their omnibus motion to dismiss on December 19, 2025, to which the plaintiffs responded on February 6, 2026. The defendants' reply is due on March 16, 2026. Duke is an American electric power and natural gas holding company. DUKE ENERGY: Mooresville Class Suit Scheduling Order Not Yet Issued ------------------------------------------------------------------- Duke Energy disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2026, that the court has not yet issued scheduling order for Mooresville Coal Ash class suit in North Carolina. On December 20, 2024, 15 plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in Iredell County, North Carolina, against Duke Energy (Parent), Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress (collectively "Duke Energy") on behalf of a putative class alleging past and ongoing environmental contamination in the Mooresville area of North Carolina. The lawsuit alleges that Duke Energy disposed of and sold coal ash as structural fill resulting in the contamination of soil, groundwater and Lake Norman. The plaintiffs claim that Duke Energy failed to properly remediate the contamination and continues to pollute, and they assert that the contamination has negatively impacted property values. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief to stop further contamination, remediation of contaminated areas and attorneys' fees and costs. On July 28, 2025, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, gross negligence, private nuisance, strict liability for ultra-hazardous activities and trespass. On September 11, 2025, Duke Energy filed its answer to the plaintiff's amended complaint and a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Following a hearing on December 29, 2025, the court entered an interim order dismissing the plaintiffs' strict liability claim. On February 4, 2026, the court entered an order denying the remainder of Duke Energy's motion for judgment on the pleadings. A scheduling order has not yet been issued. Duke is an American electric power and natural gas holding company. EAST BINGER: Stephenson Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Billy Stephenson and Cheryl Stephenson, husband and wife, and Phillip Compton and Lynda Compton, husband and wife, for Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. EAST BINGER (MARCHAND) UNIT, BINGER OPERATIONS, L.L.C., CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY, formerly known as Phillips Petroleum Company; and PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY, Case No. UNN-L-004737-25 was removed from the District Court of Caddo County, State of Oklahoma, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on Feb. 23, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-00329-G. The Plaintiffs' Petition alleges that Defendants failed to properly pay royalties allegedly owed to the putative class members. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants "improperly charged or deducted Unit Expenses from the royalty share of sales of Unitized Substances," "wrongfully reduced the volumes of actual production and deducted from royalties other fees, costs and expenses," and failed to pay "royalty on the true value of the oil, gas and other hydrocarbons produced from the Unit."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Rob F. Robertson, Esq. Timothy J. Sullivan, Esq. Alex R. Telarik, OBA No. 32521 GABLEGOTWALS 110 N. Elgin Avenue, Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120 Phone: 918-595-4800 Facsimile: 918-595-4990 Email: rrobertson@gablelaw.com tsullivan@gablelaw.com atelarik@gablelaw.co - and - Mark Banner, Esq. HALL, ESTILL, HARDWICK, GABLE, GOLDEN & NELSON, P.C. 521 East 2nd Street, Suite 1200 Tulsa, OK 74120 Phone: 918-594-0400 Facsimile: 918-594-0505 Email: mbanner@hallestill.com EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES: Continues to Defend Patel Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Edwards Lifesciences 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 Patel securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On October 14, 2024, a purported stockholder of Edwards filed a putative securities class action (the "Securities Class Action") complaint against the Company and certain of its executive officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Patel v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, et al., No. 24-cv-02221. The complaint alleges violations of various securities laws based on alleged false or misleading statements regarding its business prospects. The complaint seeks damages, interest, costs and other fees. On September 17, 2025, the Court held a hearing on the Company's Motion to Dismiss, and on September 19, 2025, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion. The Company cannot predict the outcome of the litigation or the potential impact on its financial statements. The Company is vigorously defending itself in this litigation. Edwards is an international company that researches, develops, provides products and technologies for heart valve repair and replacement therapies, as well as critical care monitoring solutions.[BN] EGO INC: Cohen Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ego Inc., et al. The case is styled as Kenneth Cohen, Piero Ornelas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ego Inc. d/b/a Brault, Berkeley Emergency Medical Group, Inc.; Sutter Health d/b/a Alta Bates Summit Medical Center, Case No. 26CV170232 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Feb. 11, 2026). The case type is stated as "Negligence." Ego, Inc., doing business as Emergency Groups, provides medical billing and coding management services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carly M. Roman, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: croman@straussborrelli.com EI DU PONT: Court Certifies Classes in Allen Suit ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as S. A. BY NEXT FRIEND SHANTELL ALLEN, et al., v. E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00359-PPS-AZ (N.D. Ind.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting amended motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs request that the Court certify the following classes: 1. Personal Injury Class (Rule 23(b)(3)) "A class of individuals born on or after Dec. 20, 2002, who formerly resided at the West Calumet Housing Complex or attended the Carrie Gosch Elementary School, and who have been diagnosed with and/or treated for one of the conditions set forth in paragraphs 89 through 93 of the amended complaint." 2. Medical Monitoring Class (Rule 23(b)(2)) "Individuals who were born on or after Dec. 20, 2002, who formerly resided at the West Calumet Housing Complex or attended the Carrie Gosch Elementary School and have tested positive for lead exposure, but have not yet been diagnosed with a disease or condition associated with such exposure." 3. Alternative Issues Class (Rule 23(c)(4)) In the alternative, the Plaintiffs seek certification of an issues class limited to liability and causation questions common to all Plaintiffs, including whether the Defendants owed and breached duties of care, whether the Defendants' conduct caused exposure, whether exposure to lead at documented levels can cause the alleged injuries, and whether Indiana's modified impact rule is satisfied. DuPont is an American multinational chemical company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kdGuBv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric S. Pavlack, Esq. Colin E. Flora, Esq. PAVLACK LAW, LLC 50 East 91st Street, Suite 305 Indianapolis IN 46240 Telephone: (317) 251-1100 Facsimile: (317) 252-0352 (fax) E-mail: eric@pavlacklawfirm.com colin@pavlacklawfirm.com - and - Walter J. Alvarez, Esq. Brock Alvarado, Esq. Steven J. Alvarez, Esq. WALTER J. ALVAREZ, P.C. 1524 West 96th Avenue Crown Point IN 46307 - and - Gabriel M. Vázquez, Esq. Paul J. Napoli, Esq. Coral M. Odiot-Rivera, Esq. Cristina M. Rodriguez-Torres, Esq. Veronica N. Vazquez-Santiago, Esq. NAPOLI SHKOLNIK 1302 Avenida Ponce de León San Juan PR 00907-3982 Telephone: (833) 271-4502 Facsimile: (646) 843-7603 E-mail: gvazquez@nsprlaw.com pnapoli@nsprlaw.com codiot@nsprlaw.com crodriguez@nsprlaw.com vvazquez@nsprlaw.com EJT CONSULTING LLC: Lewis Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against EJT Consulting, LLC. The case is styled as Edward Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EJT Consulting, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-01088-JLS-DDL (S.D. Cal., Feb. 20, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. EJT Education Group provides consulting services to educational organizations and business development services.[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 EMBLEM HEALTH: Kerridge Sues Over Retaliation in the Workplace -------------------------------------------------------------- LAVERNE KERRIDGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EMBLEM HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01517 (S.D.N.Y., February 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ms. Kerridge was employed by the Defendant as a Grievance and Appeals Specialist from in or around July 2007 through on or around March 26, 2025. Emblem Health, Inc. is a provider of health care insurance and benefit plans based in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taylor J. Crabill, Esq. CRABILL PLLC 71-01 Austin Street Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (727) 335-1030 Email: tcrabill@crabilllawfirm.com ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Class Cert. Briefing Order Entered in Schuman ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY SCHUMAN, et al., v. ENERGIZER HOLDINGS, INC.; AND WAL-MART, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-02093-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=1Xxq8r 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 EPIQ SYSTEMS: Faces Hunter Class Suit Over Anticompetitive Scheme ----------------------------------------------------------------- DAMOND HUNTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EPIQ SYSTEMS, INC., ANGEION GROUP LLC, JND LEGAL ADMINISTRATION, KROLL SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION, LLC, HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK, WESTERN ALLIANCE BANK, and DOES 1-20, Case No. 2:26-cv-02011 (D.N.J., Feb. 25, 2026) is a class action suit against the Administrator Defendants, for engaging in a deceptive and anticompetitive scheme to reap hundreds of millions of dollars in undisclosed kickbacks and compensation from the Bank Defendants, while increasing the costs and depressing the payouts on thousands of class actions. Some time on or about 2021 -- when the interest rates in the United States started rising -- Administrator Defendants entered into an ongoing agreement with each other to increase the cost and price of class administration services, including by having Bank Defendants pay them the interest and investments earned on class action settlement deposits that would have otherwise been distributed to class members and used to pay down the cost of class administration services. Defendant Huntington's parent company Huntington Bancshares Inc. (Nasdaq: HBAN) and Defendant Western's parent company Western Alliance Bancorporation are publicly traded companies. Defendant Huntington and Defendant Western are federally chartered banks. Together the Bank Defendants control over eighty percent of the settlement funds in class and mass actions in the United States. Like the Administrator Defendants, the Bank Defendants are fiduciaries of the class-members in thousands of class and mass actions every year, duly appointed and supervised by the Courts. To maintain their market power in the Settlement Deposit Market, the Bank Defendants agreed to work with the Administrator Defendants looking to increase the cost and price of class administration services and pay the Administrator Defendants the kickbacks. In exchange, the Administrator Defendants agreed to keep all of the settlement funds from the thousands of class actions with the Bank Defendants. The Bank Defendants thereby maintained their power in the Settlement Deposit Market, leading to steady profits and liquidity for the Bank Defendants. The Bank Defendants thereby conspired with the Administrator Defendants, and entered into these agreements deliberately, corruptly, and with intent to execute the kickback scheme, says the suit. EPIQ Systems, Inc. develops, markets, licenses, and supports proprietary software products for bankruptcy trustees on a national basis.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rajiv D. Parikh, Esq. PEM LAW LLP One Boland Drive, Suite 101 West Orange, NJ 07052 Telephone: (973) 577-5500 Facsimile: (973) 860-4433 E-mail: rparikh@pemlawfirm.com ESSILORLUXOTTICA SA: Faces Ward Suit Over Tariff Surcharges ----------------------------------------------------------- NATHAN WARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ESSILORLUXOTTICA S.A.; LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA, INC.; and ESSILOR OF AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-01133 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 26, 2026) alleges that EssilorLuxottica's retention of surcharges unjustly profits EssilorLuxottica at the expense of consumers. Accordingly, upon the determination that the subject tariffs were unlawful, giving rise to EssilorLuxottica's right to receive the duties it paid under the unlawful tariff scheme, EssilorLuxottica is likewise obligated to return the corresponding tariff surcharge collected from Plaintiff and Class members. Following the imposition of the subject tariffs, EssilorLuxottica publicly stated that it would implement price increases across its product lines to manage the financial impact of the subject tariffs. Consistent with these statements, retail prices for EssilorLuxottica products increased in the United States as a result of the tariffs. The Plaintiff and the Class purchased EssilorLuxottica products after these price increases took effect and, as a result, paid higher prices reflecting these tariff-related adjustments (tariff surcharges). At the same time, EssilorLuxottica challenged the legality of the subject tariffs in the United States Court of International Trade, seeking to halt enforcement of the tariff orders and obtain refunds of the duties it paid because of the subject tariffs. In demanding a refund for duties paid because of the subject tariffs, EssilorLuxottica did not acknowledge the consumers to whom EssilorLuxottica had passed on the economic burden of those duties through the tariff surcharges. The case before the Court of International Trade was stayed pending the Supreme Court's resolution of V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, in which businesses challenged the lawfulness of the subject tariffs. Beginning in February 2025, President Trump issued a series of executive orders invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose new and significant tariffs on imports from nearly every foreign country, including those from which EssilorLuxottica sources its products. On Feb. 20, 2026, the Supreme Court held that the subject tariffs were unlawful. Despite seeking an order entitling it to a refund of the duties collected as a result of the subject tariffs, EssilorLuxottica continues to collect and has not refunded the tariff surcharges it collected from consumers. EssilorLuxottica designs, manufactures, imports, and sells ophthalmic lenses, eyeglass frames, and sunglasses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Janove, Esq. JANOVE PLLC 500 7th Avenue, 8th Fl. New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (646) 347-3940 E-mail: raphael@janove.law - and - June P. Hoidal, Esq. Charles R. Toomajian, Esq. Michael J. Laird, Esq. Katja D. Lange, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 E-mail: June.Hoidal@zimmreed.com Charles.Toomajian@zimmreed.com Michael.Laird@zimmreed.com Katja.Lange@zimmreed.com EVERGREEN HOSPITALITY: Etcheverry Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Evergreen Hospitality Inc., et al. The case is styled as Aramee Etcheverry, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated and/or aggrieved employees of Defendants v. Evergreen Hospitality Inc., Hyon Kil Yoo, Case No. 26CUB00533 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Feb. 11, 2026). The case type is stated as "Civil Unlimited for Other Tort." Evergreen Hospitality Inc. -- https://www.evergreenhospitalitygroup.com/ -- is one of the largest family-owned hospitality & tourism groups [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vilmarie Cordero, Esq. Allison Elizabeth Schubert, Esq. ARCH LEGAL P.C. 3555 5th Ave., Ste. 200 San Diego, CA 92103-5057 Phone: 619-906-4025 Fax: 619-692-0822 Email: vcordero@archlegal.com EVOLVE BANK: Financial Horizons Sues Over Data Security Failures ---------------------------------------------------------------- FINANCIAL HORIZONS CREDIT UNION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff V. EVOLVE BANK & TRUST, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00206-LPR (E.D. Ark., February 25, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to take adequate and reasonable measures to protect Plaintiffs and other financial institutions' financial data. Despite its obligations under industry standards, including the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards (PCI DDS) and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act), the Defendant failed to adequately safeguard Plaintiff's customers' Payment Card Data, directly resulting in the data breach. As a result, Plaintiff's valuable information was exposed to hackers for over three years, between November 5, 2021, and May 31, 2024. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks both monetary and injunctive relief, and asserts claims for negligence, including negligence per se under the FTC Act and industry standards such as PCI DSS. Evolve Bank & Trust is a chartered bank headquartered in West Memphis, AR. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Henry (Hank) Bates, III, Esq. Randall K. Pulliam, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC One Allied Drive, Suite 1400 Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 Facsimile: (501) 312-8505 E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com rpulliam@cbplaw.com - and - Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. Anja Rusi, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park A venue, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com arusi@scott-scott.com EXAMWORKS LLC: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL SMITH, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, v. EXAMWORKS, LLC, and GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 8:21-cv-02746-PX (D. Md.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadlines set forth in the briefing schedule entered on Jan. 12, 2026. The Defendant GEICO seeks additional time to respond to the Plaintiff's motion and requests a 21-day extension of the Defendants' response deadline. To accommodate this adjustment, GEICO seeks, at Plaintiff's request, an extension of his reply deadline to April 20, 2026. Item Old Deadline New Deadline The Defendants' class March 2, 2026 March 23, 2026 certification responses due: The Plaintiff's class March 23, 2026 April 20, 2026 certification reply due: The GEICO's first request for an extension of the class certification briefing schedule and the request is not made for the purpose of delay. ExamWorks provides medical claim management services. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LJGI4y at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Patrick E. Hogan, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 1901 L St. NW, Washington DC 20036 Telephone: 202-282-5754 Facsimile: (202) 282-5100 E-mail: phogan@winston.com - and - Martin W. Jaszczuk, Esq. Seth H. Corthell, Esq. JASZCZUK P.C. 311 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 442-0509 Facsimile: (312) 442-0519 E-mail: mjaszczuk@jaszczuk.com scorthell@jaszczuk.com EXPERIAN INFO: Parties Must Conduct Mediation by July 31 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARLENE ALLEN-CORNWALL, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 8:25-cv-03385-WFJ-AEP (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Jung entered a case management and scheduling order. Mandatory Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures: Feb. 25, 2026 Discovery Cut-Off: Aug. 31, 2026 Conduct Mediation by: July 31, 2026 Dispositive motion filing: Sept. 15, 2026 Pretrial Statement due: Jan. 7, 2027 Experian operates as an information services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3mnLwh at no extra charge.[CC] FASTLY INC: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss SAC Set for April 30 ---------------------------------------------------------- Fastly 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 hearing on the bid to dismiss the plaintiff's second amended complaint is set for April 30, 2026. on May 24, 2024, the Company and certain of its officers were named as defendants in putative securities class action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California purportedly brought on behalf of holders of its common stock. On November 1, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the putative securities class action on January 15, 2025. The lead plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants motion to dismiss on March 17, 2025. Defendants filed a reply in support of the motion to dismiss on April 30, 2025. On September 24, 2025, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. On October 24, 2025, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On December 9, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On January 26, 2026, Lead Plaintiff filed an opposition. Defendants filed a reply in support of the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on February 19, 2026. A hearing is scheduled for April 30, 2026 on Defendants motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, Fastly is a Delaware corporation that provides cloud computing services. Its common stock trades in an efficient market on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "FSLY." [BN] FCA US: Bids for Class Certification in Andress Due Feb. 11, 2027 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB ANDRESS and BRECK JACKSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-06297-MKC (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Costello entered an order as follows: 1. The Court will hold a telephonic status conference with the parties on Aug. 12, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. to discuss the progress of the case. The parties shall submit a joint letter in anticipation of that conference by Aug. 10, 2026. 2. Motions for class certification and any supporting expert reports shall be filed no later than Feb. 11, 2027. 3. Responses to motions for class certification and any supporting expert reports shall be filed no later than March 12, 2027. 4. Replies, if any, shall be filed no later than April 2, 2027. 5. The Court will hold a hearing on any motions for class certification on April 13, 2027, at 10:00 a.m. 6. The parties shall complete all discovery by June 1, 2027. 7. A party intending to offer lay witness opinion testimony must disclose the name of any witness who will offer such an opinion and a summary of each such opinion at the same time the expert reports are exchanged. 8. Motions for summary judgment shall be filed no later than July 1, 2027. Responses shall be filed no later than July 22, 2027. 9. A trial readiness conference will be held on Sept. 23, 2027, at 10:00 a.m., in Chambers Room 6614 at the James A. Byrne United States Courthouse. FCA US is an American automobile manufacturer. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FGwB4p at no extra charge.[CC] FEDERAL EXPRESS: Filing of SAC Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zachariah Tobias Floyd, v. Federal Express Corporation, John Does 1-5, Case No. 4:25-cv-06485-SAL (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Sherri A. Lydon entered an order granting in part the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file second amended complaint. The Plaintiff is directed to file a new complaint without class action allegations within 21 days of the date of this order. For the reasons discussed above, the Plaintiff's motion for leave to conduct early discovery, and his motion for class certification, are denied. Once the amended complaint is filed, the Report, will be rendered moot. At that time, the matter should be recommitted to the magistrate judge. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within 21 days, his case may be subject to dismissal. Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court is charged with liberally construing the pleadings to allow him to fully develop potentially meritorious claims. Because Plaintiff is representing himself pro se in this action, he cannot represent others and bring claims on behalf of a class. Accordingly, while Plaintiff may amend his complaint as explained above, he may not include any class action allegations in his second amended complaint. The Plaintiff's motion to certify class and for leave to conduct early discovery both relate to his class action allegations, so those motions must be denied, as well. FedEx is an American multinational conglomerate holding company specializing in transportation, e-commerce, and business services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SAB9bR at no extra charge.[CC] FEDERAL EXPRESS: Reiser Class Suit Seeks to Recover Import Duties ----------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW REISER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, and FEDEX LOGISTICS, INC., a New York corporation, Case No. 1:26-cv-21328 (S.D. Fla., Feb. 27, 2026) seeks to recover (a) import duties and (b) ancillary brokerage and clearance fees that FedEx collected from Plaintiff and the proposed Class on imported goods classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings carrying a Column 1-General duty rate of "Free." According to the complaint, for the products, the entire customs processing chain, including the duty assessment, entry filing, and brokerage fee, was triggered exclusively by tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which the United States Supreme Court has declared unlawful. The proposed class consists of all persons in the United States who paid import charges to FedEx on goods classified under HTSUS subheadings with a Column 1-General duty rate of "Free" during the period the IEEPA tariffs were in effect. For these products, no duty would have been assessed under any lawful tariff authority. The IEEPA tariff was the sole source of duty liability, and every dollar of duties and associated brokerage fees FedEx collected on such shipments is directly attributable to the void tariff regime, says the suit. FedEx Corporation, originally known as Federal Express Corporation, is an American multinational conglomerate holding company specializing in transportation, e-commerce, and business services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Patrick Barthle, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, Esq. COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 North Franklin Street 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 E-mail: JYanchunis@forthepeople.com Pbarthle@forthepeople.com - and - Clay M. Townsend, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N Orange Ave, Suite 1600 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 418-2075 Facsimile: (407) 245-3346 E-mail: ctownsend@forthepeople.com FIDELITY NATIONAL: Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Initial OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fidelity National Financial, 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 24, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida entered a preliminary approval order of a settlement on February 18, 2026, and has scheduled a hearing for July 9, 2026, to determine whether a final approval order should be entered with regards to the settlement of a consolidated securities case "In re Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. Securities Litigation." On March 6, 2023, a putative class action was filed in said court by a shareholder of the company. The action was consolidated with another action and the consolidated case and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on August 2, 2023. On September 30, 2024, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, and the case therefore has moved into the discovery phase. The consolidated amended complaint names the company and certain of its current and former officers as defendants and seeks damages for alleged violations of federal securities laws in connection with our disclosures relating to our former Merchant Solutions segment, including with respect to its valuation, integration, and synergies. In the fourth quarter of 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation voluntarily dismissing the claims against Stephanie Ferris. Also in the fourth quarter of 2025, the parties reached an agreement to settle the matter. On December 19, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. Fidelity is a provider of title insurance, escrow and other title-related services, including trust activities, trustee sales guarantees, recordings and reconveyances and home warranty and transaction services to the real estate and mortgage industries. FIRST STUDENT: Standow Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Justin Standow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FIRST STUDENT, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 26-2-05399-1 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of Pierce, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on Feb. 20, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05165. The Complaint sets forth five causes of action all premised upon the alleged failure to provide and pay non-exempt employees for all meal and rest breaks--Minimum wage act violations under RCW 49.46 resulting from the alleged failures to timely pay for meal and rest breaks and work performed off the clock; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages based on RCW 49.46.130 based on the failure to pay for meal and rest breaks and work performed off the clock; Failure to Compensate for Noncompliant Meal Periods based on RCW 49.12.020 and WAC 296-126-092; Failure to Compensate for Noncompliant Rest Periods based on RCW 49.12.020 and WAC 296-126-092; and Unpaid Wages on Termination based on RCW 49.48.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Derek A. Bishop, Esq. Jason Harrington, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One Union Square 600 University Street, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101.3122 Phone: 206.623.3300 Facsimile: 206.447.6965 Email: debishop@littler.com jharrington@littler.com FLOATME CORP: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Burrison Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON BURRISON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FLOATME, CORP., Case No. 1:25-cv-10885-DJC (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Casper entered an order denying FloatMe's motion to compel arbitration. In light of the parties' arguments, the Court concludes that Burrison has plausibly alleged a dispute involving the extension of consumer credit within the meaning of the MLA. Accordingly, because Burrison is a covered member, the dispute triggers the MLA's prohibition on the enforcement of the Arbitration Provision in the contract between Burrison and FloatMe, and the Court denies FloatMe's motion to compel arbitration. The Plaintiff has filed this lawsuit as a putative class action against the Defendant, alleging violations of the Military Lending Act ("MLA"), and Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"). The Plaintiff filed this action on April 10, 2025, on behalf of himself and two proposed classes. The proposed classes generally encompass any active duty servicemember or their dependent, or other individual in the United States, who signed up for a FloatMe account and paid money to FloatMe. FloatMe operates an online platform that offers cash advances to eligible platform users. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Feb. 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Qoi0dI at no extra charge.[CC] FORTINET INC: Continues to Defend OFPRS Class Suit -------------------------------------------------- Fortinet, 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 24, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California On September 22, 2025, a securities class action was filed against the Company, its chief executive officer, its chief technology officer, its current chief financial officer and its former chief financial officer in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, captioned Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Fortinet, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-08037. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of an alleged class of stockholders who purchased or acquired shares of its common stock between November 8, 2024 through August 6, 2025. The complaints allege that defendants made false or misleading statements about its business, operations and prospects, including regarding the 2026 firewall refresh cycle, and purport to assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. It seeks damages, attorneys fees and costs, and other relief that the court may deem appropriate. The time to respond to the complaints has not yet passed. The Company believes the cases is without merit and defendants intend to defend the suit vigorously. Fortinet Inc. -- http://www.fortinet.com/-- provides network security solutions, which enable broad, integrated and high performance protection against dynamic security threats while simplifying the IT security infrastructure for enterprises, service providers and governmental entities worldwide. The Company was incorporated in Delaware in 2000 and is headquartered in Sunnyvale, California. FORTINET INC: Continues to Defend State of Rhode Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fortinet, 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 24, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the State of Rhode Island Office of the General Treasurer securities class suit. On October 16, 2025, a securities class action was filed against the Company, its chief executive Officer, its current chief financial officer and its former chief financial officer in the same court, captioned State of Rhode Island Office of the General Treasurer v. Fortinet, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-08888. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of an alleged class of stockholders who purchased or acquired shares of its common stock between November 8, 2024 through August 6, 2025. The complaints allege that defendants made false or misleading statements about its business, operations and prospects, including regarding the 2026 firewall refresh cycle, and purport to assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. It seeks damages, attorneys fees and costs, and other relief that the court may deem appropriate. The time to respond to the complaints has not yet passed. The Company believes the cases is without merit and defendants intend to defend the suit vigorously. Fortinet Inc. -- http://www.fortinet.com/-- provides network security solutions, which enable broad, integrated and high performance protection against dynamic security threats while simplifying the IT security infrastructure for enterprises, service providers and governmental entities worldwide. The Company was incorporated in Delaware in 2000 and is headquartered in Sunnyvale, California. FOSSIL GROUP: Class Certification Bid Filing in Chancy Due July 24 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXANDER CHANCY, et al., v. FOSSIL GROUP, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-01566-AJB-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Butcher entered a scheduling order regulating discovery and class certification motion filing deadline as follows: 1. Merit and class discovery are not bifurcated; however, all discovery for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification must be completed on or before June 19, 2026. 2. A motion for class certification must be filed no later than July 24, 2026. 3. Counsel must contact Judge Butcher's chambers at 619-446-3704 regarding setting all remaining case management dates within three (3) days of the Court's ruling on the motion for class certification. Fossil is an American fashion design and manufacturer. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0sMNN9 at no extra charge.[CC] FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Close of Expert Discovery Due June 19 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Reidt v. Frontier Communications Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01538 (D. Conn., Filed Sept. 11, 2018), the Hon. Judge Robert N. Chatigny entered an order granting joint motion to stay pending in-person mediation scheduled for April 27, 2026. The parties will inform the Court no later than 5/6/2026 if the mediation was successful. If the mediation was not successful, the following deadlines will be reset as follows: The deadline for Plaintiff's reply expert designation and report will be May 22, 2026. The close of expert discovery will be June 19, 2026, and Plaintiff's reply in support of class certification will be filed by June 19, 2026. The nature of suit states Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Frontier provides communications services to residential and business customers in urban, suburban, and rural communities.[CC] GARDAWORLD CASH: Wallace Sues Over Illegal Tobacco Surcharges ------------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLY SOLOMON-WALLACE, DEREK R. MILEY, and KENYA GREEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GARDAWORLD CASH SERVICES, INC. d/b/a GARDAWORLD CASH, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02082 (N.D. Ill., February 24, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for unlawful surcharge in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and breach of fiduciary duty. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of charging a tobacco surcharge that unjustly forces certain employees to pay higher premiums for their health insurance. The Defendant's Plan does not provide the required reasonable alternative standard, and even if it did, it has failed to adequately notify employees about the availability of such an alternative in all its Plan communications. Consequently, the Defendant's tobacco surcharge violates ERISA's anti-discrimination provisions by imposing additional costs on employees who use tobacco products without meeting the legal requirements for a wellness program. As a result of the imposition of the unlawful and discriminatory tobacco surcharge, the Defendant enriched itself at the expense of the Plan, says the suit. GardaWorld Cash Services, Inc., doing business as GardaWorld Cash, is a cash management provider, with its principal place of business in Boca Raton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mason Barney, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (929) 220-2802 Email: mbarney@sirillp.com - and - Oren Faircloth, Esq. William H. Payne, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Email: ofaircloth@sirillp.com wpayne@sirillp.com GEAUX TIME: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Servers, Sanchez Says -------------------------------------------------------------- IMARIS SANCHEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GEAUX TIME RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-21228 (S.D. Fla., February 24, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Florida Minimum Wage Act, and the Florida Constitution for alleged unlawful labor practices. According to the complaint, the Defendant committed federal and state minimum wage violations because it: (1) failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated servers their final paycheck and earned tips; and (2) compensated servers at the reduced wage for tipped employees but failed to provide Plaintiff and all others similarly situated with statutory notice of taking a tip credit. The Plaintiff was employed as a server by the Defendant from August 2024 to December 28, 2025. Geaux Time Restaurant Group operates the Walk-On's Sports Bistreaux restraint based in Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Miller, Esq. Jordan Richards, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave., Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com GEICO GENERAL: Court Narrows Claims in "Marcelletti" ---------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as John Marcelletti, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GEICO General Insurance Company, Defendant, Civil Action No. 6:23-CV-06211 EAW CDH (W.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Colleen D. Holland of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York granted in part and denied in part Defendant's motion to seal information submitted in connection with the briefing on Plaintiff's amended motion for class certification, the briefing on the parties' motions to limit and/or exclude witnesses, and the exhibits submitted in connection therewith. Plaintiff asserted a claim for breach of contract based on Defendant's failure to pay sales tax as part of the actual cash value for total loss vehicles. Defendant filed a motion to seal portions of briefs and exhibits submitted in connection with: (1) Plaintiff's amended motion for class certification; (2) Defendant's motion to exclude the declaration and opinions of Bradley M. Braun, Ph.D.; (3) Plaintiff's motion to strike and/or exclude portions of Dr. Jonathan T. Tomlin's testimony and expert report; and (4) Plaintiff's motion to exclude or limit the opinions of Defendant's proposed expert Steven R. Wybo. In total, Defendant made 84 sealing requests, grouped into five categories: (1) GEICO's processes/procedures related to total loss coverage; (2) GEICO's processes/procedures related to leased vehicles; (3) how GEICO's data is maintained and accessed; (4) analysis of vehicle valuations; and (5) personally identifying information of a putative class member. The court found that the briefs and exhibits at issue are judicial documents subject to a strong presumption of public access, with a First Amendment right of access also attaching. The court noted that class actions are by definition of public interest, and the standards for denying public access should therefore be strictly construed. The court granted sealing only for the vehicle identification number of a putative class member, finding that the privacy interests of the insureds outweigh the public interest in knowing the specific identity of any of the insureds. Sealing requests 40, 59, and 74 were thereby granted. All other sealing requests were denied. The court found that the bulk of the information Defendant designated as relating to its processes and procedures was simply too generic for a competitor to use to Defendant's detriment. Certain proposed redactions concerned stale information, including Defendant's pre-August 2020 policy on payment of sales tax for total loss leased vehicles, and Defendant failed to explain in more than conclusory terms how that information would cause competitive harm. The court further found that the asserted risk of competitors targeting GEICO employees was too remote and speculative to overcome the strong presumption of public access. Accordingly, the parties were ordered to submit their papers within seven days consistent with the Third Amended Scheduling Order. A copy of the Court's Decision and Order dated February 26 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MtTMtT from PacerMonitor.com Defendant GEICO General Insurance Company Represented By: Dan W. Goldfine Jamie L. Halavais Dickinson Wright, Pllc (az) dgoldfine@dickinson-wright.com jhalavais@dickinson-wright.com Daniel R. Archilla Law Office Of Daniel R. Archilla 716-856-0875 darchilla@geico.com Plaintiff John Marcelletti Represented By: Joseph N. Kravec, Jr Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec 412-281-8400 jkravec@fdpklaw.com GENERAL MOTORS: Greene Sues Over Trucks' False Advertisements ------------------------------------------------------------- LYLE GREENE, as an individual, ERIK HALL, as an individual, FRANK MAGANA, as an individual, DAVID PAGES, as an individual, BRANT TANNER, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS, a Delaware Corporation, GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; ALLISON TRANSMISSION, INC, a Delaware Corporation; ALLISON VENTURES, an unknown business entity, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02032 (C.D. Cal., February 25, 2026) arises from Defendants' alleged false advertisements regarding its trucks. During the Period of approximately January 2020 to January 2026, the Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of an unlawful scheme to defraud Plaintiffs and consumers and increase the General Motors' (GM) truck sales whereby the General Motors falsely advertised or allowed its co-Defendants to falsely advertise that Defendants' GM trucks, and more specifically, Chevy Silverado 2500 HD, General Motors Chevy Silverado 3500 HD, General Motors GMC 2500 HD, and General Motors GMC 3500 HD contained "Allison" transmissions, knowing that General Motors' trucks do not and have not contained an actual "Allison" transmission since on or about January 2020. Thus, as a result of Defendants' scheme of intentional false advertising that the GM Defendants' trucks contained "Allison" transmissions, the Defendants collectively have obtained tens of millions of dollars in sales of the subject trucks as a result of the intentional false advertising. Due to their course of conduct, Defendants have violated California Misleading Advertising, California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Fraud-Intentional Misrepresentation, Fraud-Concealment, Fraud Breach of Express Warranty (Uniform Commercial Code), Breach of Implied Warranty (Uniform Commercial Code, as well as other state consumer fraud laws, says the suit. General Motors is an automotive manufacturing company headquartered in Detroit, MI. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq. George B. Singer, Esq. John A. Young, Esq. Berkeh Alemzadeh Mahoney, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590-5550 Facsimile: (562) 590-8400 E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net gsinger@mahoney-law.net jyoung@mahoney-law.net balem@mahoney-law.net GODINGER SILVER: Faces Bowman Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ TANISIA BOWMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Godinger Silver Art Ltd., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02067 (N.D. Ill., February 24, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://godinger.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Bowman and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On April 29, 2025, Plaintiff Bowman was searching online for a crystal cereal bowl for personal home use. During her search, she came across the Defendant's website and decided to explore the website with the intent to make a purchase. However, Plaintiff Bowman encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from completing the transaction. Specifically, on the website, the Plaintiff encountered long link descriptions exceeding 100 characters, the messages of which were difficult to understand when announced through her screen reader software. These access barriers render the Website inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually impaired individuals, says the suit. Plaintiff Bowman seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Godinger Silver Art Ltd. operates the website that offers handcrafted crystal glassware, silver-plated flatware and serveware, barware, gift items, and kitchen essentials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law GOLIATH VENTURES: Parties Must Comply with Florida's Local Rules ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PRESTIGE FLORIDA PROPERTY INVESTMENT, LLC, v. GOLIATH VENTURES, INC., GOLIATH VENTURES, INC., CHRISTOPHER DELGADO, JONATHAN MASON, ERIC CLAYMAN and BLACKBLOCK MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 6:26-cv-00392-GAP-RMN (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Presnell entered an order directing the parties to read and comply with the Middle District of Florida's Local Rules. The Court makes an active effort to review each case to identify parties and interested corporations in which the assigned District Judge or Magistrate Judge may have an interest, and for other matters that might require consideration of recusal. Compliant with Local Rule 3.03, within 14 days from the day of this Order or, if a party joins this action subsequent to the entry of this Order, from the date of a party's first appearance, each party, pro se party, governmental party, intervenor, non-party movant, and Rule 69 garnishee is directed to file and serve a Disclosure Statement substantially in the form attached. Each party has a continuing obligation to file and serve an amended disclosure statement within 14 days of discovering any ground for amendment, for conflict of interest, for recusal, or for disqualification of the judicial officer. See Local Rule 3.03. No later than fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, counsel and any pro se party shall comply with Local Rule 1.07(c) and shall file and serve a certification as to whether the instant action should be designated as a similar or successive case pursuant to Local Rule 1.07. The parties shall utilize the attached form titled Notice of Pendency of Other Actions. The parties are directed to consult Local Rule 3.02 to determine whether this action requires a case management conference and case management report (CMR), or if it falls under one of the exceptions listed in Local Rule 3.02(d). A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vsg759 at no extra charge.[CC] GOOGLE LLC: Hemry Sues Over Alleged Google Play Apps' False Ads --------------------------------------------------------------- RAY HEMRY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOOGLE, LLC and ALPHABET INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-01611 (N.D. Cal., February 24, 2026) seeks to halt Google's unlawful practices in connection with its representation that Google Play apps are rigorously reviewed, trustworthy, and secure. The Plaintiff and Class members placed their trust in Google's assurances branding Google Play as "a safe and trusted place" when downloading what they believed were legitimate digital asset trading apps. In reality, those apps were fraudulent spoofing tools designed solely to steal money: they harvested users' account credentials and diverted the victims' fiat and cryptocurrency into the scammers' own accounts. By misrepresenting the safety of its platform and by failing to correct or prevent the fraud, Google led Plaintiff and Class members to download scam apps and thereby suffer heavy financial losses. Such conduct violates California's consumer protection statutes, including the Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law, says the suit. Headquartered in Mountain View, CA, Google, LLC provides mobile and tablet applications via Google Play store, which is the primary way that Android phone users download and access third-party Apps. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John T. Jasnoch, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 W. Broadway Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-4565 E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com - and - James Taylor-Copeland, Esq. TAYLOR-COPELAND LAW P.C. 501 W. Broadway, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101, Telephone: (619) 734-8770 E-mail: james@taylorcopelandlaw.com GOOGLE LLC: Must Produce Web Properties Info -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE I, et al., v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-02431-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Susan Van Keulen entered an order as follows: 1. Google will ultimately produce information regarding additional Web Properties, beyond the six specifically identified in the SAC. The use of Health Verticals is the first step, but not the last, to identify the relevant and proportional Web Properties for which additional data will be produced. 2. No later than Feb. 24, 2026, the Parties are to meet and confer in accordance with this Court's standing order to address the issues identified above. Google must come to the meet and confer with at least one technical proposal to further refine the use of Health Verticals to identify additional relevant websites. If Plaintiffs have sufficient information from Google's productions thus far to propose further refinement, they must do so. No proposal will be presented as a "black box." 3. No later than March 3, 2026, the Parties are to provide the Court with a status report not to exceed six pages indicating whether the dispute has been resolved, discussions are continuing or outlining any remaining issue for the Court to resolve. 4. The Parties may agree to modest extensions of the deadlines above to facilitate resolution without further Court intervention. The Court finds that, generally, the identification of additional Web Properties is relevant in light of allegations in the SAC and the proposed class definitions. The case management order in this case also supports class-wide discovery in advance of class certification by virtue of the limited discovery period following class certification. As for proportionality, the use of a set of Health Verticals to identify responsive Web Properties is at least a first step in the right direction. The putative class action arises out of Defendant Google LLC's alleged collection of private medical information from health-related websites. Google is a multinational technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EFLYPb at no extra charge.[CC] GPD HOLDINGS: Faces Khoury Suit Over Undisclosed BTM Fees --------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL SALIM KHOURY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GPD HOLDINGS LLC D/B/A COINFLIP, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02000 (N.D. Ill., February 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The case arises from the Defendant's systematic collection of excessive, undisclosed fees on consumers using its Bitcoin Automated Teller Machines (BTMs). According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices by failing to adequately disclose transaction fees, utilizing unconscionable contract provisions, unfairly denying consumers the ability to recover the BTM fees, operating without a money transmission license, and failing to implement adequate consumer protection measures. As a result, the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers suffered damages, says the suit. GPD Holdings LLC, doing business as CoinFlip, is an operator of Bitcoin Automated Teller Machines (BTMs), with its principal place of business in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin E. Elliott, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: edwine@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 20900 NE 30th Ave., Ste. 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT: Court Narrows Claims in Miles Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NYLYNN MILES, v. GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00262-APG-EJY (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Gordon entered an order: (1) Granting in Part Greystar's Motion to Dismiss, (2) Denying Greystar's Motion to Compel Arbitration, (3) Ordering Supplemental Briefing, (4) Denying Greystar's Motion to Strike Class Allegations, and (5) Denying Greystar's Motion to Strike the Declaration of Rachel Mariner Greystar offers no other basis for dismissal besides its argument that Miles has not alleged discriminatory intent. I therefore deny Greystar's motion to dismiss the sex discrimination claim. Miles sufficiently alleges a causal nexus between her protected activity and termination. For these reasons, I deny Greystar's motion to dismiss the retaliation claim. Judge Gordon says. The Plaintiff brings several wage and hour claims for failure to pay overtime in violation of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) section 608.018 (claim one) and failure to timely pay all wages due at termination under NRS section 608.020 (claim two) on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated employees, as well as an individual and collective claim for failure to pay overtime per the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) (claim three). Miles worked for Greystar from Jan. 18, 2023, until her termination on June 9, 2023. The Defendant is an international apartment management company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2BM34x at no extra charge.[CC] HANDI-FOIL CORP: Wins Summary Judgment v. Osdoby ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MERRYL OSDOBY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HANDI-FOIL CORP., Case No. 2:22-cv-04199-NG-JMW (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge entered an order: -- Granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment; -- Denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification as moot; and -- Denying Plaintiff’s request to file a sur-reply. The Defendant manufactures recyclable aluminum foil products. A copy of the Court's judgment dated Feb. 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=91g32o at no extra charge.[CC] HAYWARD HOLDINGS: Seeks Prelim OK of Settlement in Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Hayward Holdings, 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 seeks preliminary court approval for the consolidated securities class suit settlement. On August 2, 2023, a securities class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain of its current directors and officers (Kevin Holleran and Eifion Jones) as well as MSD Partners, L.P. and CCMP Capital Advisors, LP, on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who acquired shares of the Company's common stock between March 2, 2022 and July 27, 2022. That action is captioned City of Southfield Fire and Police Retirement System vs. Hayward Holdings, Inc., et al., 2:23-cv-04146-WJM-ESK (D.N.J.) ( City of Southfield ). On September 28, 2023, a second, related securities class action complaint was filed in the same court against the Company and certain of its current directors and officers (Kevin Holleran and Eifion Jones) as well as MSD Partners, L.P. and CCMP Capital Advisors, LP, on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who acquired shares of the Company's common stock between October 27, 2021 and July 28, 2022. That action is captioned Erie County Employees Retirement System vs. Hayward Holdings, Inc., et al., 2:23-cv-04146-WJM-ESK (D.N.J.) ( Erie County ). On December 19, 2023, the Court issued a ruling consolidating the two securities class actions (City of Southfield and Erie County) under the City of Southfield docket (the Securities Class Action) and appointing a lead plaintiff. In a consolidated class action complaint filed March 4, 2024, the lead plaintiff alleged on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who acquired shares of the Company's common stock between October 27, 2021 and July 28, 2022, among other things, that the Company, Kevin Holleran, and Eifion Jones violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by, among other things, making materially false or misleading statements regarding inventory, growth and demand trends and the Company s financial projections for 2022. On October 2, 2024, the Court issued an Opinion and Order dismissing the consolidated class action complaint and granting the lead plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days. On November 1, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action complaint asserting substantially similar allegations as in the consolidated class action complaint, but adding additional defendants affiliated with MSD Partners, L.P. and CCMP Capital Advisors, LP. On December 18, 2024, the Company and all other defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint. On June 4, 2025, the Court issued an Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. The Court thereafter ordered the parties to mediation. On November 20, 2025, the parties reported to the Court that they had reached a settlement in principle, which is subject to Court approval, and on January 23, 2026, lead plaintiff moved the Court for preliminary approval of the settlement. The Securities Class Action seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of a putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys fees. Hayward is a designer and manufacturer of residential and commercial pool technology. HEALTH CARE: Settlement Class in Villarin Gets Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARIANE ROSE VILLARIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. HEALTH CARE FACILITY MANAGEMENT, LLC, d/b/a COMMUNICARE FAMILY OF COMPANIES, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00097-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Michael Barrett entered an order granting preliminary settlement approval, including Class Certification under Rule 23 and Conditional Collective Certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). 1. The Court certifies, for settlement purposes only, the following Settlement Class and Collective: Settlement Class: "All foreign-trained registered nurses sponsored by CommuniCare through the immigration process from Feb. 17, 2013 through Oct. 13, 2025." Settlement Collective: "All foreign-trained registered nurses sponsored by CommuniCare through the immigration process from Feb. 17, 2013 through Oct. 13, 2025, and who opt into this action to pursue claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act." The following individuals are excluded from the Settlement Class and the Settlement Collective: Jedkreisky Malabanan, Sherra May Vega, Mary Jhane Engnan, Jeddalyn Ramos, Jeffrey Banayat, and Arman Candelaria. 2. Kakalec Law PLLC, Katz Banks Kumin LLP, the Law Offices of Magen E. Kellam, P.A., Towards Justice, and The Law Firm of Shihab & Associates, Co., LPA are appointed as Class Counsel. 3. Ariane Rose Villarin is appointed Class Representative. 4. A Final Approval Hearing is set for July 8, 2026 at 1:00 PM. 5. The Action is stayed and all trial and any pre-trial dates are vacated, subject to further orders of the Court at the final approval hearing. CommuniCare is an owner and operator of healthcare, nursing and rehabilitation centers. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BDvOmz at no extra charge.[CC] HEATHER HILL: Hall Seek More Time to File Renewed Class Cert. Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLENE HALL, v. HEATHER HILL PROPERTY COMPANY LLC, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00238-ABA (D. Md.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting a 7-day extension of time to file her renewed motion for class certification. On Feb. 3, 2026, the Court entered its Order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court's Order directed that Plaintiff may file a renewed motion for class certification comporting with the Order and accompanying memorandum opinion by February 18, 2026. The requested extension is modest and will not prejudice the Defendants or delay the overall progress of this litigation. Accordingly, good cause exists for the requested extension. Heather offers 1, 2 & 3 bedroom apartments. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VsTRNp at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan D. Howlette, Esq. JUSTLY PRUDENT 1140 3rd St. NE, Suite 2180 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 921-6005 Facsimile: (202) 921-7102 E-mail: jordan@justlyprudent.com HOMECARE LLC: Hall Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------- SHANNON HALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HOMECARE, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-00128-CWR-ASH (S.D. Miss., Feb. 25, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant employs caregivers -- including home health aides, personal care aides, companion care workers, and similarly titled positions -- to travel to clients' homes and provide in home care services. The Defendant operates a Visiting Angels home care franchise providing non-medical in-home care services to elderly and disabled clients throughout "Jackson Metro and the surrounding areas."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William "Jack" Simpson, Esq. SIMPSON, PLLC 100 Parkgate Drive, Ext., Suite 205 Tupelo, MS 38801 Telephone: (662) 913-7811 E-mail: jack@simpson-pllc.com HOOEY LLC: Anderson Sues Over Website's Non-Compliance With ADA --------------------------------------------------------------- LISA ANDERSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hooey, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02079 (N.D. Ill., February 24, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://getyourhooey.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Defendant's website provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Defendant. Yet, the website contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website or to to even complete a transaction on the website. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Headquartered in Spring Branch, TX, Hooey, LLC owns and operates the website, which offers apparel and accessories for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law HOUSE OF BRANDS: Bahena Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY BAHENA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOUSE OF BRANDS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02077 (N.D. Ill., February 24, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.oakandluna.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Anderson and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On October 27, 2025, while searching online for a necklace, Plaintiff Bahena accessed the Defendant's website. After reviewing customer feedback about the website, she decided to make a purchase. However, while navigating the website, she encountered accessibility barriers that significantly interfered with her ability to complete the transaction. As she navigated the primary menu using a keyboard, the sub-menu elements within the website's drop-down navigation failed to collapse when the Escape key was pressed. Once the menu received focus, the Plaintiff was forced to navigate through all sub-menu elements, making it difficult to select a product. These accessibility barriers render the website inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually impaired individuals, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. House of Brands LLC operates the website that offers a variety of jewelry pieces such as earrings, bracelets, necklaces, and rings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law HUNTER WARFIELD: Class Settlement in Blizzard Gets Prelim Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Andrew Blizzard, et al., v. Hunter Warfield, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-03374-ABA (D. Md.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for: -- preliminary approval of class action settlement, -- appointment of class counsel and class representatives, -- certification of class for settlement, and -- setting of final approval hearing and notice. The Plaintiffs believes that the settlement is fair and adequate and that a settlement class should be certified. All of the requirements for a class under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) are met. The Settlement Agreement proposes a class consisting of: "All tenants of any Unlicensed Property who were sued in a failure-to-pay rent case or otherwise had collection efforts directed towards them with respect to Unlicensed Rent by the Defendant Hunter Warfield, Inc. within one year of the filing of this lawsuit." The claims to be addressed by the class are: All causes of action, suits, claims and demands, in law or in equity, for damages, statutory damages, expenses, costs, and counsel fees arising out of the practices alleged in the Complaint (including MCDCA claims, MCPA claims, and FDCPA claims) Hunter is a debt collection agency. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GhgVz7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ingmar Goldson, Esq. THE GOLDSON LAW OFFICE 1 Research Court, Suite 450 Rockville, MD 20850 Telephone: (240) 780-8829 E-mail: igoldson@goldsonlawoffice.com - and - Joseph Mack, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH S. MACK Baltimore, MD 21209 Telephone: (443) 423-0464 E-mail: joseph@macklawonline.com ILLUMINA INC: Reply on Opposition to Dismiss Due March 6 -------------------------------------------------------- Illumina, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 25, 2025, that on September 26, 2025, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted the defendants in "In re Illumina, Inc. Securities Litigation" (No. 23-cv-2082-LL-MMP) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, but granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint by October 27, 2025. On October 27, 2025, the plaintiffs filed its Third Amended Complaint. On December 11, 2025, the company filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. On February 4, 2026, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss. The company's reply is due March 6, 2026. On November 11, 2023, the first of three securities class action complaints was filed against Illumina and certain of its current and former executive officers in said court. The first-filed case is captioned "Kangas v. Illumina, Inc. et al.," the second-filed case is captioned "Roy v. Illumina, Inc. et al.," and the third-filed case is captioned "Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund v. Illumina, Inc. et al." The complaints generally allege, among other things, that defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omitted material facts relating to Illumina's acquisition of GRAIL LLC. The complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, fees, and costs. On January 9, 2024, four movants filed motions to consolidate the Actions and to appoint a lead plaintiff. On April 11, 2024, the court issued an order consolidating the Actions into a single action captioned "In re Illumina, Inc. Securities Litigation," and appointed Universal-Investment-Gesellschaft mbH, UI BVK Kapitalverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH, and ACATIS Investment Kapitalverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH as lead plaintiffs. An amended complaint was filed on June 21, 2024 alleging that GRAIL, in addition to Illumina Inc., and certain of their respective current and former directors and others violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 in connection with Illumina's acquisition of GRAIL and disclosures concerning the same. GRAIL was previously acquired by Illumina, Inc. in August 2021, at which point it became a 100% owned subsidiary of Illumina, and held separate as a part of binding hold separate commitments implemented pursuant to orders issued by the European Commission. GRAIL separated from Illumina on June 24, 2024, and was a limited liability company from August 19, 2021 to June 21, 2024 when it was converted into a corporation in anticipation of such separation. GRAIL has an indemnification obligation for certain current and former directors and officers involved in the matter pursuant to indemnification agreements entered into by these individuals and GRAIL. On September 13, 2024 the plaintiffs further amended the complaint. On November 12, 2024, the GRAIL moved to dismiss Lead Plaintiffs' second amended complaint for failure to state a claim under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Lead Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss on December 20, 2024, and the company filed its reply in support of its motion to dismiss on February 3, 2025. Illumina, Inc. is a provider of sequencing and array-based solutions, serving customers in the research, clinical and applied markets for applications in oncology, reproductive health and agriculture with customers that include genomic research centers, academic institutions, government laboratories, and hospitals, as well as pharmaceutical, biotechnology, commercial molecular diagnostic laboratories, and consumer genomics companies. INNOVAGE VIRGINIA: West Seeks to Withdraw Bid for Conditional Cert ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA M. WEST, For herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. INNOVAGE VIRGINIA PACE, II, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00060-EWH-DEM (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion to withdraw its previously filed motion for conditional certification. The Defendant provides senior care. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tkkN7N at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Colt North, Esq. THE CONSUMER & EMPLOYEE RIGHTS LAW FIRM, P.C. 5629 George Washington Memorial Hwy, Suite D Yorktown, VA 23692 Telephone: (757) 873-1010 Facsimile: (757) 873-8375 E-mail: cnorthlaw@aol.com INSTITUTE OF CULINARY EDUCATION: Class Cert Bid Due August 5 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned re Institute of Culinary Education, Inc., Data Privacy Incident, Case No. 1:25-cv-08479-MMG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Garnett entered an order granting joint scheduling proposal for discovery to be conducted in advance of the Plaintiffs' filing of a motion for class certification as follows: Initial disclosures pursuant to Mar. 4, 2026 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1): Depositions of experts, class Oct. 14, 2026 certification, completed by: The Plaintiffs' motion for class Aug. 5, 2026 certification: The Defendant's opposition to class Sept. 16, 2026 certification: The Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion Oct. 14, 2026 for class certification: Hearing on class certification: TBD The Defendant offers career training, diploma and associate degree programs in the culinary arts. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=K6IVrb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P. A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com The Defendant is represented by: Spencer Persson, Esq. Mohammad B. Pathan, Esq. Dayana Ledezma, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE 350 South Grand Avenue, 27th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 633-6800 E-mail: spencerpersson@dwt.com mohammadpathan@dwt.com dayanaledezma@dwt.com INSULET CORP: Mismanages 401(k) Plan, Wakefield Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH WAKEFIELD, individually and on behalf of the INSULET CORPORATION 401(K) PROFIT SHARING PLAN, and on behalf of all the similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the plan, Plaintiff v. INSULET CORPORATION; John and Jane Does 1-30 in their capacities as fiduciaries and members of the Committee, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-10971 (D. Mass., February 24, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty of prudence and failure to adequately monitor other fiduciaries pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendants for violations of their fiduciary duties by both (1) initially selecting; and (2) consistently retaining the American Century Target Date Fund for more than eight years, even when it glaringly underperformed under all investment metrics and, consequently, in terms of returns. As a result of the Defendants' mismanagement of the Insulet Corporation 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan, the Plaintiff and similarly situated participants and beneficiaries suffered financial losses, says the suit. Insulet Corporation is an innovative medical device company, headquartered in Acton, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street, NW Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: cturner@milberg.com - and - Alexandr Rudenco, Esq. Arlene Boruchowitz, Esq. John Hughes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 800 S. Gay St., Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Email: arudenco@milberg.com aboruchowitz@milberg.com jhughes@milberg.com INSUREME INC: Klouda Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against InsureMe, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Gary Klouda, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. InsureMe, Inc., Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 1:26-cv-00456 (N.D. Ohio, Feb. 24, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. InsureMe, Inc. -- https://www.insureme.com/ -- is a licensed and certified representative of Medicare Advantage HMO, PPO, and PPFS organizations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Levin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN - NORTHBROOK 555 Skokie Blvd., Ste. 500 Northbrook, IL 60062 Phone: (224) 218-0882 Email: dlevin@toddflaw.com INT'L BANCSHARES: 5th Cir. Flips Denial of Arbitration in Parrott ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reverses in part the denial of A motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit styled Paul Parrott, as the Representative of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the International Bancshares Corporation Employees' Profit Sharing Plan and Trust, Plaintiff-Appellee v. International Bancshares Corporation; International Bancshares Corporation Profit Sharing Plan Committee; International Bank of Commerce, Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 25-50367 (5th Cir.). The matter is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (USDC No. 5:24-CV-1263). The Fifth Circuit panel consists of Chief Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, and Jerry E. Smith and Cory T. Wilson, Circuit Judges. Judge Smith wrote the Opinion of the Court. International Bancshares Corporation ("IBC") is a bank holding company that owns and operates five banks in Texas and Oklahoma. IBC is the sponsor of a tax-deferred defined contribution retirement savings plan. IBC Profit Sharing Plan Committee ("PSPC") is the Plan's named administrator and fiduciary and is composed of IBC board members. An IBC subsidiary, International Bank of Commerce, controls investment of the Plan's assets; IBC and PSPC also have authority over the investment of the Plan's assets. The Appellants are collectively referred to as IBC unless otherwise noted. Paul Parrott worked at an IBC bank until 2021 and was a Plan participant. He alleges that IBC, PSPC, and International Bank of Commerce breached their fiduciary duty, causing Parrott's distribution to be diminished. In March 2024, IBC amended the Plan to include an arbitration clause, which was made retroactive to Jan. 1, 2024. Parrott had already received his distribution before Jan. 1, 2024, and was no longer employed by IBC. After Parrott filed an ERISA lawsuit against the Defendants under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(2)-(3), alleging violations of fiduciary duties, the Defendants moved to compel arbitration on the basis of the arbitration provisions. The district court denied the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration, finding that there was no consideration under Texas law for the amended arbitration agreement. IBC appeals that ruling, asserting that the district court erred in denying the motion to compel arbitration. IBC raises one issue and preemptively responds to two others. First, it claims that the arbitration provision is valid and enforceable against Parrott. Second, it urges that this Court should not adopt the effective vindication doctrine in this context. Third, it claims that the Plan does not unlawfully "water down" the standard of review for fiduciary actions. The Panel reverses the district court's denial of the motion to compel arbitration as to Parrott's Section 1132(a)(2) claim, affirms as to Parrott's individual claims, voids the standard-of-review provision to the extent it purports to reach breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims, and remands for further proceedings on whether provisions that violate the effective vindication doctrine can be severed. The Panel places no limitation on the matters that the district court may address on remand, and the Panel makes no suggestion as to what decisions it should reach. Judge Smith opines that Section 1132(a)(2), paired with Section 1109, provides relief to the Plan, not to individuals personally. Judge Smith explains that the Supreme Court has made clear that such claims are brought "on behalf of the plan." Therefore, the relevant contracting party is the Plan, not the individual participant. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Plan validly consented to arbitration for Section 1132(a)(2) claims. As to Parrott's personal claims, Judge Smith notes that he did not individually agree to arbitration, IBC did not argue he personally consented, and that arbitration requires consent as a matter of contract law. Because arbitration is a matter of consent, and no individual consent existed, the Panel affirmed denial of arbitration for those claims. Judge Smith also finds, among other things, that the effective vindication doctrine invalidates arbitration provisions that prospectively waive statutory rights or remedies. Hence, the anti-representative-action clause and remedy limitation violate the effective vindication doctrine. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/2uybp6tf from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. INWOOD PROPERTY: Tonato Sues Over Unpaid Compensations ------------------------------------------------------ Galo Ernesto Padilla Tonato, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. INWOOD PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT LLC, and ISAIAH MOULTRIE, individually, Case No. 1:26-cv-01047 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. ("NYCRR") due to unpaid compensations. Throughout the employment, the Defendants willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff the overtime wages lawfully due to him under the FLSA and the NYLL. Specifically, the Defendants required the Plaintiff to work, and the Plaintiff did work, in excess of forty hours each workweek, or virtually each week, yet in exchange, the Defendants paid the Plaintiff a flat weekly salary that did not include overtime premiums for the hours that the Plaintiff worked in a week in excess of forty, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a non-managerial laborer from on February 15, 2025 to August 18, 2025. The Defendant is a New York limited liability company that operates a construction business in Queens, New York, as well as the entity's owner and day-to-day overseer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan S. Riger, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 248-5550 Fax: (516) 248-6027 JASON WOOSLEY: Must Release Aquino from Custody ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ABIGAIL LOPEZ AQUINO, v. JASON WOOSLEY, et al., Case No. 4:26-cv-00043-RGJ (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Jennings entered an order granting Aquino's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and orders the following: The United States is directed to release Petitioner Aquino immediately because of the unlawful detention in violation of her due process rights. The United States must provide her with a bond hearing before a neutral IJ pursuant to Section 1226. The United States must certify compliance with the Court’s order by a filing on the docket by February 18, 2026 The Court finds that all three Matthews factors favor Aquino. The current detention of Aquino is in violation of the Due Process Clause and the INA. Ms. Aquino is a native and citizen of Mexico. Aquino has been present in the United States since 2003, besides a brief period in 2004 when she voluntarily returned to Mexico for an unspecified purpose. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Feb. 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cN8jw6 at no extra charge.[CC] JELLY BELLY CANDY: Love Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jelly Belly Candy Company. The case is styled as Kalitha Yvonne Love, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jelly Belly Candy Company, Case No. CU26-01882 (Cal. Super. Ct., Solano Cty., Feb. 24, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment." Jelly Belly Candy Company -- https://www.jellybelly.com/ -- is an American company that manufactures Jelly Belly jelly beans and other candy.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 725 South Figueroa St., 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com JOHN PAUL: Howell et al. Sue Over False Product Labeling -------------------------------------------------------- HANNAH HOWELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JOHN PAUL MITCHELL SYSTEMS, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01986 (C.D. Cal., February 24, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant seeking damages for breach of express warranty under the Uniform Commercial Code and state consumer protection acts. According to the complaint, John Paul Mitchell Systems' promise that its products were never tested on animals can be found on every product it sells, as well as in all its other media, publicity, and public relation materials, including advertisements, website, marketing campaigns, interviews, and press releases. Over the years, John Paul Mitchell Systems' product labels have promised in various ways and words that its products are 100% cruelty free. Those promises include: "Never Animal Tested"; "No Animal Testing"; "A Pioneer in Cruelty-Free Hair Care"; and "John Paul Mitchell Systems does not conduct or endorse animal testing." However, the Defendant has not honored its promises, allowing animal testing on numerous products just to gain access to one of the world's biggest consumer marketplaces, China, says the suit. Headquartered in Santa Clarita, CA, John Paul Mitchell Systems manufactures and sells hair-care products. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher R. Pitoun (SBN 290235) HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 920 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (213) 330-7150 Facsimile: (213) 330-7152 E-mail: christopherp@hbsslaw.com - and - Robert B. Carey, Esq. Michella A. Kras, Esq. E. Tory Beardsley, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 11 West Jefferson, Suite 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Telephone: (602) 840-5900 Facsimile: (602) 840-3012 E-mail: rob@hbsslaw.com michellak@hbsslaw.com toryb@hbsslaw.com KELCO CONSTRUCTION: Darcon Construction Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kelco Construction, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Darcon Construction, Inc., individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated beneficiaries of the trust of which Kelco Construction, Inc. and John Kelly are trustees, pursuant to lien Law Article 3-A v. Kelco Construction, Inc., et al., Case No. 151938/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., Feb. 12, 2026). KelCo Construction -- https://kelconl.ca/ -- is a heavy civil construction company based in Conception Bay South and Burin with projects across the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.[BN] KENNEDY-WILSON: Taylor Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty ----------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Taylor, directly on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders v. KENNEDY-WILSON HOLDINGS, INC., KONA BIDCO, LLC, KONA MERGER SUBSIDIARY, INC., KONA MANAGEMENT HOLDCO, LLC, WILLIAM MCMORROW, WADE BURTON, STANLEY ZAX, TODD BOEHLY, RICHARD BOUCHER, TREVOR BOWEN, MICHAEL EISNER, JEFFREY MEYERS, DAVID MINELLA, NADINE WATT, and SANAZ ZAIMI, Case No. 2026-0241- (Del. Chancery Ct., Feb. 19, 2026), is brought against the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duty, arising from a merger announced on February 17, 2026, in which the Company will be acquired by the Buyer Entities. Fairfax owned over 15% of Kennedy Wilson's voting stock at all relevant times. By no later than November 4, 2025, Fairfax, McMorrow, and others had entered into a Joint Bidding Agreement2 "to work together in good faith to pursue the Merger. On that date, Fairfax and McMorrow jointly submitted an offer to the Company's board of directors (the "Board") to acquire Kennedy Wilson for $10.25 per share. The evidence suggests that the Board did not pre-approve the formation of the Buyer Group before McMorrow and Fairfax entered into their AAU and submitted their November 4 proposal. As a result, Section 203 provides that any merger of the Company is void unless it is approved by two-thirds of the Company's disinterested stockholders. But the Merger Agreement only conditions the Merger on approval by a majority of the Company's common and preferred stock, voting as a single class and unaffiliated stockholders. The Individual Defendants caused the Company to issue a Form 8-K and press release in connection with the Merger's announcement on February 17, 2026, which incorrectly states that the two stockholder votes required by the Merger Agreement are the only stockholder votes that must be obtained to consummate the Merger. The Form 8-K contains no disclosure that Section 203 prohibits the Company from engaging in the Merger without the approval of two-thirds of the unaffiliated voting power. Closing the Merger with support from only a bare majority of Kennedy Wilson's unaffiliated stockholders would violate Section 203. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enjoin the stockholder vote on the Merger unless and until the parties agree to condition the Merger on the approval of two-thirds of the Company's disinterested stockholders and make appropriate corresponding disclosures, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a Company stockholder and has owned Company common stock. Kennedy Wilson is a global real estate investment company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ned Weinberger, Esq. Brendan W. Sullivan, Esq. Michael Wagner, Esq. Ryan C. Stieve, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1510 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 573-2540 Email: nweinberger@labaton.com bsullivan@labaton.com mwagner@labaton.com rstieve@labaton.com KEURIG DR. PEPPER: Linares Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Joaquin Linares, on behalf of himself and all other current and former non-exempt employees v. KEURIG DR. PEPPER, INC., a Delaware corporation; THE AMERICAN BOTTLING COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; DR. PEPPER/SEVEN UP, INC., a Delaware corporation; SNAPPLE BEVERAGE CORP., a Delaware corporation, MOTT'S LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2537938 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 20, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-00836. The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: Failure to Pay Hourly, Minimum, and Overtime Wages; Failure to Indemnify; Wage Statement Violations; Failure to Timely Pay Wages; Unfair Competition; and Civil Penalties under the Private Attorneys' General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"). The Complaint seeks, among other things, alleged unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, double time wages, statutory penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of Plaintiff and the putative class.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ronald J. Holland, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 101 Second Street, Suite 2200 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415.655.1300 Fax: 415.707.2010 Email: Ron.Holland@gtlaw.com - and - Ryan C. Bykerk, Esq. Joseph M. Dietrich, Esq. 18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: 949.732.6500 Facsimile: 949.732.6501 Email: bykerkr@gtlaw.com joe.dietrich@gtlaw.com KEYSTONE RV: Consumer Class Wins Certification ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Marc Guisinger v. Keystone RV Company, Case No. 2:23-cv-01393-MWC-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michelle Williams Court entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Court certifies the following class: "All consumers who purchased a new Passport Brand Western Edition Trailer from a Keystone authorized dealership in California prior to Dec. 1, 2019, with a Serial Number that sequentially ends after HX414101." Excluded from the class are the Defendant and any entities in which Defendant has a controlling interest, any of the Defendant's parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, employees and members of such person's immediate families, the presiding judge and the judge’s immediate family. The Plaintiff Marc Guisinger is appointed as class representative, and Saltz Mongeluzzi & Bendesky, P.C. is appointed as class counsel to represent the interests of the class and the subclass. The Court also sets an order to show cause hearing re State Bar Referral of Simon Paris for breach of the duty of candor to the Court for Feb. 27, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 6A. Mr. Paris is required to appear in person. The Court finds that adjudicating class members' claims in a single action would be superior to maintaining a multiplicity of individual actions involving similar legal and factual issues. Accordingly, Plaintiff has proven superiority. This is a false advertising case involving Passport Brand Western Edition towable trailers manufactured by Defendant. The Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendant asserting violations of the California's consumer protection statutes (California's Unfair Competition Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and False Advertising Law) and unjust enrichment. The Defendant manufactures six brands of travel trailers. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zSySkG at no extra charge.[CC] KRISTI NOEM: Time to Respond to Immigration Complaint Extended -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IMMIGRATION CENTER FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN, et al., v. KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, Case No. 2:25-cv-09848-AB-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order granting the joint stipulation to extend time to respond to the complaint. The Defendants' deadline to respond to the Complaint is extended from Feb. 24, 2026, to 14 days after the Court issues its orders deciding both of the two currently pending motions: the Motion for Class Certification and the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Kristi Noem is an American politician. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fm3POA at no extra charge.[CC] L'OREAL TRAVEL: Rezaie Sues Over Asbestos-Contaminated Products --------------------------------------------------------------- HOMA REZAIE and SAEED AKHTAR, Plaintiffs v. L'OREAL TRAVEL RETAIL AMERICAS, INC., L'OREAL TRAVEL RETAILAMERICAS, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to HELENA RUBINSTEIN INC. and YVES SAINT LAURENT AMERICA, INC., as successor-by-merger to SANOFI BEA UTE, INC., SANOFI BEAUTY PRODUCTS, INC., and YSL BEAUTE, INC. and d/b/a HELENA RUBINSTEIN, LANCOME, NINA RICCI, and YVES SAINT LAURENT, et al., Defendants, Case No. CACE-26-002786 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., 17th Judicial, February 17, 2026) is a class action arising from Plaintiffs' exposure to asbestos from the Defendants' asbestos-containing and/or asbestos-contaminated products. The complaint alleges that Defendant concealed the dangers of asbestos from Plaintiff, her family members, and others similarly situated without properly testing Defendants' prescription drug products to determine the harmful effects to persons exposed to asbestos from the use of such products; failed to take any reasonable precautions or to exercise reasonable care to adequately or sufficiently warn Plaintiff, her family members and others similarly situated of the risks, dangers and harms, to-wit: contracting diseases and suffering injuries such as asbestos pleural disease, asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma or other forms of cancers to which Plaintiff was exposed by personally using, coming in contact with, handling, sweeping, removing, and exposure to the asbestos dust and fibers from Defendants' products; and caused Plaintiff to contract mesothelioma, which arose out of the acts and omissions which occurred in the State of Florida during the relevant period of time, at which time Defendants were engaged in solicitation or service activities within the State of Florida. L'Oreal Travel Retail Americas, Inc. was founded in 1991. The Company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of prescription drugs, proprietary drugs, and toiletries.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rebecca S. Vinocur, Esq. REBECCA S. VINOCUR, P.A. 5915 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 14 Coral Gables, FL 33146 Telephone: (786) 691-1282 Facsimile: (786) 691-1283 E-mail: rvinocur@rsv-law.com - and - Brendan J. Tully, Esq. SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER, PC 420 Lexington A venue, Suite 2848 New York, NY 10170 Telephone: (212) 634-1690 E-mail: btully@sgptrial.com LAIRD SUPERFOOD: Caldera Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Salvador Caldera, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. LAIRD SUPERFOOD, INC., and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV02688 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. 24, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01955. The Plaintiff alleges that Laird mislabeled and falsely advertised its Laird Protein Bars in all flavors ("Protein Bars"). Based on this conduct, he asserts claims on behalf of himself and a putative class under: California's unfair competition law, California Business & Professions Code sections 17200 (the "UCL"); California's false advertising law, California Business & Professions Code (the "FAL"); the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code sections 1750 (the "CLRA"), negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Annie Ticknor, Esq. HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 700 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (949) 202-3000 Fax: (949) 202-3001 Email: annie.ticknor@haynesboone.com LANGER JUICE COMPANY: Estrella Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Langer Juice Company, Inc. The case is styled as Elizabeth Osvaldo Martinez Estrella, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Langer Juice Company, Inc., Case No. 26STCV05298 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 19, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Langer Juice Company -- https://langers.com/ -- is a food & beverages company based out of United States.[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 LESSONS OF LIFE: Downes Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------- Pam Downes, Nita Gallegos and Consuelo Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LESSONS OF LIFE, LLC, EDWARD RUIZ AND REYNALDO ROMERO, JR., INDIVIDUALLY, Case No. 2:26-cv-00528-GBW-JHR (D.N.M., Feb. 23, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act ("NM Wage Act") as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay overtime compensation. The Plaintiffs and Class Members worked very long hours, consistently working over forty hours per week. Although they worked very long hours, Plaintiffs were misclassified and/or were not paid overtime pay for a period of time as required by the FLSA. The Defendants required the Plaintiffs to work the long hours, and thus knew that The Plaintiffs and Class Members regularly worked over 40 hours per week. The Defendants have employed and are employing other individuals as caregivers who have performed the same job duties under the same pay provisions as the Plaintiffs, in that they have performed, or are performing, the same job duties, have consistently worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek and were for a period of time denied overtime compensation at a rate of not less than one-and-one-half times their regular rates of pay. The Defendants have knowingly, willfully, or with reckless disregard carried out their illegal pattern or practice of failing to pay overtime compensation to the Plaintiffs and the Class Members, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as caregivers. The Defendants provide home health care services to patients in their homes or at the health care facilities where their patients reside.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq. WELMAKER LAW, PLLC 505 E. Magrill St. Longview, TX 75601 Phone: (512) 799-2048 Email: doug@welmakerlav.com - and - Josef F. Buenker, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM P.O. Box 10099 Houston, TX 77206 Phone: 713-868-3388 Facsimile: 713-683-9940 Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com LORETTO HEALTH: Class Cert. Bid in Aderohunmu Extended to April 3 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Aderohunmu v. Loretto Health & Rehabilitation Center, Case No. 5:24-cv-00731 (N.D.N.Y., Filed May 31, 2024), the Hon. Judge David N. Hurd entered an order that the deadline for Defendants to respond to the Plaintiffs motion to certify class is extended to April 3, 2026. -- Any reply shall be filed by March 10, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Loretto provides comprehensive healthcare services.[CC] MARATHON PETROLEUM: Faces Tejon Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROGER TEJON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated V. MARATHON PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Case No. 1:26-cv-21317-KMW (S.D. Fla., Feb. 26, 2026) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the classes, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. The Defendant is an energy corporation engaged in the refining, distribution, and sale of petroleum products, such as the operation of gasoline service stations, to consumers throughout the United States, including the State of Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher E. Berman, Esq. Shamis & Gentile, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, Florida 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: cberman@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW P.A. Florida Bar No. 0100537 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com MERCADIEN P.C. CPAS: Delgado Files Suit in D. New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mercadien, P.C., CPAS. The case is styled as Anthony Delgado, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mercadien, P.C., CPAS., Case No. 3:26-cv-01773 (D.N.J., Feb. 23, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. Mercadien, PC Certified Public Accountants -- https://www.mercadien.com/ -- offers a full spectrum of accounting and advisory services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Avi Mermelstein, Esq. ARENSON, DITTMAR & KARBAN 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1402 New York, NY 10170 Phone: (212) 490-3600 Email: avi@adklawfirm.com MERCADIEN PC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Johnson Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- ONEIKA JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MERCADIEN, P.C., CPAS, Case No. 3:26-cv-02012 (Feb. 25, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected personally identifiable information and financial information stored within the Defendant's information network. The Defendant acquired, collected, and stored Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and financial information. The Defendant knew or should have known, that Plaintiff and Class Members would use Defendant's services to store and/or share sensitive data, including highly confidential PII and financial information. Between September 17, 2025, and October 9, 2025, upon information and belief, unauthorized third-party cybercriminals gained access to Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and financial information as hosted with the Defendant, with the intent of engaging in the misuse of the PII and financial information, including marketing and selling Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and financial information. The total number of individuals who have had their data exposed due to Defendant's failure to implement appropriate security safeguards is unknown at this time but is estimated to be in the tens/hundreds of thousands based on Defendant's clientele, says the suit. The Defendant is an accounting firm based in New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, No. 10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com MERCARI INC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mercari, Inc., Case No. 0:26-cv-01584 (D. Minn., Feb. 23, 2026), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.mercari.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 an online marketplace for secondhand apparel and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, clothing, toys, electronics, gaming supplies, handbags, home decor, sporting goods, office supplies, pet supplies 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 MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Faces Au Suit Over Defective Sunroof Systems --------------------------------------------------------------- JONNY AU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00127-TSL-MTP (S.D. Miss., February 24, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The case concerns a common design and/or manufacturing defect in sunroof and panoramic roof drainage systems in Mercedes Benz vehicles, which allows water to intrude into the passenger compartment and pool in the front passenger footwell where sensitive electrical components are located, causing corrosion, short circuits, malfunctions, no start conditions, and safety risks. The Plaintiff's 2017 Mercedes Benz GLS 450 suffered a no start and widespread electrical failure after water accumulated in the passenger footwell and battery compartment. He seeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief including an appropriate repair/reimbursement program, and any further relief the Court deems just and proper. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC was founded in 2000. The Company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of new and used passenger automobiles, trucks, trailers, and other motor vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David McMullan, Jr. John W. "Don" Barrett, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. 404 Court Square Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (662) 834-2488 Facsimile: (662) 834-2628 E-mail: dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com - and - Mark A. Nelson, Esq. Ned A. Nelson, Esq. NELSON LAW PLLC 7 Woodstone Plaza, Ste. 7 Hattiesburg, MS 39402 Telephone: (601) 602-6031 Facsimile: (601) 602-3251 E-mail: mark@nelsonfirm.law ned@nelsonfirm.law - and - J. Marc McMillian, Esq. MCMILLIAN LAW, PLLC 114 Choctaw St. W P.O. Box 337 Magee, MS 39111 Telephone: (601) 340-6073 Facsimile: (601) 340-6971 E-mail: marc@mcmlaw.legal MERRILL LYNCH: Court Certifies "Valelly" Class ---------------------------------------------- Judge Valerie Caproni of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the motion for class certification in the case captioned Sarah Valelly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. 19-CV-7998 (VEC), certified a class of all persons who had one or more Merrill Edge retirement accounts with cash balances swept pursuant to the Retirement Asset Savings Program at any time during the period December 15, 2016, through March 15, 2020. Defendant is a registered broker-dealer offering a brokerage product called Merrill Edge Self-Directed Investing. One feature of Merrill Edge is the Retirement Asset Savings Program, a sweep program pursuant to which free credit balances are automatically transferred to a deposit account at a Merrill-affiliated bank, such as Bank of America. To enroll in Merrill Edge, customers must sign the Merrill Edge Self-Directed Investing Client Relationship Agreement, which provides that the interest paid on retirement account assets will be at no less than a reasonable rate. Plaintiff opened three retirement accounts with Defendant in August 2017. In August 2019, she initiated this action, alleging that Defendant breached the Client Relationship Agreement by paying less than a reasonable rate of interest on cash swept pursuant to the program. The sole issue remaining for trial is whether a trier of fact could conclude that the interest rate paid by Defendant during some or all of the class period was not reasonable. The Court found all four Rule 23(a) requirements satisfied. On numerosity, Defendant maintained tens of thousands of retirement accounts, easily satisfying the requirement. On commonality, two questions are common to the class: whether Defendant failed to pay retirement account-holders a reasonable rate of interest, and the extent of damages suffered. On typicality, Plaintiff held Merrill Edge retirement accounts subject to the same Client Relationship Agreement as all class members. Defendant argued Plaintiff was atypical because she resided in Mexico from August 2019 to December 2020, but the Court rejected that argument, finding it would constitute, at most, a partial defense that would not overshadow the primary claims. On adequacy, Plaintiff has no known conflicts of interest with other class members, and class counsel, Wolf Popper LLP, has substantial experience litigating complex class actions. The Court also found the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance and superiority requirements satisfied. Because all class members signed the same Client Relationship Agreement, the proof will be the same for each member, lending itself to generalized forms of proof. Plaintiff's expert, Dr. Darius Palia, put forth a damages methodology whereby each class member's recovery is calculated by taking the reasonable rate determined by the jury and subtracting the rate Defendant actually paid. The Court found this methodology consistent with Plaintiff's theory of liability and sufficient under Comcast Corp. v. Behrend. The Court rejected each of Defendant's three contrary arguments as unpersuasive. On superiority, given the relatively small recovery likely available to most class members, they will generally have little interest in bringing individual actions, and litigating each case individually would create vast inefficiencies for Defendant and class members alike. The Court certified the class, appointed Plaintiff as class representative, and appointed Wolf Popper LLP as class counsel. The parties were ordered to meet and confer regarding trial and to file a joint letter by March 19, 2026, providing three mutually convenient trial dates between June 15, 2026, and December 15, 2026. A trial conference is scheduled for March 27, 2026. A copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DyYIS2 from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated Represented By: Lara Samet Buchwald Alexa B Lutchen Paul Steel Mishkin Rebecca L Martin Davis Polk & Wardwell Llp (nyc) lara.samet@davispolk.com alexa.lutchen@davispolk.com paul.mishkin@dpw.com rebecca.martin@davispolk.com Plaintiff Sarah Valelly Represented By: Robert Craig Finkel Wolf Popper LLP 212-759-4600 rfinkel@wolfpopper.com Adam Joseph Blander Wolf Popper LLP 212-451-9667 ablander@wolfpopper.com META PLATFORMS: Robinson Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Nicholas Robinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 26-CIV-00466 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Mateo, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 24, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-01616. The Complaint asserts a claim against Meta for violation of the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act ("CDAFA"). The Plaintiff alleges that Meta accessed, obtained, possessed, and used voiceprints and related biometric information from California users of its Facebook and Messenger platforms. The Plaintiff purports to bring this action on behalf of himself and "all persons in California whose Digital Voice Data, Voice Characteristics, and/or a Voice Profile were accessed, collected, stored, and used by Defendant."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Melanie M. Blunschi, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery St., Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: +1.415.391.0600 Email: melanie.blunschi@lw.com - and - Gary Feinerman, Esq. Kathryn J. George, Esq. 330 N. Wabash Ave., Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (312) 876-7700 Email: gary.feinerman@lw.com katie.george@lw.com MICROGENICS CORP: Appeals Denied Summary Judgment Bid to 2nd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY ANNUCCI, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motions for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Nadezda Steele-Warrick, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Microgenics Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-6558, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit alleges that the Defendants breached their duty to the Plaintiffs and the Class by failing to ensure that their Indiko Plus urinalysis analyzers yielded accurate and reliable test results. On May 1 and 2, 2025, the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) Defendants filed motions for summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity, which Judge Frederic Block denied on Feb. 6, 2026. The Court rules that the DOCCS Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable jury could conclude that they violated the Plaintiffs' well-established rights via their involvement in the rollout of the Indiko Plus testing system in 2019. The question of whether these five officers are entitled to qualified immunity must be reserved until after trial. The appellate case is entitled Steele-Warrick v. Microgenics Corporation, Case No. 26-414, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on February 25, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees NADEZDA STEELE-WARRICK, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Matthew D, Brinckerhoff, Esq. EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF ABADY WARD & MAAZEL LLP One Rockefeller Plaza, 8th Floor New York, NY 10020 - and - Emily Kane Wanger, Esq. EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF ABADY WARD & MAAZEL LLP 600 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10020 - and - Andrew Stecker, Esq. PRISONERS' LEGAL SERVICES OF NEW YORK IMMIGRATION Unit 14 Lafayette Square, Suite 510 Buffalo, NY 14203 - and - Ann Ferrari, Esq. PRISONERS' LEGAL SERVICES OF NEW YORK 114 Prospect Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Defendants-Appellants ANTHONY ANNUCCI, et al. are represented by: Barbara D. Underwood, Esq. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 MICROGENICS CORP: Appeals Judgment Order in Steele-Warrick Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- COREY BEDARD, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motions for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Nadezda Steele-Warrick, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Microgenics Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-6558, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit alleges that the Defendants breached their duty to the Plaintiffs and the Class by failing to ensure that their Indiko Plus urinalysis analyzers yielded accurate and reliable test results. On May 1 and 2, 2025, the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) Defendants filed motions for summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity, which Judge Frederic Block denied on Feb. 6, 2026. The Court rules that the DOCCS Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable jury could conclude that they violated the Plaintiffs' well-established rights via their involvement in the rollout of the Indiko Plus testing system in 2019. The question of whether these five officers are entitled to qualified immunity must be reserved until after trial. The appellate case is entitled Steele-Warrick v. Microgenics Corporation, Case No. 26-409, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on February 25, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees NADEZDA STEELE-WARRICK, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Matthew D, Brinckerhoff, Esq. EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF ABADY WARD & MAAZEL LLP One Rockefeller Plaza, 8th Floor New York, NY 10020 - and - Emily Kane Wanger, Esq. EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF ABADY WARD & MAAZEL LLP 600 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10020 - and - Andrew Stecker, Esq. PRISONERS' LEGAL SERVICES OF NEW YORK IMMIGRATION Unit 14 Lafayette Square, Suite 510 Buffalo, NY 14203 - and - Ann Ferrari, Esq. PRISONERS' LEGAL SERVICES OF NEW YORK 114 Prospect Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Defendants-Appellants COREY BEDARD, et al. are represented by: Ryan T. Donovan, Esq. CONWAY, DONOVAN & MANLEY PLLC 50 State Street, 2nd Floor Albany, NY 12207 - and - Barbara D. Underwood, Esq. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 - and - Benjamin W. Hill, Esq. CAPEZZA HILL, LLP 30 South Pearl Street, Suite P-110 Albany, NY 12207 - and - Jeffrey Peter Mans, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY P. MANS P.O. Box 11-282 Albany, NY 12211 MICROGENICS CORP: Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 2nd Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD FINNEGAN is taking an appeal from a court order denying the Defendants' motions for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Nadezda Steele-Warrick, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Microgenics Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-6558, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit alleges that the Defendants breached their duty to the Plaintiffs and the Class by failing to ensure that their Indiko Plus urinalysis analyzers yielded accurate and reliable test results. On May 1 and 2, 2025, the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) Defendants filed motions for summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity, which Judge Frederic Block denied on Feb. 6, 2026. The Court rules that the DOCCS Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable jury could conclude that they violated the Plaintiffs' well-established rights via their involvement in the rollout of the Indiko Plus testing system in 2019. The question of whether these five officers are entitled to qualified immunity must be reserved until after trial. The appellate case is entitled Steele-Warrick v. Microgenics Corporation, Case No. 26-412, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on February 25, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees NADEZDA STEELE-WARRICK, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Matthew D, Brinckerhoff, Esq. EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF ABADY WARD & MAAZEL LLP One Rockefeller Plaza, 8th Floor New York, NY 10020 - and - Emily Kane Wanger, Esq. EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF ABADY WARD & MAAZEL LLP 600 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10020 - and - Andrew Stecker, Esq. PRISONERS' LEGAL SERVICES OF NEW YORK IMMIGRATION Unit 14 Lafayette Square, Suite 510 Buffalo, NY 14203 - and - Ann Ferrari, Esq. PRISONERS' LEGAL SERVICES OF NEW YORK 114 Prospect Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Defendant-Appellant RICHARD FINNEGAN is represented by: Benjamin W. Hill, Esq. CAPEZZA HILL, LLP 30 South Pearl Street, Suite P-110 Albany, NY 12207 MICROGENICS CORP: Appeals Tossed Summary Judgment Bid to 2nd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES KELLY is taking an appeal from a court order denying the Defendants' motions for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Nadezda Steele-Warrick, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Microgenics Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-6558, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit alleges that the Defendants breached their duty to the Plaintiffs and the Class by failing to ensure that their Indiko Plus urinalysis analyzers yielded accurate and reliable test results. On May 1 and 2, 2025, the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) Defendants filed motions for summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity, which Judge Frederic Block denied on Feb. 6, 2026. The Court rules that the DOCCS Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable jury could conclude that they violated the Plaintiffs' well-established rights via their involvement in the rollout of the Indiko Plus testing system in 2019. The question of whether these five officers are entitled to qualified immunity must be reserved until after trial. The appellate case is entitled Steele-Warrick v. Microgenics Corporation, Case No. 26-410, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on February 25, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees NADEZDA STEELE-WARRICK, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Matthew D, Brinckerhoff, Esq. EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF ABADY WARD & MAAZEL LLP One Rockefeller Plaza, 8th Floor New York, NY 10020 - and - Emily Kane Wanger, Esq. EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF ABADY WARD & MAAZEL LLP 600 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10020 - and - Andrew Stecker, Esq. PRISONERS' LEGAL SERVICES OF NEW YORK IMMIGRATION Unit 14 Lafayette Square, Suite 510 Buffalo, NY 14203 - and - Ann Ferrari, Esq. PRISONERS' LEGAL SERVICES OF NEW YORK 114 Prospect Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Defendant-Appellant CHARLES KELLY is represented by: Jeffrey Peter Mans, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY P. MANS P.O. Box 11-282 Albany, NY 12211 MIDWEST TAPE LLC: Smith Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kevin Smith, Lyly Tran, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Midwest Tape, LLC doing business as: Hoopla, Case No. 3:24-cv-08805 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on Feb. 23, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00443-JZ to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Midwest Tape, LLC doing business as hoopla -- https://www.hoopladigital.com/ -- offers free streaming and downloaded audiobooks, movies, music, ebooks and comics to iOS, Android and Kindle devices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emily Ayres Horne, Esq. FRIEDMAN & SPRINGWATER LLP 350 Sansome Street, Ste. 800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 834-3800 - and - L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER - WALNUT CREEK 1990 North California Blvd., Ste. 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Fax: (925) 407-2700 - and - Max Stuart Roberts, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER - NEW YORK 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7408 Fax: (212) 989-9163 - and - Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER - WHITE PLAINS 50 Main Street, Ste. 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Phone: (914) 874-0710 The Defendant is represented by: Todd P. Stelter, Esq. Vincent Rizzo, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON-CHICAGO 151 North Franklin Street, Ste. 2500 Chicago, IL 60601-1081 Phone: (312) 704-3966 Fax: (312) 704-3001 Email: tstelter@hinshawlaw.com MILLIMAN INC: Michalski Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Daniel Michalski, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Milliman, INC., d/b/a Intelliscript, Case No. 26-2-02351-4-SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of King, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on Feb. 20, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00613. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges Milliman violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jeffery M. Wells, Esq. WILLIAMS, KASTNER & GIBBS PLLC 601 Union Street, Suite 4000 Seattle, WA 98101-2380 Phone: (206) 628-6600 Email: jwells@williamskastner.com MISSAUKEE, MI: Appeals Order in Gautz Suit to Mich. Ct. of Appeals ------------------------------------------------------------------ COUNTY OF MISSAUKEE, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Lloyd Gautz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. County of Missaukee, et al., Defendants, Case No. _______, in the Circuit Court of Missaukee, Michigan. The appellate case is styled as Lloyd Gautz vs. County of Missaukee, Case No. 379628, in the Michigan Court of Appeals, filed on February 25, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee LLOYD GAUTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Philip L. Ellison, Esq. OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL PLC P.O. Box 107 Hemlock, MI 48626 Telephone: (989) 642-0055 Facsimile: (888) 398-7003 - and - Matthew E. Gronda, Esq. 4800 Fashion Square Boulevard, Suite 200 Saginaw, MI 48604 Telephone: (989) 233-1639 - and - E. Powell Miller, Esq. Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, PC 950 W. University Dr., Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 600-5455 Defendants-Appellants COUNTY OF MISSAUKEE, et al. are represented by: Douglas J. Curlew, Esq. Allan C. Vander Laan, Esq. CUMMINGS, MCCLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO, PLC 17436 College Parkway Livonia, MI 48152 Telephone: (734) 261-2400 Email: dcurlew@cmda-law.com MISSISSIPPI TORNADO ALLEY: Sherif Files Suit in N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mississippi Tornado Alley, LLC. The case is styled as Sherif Sherif, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Mississippi Tornado Alley, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-01543 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 23, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I for Personal Injury.[BN] The Plaintiff is 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 MMC MASONRY GROUP: Boror Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------- Adolfo Boror, Ottoniel Elias, Tomas Saquic, and Vicente Jacobo, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. MMC MASONRY GROUP LLC and MICHAEL CIRINO, individually, Case No. 2:26-cv-01815 (D.N.J., Feb. 24, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"), to recover unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid wages, liquidated damages, civil penalties, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiffs were not paid all wages owed to them, including unpaid regular wages and, overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs and the FLSA collective employees to work without providing them with proper compensation for all hours worked, without paying overtime compensation at time-and-a-half the regular rate, for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NJWHL by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay its employees, including Plaintiffs, proper wages and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are former employees of the Defendants and were employed as masonry/construction workers. MMC MASONRY GROUP LLC was a corporate entity principally engaged in the masonry and construction industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12t Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 203-2417 Web: www.StillmanLegalPC.com MONSTER RESERVATIONS: Rincon Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monster Reservations Group LLC. The case is styled as Karen Rincon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Monster Reservations Group LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-00722-JD (D.S.C., Feb. 19, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Monster Reservations Group -- https://monsterrg.com/ -- specializes in securing popular vacation destinations across the Continental United States, Caribbean, Mexico, and beyond.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dave Maxfield, Esq. DAVE MAXFIELD, ATTORNEY, LLC PO Box 11865 Columbia, SC 29211 Phone: (803) 509-6800 Fax: (855) 299-1656 Email: dave@consumerlawsc.com MTB ACQUISITION: Bennett Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- LIVINGSTON BENNETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MTB Acquisition, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02075 (N.D. Ill., February 24, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://mysterytacklebox.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Anderson and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On October 13, 2025, while browsing the internet using his screen reader, the Plaintiff explored various retail offerings and learned about subscription-based fishing gear services. During his search, he came across Mystery Tackle Box and visited the Defendant's website and was encouraged to proceed with a purchase. Plaintiff Bennett was particularly interested in purchasing a gift subscription plan, which provides recurring deliveries of fishing tackle and related gear. While navigating the website to review and complete his purchase, the Plaintiff encountered several accessibility barriers, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. MTB Acquisition, LLC operates the website that offers a variety of apparel and accessories such as hats, shirts, outerwear, belts, wallets, and bags.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law MURPHY REHABILITATION: Fleming Bid to Certify Class Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERESA FLEMING, v. MURPHY REHABILITATION, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00206-MOC-WCM (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Max Cogburn, Jr. entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion to certify class conditionally as a collective action. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has failed to produce any statements from witnesses that could provide even a minimal amount of corroboration. The Plaintiff has only produced her self-interested hearsay declaration that other CNAs were subject to Defendant's lunch-break policy. Again, the conditional certification standard is "fairly lenient," and may simply be satisfied by unsworn statements by other similarly situated individuals. However, The Plaintiff has failed to clear this low bar. The Plaintiff will not be permitted to mail notice to the purported class of similarly situated individuals, the Court says. The Plaintiff filed this action against the Defendant alleging that Defendant's policy requiring the Plaintiff to take mandatory, unpaid lunch breaks while remaining on-call violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Certified Nursing Assistant ("CNA") off and on from August 2022 until September 2023. The Defendant provides non-acute medical and skilled nursing care services, therapy and social services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cVuoJq at no extra charge.[CC] NATIONAL FACILITY SERVICES: Andries Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Facility Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Robin Andries, individually and on Behalf of Others similarly situated v. National Facility Services, Inc., Corey Amico, Joseph C. Amico, Jr., Case No. 2685CV00221 (Mass. Super. Ct., Worcester Cty., Feb. 9, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Torts. National Facility Services, Inc. -- https://nationalfacilityservices.com.au/ -- operates as a facility maintenance contractors. The Company offers janitorial, landscaping, snow removal, mechanical pipe insulation, and maintenance services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raven Moeslinger, Esq. ORTIZ AND MOESLINGER, P.C. One Boston Place Suite 2600 Boston, MA 02108 Phone: (617) 338-9400 NATIONAL RETAIL: Moore Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Retail Transportation, Inc. The case is styled as Howard Moore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Retail Transportation, Inc., Case No. 26STCV04634 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 11, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." National Retail Transportation, Inc. -- https://nrs3pl.com/ -- is a transportation services. The Company offers trucking, store delivery, pool point distribution, and pier drayage services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92318 Phone: (949) 387-7200 Fax: (949) 387-6676 NATIONWIDE 3PL LLC: Ledezma Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide 3PL LLC. The case is styled as Jacqueline Ledezma, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated employees v. Nationwide 3PL LLC, Reddion Personnel Services Inc., High Tech Logistics LLC, Case No. 26STCV04870 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 13, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Nationwide Logistics, LLC -- https://nationwideprestige3pl.com/ -- is a third party logistics (3PL) brokerage providing real-time support to entrepreneurial freight agents across the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Lavi, Esq. E&L, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., 2nd Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: 213-213-0000 Fax: 213-213-0025 Email: dlavi@ebralavi.com NAVY FEDERAL: Denial of Class Cert. in Oliver Suit Upheld in Part ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirms in part and vacates in part the denial of class certification in the lawsuit entitled LAQUITA OLIVER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; MASHEEHA HOPPER; MARIE PEREDA; DENNIS WALKER; CARL CARR; CHRISTINA HILL; JOHN JACKSON; CHARLES GARDNER; BOB OTONDI; CONSTANTINA BATCHELOR, Plaintiffs - Appellants v. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant - Appellee; AFRICAN AMERICAN CREDIT UNION COALITION; AMERICA'S CREDIT UNIONS; CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION, Amici Supporting Appellee, Case No. 24-1656 (4th Cir.). The matter is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria (Case No. 1:23-cv-01731-LMB-WEF; Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge). The Fourth Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Julius N. Richardson and Toby J. Heytens, and Norman K. Moon, Senior United States District Judge for the Western District of Virginia, sitting by designation. The class certification order is affirmed in part and vacated in part. Judge Heytens wrote the Opinion of the Court, which Judge Moon joined. Judge Richardson wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. Nine applicants for residential mortgage products sued Navy Federal Credit Union, individually and on behalf of a putative class, alleging systematic discrimination against racial minorities. The facts of each applicant's case vary. Relevant to this appeal: (1) the applicants live in different States; (2) eight applicants are Black and one is Latino; (3) six applicants applied for a first mortgage, one applied for a first mortgage and a cash-out refinance, one applied for a Veterans Affairs (VA) first mortgage, and one applied for a VA cash-out refinance; and (4) the applicants' debt, income, and credit scores vary. Despite those differences, the complaint alleges that Navy Federal uses a "semi‑automated underwriting process" for all loan applicants, which results in discrimination against "African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, and other racial minorities." Incorporating independent reports that identify and analyze racial disparities in Navy Federal's lending data, the complaint alleges that Navy Federal's "somewhat automated process" produces a "uniquely discriminatory result." Beyond asserting individual claims of intentional discrimination and disparate impact, the complaint also seeks classwide declaratory and injunctive relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and damages under Rule 23(b)(3). The complaint defines the proposed class as: "All minority residential loan applicants from 2018 through the present . . . who submitted an application for any home mortgage loan to [Navy Federal], who sought to refinance or modify a home mortgage loan through [Navy Federal], and/or who sought a Home Equity Line of Credit from [Navy Federal] and whose application was: (a) denied; (b) approved at higher interest rates and/or subject to less favorable terms as compared to similarly situated non-minority applicants; or (c) processed at a rate slower than the average processing time of applica[tions] submitted by similarly situated non-minority applicants." Navy Federal moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) and, in the alternative, to strike the class allegations under Rules 12(f) and 23(d)(1)(D). As relevant here, Navy Federal argued that the differences across loan programs precluded class certification because the applicants failed to explain how an undefined underwriting process could produce discriminatory effects for class members who applied for different products. After a hearing, the district court granted Navy Federal's motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. The court also stated it would "strike the class allegation[s]," citing both Rules 12(f)(2) and 23(d)(1)(D). This Court granted interlocutory review of the district court's order striking the complaint's class allegations. Judge Heytens notes that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(A) instructs district courts to make class certification decisions at "an early practicable time." Consistent with this Court's decision in Goodman v. Schlesinger, 584 F.2d 1325 (4th Cir. 1978), the Panel reaffirms that district courts must evaluate such requests based solely on the face of the complaint and ask whether the complaint's allegations fail to satisfy Rule 23(a) and (b)'s requirements as a matter of law. Applying those standards here, the Panel concludes the district court acted within its discretion when it denied class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) and struck the corresponding allegations from the complaint. But the Panel concludes that the court acted prematurely -- and thus exceeded its discretion -- in denying class certification under Rule 23(b)(2). The Panel, thus, affirms the district court's order in part and vacates it in part. According to Judge Heytens, the appropriate procedure for a defendant to challenge class certification--at the pleading stage or any other time--is to make a motion to deny class certification under Rule 23(c)(1)(A), coupled with a motion to strike under Rule 23(d)(1)(D) should the motion to deny class certification be granted. The Panel concludes the district court acted within its discretion in denying class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) but "acted prematurely" by granting Navy Federal's request to deny class certification under Rule 23(b)(2). The Panel, thus, vacates the district court's order to the extent that it denied class certification under Rule 23(b)(2). Judge Richardson, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, notes that class actions are high-stakes affairs; so, district courts often take their time to develop the record before making classwide decisions. But a district court need not go through the motions just for appearances, Judge Richardson points out. When the deficiency of a proposed class is apparent from the face of the pleadings such that further factual development would be of doubtful use, a district court is not required to sit on its hands, Judge Richardson says. It may instead strike class allegations immediately. That course of action will not be the norm. But this case, Judge Richardson opines, involving a class action lawsuit against Navy Federal Credit Union for discriminatory mortgage lending policies, is an outlier. The majority agrees in part, finding that the district court properly rejected the Rule 23(b)(3) class based on the face of the complaint under Rule 23(c)(1)(A). Judge Richardson takes a different path, trusting the district court's discretion to manage its docket under Rule 23(d)(1)(D). Under this approach, Judge Richardson would hold that the district court permissibly struck all the class allegations, Rule 23(b)(3) and (b)(2) allegations alike. In the end, Judge Richardson cannot say the district court abused its discretion in concluding that "this can't possibly be an appropriate case for class action certification." The sheer breadth and diversity of the proposed class are apparent on its face, and the Plaintiffs' own data highlight the absence of a common answer to the crucial question why was Judge Richardson disfavored. Confronted with pleadings that make the lack of commonality so unusually clear, Judge Richardson would affirm the district court's strike of class allegations before discovery. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/v5jd8jr5 from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Daniel R. Schwartz -- dschwartz@dicellolevitt.com -- DICELLO LEVITT LLP, in Chicago, Illinois, for the Appellants. Daniel Stephen Volchok -- daniel.volchok@wilmerhale.com -- WILMERHALE LLP, in Washington, D.C., for the Appellee. Hassan A. Zavareei -- hzavareei@tzlegal.com -- Glenn E. Chappell -- gchappell@tzlegal.com -- TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP, in Washington, D.C.; Adam J. Levitt -- alevitt@dicellolevitt.com -- DICELLO LEVITT LLP, in Chicago, Illinois; Ben Crump -- ben@bencrump.com -- BEN CRUMP LAW PLLC, in Tallahassee, Florida; Michael Dunn -- michael.dunn@milberg.com -- MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC, in Raleigh, North Carolina, Glen L. Abramson -- gabramson@milberg.com -- MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC, in Knoxville, Tennessee, for the Appellants. Jonathan E. Paikin -- jonathan.paikin@wilmerhale.com -- Karin Dryhurst -- karin.dryhurst@wilmerhale.com -- Joseph M. Meyer -- joseph.meyer@wilmerhale.com -- Lucyanna Burke -- lucyanna.burke@wilmerhale.com -- WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP, in Washington, D.C., for the Appellee. Stephen V. Carey -- stevecarey@parkerpoe.com -- Aislinn R. Klos -- aislinnklos@parkerpoe.com -- PARKER POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN LLP, in Raleigh, North Carolina; Jonice Gray -- jonicegray@paulhastings.com -- PAUL HASTINGS LLP, in Washington, D.C.; Kristopher Knabe -- kristopherknabe@paulhastings.com -- PAUL HASTINGS LLP, in Chicago, Illinois, for Amicus African American Credit Union Coalition. Sarah J. Auchterlonie -- sja@bhfs.com -- BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP, in Denver, Colorado; Leah C. Dempsey -- ldempsey@bhfs.com -- BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP, in Washington, D.C., for Amici America's Credit Unions, Mortgage Bankers Association, and Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America. NECTAR BRAND: Longoria Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Cynthia Longoria, Joseph Awgul, Javier Ramirez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NECTAR BRAND LLC; a California Limited Liability Company; RESIDENT HOME, LLC; and DOES 2-100, Case No. 23CV426060 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Santa Clara, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 24, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-01597. On October 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") in which she added Javier Ramirez, and Joseph Awgul as named Plaintiffs in this suit. On November 7, 2024, Nectar moved to compel Mr. Awgul's claims to arbitration. On May 14, 2025, the Court granted Nectar's motion to compel as to Mr. Awgul's claims.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Tyler G. Newby, Esq. Mary G. Sims, Esq. William A. Shuldiner, Esq. FENWICK & WEST LLP One Front Street, 33rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415.875.2300 Facsimile: 650.938.5200 Email: tnewby@fenwick.com mgriffin@fenwick.com wshuldiner@fenwick.com NEWREZ LLC: Oct. 14 Class Cert Sched. Order in Hastings Vacated --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRYAN HASTINGS, v. NEWREZ LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00789-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge entered an order vacating the Oct. 14, 2025, class certification scheduling order and all associated deadlines. The Clerk is directed to issue a scheduling order setting a trial date for Mr. Hastings's individual claims. NewRez provides financial services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=okJCWu at no extra charge.[CC] NISSAN OF STOCKTON: Johnston Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nissan of Stockton, LL. The case is styled as Benjamin Johnston, individually, and on behlaf of all other similarly situated v. Nissan of Stockton, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0001234 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Feb. 20, 2026). Nissan Of Stockton -- https://www.nissanofstockton.com/ -- is a dealership offering a wide range of new and used Nissan vehicles, including cars, trucks, and SUVs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 725 South Figueroa St., 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com NORLAKE MANUFACTURING: Hrpcha Files Suit in N.D. Ohio ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Norlake Manufacturing Company, et al. The case is styled as Tony Hrpcha, Sr., an individual; on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Norlake Manufacturing Company, Case No. 1:26-cv-00460-SO (N.D. Ohio, Feb. 24, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as E.R.I.S.A. Labor. Norlake Manufacturing Company -- https://www.norlakemfg.com/ -- designs and manufactures custom magnetic equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Danielle L. Perry, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Ave NW #640, Washington, DC 20015 Phone: (202) 640-1168 Email: dperry@masonllp.com NORTHERN STATES POWER: Continues to Defend Sherman Antitrust Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Northern States Power Company 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 Sherman Antitrust Act-related class suit in the federal court for the District of Maryland. A class action complaint was filed in federal court for the District of Maryland in July 2025, alleging violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act in establishing wages for employees at nuclear facilities since 2003. The amended complaint names 46 defendants, including 45 entities that allegedly "own and/or operate all 54 commercial nuclear power plants in the United States," including Xcel Energy Inc., Xcel Energy Services Inc., and NSP-Minnesota. NSP-Minnesota owns and operates two nuclear facilities in Minnesota, and disputes the allegations set forth against it and the other company entities. The litigation is ongoing, and Xcel Energy assesses the risk of a material impact to its consolidated financial statements as remote. Northern States Power Company d/b/a Xcel Energy -- https://my.xcelenergy.com/ -- is a public utility that provides natural gas service to customers throughout the State of Minnesota.[BN] ONNI NAILS: Peralta Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Taurina Bonilla Peralta (a/k/a Alexa), individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ONNI NAILS INC (d/b/a ONNI NAILS), and BIN LI, Case No. 1:26-cv-01419 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 19, 2026), is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without receiving the applicable minimum wage or appropriate compensation for the hours over 40 per week that she worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of her hours worked, failed to pay The Plaintiff the applicable minimum wage, and failed to pay her appropriately for any hours worked over 40, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. The Defendants' conduct extended beyond the Plaintiff to all other similarly situated employees. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing them the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a manicurist and spa masseuse. Onni Nails Inc is a nail salon and spa owned by Bin Li, located in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 OPENEDGE PAYMENTS: Valley Healthcare Sues Over Deceptive Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- Valley Healthcare, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OpenEdge Payments, LLC d/b/a Global Payments Integrated; Global Payments Direct, Inc.; and Global Payments, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-00827-MHC (N.D. Ga., Feb. 12, 2026), is brought concerning a variety of unlawful business practices that Global Payments employed to take advantage of its merchant clients, many of which are small businesses, which include unfairly or deceptively increasing fees and charging entirely new fees outside the terms of the contract. Global Payments promises merchants a simplified flat rate fee for card payment processing through a seemingly straightforward application and fee schedule to persuade merchants to sign up, sometimes for long-term contracts. Once merchants sign up, however, Global Payments begins furtively charging additional unauthorized, undisclosed, and unnegotiated fees and increasing existing fees without the customers' consent. Global Payments combines these unauthorized fees (in the form of fee increases and new fees) with legitimate costs associated with credit card processing services, rendering them undetectable by unsuspecting merchants. Debit and credit card payment processing logistics can be complicated such that merchants (especially smaller or unsophisticated merchants) can find it very difficult to understand exactly how and how much they will be charged for processing services. Global Payments also designs merchants' monthly billing statements to conceal its fee increases and new fees. It uses vague and/or deceptive language to suggest fee increases, or new fees aren't unilaterally imposed by Global Payments. In truth, the mark-ups are for the sole purpose of increasing Global Payments' profits at the merchant's expense. In this role, Global Payments assessed and seized unauthorized and excessive fees from its merchant clients. Valley Healthcare never bargained for the increasing and undisclosed fees that Global Payments automatically deducted and there was no consideration for such increasing and undisclosed fees. Global Payments has continuously perpetrated such unlawful deception over a period of several years. Upon and information belief, Global Payments continues to do so. This case challenges those overbilling practices, says the complaint. The Plaintiff owns three separate pharmacies: Russellville Drugs in Russellville, Alabama; Medical Arts Drugs in Haleyville, Alabama; and Franklin Discount Drugs in Phil Campbell, Alabama. The Defendants operate together as a fully integrated business to market, sell, and provide credit card payment processing services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rodney E. Miller, Esq. Robert G. Methvin, Jr., Esq. James M. Terrell, Esq. Courtney C. Gipson, Esq. METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C. 2201 Arlington Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 939-0199 Facsimile: (205) 939-0399 Email: rem@mtattorneys.com rgm@mtattorneys.com jterrell@mtattorneys.com cgipson@mtattorneys.com OTTER TAIL: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit in Canada -------------------------------------------------------------- Otter Tail Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K/A Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from Canada's Competition Act-related nationwide class suit. On September 26, 2025, a putative nation-wide class action complaint (Case No. S-257310) was filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada against Northern Pipe, Vinyltech Corporation, Otter Tail Corporation and several other PVC pipe manufacturers, as well as OPIS. The complaint alleges that the defendants, beginning in 2021, conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of PVC pipe through an information exchange, OPIS, breaching Canada's Competition Act, and creating tortious liability. The plaintiffs seek general damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, punitive damages, cost, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative class. The Company believes there are factual and legal defenses to the allegations in the complaints and is defending itself accordingly. There remains considerable uncertainty regarding the timing or ultimate resolution of these matters. Otter Tail Corporation and its subsidiaries form a diverse, multi-platform business consisting of a vertically integrated, regulated utility with generation, transmission and distribution facilities complemented by manufacturing businesses providing metal fabrication for custom machine parts and metal components, manufacturing of extruded and thermoformed plastic products, and manufacturing of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe products. PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Darcy Sues Over False and Misleading Company Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ TIMOTHY E. DARCY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC., JAMES ALEXANDER CHRISS, JAMIE S. MILLER, FRANK KELLER, and DIEGO SCOTTI, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-01589 (N.D. Cal., February 24, 2026) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired PayPal common stock between February 25, 2025, to February 2, 2026, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws. According to the complaint, the 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 PayPal's salesforce; notably, that it was not truly equipped to execute on the Company's perceived growth potential and were "too optimistic" as to how easily and expeditiously its staff could change customer adoption. Such statements absent these material facts caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase PayPal's securities at artificially inflated prices. On February 3, 2026, PayPal announced its financial results for the fourth quarter and full fiscal year 2025, unveiling disappointing earnings results with worsening performance in Branded Checkout. Investors and analysts reacted immediately to PayPal's revelation. The price of PayPal's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $52.33 per share on February 2, 2026, PayPal's stock price fell to $41.70 per share on February 3, 2026, a decline of about 20.31% in the span of just a single day, says the suit. Paypal Holdings, Inc. operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides technology platform that enables digital and mobile payments on behalf of consumers and merchants. The Company offers online payment solutions. PayPal Holdings serves customers worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 1160 Battery Street East, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 373-1671 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com PBF HOLDING: Continues to Defend Goldstein Class Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------------- PBF Holding Company LLC 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 Goldstein class suit in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. On February 17, 2017, in Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., the Company and PBF LLC, PBF Western Region, Torrance Refining and the manager of its Torrance refinery along with ExxonMobil were named as defendants in a putative class action filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, alleging negligence, nuisance, trespass, and strict liability claims arising from a February 18, 2015 electrostatic precipitator ("ESP") explosion at the Torrance refinery, which at the time was owned and operated by ExxonMobil, and subsequent operations by Torrance Refining after the acquisition of the Torrance refinery in July 2016. To the extent the claims relate to the ESP explosion, ExxonMobil retained responsibility for any resulting liabilities pursuant to the agreement relating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery. On July 2, 2018, the Court granted leave for plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint alleging groundwater contamination and added an additional plaintiff, Youssef. On October 15, 2019, the Court granted certification of two limited classes of with Youssef as the sole class representative and named plaintiff, related to trespass claims for ground contamination ("Ground Subclass") and nuisance for air emissions ("Air Subclass"). On May 5, 2021, the Court granted leave for plaintiffs to a third amended complaint to substitute Navarro for Youssef. On July 5, 2022, the Court issued a final order ruling that plaintiffs' motion to substitute Navarro as class Representative was denied and decertifying both of plaintiffs' proposed Air and Ground Subclasses. The order provided that the case will proceed with Navarro as the sole plaintiff. On October 30, 2023, plaintiff appealed the Court's ruling to the Ninth Circuit. On April 15, 2025, the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling that reversed the Court's dismissal of the individual trespass claim and vacated the decertification of the Ground Subclass. The Ninth Circuit, however, affirmed the Court's grant of summary judgment as to plaintiff's individual nuisance claims and decertification of the Air Subclass. On August 12, 2025, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case back to the Court regarding the trespass claim and Ground Subclass decertification for reconsideration. On January 12, 2026, the Court directed the parties to file a joint status report by March 2, 2026, to propose a briefing schedule regarding class representative substitution, renewed class certification for the Ground Subclass, and a discovery schedule. The Company intends to continue to defend this matter vigorously. PBF Holding is a wholly-owned subsidiary of PBF Energy company LLC. PBF Energy Inc. is the sole managing member of, and owner of an equity interest representing approximately 99.3% of the outstanding economic interest in, PBF LLC as of June 30, 2023. PBF Investments LLC, Toledo Refining company LLC, Paulsboro Refining company LLC, Delaware City Refining company LLC, Chalmette Refining, LLC, PBF Energy Western Region LLC, Torrance Refining company LLC, Torrance Logistics company LLC and Martinez Refining company LLC are PBF LLC's principal operating subsidiaries and are all wholly-owned subsidiaries of PBF Holding. PENNSYLVANIA: 3rd Cir. Affirms & Vacates Gannaway Suit Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled SHAKUR C. GANNAWAY; KENNETH WIMBERLY; JOSHUA ROBINSON; ERIC ARMS; SHAWN OMAR JACOBS; WILLIAM SMITH SHAKUR C. GANNAWAY, Appellant v. MR. GOURLEY, Facility Manager SCI-Camp Hill; LT. GILBERT, SCI-Camp Hill; LT. SMOLKE, SCI-Camp Hill; MS. DEBORAH L. CARPENTER, SCI-Camp Hill; MS. MIHAL, SCI-Camp Hill; MR. ZACHARY MOSLAK, SCI-Camp Hill; MR. WILLIAM TRACI, Supervisor SCI-Camp Hill, Case No. 25-1854 (3d Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirms dismissal but vacates the judgment to the extent that dismissal was with prejudice. The matter is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 4:24-cv-02115; Chief District Judge: Honorable Matthew W. Brann). The Third Circuit panel consists of Paul B. Matey, Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves, and Richard L. Nygaard, Circuit Judges. Shakur Gannaway appeals pro se and in forma pauperis from the District Court's order dismissing his civil lawsuit for failure to state a claim and its subsequent decision to do so with prejudice after he failed to timely file an amended complaint. The Panel will affirm the underlying dismissal, but it will vacate the judgment to the extent that dismissal was with prejudice, and it will remand the case to the District Court to decide in the first instance whether Gannaway has proffered sufficient cause for an extension of time to amend his pleadings. Gannaway filed a putative class action "criminal complaint" in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in December 2024. He filed his complaint on behalf of himself and five other Pennsylvania prisoners at State Correctional Institution Camp Hill. The District Court dismissed the other plaintiffs for failing to comply with the court's administrative order directing them to pay the filing fee or to submit applications for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On April 8, 2025, the District Court screened Gannaway's complaint under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A(a), identified certain fundamental deficiencies with his pleadings, and dismissed the complaint without prejudice to enable him to cure them. Gannaway alleged, inter alia, that he was denied parole after prison guards at SCI Camp Hill falsified a drug test and that prison officials interfered with his incoming and outgoing mail, but he provided insufficient details about when the relevant events occurred or who was responsible for the purported misconduct. The District Court permitted Gannaway to file an amended complaint within 21 days. Because he did not do so, the District Court converted its dismissal order into one with prejudice on April 30, 2025. Two days before the District Court issued its final order, Gannaway mailed a handwritten letter to the court explaining that he had not received any correspondence or orders relating to his case, either directly from the court or forwarded from SCI Camp Hill, since his release to a halfway house on April 9. Gannaway speculated that the prison was still holding his legal mail. He noted that he had spoken with the Clerk's Office about the status of his case on April 12, 19, and 24, and he asked for "a chance to present [his] new evidence" of governmental interference with his receipt of mail from the court. He also expressed his intent that the letter would serve as his notice of appeal from the April 8 dismissal order, which had been returned from the prison as undeliverable on April 28. The Clerk's Office docketed Gannaway's letter as a notice of appeal from the April 8 order just over an hour after it had docketed the second dismissal order. Within 30 days of the entry of that April 30 order, Gannaway filed a document in this Court evincing, inter alia, his intent to appeal from it as well, which was construed as his second notice of appeal in this case. The Panel finds that the District Court did not err in dismissing Gannaway's complaint as insufficiently pled. Among the many deficiencies the District Court correctly addressed is his failure to specifically identify the prison officials, who allegedly wronged him or when the events occurred. The District Court granted him leave to amend, but he did not do so. That ordinarily would be the end of the matter; however, the District Court issued its final order dismissing the case with prejudice just over an hour before the Clerk's Office docketed Gannaway's letter, which he had mailed to the District Court before the April 29 deadline to amend lapsed. Because the letter was docketed as a notice of appeal, the District Court had no opportunity to consider Gannaway's explanation of why he was unaware of what was happening in his case or to entertain his request to present evidence substantiating his claim that prison authorities were interfering with his mail. Accordingly, the Panel affirms the dismissal of Gannaway's complaint for failure to state a claim. But given the unusual circumstances of this case, the Panel adds that the District Court's judgment is vacated to the extent it gave the dismissal prejudicial effect. The Panel remands this matter to the District Court for further proceedings. This will permit the District Court to determine in the first instance on remand whether Gannaway has proffered sufficient cause for an extension of time to file an amended complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/s979rwus from GovInfo.gov. PENNSYLVANIA: Edge Appeals Court Order to 3rd Circuit ----------------------------------------------------- RAJ KAREE EDGE is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Raj Karee Edge, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00876-CH, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On Feb. 11, 2026, the Plaintiff filed a petition for emergency and expedited habeas corpus relief. On Feb. 18, 2026, Judge Catherine Henry entered an Order transferring this petition to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to determine whether the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania may consider the successive petition. The clerk of court is directed to close this case. The appellate case is styled as In re: Raj Edge, Case No. 26-1366, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on February 23, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner RAJ KAREE EDGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, appears pro se. Defendant-Respondent COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA is represented by: District Attorney Allegheny County Allegheny County Office of District Attorney 436 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 PENNYMAC LOAN: Filing for Class Cert. in Cyrus Suit Due June 18 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES CYRUS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01145-VAB (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Victor A. Bolden entered a scheduling order as follows: -- The Defendant's opposition, if any, to the motion to amend the complaint due by March 17, 2026. -- The Plaintiff's reply due by April 7, 2026. -- Phase I Fact Discovery (as to Plaintiff’s individual claims and any discovery needed for class certification purposes) shall close on Feb. 19, 2027. -- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification due by June 18, 2027. -- The Defendant's motion for summary judgment on the Plaintiff's Individual Claims due by June 18, 2027. -- Any opposition to either the class certification or the summary judgment motion due by July 23, 2027. -- Any replies due by Aug. 6, 2027. -- Phase II fact discovery (Merits Discovery) shall close on March 31, 2028. The Defendant provides home mortgage loans to borrowers and investors. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=I0Gtqh at no extra charge.[CC] PEPSICO INC: Petretti Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Rick Petretti, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Pepsico Inc., Walmart Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-10952 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Feb. 23, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 7:26-cv-01486-CS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation (Monopolizing Trade). PepsiCo, Inc. doing business as PepsiCo -- https://www.pepsico.com/en/ -- is an American multinational food and beverage corporation headquartered in Harrison, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond S. Levine, Esq. Todd M. Schneider, Esq. Matthew Sinclair Weiler, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Phone: (415) 421-7100 Fax: (415) 421-7105 The Defendant is represented by: Henry Cornillie, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 - and - Jagannathan P. Srinivasan, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 4600 Los Angeles, CA 90070 Phone: (213) 229-7296 Fax: (213) 229-6296 Email: jsrinivasan@gibsondunn.com - and - Lawrence Edward Buterman, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Phone: (212) 906-1200 Fax: (212) 751-4864 Email: lawrence.buterman@lw.com PETCO ANIMAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Viviani Says --------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES VIVIANI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES STORES, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-01279-WQH-DDL (S.D. Cal., Feb. 27, 2026) alleges that Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard personal identifiable information, including, but not limited to, name and Social Security number. Prior to and through December 5, 2025, the Defendant obtained the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, including by collecting it directly from Plaintiff and Class Members. On or before December 5, 2025, Defendant experienced a data breach (the Data Breach). The Defendant determined that, during the Data Breach, an unknown actor may have acquired the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members without authorization. The Plaintiff and Class Members relied on this sophisticated Defendant to keep their PII confidential and securely maintained, to use this information for business purposes only, and to make only authorized disclosures of this information, says the suit. PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES STORES, INC. is a health and wellness company for pets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael F. Ram, Esq. Patrick A. Barthle II, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 1390 Market St., Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 846-3862 E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com pbarthle@ForThePeople.com PHASE 3 INTERIORS: Mena Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Juan Mena, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. PHASE 3 INTERIORS LLC, and GENCI SELA, individually, and MARCELLO SAQUIPULLA, individually, Case No. 1:26-cv-01547 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2026), is brought under the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the overtime provisions of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. ("NYCRR"). Throughout his employment, the Defendants willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff the overtime wages lawfully due to him under the FLSA and the NYLL. Specifically, the Defendants scheduled the Plaintiff to work, and the Plaintiff did work, forty-five hours and forty minutes each workweek, or virtually each week. Yet in exchange, the Defendants paid the Plaintiff a flat weekly salary for his scheduled hours that did not include overtime premiums at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate for his scheduled hours worked over forty in a week. Moreover, the Defendants frequently required the Plaintiff to work unscheduled hours in addition to his regular schedule, and for those unscheduled hours, while the Defendants paid the Plaintiff at an hourly rate greater than his regular rate, that rate did not amount to what should have been his overtime rate, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a carpenter, in Manhattan, from early-January 2022 through January 2025. The Defendants is a New York limited liability company that operates a construction and carpentry business, its owner and general overseer, and its day-to-day manager.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Ryan S. Riger, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 248-5550 Fax: (516) 248-6027 PHI HEALTH LLC: King Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------- Ashley King, individually and for others similarly situated v. PHI Health, LLC d/b/a PHI Air Medical, a Louisiana limited liability company, Case No. 2:26-cv-01099-SHD (D. Ariz., Feb. 13, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant in violation the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Arizona Wage Act ("AWA"). The Plaintiff and the other Straight Time Employees work more than 40 hours in a workweek. The Defendant pays them by the hour. But the Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff and the other Straight Time Employees for all hours worked and at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay--based on all remuneration--for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Instead, the Defendant pays the Plaintiff and its Straight Time Employees the same hourly rate for hours worked under 40 in a workweek as it pays for hours worked in excess of 40 each workweek (the Defendant's "straight time for overtime pay scheme"). The Defendant's straight time for overtime pay scheme violates the FLSA by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and the other Straight Time Employees at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay based on all remuneration—for all hours worked in excess of 40 a workweek. And the Defendant also fails to timely pay all earned wages due on designated paydays and upon termination of employment, in violation of the AWA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a nurse, including in Arizona, since February 2019. PHI holds itself out as "the leading air ambulance provider in the United States that sets the standard in the air medical industry transporting more than 22,500 patients each year, operating out of more than 82 bases across the United States."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel R. Randall, Esq. RANDALL LAW PLLC 4742 North 24th Street, Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Phone: 602.328.0262 Facsimile: 602.926.1479 Email: srandall@randallslaw.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713.352.1100 Facsimile: 713.352.3300 Emails: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713.877.8788 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com PIH HEALTH: Ninth Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Rosario Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned AURORA ROSARIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff-Appellant v. PIH HEALTH, INC., Defendant-Appellee v. FERDINAND RIVERA, Movant-Appellee, Case No. 24-6673 (9th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the dismissal of a putative class action lawsuit. The matter is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (D.C. No. 2:21-cv-07221-JAK-PD, John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding). The Ninth Circuit panel consists of Susan P. Graber, Daniel A. Bress and Anthony D. Johnstone, Circuit Judges. Plaintiff Aurora Rosario appeals the district court's dismissal of her putative class action pursuant to the discretionary home state exception to subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(3). The Panel reviews for abuse of discretion the district court's decision to decline to exercise jurisdiction under Adams v. W. Marine Prods., Inc., 958 F.3d 1216, 1220 (9th Cir. 2020), reviews for clear error the district court's factual findings, and reviews de novo the interpretation of CAFA under Brinkley v. Monterey Fin. Servs., Inc., 873 F.3d 1118, 1121 (9th Cir. 2017). The Panel affirms. The Plaintiff argues that the district court erred by relying on class members' addresses as evidence of California citizenship and by considering the proportion of in-state citizens with reference to the proposed settlement class, rather than the larger classes defined in the complaint. The Plaintiff also argues that the district court erred by dismissing the case without ordering her to brief the issue of CAFA's discretionary home state exception. The Panel disagrees, noting that the Plaintiff had ample notice that this exception was at issue, and the district court did not prevent her from briefing the issue. On the first issue, the Court of Appeals has held that addresses provide some evidence of domicile, even though they are not a direct proxy. Here, the Panel points out, it is particularly appropriate to consider addresses because Defendant PIH Health is a regional healthcare network; it is reasonable to infer that most people who seek medical care from a regional entity are domiciled nearby. Addresses also may suffice as evidence of United States citizenship, if paired with evidence that the number of in-state addresses likely provides a sufficient cushion above the statutory threshold to account for noncitizens. On the second issue, the Panel assumes without deciding that the district court should have used the number of people in the classes defined by the complaint (about 200,000) rather than the settlement class (about 165,000). The district court found that 99.58% of the settlement class has a last known mailing address in California. The Panel finds that that finding is not clearly erroneous. Applying the resulting figure (about 164,000 California addresses) to the total number of class members identified in the original complaint means that at least two-thirds of the larger pool of class members had last known addresses in California. As in Adams, the Panel says, "given the substantial cushion afforded by the percentage of class members with last known California addresses, as compared to the percentage of class member citizens required for a discretionary remand," 958 F.3d at 1223, there was sufficient evidence to support the district court's application of the discretionary home state exception. The Panel also finds that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the factors in 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(3)(A)–(F). A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4dcehpu from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. PINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Joyce Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pine Pharmaceuticals, LLC. The case is styled as Christopher Joyce, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pine Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Case No. 802830/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Erie Cty., Feb. 13, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Pine Pharmaceuticals -- https://pinepharmaceuticals.com/ -- is one of the industry's largest and most trusted 503B outsourcing facilities, providing high-quality compounded and repackaged products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO AND RATHOD LLP 412 H. St. N.E., Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Phone: (202) 470-3520 Fax: (202) 800-2730 Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com PONY TAIL INC: Wright Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Krystall Wright, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. PONY TAIL, INC. d/b/a ONYX GENTLEMEN'S CLUB ATLANTA, a Georgia Domestic Profit Corporation and TASHONIA ROACH, an individual, Case No. 1:26-cv-00783-MLB (N.D. Ga., Feb. 10, 2026), is brought for damages and other relief brought by Plaintiffs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as amended by the Tip Income Protection Act of 2018 ("TIPA"), as a result of Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs the minimum wage and overtime wages as required by federal law. The essence of Plaintiffs' claims are that Defendants: misclassified Plaintiffs as independent contractors rather than employees; failed to pay them at least the federal minimum wage for each hour they worked; failed to pay them at least one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for each hour they worked over 40 hours in a given workweek, constituting a violation of the overtime wage provisions of the FLSA; and seized their tips in violation of TIPA and the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are all current or former exotic dancers who worked at Defendants' adult entertainment club. PONY TAIL, INC. doing business as Onyx Atlanta features adult entertainers, including nude female dancers, who perform throughout Onyx Atlanta's facility, which includes, in relevant part, stages, the floor area, and VIP areas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan P. Rose, Esq. Carlos Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Phone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 423-5864 Email: cleach@theleachfirm.com jrose@theleachfirm.com yhernandez@theleachfirm.com POST UNIVERSITY: Faces Villanueva Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------------ OSCAR VILLANUEVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. POST UNIVERSITY, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-00299 (D. Conn., Feb. 27, 2026) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant’s illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Post University offers both online degrees and the traditional college experience at its Waterbury, Connecticut campus.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq. REARDON SCANLON LLP 45 S. Main St., 3rd Flr. West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 955-9455 Facsimile: (860) 920-5242 E-mail: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com - and - Christopher E. Berman, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: cberman@shamisgentile.com PRIME BUYERS: Initial Disclosures in Amazon Suit Due March 30 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., v. PRIME BUYERS CLUB LLC, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02233-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Lasnik entered an amended order regarding initial disclosures, joint status report, and early settlement. Deadline for FRCP 26(f) Conference: March 23, 2026 Initial Disclosures Pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(1): March 30, 2026 Combined Joint Status Report and Discovery April 6, 2026 Plan as Required by FRCP 26(f) and LCR 26(f): All counsel and any pro se parties are directed to confer and provide the Court with a combined Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan by April 6, 2026. If settlement is achieved, counsel shall immediately notify Victoria Ericksen, Deputy Clerk, at victoria_ericksen@wawd.uscourts.gov. The parties are responsible for complying with the terms of this Order. The Court may impose sanctions on any party who fails to comply fully with this Order. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lHRs6S at no extra charge.[CC] PRIME SOURCE FLORAL: Argueta Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prime Source Floral Distributors, Inc. The case is styled as Darling Argueta, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Prime Source Floral Distributors, Inc., Case No. 26CV170616 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Feb. 13, 2026). Prime Source Floral -- https://primesourcefloral.com/ -- is a wholesale flower and floral supply company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cody D. Archer, Esq. SULLIVAN & YAECKEL LAW GROUP, APC 2330 Third Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 702-6760 Fax: (619) 702-6761 Email: cody@sullivanlawgroupapc.com PRINCIPLE CHOICE: Smith Class Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- RODERICA SMITH, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. PRINCIPLE CHOICE SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00572 (E.D. Va., Feb. 26, 2026) is a collective and class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of herself and all similarly situated current and/or former Customer Service Representatives employees of Defendant to recover for Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff seeks a declaration that her rights, the rights of the FLSA Collective, and the rights of the Breach of Contract Class were violated and seeks to recover an award of unpaid wages and overtime premiums, liquidated damages, penalties, injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys' fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and any other remedies to which she and the putative Collective and Class may be entitled. The Plaintiff is an individual who currently resides in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. Plaintiff worked for Defendant in Oklahoma as a Customer Experience Representative from March 2024 to November 2024. The Defendant employs CSRs including Customer Experience Representative, Veterans Support Inbound Call Center Agent, Inbound Call Center Representative, Customer Service Representative, and/or other job titles performing the same or similar job duties. The Defendant provides customer service on behalf of the VA for Veterans and the medical providers within the Community Care and Champ VA programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael G. Phelan, Esq. Christopher P. Yakubisin, Esq. PHELAN PETTY, PLC 3315 W. Broad Street Richmond, VA 23230 Telephone: (804) 980-7100 Facsimile: (804) 767-4601 E-mail: mphelan@phelanpetty.com cyakubisin@phelanpetty.com - and - Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. Zackary S. Kaylor, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com PRINT & DESIGN: Torres Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Print & Design Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Jennifer Torres, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Print & Design Solutions, Inc., Case No. 26STCV05446 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 20, 2026). Print & Design Solutions -- https://1pds.net/ -- is a full-service event-based merchandise company that handles merchandise sales for concerts and special sporting events.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 725 South Figueroa St., 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com QUALDERM PARTNERS: Inadequately Secures Private Info, Darche Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- BEN DARCHE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUALDERM PARTNERS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00217 (M.D. Tenn., February 26, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII") and personal health information ("PHI") from a foreseeable, preventable data breach. The complaint relates that as a condition of receiving healthcare services from Defendant, the Plaintiff was required to supply Defendant with his Private Information. On December 23–24, 2025, criminal hackers accessed Defendant's network systems and stole Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI stored therein, including their full names, dates of birth, driver's license numbers or government identification numbers, name, doctor names, medical record numbers, dates of death, email addresses, medical treatment and diagnosis information, and health insurance information, among other sensitive data causing widespread injuries and damages to Plaintiff and Class Members. On or about February 22, 2025, Plaintiff received Defendant's Notice Letter informing that his Private Information was impacted in the Data Breach. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered concrete injuries in fact including, but not limited to (a) financial costs incurred mitigating the materialized risk and imminent threat of identity theft; (b) loss of time and loss of productivity incurred mitigating the materialized risk and imminent threat of identity theft; (c) actual identity theft and fraud; (d) financial costs incurred due to actual identity theft; (e) loss of time incurred due to actual identity theft; (f) deprivation of value of their Private Information; (g) loss of privacy; (h) emotional distress including anxiety and stress in with dealing with the Data Breach; and (i) the continued risk to their sensitive Private Information, which remains in Defendant's possession and subject to further breaches, so long as Defendant fails to undertake appropriate and adequate measures to protect it, says the suit. To recover from Defendant for these harms, Plaintiff, on his own behalf and for the Class, brings claims for gross negligence/negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, and unjust enrichment to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information in its care. The Plaintiff and Class Members seek compensatory damages, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief requiring Defendant to (a) disclose, expeditiously, the full nature of the Data Breach and the types of Private Information exposed; (b) implement improved data security practices to reasonably guard against future breaches of Private Information in Defendant's possession; and (c) provide, at Defendant's own expense, all impacted Data Breach victims with lifetime identity theft protection services. Plaintiff Ben Darche was a patient of Defendant, residing in Maricopa County, Arizona. Defendant Qualderm Partners, LLC is a healthcare provider that furnishes dermatology, skin cancer care, cosmetics, plastic surgery, and pathology-related services through affiliations with 158 physician practices in 17 states.[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 - 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 QUALITY CARRIERS: Alexander Suit Removed to D. New Jersey --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Charles Alexander, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons v. QUALITY CARRIERS, INC., CHRISTOPHER GEORGE SILVA; ABC CORPS. 1-10, and JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10, Case No. UNN-L-004737-25 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on Feb. 20, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01705. This is a putative class action filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, alleging violations of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law ("NJWPL"), and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"), arising from Plaintiff's alleged misclassification as an independent contractor and related compensation practices. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made unlawful deductions from the Plaintiff's and putative class members' wages, including fuel, tolls, escrow, insurance, ACH fees, and related charges in violation of NJWPL and failed to pay overtime compensation under NJWHL.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Dylan C. Goetsch, Esq. Andrew J. Butcher, Esq. Matthew H. Payne, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C. 30 West Monroe Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 255-7200 Email: dgoetsch@scopelitis.com abutcher@scopelitis.com mpayne@scopelitis.com - and - Emily A. Quillen, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C. 777 Main Street, Ste. 3450 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Phone: (817) 869-1700 Email: equillen@scopelitis.com QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Continues to Defend Cole Class Suit in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Quest Diagnostics Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Cole class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The Company is subject to a putative class action entitled Cole, et al. v Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, which was filed in the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, for allegedly conspiring with Facebook to track customers’ internet communications on Company web platforms without authorization, in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA") and the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act ("CMIA"). The complaint alleged that the Company's actions were an invasion of privacy and contributed to a loss of value in plaintiffs' personally identifiable information. The Company moved to dismiss the case or, in the alternative, transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for New Jersey. Subsequently, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the Company also moved to dismiss. The Company's motion to transfer the case was granted. The Company refiled its motion to dismiss with the New Jersey District Court. The motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice as to the CMIA claim and denied as to the CIPA claim. Thereafter, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration as to the CIPA claim, which was granted. The district court's decision was affirmed on appeal. Quest Diagnostics Inc. is a healthcare company engaged in providing diagnostic information services to patients and physicians.[BN] QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Continues to Defend ERISA Class Suit in N.J. --------------------------------------------------------------- Quest Diagnostics Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from an ERISA class suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. In 2020, two putative class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for New Jersey against the Company and other defendants with respect to the Company's 401(k) plan. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the fiduciaries of the 401(k) plan breached their duties by failing to disclose the expenses and risks of plan investment options, allowing unreasonable administration expenses to be charged to plan participants, and selecting and retaining high cost and poor performing investments. In October 2020, the court consolidated the two lawsuits under the caption In re: Quest Diagnostics ERISA Litigation and plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. In May 2021, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint. After discovery was completed, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted. The matter is on appeal. Quest Diagnostics Inc. is a healthcare company engaged in providing diagnostic information services to patients and physicians.[BN] QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Discovery in AMCA Data Security MDL Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Quest Diagnostics Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2026, that discovery is ongoing for the AMCA Data Security Incident Multidistrict Litigation in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Numerous putative class action lawsuits were filed against the Company related to the AMCA Data Security Incident. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the cases that were then still pending to, and consolidated them for pre-trial proceedings in, the U.S. District Court for New Jersey. In November 2019, the plaintiffs in the multidistrict proceeding filed a consolidated putative class action complaint against the Company and Optum360 that named additional individuals as plaintiffs and that asserted a variety of common law and statutory claims in connection with the AMCA Data Security Incident. In January 2020, the Company moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint; the motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the Company also moved to dismiss. The motion was granted in part and denied in part. Discovery and class certification proceedings are ongoing. Quest Diagnostics Inc. is a healthcare company engaged in providing diagnostic information services to patients and physicians.[BN] RAWLINGS SPORTING GOODS: Duryea Files Suit in D. Utah ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rawlings Sporting Goods Company Inc. The case is styled as Brian Duryea, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rawlings Sporting Goods Company Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-00147-DBP (D. Utah, Feb. 20, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Rawlings Sporting Goods -- https://www.rawlings.com/ -- is an American sports equipment manufacturing company based in Maryland Heights, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kennedy D. Nate, Esq. RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER PC 36 S. State St., Ste. 1400 PO Box 45385 Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0385 Phone: (801) 532-1500 Fax: (801) 532-7543 Email: knate@rqn.com REDRIDGE DILIGENCE: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Graves Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DOLLIE GRAVES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. REDRIDGE DILIGENCE SERVICES, LLC d/b/a IMA DILIGENCE SERVICES and PLAZA SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-02204 (N.D. Ill., February 26, 2026) arises out of the recent data breach involving Defendants that compromised Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information"). The complaint relates that in their ordinary courses of business operations, Defendants collect, store, and maintain sensitive Private Information, and have a resulting duty to securely maintain such information in confidence. In January 2026, Defendant IMA experienced a Data Breach in which an unauthorized third-party gained access to its IT Network and exfiltrated sensitive data belonging to Defendant IMA's Clients' customers, including Plaintiff and Class Members. On January 27, 2026, the notorious ransomware group "Genesis" claimed responsibility for the Data Breach. The following types of Private Information were compromised: name, Social Security number, and financial account information. To date, Defendants have yet to issue any public disclosure about the Data Breach. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injury as a result of Defendants conduct. These injuries include: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) theft of their Private Information; (iii) lost or diminished value of Private Information; (iv) lost time associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (v) loss of benefit of the bargain; (vi) lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (vii) actual misuse of the compromised data consisting of an increase in spam calls, texts, and/or emails; (viii) nominal damages; and (ix) the continued and certainly increased risk to their Private Information. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose Private Information was compromised as a result of Defendants failure to: (i) adequately protect the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members; (ii) warn Plaintiff and Class Members of Defendants inadequate information security practices; and (iii) effectively secure hardware containing protected Private Information using reasonable and effective security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents. The Defendants conduct amounts at least to negligence and violates federal and state statutes, the complaint asserts. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of herself, and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendants inadequate data security practices. Plaintiff Dollie Graves is a resident and citizen of Westmoreland, Tennessee. Defendant RedRidge Diligence Services, LLC d/b/a IMA Diligence Services ("IMA") is a consulting firm specializing in transaction advisory, lender diligence, and M&A support that provides services to clients, including Defendant Plaza Services. Defendant Plaza Services is a certified debt buyer and accounts receivable investment firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com REDRIDGE DILIGENCE: Fails to Secure Private Info, York Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- QUINCY YORK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. REDRIDGE DILIGENCE SERVICES, LLC d/b/a IMA DILIGENCE SERVICES and PLAZA SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-02198 (N.D. Ill., February 26, 2026) arises out of the recent data breach involving Defendants that compromised Plaintiff and Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information"). The complaint relates that in their ordinary courses of business operations, Defendants collect, store, and maintain sensitive Private Information, and have a resulting duty to securely maintain such information in confidence. In January 2026, Defendant IMA experienced a Data Breach in which an unauthorized third-party gained access to its IT Network and exfiltrated sensitive data belonging to Defendant IMA's Clients' customers, including Plaintiff and Class Members. On January 27, 2026, the notorious ransomware group "Genesis" claimed responsibility for the Data Breach. The following types of Private Information were compromised: name, Social Security number, and financial account information. To date, Defendants have yet to issue any public disclosure about the Data Breach. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injury as a result of Defendants conduct. These injuries include: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) theft of their Private Information; (iii) lost or diminished value of Private Information; (iv) lost time associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (v) loss of benefit of the bargain; (vi) lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (vii) actual misuse of the compromised data consisting of an increase in spam calls, texts, and/or emails; (viii) nominal damages; and (ix) the continued and certainly increased risk to their Private Information. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose Private Information was compromised as a result of Defendants failure to: (i) adequately protect the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members; (ii) warn Plaintiff and Class Members of Defendants inadequate information security practices; and (iii) effectively secure hardware containing protected Private Information using reasonable and effective security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents. The Defendants conduct amounts at least to negligence and violates federal and state statutes, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of himself, and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendants inadequate data security practices, adds the complaint. Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Greeleyville, South Carolina. Defendant RedRidge Diligence Services, LLC d/b/a IMA Diligence Services ("IMA") is a consulting firm specializing in transaction advisory, lender diligence, and M&A support that provides services to clients, including Defendant Plaza Services. Defendant Plaza Services is a certified debt buyer and accounts receivable investment firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: 954-332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com REGAL CINEMAS INC: Gonzalez Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Regal Cinemas In. The case is styled as Carlos Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Regal Cinemas Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-01904 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 23, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Regal Entertainment Group -- https://www.regmovies.com/ -- is an American movie theater chain that operates the second-largest theater circuit in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald Donald 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 RELATION INSURANCE: Terriquez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Relation Insurance Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Marcela Caro Terriquez, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Relation Insurance Services, Inc., Relation Insurance, Inc., Case No. 26CV003579 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 13, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Relation Insurance -- https://www.relationinsurance.com/ -- is a leading North American Insurance Brokerage, providing employee benefits, business insurance, and personal insurance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amanda Fazio, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Blvd., Ste. 840 Glendale, CA 91203-2920 Email: a.fazio@d.law REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Must File Class Cert Response by March 10 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as WASHINGTON v. REYNOLDS CONSUMER PRODUCTS LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-02327-ALC-RFT (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. entered an order re motion to certify class. -- The Defendants are directed to respond by March 10, 2026. -- Any Reply from Plaintiffs is due by March 17, 2026. On Feb. 15, 2026, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class. The Defendant provides packaging products. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XZ2mBr at no extra charge.[CC] RICCELLI HOLDINGS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Sims Due Oct. 28 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DILLON SIMS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RICCELLI HOLDINGS, INC., RICELLI ENTERPRISES, INC., RICCELLI ENTERPRISES, LLC, and RICCELLI NORTHERN, LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-01554-ECC-MJK (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katz entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. All motions to join other parties and to amend the pleadings shall be filed no later than 30 days after the Court denies the Plaintiff's motion for conditional collective certification ("MCC") under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), or, if the Court grants that motion, 30 days after the close of the resulting opt-in period. 2. This matter shall be subject to a bifurcated discovery schedule in which the first phase of discovery ("Phase I") is limited to the elements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 ("Rule 23") and whether a class may be properly certified (i.e., class certification discovery). 3. Phase I fact discovery shall be completed on or before Sept. 28, 2026. 4. All class certification discovery motions shall be made on or before Aug. 28, 2026. 5. The Plaintiff's deadline to file the MCC under the FLSA shall be April 30, 2026. 6. The Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 shall be Oct. 28, 2026. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ICZsi2 at no extra charge.[CC] RICOH USA: Mike the Printer Seeks Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKE THE PRINTER, INC., a California corporation, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RICOH USA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-08192-JFW-AYP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on March 23, 2026 at 1:30 p.m., will move under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for class certification. The Plaintiff and Defendant will separately present proposed schedules for briefing and hearing this motion, subject to the Court's approval; however, Plaintiff selects this hearing date in order to comply with the Court's standing order. The Plaintiff seeks an order certifying the following Class and Subclass: "All customers of Ricoh in the United States where (1) their contract contains an Annual Price Increase limit using the API Form Provision, (2) Ricoh increased prices in any year by a percentage that exceeded the numerical percentage set forth in the text of that customer's API Form Provision, and (3) the contract contains a Pennsylvania choice of law clause." The API Form Provision reads: "Unless otherwise expressly agreed to in writing, if the Term (defined below) of this Order exceeds twelve (12) months, the Service Charges and any rate expressly stated in this Order may be increased by Ricoh up to [INSERT] percent of the then-current Service Charges and rates annually for each year beyond the initial twelve (12) month period, and Customer expressly consents to such adjustment without additional notice." The Subclass: "All members of California who are located in California according to Ricoh's records." A California subclass bringing the California section 17200 claim will be California-based customers. The Plaintiff further seeks certifying the Plaintiff as the class representative, and certifying Panish Shea Ravipudi LLP as class counsel herein. This class action arises out of a claim that Ricoh USA, Inc. breached a form provision in a form contract regarding its right to increase rates after a fixed period of fixed service charges. Ricoh is an information management and digital services company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GoSYCb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Panish, Esq. Jesse Creed, Esq. PANISH | SHEA | RAVIPUDI LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, California 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: panish@panish.law jcreed@panish.law RICOH USA: Mike The Printer Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mike The Printer, Inc. v. Ricoh USA, Inc. et al., MIKE THE PRINTER, INC., a California corporation, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RICOH USA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-08192-JFW-AYP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on March 23, 2026 at 1:30 p.m., will move under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for class certification. The Plaintiff and Defendant will separately present proposed schedules for briefing and hearing this motion, subject to the Court’s approval; however, the Plaintiff selects this hearing date in order to comply with the Court's standing order. The Plaintiff seeks an order: 1. Certifying a class action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rules") 23. 2. Certifying the following Class and Subclass: "All customers of Ricoh in the United States where (1) their contract contains an Annual Price Increase limit using the API Form Provision, (2) Ricoh increased prices in any year by a percentage that exceeded the numerical percentage set forth in the text of that customer's API Form Provision, and (3) the contract contains a Pennsylvania choice of law clause"; The API Form Provision reads: "Unless otherwise expressly agreed to in writing, if the Term (defined below) of this Order exceeds 12 months, the Service Charges and any rate expressly stated in this Order may be increased by Ricoh up to [INSERT] percent of the then-current Service Charges and rates annually for each year beyond the initial 12 month period, and Customer expressly consents to such adjustment without additional notice." The Subclass: "All members of California who are located in California according to Ricoh's records. A California subclass bringing the California section 17200 claim will be California-based customers. 3. Finding the Plaintiff to be an adequate representative of the Class and Subclass and certifying Plaintiff as the class representative. 4. Finding the Plaintiff's counsel, namely Panish Shea Ravipudi LLP, as adequate class counsel and certifying them as class counsel. Ricoh is an information management and digital services company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=os5Ldz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Panish, Esq. Jesse Creed, Esq. PANISH | SHEA | RAVIPUDI LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, California 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: panish@panish.law jcreed@panish.law RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Bid to Modify Schedule Order in Homan Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nicholas Homan v. County of Riverside, Case No. 5:23-cv-02516-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Bernal entered an order as follows (1) Denying the motion to modify the schedule order; (2) Directing the parties to meet and confer as to class certification; and (3) Continuing the hearing date for the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification and the Defendant's motion for summary judgment to March 9, 2026. The Plaintiff has had more than a year to conduct discovery. The Court declines to extend discovery, particularly not for an additional year, where the Plaintiff chose to file the motion for class certification after the close of discovery despite two previous discovery deadline extensions. Accordingly, the Court denies the Motion. The Plaintiff correctly recognizes that the standard for conditional class certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is "fairly lenient." "Since this first determination is generally made before the close of discovery and based on a limited amount of evidence, the court applies a fairly lenient standard and typically grants conditional class certification." Accordingly, the Court directs the parties to meet and confer as to how, and if, they intend to proceed with class certification given the denial of the Motion. To provide the parties with sufficient time to meet and confer, the Court continues the hearings on the Motion for Class Certification and the Motion for Summary Judgment to March 9, 2026. The Plaintiff responds that his delays in filing the Motion for Conditional Certification were excusable because he needed to first conduct the depositions of the persons most qualified and suffered a medical emergency in the fall. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hDWasi at no extra charge.[CC] ROGERS ELECTRICAL: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April 19, 2027 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYLER BOWSER, v. LIN R. ROGERS ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-03094-DAD-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Drozd entered a scheduling order as follows: -- All fact discovery shall be completed no later than May 25, 2027. -- All expert discovery shall be completed no later than June 22, 2027. -- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed on or before April 19, 2027, which is a date proposed by the parties. The Defendants' opposition to the plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed by May 19, 2027. The Plaintiff's reply thereto shall be filed by June 2, 2027. -- All motions, except motions for continuances, temporary restraining orders, or other emergency applications, shall be filed on or before Aug. 6, 2027. -- The final pretrial conference is set for Jan. 24, 2028 at 1:30 p.m. -- A jury trial is set for March 21, 2028, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 4 before District Court Judge Dale A. Drozd. Lin R. Rogers provides electrical, lighting, and technology contracting services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6MlHLE at no extra charge.[CC] ROKT INC: Faces Haviland Class Suit Over Commercial Surveillance ---------------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH HAVILAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ROKT INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 2:26-at-00356 (E.D. Cal., Feb. 25, 2026) alleges that Defendant regularly and knowingly engaging with individuals in California through use of its website to conduct financially beneficial commercial surveillance on them. Accordingly, the Defendant's illegal conduct is directed at and harms California residents, including Plaintiff, and others in California, and if not for Defendant's contact with the forum, Plaintiff would not have suffered harm. The Defendant has partnered with registered California Data Brokers in order to deanonymize and develop clandestine user profiles on otherwise anonymous website visitors (the Data Brokers). The Defendant has done this by installing Data Broker Software Development Kits (DBSDKs) on its website. DBSDKs are designed to track and correlate visitors by capturing electronic impulses designed to identify them. This is accomplished through "browser fingerprinting," a process by which Data Brokers are able to ascertain the identity of a website visitor by plotting hundreds of personal identifiers, including a user's geolocation, device information, identification and cross-referencing of malicious cookies installed on their devices, and other traits evident from a user's browser, says the suit. Rokt is a California corporation that owns, operates, and/or controls www.rokt.com, an online platform that offers ecommerce technology applications.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. J. Evan Shapiro, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: rtauler@taulersmith.com eshapiro@taulersmith.com ROOT INC: Continues to Defend Fair Labor Standards-Related Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Root 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 Fair Labor Standards Act-related class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. On December 23, 2025, an amended putative collective and class action complaint was filed against the Company, Root, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiary, Caret Holdings, Inc., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division (Case No. 2:25-cv-01078-ALM-KAJ) by a former employee individually and on behalf of other similarly situated current and former employees. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law by failing to pay non-exempt customer service representatives for all hours worked, including alleged off-the-clock pre-shift and post-shift work and overtime compensation. The complaint seeks unpaid wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages, statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys fees, and costs on behalf of the named plaintiff and members of the proposed collective and class. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims. The lawsuit is in its early stages. Accordingly, at this time, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter or reasonably estimate the likelihood or magnitude of any potential loss contingency. Root, Inc. is a holding company. Its subsidiaries are Root Insurance Company, Root Property & Casualty Insurance Company and Root Reinsurance Company, Ltd. ROUND TABLE: Marler Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Derrick Marler and Andrew Jorgensen, individually and for others similarly situated v. ROUND TABLE CONSULTANTS, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00317 (W.D. Pa., Feb. 23, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), North Dakota law,the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"), and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law ("WPCL") to recover unpaid wages and other damages. The Plaintiffs and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours in a workweek. But the Defendant does not pay Plaintiffs and the other Hourly Employees for all hours worked. Instead, The Defendant rounds their clock in and clock out times to the nearest hour for its own primary benefit and to the detriment of Plaintiffs and the other Hourly Employees (The Defendant's "rounding policy"). Finally, the Defendant does not pay Plaintiffs and the other Hourly Employees at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay--based on all remuneration--for all hours they work in excess of 40 in a workweek. Instead, the Defendant pays them "per diems," "regular mileage," "nontaxable mileage," and "truck allowances" that it fails to include in these employees' regular rates of pay for overtime purposes (The Defendant's "per diem pay scheme"). The Defendant's rounding policy, drivetime policy, and per diem pay scheme violate the FLSA, North Dakota law, the PMWA and the WPCL by failing to compensate Plaintiffs and the other Hourly Employees at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay--based on all remuneration--for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked for Defendant. Round Table touts itself as a leading oilfield service provider of "experienced leadership & skilled crews."[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Joshua P. Geist, Esq. William F. Goodrich, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST PC 3634 California Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Phone: 412-766-1455 Facsimile: 412-766-0300 Email: josh@goodrichandgeist.com bill@goodrichandgeist.com RXSIGHT INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- RxSight, Inc. 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 a consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On July 22, 2025, a putative securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company and certain of its officers, captioned Makaveev v. RxSight, Inc., et al., No. 8:25-cv-01596. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, alleging that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omitted material adverse facts regarding demand for the Company's products and financial guidance. On September 16, 2025, a related putative securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company and certain of its officers, captioned Gémesi v. RxSight, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-02093. On October 6, 2025, the court entered an order consolidating the Makaveev and Gémesi actions, appointing a lead plaintiff and approving selection of lead counsel, and re-captioning the case as In re RxSight Securities Litigation, No. 8:25-cv-01596-FWS-KES. A consolidated, amended complaint was filed on December 12, 2025. Defendants’ motion to dismiss was filed on February 13, 2026. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. RxSight, Inc. is a commercial-stage medical technology company dedicated to providing high-quality customized vision to patients following cataract surgery. SAINT AGNES: Larssen Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case JENNIFER LARSSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SAINT AGNES HOME HEALTH AND HOSPICE, TRINITY HOME HEALTH SERVICES, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25CECG05852, was removed from the Superior Court of California for Fresno County to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on February 23, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-01544-JLT-FRS to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this suit against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code. Saint Agnes Home Health and Hospice is a home health care service provider in Fresno, California. Trinity Home Health Services is a home health care service provider, headquartered in Livonia, Michigan. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Irene V. Fitzgerald, Esq. Annureet K. Bezwada, Esq. Aaron M. Bausch, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 5200 North Palm Avenue, Suite 302 Fresno, CA 93704 Telephone: (559) 244-7500 Facsimile: (559) 244-7525 Email: ifitzgerald@littler.com abezwada@littler.com abausch@littler.com SALESFORCE INC: Young Seeks to File Class Documents Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANE YOUNG and LANAE JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 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 either the Defendant Salesforce, Inc. or Non-Party Rite Aid 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 Defendant Salesforce, Inc. or Non-Party Rite Aid, or references thereto by the 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. 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=K5bjBO 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 SATORN LLC: Nguyen Sues to Recover Minimum Wage Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------ Zoe Nguyen, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. SATORN LLC d/b/a SRITHAI KITCHEN & SUSHI BAR ATLANTIC STATION, a Georgia Domestic Limited Liability Company, and WINN MEKPONGSATORN, an individual, Case No. 1:26-cv-00817-ELR (N.D. Ga., Feb. 12, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover from Defendants minimum and overtime wage compensation, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff has not been subject to any exemption from the minimum wage pay requirements of the FLSA. The Plaintiff was compensated at an hourly rate of $2.13 per hour for her work as a server. At no time during her employment with Defendants was Plaintiff compensated on a salary basis. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendants, Defendants failed to notify Plaintiff of the provisions of FLSA The Plaintiff, and other similarly situated employees, routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week as part of their regular job duties. In fact, Plaintiff worked 50 hours per week for Defendants during her tenure. Despite working more than 40 hours per week, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff, and other similarly situated employees, overtime compensation at a rate of no less than time and one half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over forty in a workweek. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated were eligible for overtime provided they worked more than 40 hours per week. As a result, Plaintiff and those similarly situated, should have received compensation at time and one half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked beyond the 40 hours per week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a server from March 2025 to May 2025. SriThai is a Thai and Japanese restaurant that offers food and drinks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan P. Rose, Esq. Carlos V. Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Phone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 423-5864 Email: cleach@theleachfirm.com jrose@theleachfirm.com ppalmer@theleachfirm.com SECURITAS SECURITY: Trial in Ulloa II Suit Set for March 8, 2027 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ulloa II v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-01752 (N.D. Cal., Filed April 12, 2023), the Hon. Judge Ajay S. Krishnan entered an order: -- Fact discovery cut-off: Oct. 13, 2026 -- Expert discovery cut-off: Nov. 13, 2026 -- Dispositive motion hearing deadline: Jan. 6, 2027 -- Pre-trial conference: Feb. 18, 2027 -- Trial: March 8, 2027 The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Securitas is a provider of custom security & guarding solutions.[CC] SHAW BAKERS LLC: Barcenas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shaw Bakers LLC, et al. The case is styled as Luis Barcenas, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Shaw Bakers LLC, Does 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No. CGC26633813 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Feb. 11, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints (Complaint for Damages and Restitution)." Shaw Bakers LLC -- https://www.weareshawbakers.com/ -- specialize in fully baked frozen and ready-to-bake products with a focus on laminated, bread, and cookie doughs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. LAVI EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Email: vgranberry@lelawfirm.com SITUSAMC HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------- JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SITUSAMC HOLDINGS CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-01258-RSH-DDL (S.D. Cal., February 26, 2026) arises from the negligent failure of SITUSAMC to properly create, maintain, preserve, and/or store confidential, personal information of Plaintiff and all other persons similarly situated. The Defendant allowed the unencrypted personal information saved "within its information technology network" to be "access[ed]" and "acquired" or exfiltrated, by at least one "unauthorized third party," between November 13, 2025 and November 21, 2025, in violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act ("CCPA"), and the Cal. Business and Professions Code, asserts the complaint. According to the complaint, SITUSAMC received, created, maintained, preserved, and stored personally identifying information, including the names, addresses, government ID numbers (including Social Security Numbers), and dates of birth, of Plaintiff and the Class but failed to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized intrusions. The Plaintiff and the Class have been injured by fact that Defendant did not disclose to them that their unencrypted personal information was, or was reasonably believed to have been, acquired by an unauthorized person within 30 days or within the most expedient time possible and without reasonable delay. Specifically, Defendant waited more than 30 days before beginning to inform Plaintiff and the Class of this Data Breach by mailing "Notice of Data breach" letters, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, seeks damages from Defendant for negligence and breach of implied-in-fact contract. Plaintiff John Doe is a resident of the State of California and citizen of the State of California. Additionally, Plaintiff received SITUSAMC's notice letter, dated February 20, 2026. Defendant SitusAMC Holdings Corporation ("SITUSAMC") and/or its subsidiaries and affiliates work with various financial institutions to provide certain mortgage-related services that may involve borrower information and, in some cases, non-borrower information in connection with mortgage transactions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick N. Keegan (SBN 167698) KEEGAN & BAKER, LLP 2292 Faraday Avenue, Suite 100 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 929-9303 Facsimile: (760) 929-9260 E-mail: pkeegan@keeganbaker.com SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA UNITED: Bid for Class Cert. Due May 12 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARY M. ROMANCHUK, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNIONS AND FOOD EMPLOYERS JOINT PENSION TRUST FUND, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-08180-AB-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order granting the second stipulation and request to modify schedule for class certification. Event Deadline Filing of Motion for Class Certification: May 12, 2026 Opposition to Motion for Class June 2, 2026 Certification: Reply to Opposition to Motion for June 19, 2026 Class Certification: Hearing on Motion for Class July 10, 2026, at Certification: 10:00 a.m. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0dDVKN at no extra charge.[CC] SOUTHERN GLAZER'S: RMI Bid for Class Certification Tossed --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Roma Mikha, Inc. v. Southern Glazer's Wine and Spirits, LLC, Case No. 8:22-cv-01187 (C.D. Cal., Filed June 19, 2022), the Hon. Judge Fred W. Slaughter entered an order granting Defendant's motion for order denying class certification. The hearing on the Motion set for March 19, 2026, is vacated and off calendar. The nature of suit states Diversity-Other Contract. Southern Glazer's is a wine and spirits distributor.[CC] SPARC GROUP: Peppars Suit Seeks to Extend Class Cert Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER PEPPARS, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SPARC GROUP LLC, a Delaware limited liability company doing business as AEROPOSTALE; MICHELLE RONAN, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 4:25-cv-03618-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting ex parte application for relief pursuant to federal rule of civil procedure 6. The Plaintiff requests that the Court extend the deadline for the Plaintiff to file her class certification motion for a period of 90-120 days, or another period of time deemed appropriate by the Court, along with continuing all related deadlines in accordance with the new filing deadline. The Plaintiff Peppars seeks ex parte relief to continue Plaintiff's deadline to file a Motion for Class Certification (MCC) as set forth in the Court's Scheduling Order dated August 7, 2025, and further extend all related deadlines thereafter relating to the MCC to accommodate the continued filing deadline, including the deadline for Defendant SPARC Group, LLC to file an Opposition thereto. The relief Plaintiff seeks by way of this ex parte application is necessary to permit the issue of class certifiability in this action to be decided by the Court on the basis of the merits of the case -- not the Defendant's dilatory discovery tactics. The record shows that the Plaintiff has acted with reasonable diligence in her attempts to complete all necessary discovery to prepare and file her class certification motion in a timely fashion as set forth in the Court's Scheduling Order issued on Aug. 7, 2025. SPARC designs, sources, manufactures, distributes, and markets women's, men's, and kids apparel and accessories. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HwvoEk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Molly DeSario, Esq. Bryce Bommer, Esq. Henry G. Glitz, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Blvd. Los Angeles, CA, 90024 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 Facsimile: (310) 300-1705 E-mail: mdesario@tomorrowlaw.com bbommer@tomorrowlaw.com henry@tomorrowlaw.com ST. MARY PARISH SB: Fifth Circuit Dismisses Navy Appellate Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the appellate case titled Joshua J. Navy, Individually, on behalf of J.N.; Waynisha D. Navy, Individually, on behalf of J.N.; Ashley Mayfield, Individually, on behalf of M.D.P.M., A.E.P.M., and A.M.P.M; Michael Mayfield, Individually, on behalf of M.D.P.M., A.E.P.M., and A.M.P.M, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. School Board of St. Mary Parish, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 25-30075 (5th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismisses the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The matter is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (USDC No. 6:65-CV-11351). The Fifth Circuit panel consists of Chief Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, and Circuit Judges Jerry E. Smith and Cory T. Wilson. Judge Smith wrote the Opinion of the Court. In 1965, a desegregation lawsuit was filed against the School Board of St. Mary Parish. The district court imposed a permanent injunction requiring the School Board to dismantle its dual school system and comply with constitutional desegregation requirements. Over time, the decree was modified in response to higher court rulings and compliance issues, but the injunction remained in place. After decades of relative inactivity, new named plaintiffs were substituted into the case in 2019. Litigation resumed, including disputes over class certification, subject matter jurisdiction, and whether the injunction should be dissolved. The School Board filed a motion to dissolve the injunction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) and under the standard set forth in Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 (1991), and a motion to dismiss or strike the New Plaintiffs' motion for further relief. The district court denied the Board's motion to strike or dismiss (January Ruling), and issued an order preventing the Board from addressing Rule 60(b)(5) at an upcoming hearing (February Order). The School Board appealed both rulings. The Panel dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The Panel did not decide whether the district court still had jurisdiction over the case, whether the New Plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed, and whether the injunction should be dissolved. Instead, the Fifth Circuit held that it lacked authority to hear the appeal at this stage. The Fifth Circuit's reasoning rests on several key principles, including strict limits on interlocutory appeals, substance over form, status quo matters and pending motion to dissolve. Judge Smith points out that neither the January Ruling nor the February Order had the practical effect of continuing, modifying, or refusing to dissolve the injunction. Therefore, the Fifth Circuit lacked appellate jurisdiction under Section 1292(a)(1). The appeal was dismissed for want of appellate jurisdiction. The underlying dispute over whether the injunction should be dissolved remains pending before the district court. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/mprb7b4r from GovInfo.gov. STAKE CENTER LOCATING: Loonsfoot Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Michael Loonsfoot, Individually and for others similarly situated v. STAKE CENTER LOCATING, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-03171 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on Feb. 20, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00157-EWH-RJK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor. Stake Center -- https://www.stakecenter.com/ -- is the expert and market leader in high-risk infrastructure and fiber optic network locating.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 419-1008 Facsimile: 312-419-1025 Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com rschreiber@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com STANDARD FORWARDING: Verbeck Sues Over Layoff Without Prior Notice ------------------------------------------------------------------ RYAN VERBECK, BRUCE COLEMAN, DALE KIRK, JOHN KUNZE, and MICHAEL GERADS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STANDARD FORWARDING, LLC and STANDARD FORWARDING FREIGHT, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-04051-SLD-RLH (C.D. Ill., February 24, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, Illinois WARN Act, Iowa WARN Act, Wisconsin WARN Act, and Minnesota WARN Act. The case arises from the Defendants' action of terminating the employment of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees as a result of a mass layoff ordered by the Defendant on or about December 27, 2025, without providing adequate advance notice as required by the WARN Act. Standard Forwarding, LLC is a shipping company, with its principal place of business in East Moline, Illinois. Standard Forwarding Freight, LLC is a shipping company, with its principal place of business in Tucker, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: N. Elizabeth Reynolds, Esq. ALLISON, SLUTSKY & KENNEDY, PC 230 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2000 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 364-9400 Email: reynolds@ask-attorneys.com - and - Daniel P. Hull, Esq. Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq. HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL, LENISKI, and WALL PLLC 1920 Adelicia Street, Suite 300 Nashville, TN 37212 Telephone: (615) 800-6225 Email: ben@hsglawgroup.com daniel@hsglawgroup.com STAR H-R: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against STAR H-R. The case is styled as Arnulfo Garcia, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. STAR H-R, MARIANI PACKING CO., INC., MARIANI PACKING PARTNERSHIP, L.P., Case No. CU26-01490 (Cal. Super. Ct., Marin Cty., Feb. 11, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment." Star HR -- https://starhr.com.au/ -- is a recruitment agency specialising within the Australian healthcare industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos Jimenez, Esq. PROTECTION LAW GROUP. LLP 149 Sheldon St. El Segundo, CA 90245-3916 Phone: 626-556-5921 Fax: 866-264-7880 Email: carlos@protectionlawgroup.com STATE FARM: Loses Bid to Junk "Brewer" Breach of Contract Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Craig Brewer, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Defendant, Civil Action No. 1:25-CV-904 (M.D.N.C.), Chief District Judge Catherine C. Eagles of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss and motion to strike class allegations, while granting the Defendant's motion to compel appraisal, in this insurance dispute over the valuation of a totaled vehicle. In April 2023, the Plaintiff's car was damaged in a traffic accident. He filed a claim under his car insurance policy with the Defendant, and the Defendant deemed the car a total loss. Under the policy, the Defendant was required to pay the full pre-accident actual cash value of the car. To determine that value, the Defendant used a third-party data platform, CCC One, which located sales listings for comparable cars and applied a condition adjustment to their retail price based on an assumption of Average Private condition. That adjustment reduced the value of comparable cars by $3,328, resulting in a corresponding deduction to the Plaintiff's claim and an alleged underpayment. The Plaintiff brought a breach of contract claim on an individual basis and two claims for unfair and deceptive trade practices under North Carolina General Statute Section 75-1.1 on behalf of a putative class. He sought money damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and a declaratory judgment. The class has not been certified. The court denied the Defendant's motion to strike the class allegations, finding that class certification is better assessed on a more developed factual record. The Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. On standing, the court found that the alleged underpayment constitutes a pocketbook injury that is a prototypical form of injury in fact. The Defendant argued that appraisal was a mandatory precondition to suit, but the court rejected that position. Because the policy states either party may demand an appraisal, the provision is permissive, not mandatory, and appraisal is therefore not a precondition to filing suit. The motion to dismiss was denied. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant used a valuation process that deducts an amount attributable to the used condition of the car twice. The court found this plausibly states a claim for breach of contract. The Defendant's contention that its contract did not specify any particular valuation method was characterized as a garden variety factual dispute that cannot be resolved at the motion to dismiss stage. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant's valuation methodology violates North Carolina insurance regulations and constitutes an unfair and deceptive trade practice. The court found that violations of 11 North Carolina Administrative Code Section 4.0418 may constitute unfair and deceptive trade practices and that, accepting the Plaintiff's well-pled allegations as true, the unfair and deceptive trade practice claims were sufficiently stated. The court granted the Defendant's motion to compel appraisal, finding the Defendant is entitled to one in connection with the Plaintiff's individual breach of contract claim. The court found no good reason to stay the action while the appraisal is obtained, as the Chapter 75 claims will go forward regardless. The Plaintiff was ordered to promptly cooperate with the Defendant's appraisal demand, and the Defendant was directed to file an answer within the time provided by the Rules of Civil Procedure. The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge for an initial pretrial conference. A copy of the Court's MEMORANDUM AND ORDER dated February 25 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bAgyJm from PacerMonitor.om STOCKTON CARDIOLOGY MEDICAL: Horn Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stockton Cardiology Medical Group Complete Heart Case, Inc. The case is styled as Sameann Horn, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Stockton Cardiology Medical Group Complete Heart Case, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UBT-2026-0001295 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Feb. 23, 2026). Stockton Cardiology Medical Group Complete Heart Case, Inc. doing business as Stockton Cardiology -- https://stocktoncardiology.com/ --provides the care you need to improve and maintain your heart health, from preventive checkups and on-site diagnostic testing.[BN] STOCKTON CARDIOLOGY MEDICAL: Lucero Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stockton Cardiology Medical Group Complete Heart Care, Inc. The case is styled as Michelle Ernestina Lucero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Stockton Cardiology Medical Group Complete Heart Care, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UNPI-2026-0001318 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Feb. 24, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Non-PI/PD/WD (Other) Tort." Stockton Cardiology -- https://stocktoncardiology.com/ -- provides care to improve and maintain heart health, from preventive checkups and on-site diagnostic testing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago Merlini Coelho, esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 660 S. Figueroa Street, Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 381-9988 Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.co STOCKTON CARDIOLOGY MEDICAL: Morga Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stockton Cardiology Medical Group Complete Heart Care, Inc. The case is styled as Melven Morga, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Stockton Cardiology Medical Group Complete Heart Care, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOCT-2026-0001316 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Feb. 24, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Contract." Stockton Cardiology -- https://stocktoncardiology.com/ -- provides care to improve and maintain heart health, from preventive checkups and on-site diagnostic testing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Danielle L. Perry, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Ave NW #640, Washington, DC 20015 Phone: (202) 640-1168 Email: dperry@masonllp.com SUCCULENTS DEPOT: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Anderson Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ LISA ANDERSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Succulents Depot LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02073 (N.D. Ill., February 24, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.succulentsdepot.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Anderson and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On October 27, 2025, Plaintiff Anderson was searching online for succulent plants for home decor and home gardening. During her search, she came across the Defendant's website and decided to explore with the intent to make a purchase. However, she encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from completing the transaction. Specifically, the navigation menu expanded automatically upon receiving focus and did not allow repeated content to be collapsed, forcing Anderson to tab through numerous sub-menu items each time she attempted to navigate a page. These barriers render the Website inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually impaired individuals, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Succulents Depot LLC operates the website that offers a variety of succulents and cacti, including rare and unique species, as well as an assortment of houseplants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (929) 442-2154 E-mail: achan@ealg.law SV SUPER: Seeks to File Class Cert Reply in Ruben Suit by March 6 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Randall Ruben, an Arizona resident, v. SV Super Sale Bin Store, Inc., an Arizona company; GV Super Sale Bin Store, Inc., an Arizona company; Super Sale Bin Store LLC, an Arizona company; Sameer Qasem, an Arizona resident; and Ahmad Alzfifah, an Arizona resident, Case No. 4:25-cv-00228-JGZ (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff and the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for the SV Defendants to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification to March 6, 2026. The Parties seek this extension of time because they are exploring settlement options and believe it would be beneficial to postpone briefing on the Motion for a short period while they engage in those discussions. The proposed extension will not prejudice any party to this action. SV Super is an Arizona-based discount liquidation outlet. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4ihdgv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amanda Kuklinski, Esq. Jason Barrat, Esq. WEILER LAW PLLC 5050 N. 40th St., Suite 260 Phoenix, AZ 85018 E-mail: akuklinski@weilerlaw.com jbarrat@weilerlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: David I. Weissman, Esq. DAVIS MILES, PLLC 999 East Playa del Norte Drive, Suite 510 Tempe, AZ 85288 Telephone: (480) 733-6800 Facsimile: (480) 733-3748 E-mail: dweissman@davismiles.com TALCOTT RESOLUTION: Bids for Class Cert in Arbuckle Due Sept. 25 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARBUCKLE FUNDING LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TALCOTT RESOLUTION LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE CO., Case No. 7:23-cv-07972-CS-JCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge McCarthy entered a fifth amended discovery plan and scheduling order as follows: -- Expert depositions shall be completed by Sept. 24, 2026. -- All discovery shall be completed by Sept. 24, 2026. -- Any motions for class certification shall be filed no later than Sept. 25, 2026. -- Any oppositions to motions for class certification shall be filed no later than Nov. 13, 2026. -- Any replies in support of class certification shall be filed no later than Dec. 11, 2026. Talcott provides insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eqyrnJ at no extra charge.[CC] TARGET CORP: Montgomery Bid for Class Certification Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sherry Montgomery and Yesenia Alba v. Target Corporation et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-04924-JGB-MBK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order (1) Denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; (2) Granting-in-part and denying-in-part the Defendant's evidentiary objections; (3) Vacating the Feb. 23, 2026 Hearing; and (4) Directing the Parties to meet and confer regarding civil trial deadlines and to propose new dates and deadlines by March 23, 2026. In summary, the Court does not find that any of the eight proposed classes meet all the necessary requirements for proposed class certifications. Accordingly, the Court denies the Motion. The Plaintiff Sherry Montgomery worked for Target as a non-exempt hourly employee beginning Nov. 11, 2009. The Plaintiff Yesenia Alba worked for Target as a non-exempt, hourly employee for twenty years from April 1999 until Jan. 7, 2019. The Plaintiff seeks certification of the following classes: Regular Rate Class: "All non-exempt employees of the Defendant who were not paid a meal period or rest break premium at the correct regular rate of pay, or whose overtime wages were not paid at the correct rate as calculated using the correct regular rate of pay, for shifts worked for Defendant in California, at any time during the time period from June 6, 2015 through the date of class certification." Recordkeeping Meal Period Class: "All non-exempt employees of the Defendant who worked a shift for the Defendant in California in excess of five hours and whose timekeeping records reflect a late, shortened, or missed meal period without a corresponding meal period premium paid, at any time during the time period from June 6, 2015 through the date of class certification." Missing Punch Best Practice Class: "All non-exempt employees of Defendant who worked a shift for the Defendant in California in excess of five hours and whose timekeeping records reflect a manager-adjusted meal period time punch, at any time during the time period from June 6, 2015 through the date of class certification." On-Premises Rest Break Class: "All non-exempt employees of the Defendant who worked a shift for the Defendant in California of at least 3.5 hours, at any time during the time period from June 6, 2015 through Feb. 19, 2018." Cell Phone Reimbursement Class: "All non-exempt employees of the Defendant who were required to utilize their personal cell phone for business-related purposes when working for Defendant as a cashier at a cash register in California at any time during the time period from June 6, 2015 through the date of class certification." Closed-Location Clock-In Class: "All non-exempt employees of Defendant who worked a shift for the Defendant in California during hours when the location where they worked was not open to the public, at any time during the time period from June 6, 2015 through the date of class certification." Open-Location Clock-In Class: "All non-exempt employees of the Defendant in California who worked a shift during hours when the location where they worked was open to the public, at any time during the time period from June 6, 2015 through the date of class certification." Holiday Meal Period Premium Class: "All non-exempt employees of Defendant who worked a shift for the Defendant in California in excess of five hours and who were instructed to clock out and continue working through their meal periods, at any time during the time period from June 6, 2015 through the date of class certification." Target operates retail stores. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3qilhU at no extra charge.[CC] TD BANK: Court Dismisses "Hastings" Class Suit ---------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Joshua Hastings, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TD Bank, N.A., Defendant, 25-CV-02336 (HG) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Hector Gonzalez of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted Defendant's motion to dismiss the putative consumer protection class action complaint in its entirety with prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff Joshua Hastings, a citizen of New York, maintained a checking account with TD Bank since at least 2024, during which time Defendant charged him a $3 monthly fee for paper statements. Plaintiff alleged that this fee violated Section 399-zzz of the New York General Business Law, which prohibits charging a consumer an additional rate or fee associated with receiving a paper billing statement. Plaintiff further alleged that Defendant thereby engaged in a deceptive act or practice under Section 349 of the same law. Defendant moved to dismiss on three grounds: (1) Plaintiff's Section 399-zzz claim is preempted by the National Bank Act; (2) Section 399-zzz violates the First Amendment; and (3) Plaintiff failed to plead an actionable claim because he did not separately plead a violation of Section 349. On preemption, the Court adopted the analysis from Manship v. TD Bank, N.A. and concluded that Section 399-zzz is not preempted by the National Bank Act. The Court found that Defendant did not sufficiently explain how paper statement fees implicate banking concepts or principles and how they would significantly interfere with its banking power to charge a non-interest fee for its services. On the First Amendment, the Court held that Section 399-zzz regulates speech regarding how businesses can communicate their fees. Applying the four-part Central Hudson intermediate scrutiny test, the Court found that while the government's interest in consumer protection is substantial, Section 399-zzz does not directly advance that interest. The Court agreed that prohibiting a fee while permitting a credit or incentive for paperless statements has only a de minimis effect on consumer choice, as the two approaches have little practical difference. Therefore, Section 399-zzz does not survive intermediate scrutiny and violates Defendant's First Amendment rights. On severability, the Court rejected Plaintiff's argument that the unconstitutional credit and other incentive provision should be severed from the remainder of the statute. The Court found that severance was inappropriate because the valid and invalid provisions are so intertwined that excision of the invalid provisions would leave a regulatory scheme that the legislature never intended. On the Section 349 claim, the Court agreed that Plaintiff failed to plead a separate violation, because Section 399-zzz unconstitutionally infringes on Defendant's First Amendment rights. Accordingly, the Court denied Plaintiff's request for leave to amend, finding that the problem with Plaintiff's cause of action is substantive such that better pleading will not cure it. Plaintiff neither identified any additional factual allegations nor explained how an amendment would remedy the deficiencies in the Complaint. The Court dismissed the Complaint with prejudice. A copy of the Court's Order dated February 27, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=P0ACmx from PacerMonitor.com Defendant TD Bank, N.A. Represented By: Mark B. Rosen Pierce Atwood LLP 603-433-6300 mrosen@pierceatwood.com Lucus A Ritchie Pierce Atwood LLP 207-791-1342 lritchie@pierceatwood.com Plaintiff Joshua Hastings Represented By: Julian Cole Diamond Bursor & Fisher P.A. 646-837-7011 jdiamond@bursor.com Philip Lawrence Fraietta Bursor & Fisher, P.A. 914-874-0710 pfraietta@bursor.com Support • Privacy Policy • Cookie Policy • TEKNOR APEX COMPANY: Becerra Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Teknor Apex Company. The case is styled as Gilberto Becerra, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Teknor Apex Company, Case No. 26STCV04659 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 11, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Teknor Apex -- https://www.teknorapex.com/ -- is a global leader in custom materials, polymers, and TPE compounds.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amanda Fazio, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Blvd., Ste. 840 Glendale, CA 91203-2920 Email: a.fazio@d.law TELECARE CORP: Amarok Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- RUTH AMAROK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TELECARE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01615 (N.D. Cal., February 24, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive private information including, personally identifiable information and protected health information, of Plaintiff and Class Members, as patients and employees of Defendant, that was entrusted to them. On February 19, 2026, the ransomware group known as "Qilin" announced that they had breached Defendant's network containing the PII and PHI of Defendant's patients. As a result of the breach, which Defendant failed to prevent, the private information of its patients and employees, including Plaintiff and Class Members, was stolen. The Plaintiff and Class Members would not have provided their valuable private information had they known that Defendant would make their private information Internet accessible, not encrypt personal and sensitive data elements, and not delete the Private Information it no longer had reason to maintain, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of the Class, seeking remedies including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, injunctive relief, reasonable attorney fees and costs, and other remedies this Court deems proper. Telecare Corporation is a California based provider of a variety of medical services across five states of the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Frost, Esq. Kevin S. Dicker, Esq. FROST LLP 10960 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 254-0441 Facsimile: (424) 600-8504 E-mail: chris@frostllp.com kevin@frostllp.com - and - Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: jaw@federmanlaw.com TELECARE CORP: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Wayne Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS LEE WAYNE JR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. TELECARE CORPORATION, Case No. 4:26-cv-01689 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 26, 2026) alleges that cybercriminals were able to breach the Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity, failed to adequately monitor its agents, contractors, vendors, and suppliers in handling and securing the personally identifiable information as well as protected health information, and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' PII/PHI -- rendering it an easy target for cybercriminals. On or around February 19, 2026, Telecare discovered it had lost control over its computer network and the highly sensitive personal information stored on its computer network in a data breach perpetrated by cybercriminals. Accordingly, the Data Breach has impacted thousands of current and former employees as well as customers. Following an internal investigation, Defendant learned cybercriminals had gained unauthorized access to employees' and customers' PII as well as PHI. The Defendant has not yet begun formal notification to class members, including to Plaintiff, despite the notorious ransomware cyberhacker, Qilin, taking responsibility for the breach on or around February 19, 2026, and stating it would release all stolen information onto the dark web. The Defendant continues to obfuscate the nature of the breach and the threat it posted -- refusing to tell its employees and customers how many people were impacted, how the breach happened, when it was discovered, or why Defendant delayed notifying victims that cybercriminals had gained access to their highly private information, says the suit. The Defendant's failure to timely report the Data Breach made the victims vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their PII/PHI. The Defendant knew or should have known that each victim of the Data Breach deserved prompt and efficient notice of the Data Breach and assistance in mitigating the effects of PII/PHI misuse, the suit further alleges. The Plaintiff is a former employee and customer of Telecare and, on information and belief, a data breach victim. As a condition of employment with Telecare as well as a condition of obtaining services from Telecare, Plaintiff provided Defendant with his PII/PHI. Telecare offers mental health services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carly M. Roman, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: croman@straussborrelli.com TOBY HARRIS: Castrejon Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Martin Castrejon, individually & on behalf all similarly situated v. Toby Harris, Tovin Entertainment Inc. d/b/a Cider Mill Lounge & Fryer Tuck, Two Dudes Entertainment LLC d/b/a Bleachers Sports Bar & Grill, Case No. 3:26-cv-00354-SB (D. Ore., Feb. 23, 2026), is brought suing the Defendants for unpaid overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Defendants have employed within the past three years one or more employees similarly situated to Plaintiff, specifically an employee that works forty hours or more in a workweek without receiving time and half pay for overtime hours, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as a cook for the Defendants. The Defendants provide food, beverage and entertainment in Portland, Oregon.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq. MAZAHERI & MAZAHERI PO Box 656 Frankfort, KY 40602 Phone: (213) 347-1000 Email: Bernie@TheLaborFirm.com TOUCAN RESTAURANT: Santos Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------- Rolando Medina Santos, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. THE TOUCAN RESTAURANT LLC, EL TUCAN, LLC, CRISTIAN A. SANTOS-MEJIA, individually, and MICHELE SANABRIA, individually, Case No. 2:26-cv-01818 (D.N.J., Feb. 24, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"), to recover unpaid overtime compensation and unpaid wages. The Plaintiff regularly worked between 61 and 64 hours per workweek throughout his employment. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff and collective members to work more than 40 hours per week without providing them with any additional overtime compensation. The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NJWHL by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including Plaintiff, overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 hours per workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a cook, cleaner, and dishwasher from December 2021 until February 8, 2025. THE TOUCAN RESTAURANT LLC is a duly organized New Jersey limited liability company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12t Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 203-2417 Web: www.StillmanLegalPC.com TOYOTA OF BOARDMAN: Class Cert. Bid in Shafer Due May 1 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shafer v. Toyota of Boardman, Case No. 4:25-cv-00941 (N.D. Ohio, Filed May 8, 2025), the Hon. Judge Bridget Meehan Brennan entered an order on Motion to alter/amend judgment Revised deadlines are: (1) class certification: May 1, 2026 (2) expert report(s) for the party May 18, 2026 with the burden of proof: (3) Responsive expert report(s): May 16, 2026 (4) Fact and expert discovery: July 16, 2026 (5) Dispositive motions: Aug. 17, 2026 The parties are cautioned that further extensions for the reasons stated in this motion are not likely to be granted. Additionally, if the parties intend to seek a referral to the assigned Magistrate Judge, the deadline for doing so is March 4, 2026 The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Defendant offers a selection of new and pre-owned vehicles.[CC] TRANSFORCE INC: Garcia Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Sandra Garcia, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. TRANSFORCE, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CIVSR2510935 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 20, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01877. The Plaintiff alleges 10 claims on behalf of herself and the putative class members: unpaid overtime; unpaid meal period premiums; unpaid rest period premiums; unpaid minimum wages; final wages not paid timely; wages not paid timely during employment; non-compliant wage statements; failure to keep requisite payroll records; unreimbursed business expenses; and violation of Business and Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Shannon B. Nakabayashi, Esq. Trenten N. Bilodeaux, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4615 Phone: (415) 394-9400 Facsimile: (415) 394-9401 Email: Shannon.Nakabayashi@jacksonlewis.com Trenten.Bilodeaux@jacksonlewis.com TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Flanagan Files Suit in N.D. Georgia -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Travelers Indemnity Company, et al. The case is styled as Johnny Flanagan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Travelers Indemnity Company, Case No. 1:26-cv-01060-AT (N.D. Ga., Feb. 24, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract. The Travelers Companies, Inc. -- https://www.travelers.com/ -- commonly known as Travelers, is an American insurance company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent J. Savage, Sr., Esq. Matthew R. Bradley, Esq. SAVAGE & TURNER P.C. 102 E. Liberty Street, 8th Floor Post Office Box 10600 Savannah, GA 31412 Phone: (912) 231-1140 Email: lwickline@savagelawfirm.net mbradley@savagelawfirm.net - and - David S. Eichholz, Esq. THE EICHHOLZ LAW FIRM, P.C. 319 Eisenhower Drive Savannah, GA 31406 Phone: (912) 232-2791 Email: david@thejusticelawyer.com U.S. BANCORP: Adams Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 8th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUE ANN ADAMS, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Sue Ann Adams, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. U.S. Bancorp, et al., Defendants, Case No. 0:22-cv-00509-NEB-LIB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The Plaintiffs filed this suit against the Defendant for breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). On Apr. 1, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which Judge Nancy E. Brasel granted on January 17, 2026. The Court concludes that the U.S. Bank Pension Plan does not violate ERISA. So regardless of whether the Defendants are fiduciaries under ERISA, the Plaintiffs cannot prevail on this count. The appellate case is entitled Sue Ann Adams, et al. v. U.S. Bancorp, et al., Case No. _______, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on February 25, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants SUE ANN ADAMS, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Douglas P. Needham, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC One Corporate Center 20 Church Street, 17th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 218-2720 Email: dneedham@motleyrice.com - and - Robert A. Izard, Esq. Christopher M. Barrett, Esq. IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE LLP 29 South Main Street, Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 493-6292 Email: rizard@ikrlaw.com cbarrett@ikrlaw.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel Nordin, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK LLP Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dnordin@gustafsongluek.com Defendants-Appellees U.S. BANCORP, et al. are represented by: Melissa D. Hill, Esq. Dylan D. Rudolph, Esq. Christopher M. Diffee, Esq. Michael F. Fleming, Esq. Carolyn M. Corcoran, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178 Email: Melissa.hill@morganlewis.com Dylan.rudolph@morganlewis.com Christopher.diffee@morganlewis.com Michael.fleming@morganlewis.com Carolyn.corcoran@morganlewis.com - and - Daniel Supalla, Esq. NILAN JOHNSON LEWIS PA 250 Marquette Avenue South, Suite 800 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Email: dsupall@nilanjohnson.com U.S. BANK NATIONAL: Bawa Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Karminder Bawa, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2026-01539131-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of California in and for the County of Orange, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 19, 2026, and assigned Case No. 8:26-cv-00373. The Complaint alleges claims for failure to pay all wages; failure to pay all overtime wages and/or failure to pay all overtime wages at the legal overtime rate; failure to provide all meal periods; failure to authorize and permit all paid rest periods; failure to comply with Labor Code Sections 245 et seq. and Section 246; derivative failure to timely furnish accurate itemized wage statements; violations of Labor Code Sections 201-202; and unfair business practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Joan B. Tucker Fife, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 101 California Street, 21st Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-5891 Phone: +1 415-591-1000 Facsimile +1 415-591-1400 Email: JFife@winston.com - and - Emilie C. Woodhead, Esq. Peyton Sherwood, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 333 S. Grand Avenue, 38th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: +1 213-615-1700 Facsimile: +1 213-615-1750 Email: ewoodhead@winston.com psherwood@winston.com ULTA SALON: Class Cert. & Discovery Deadlines in Bonezzi Extended ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA ELIZABETH BONEZZI, an individual on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC., a Delaware Corporation; TIFFANY TUCKER, an individual; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 4:24-cv-06916-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Tigar entered an order granting the joint stipulation to continue case management conference, class certification and discovery deadlines as follows: 1. The Case Management Conference, currently set for Feb. 20, 2026 at 1:30 p.m., is continued to Oct. 27, 2026. 2. The Parties' Joint Status Report Re Mediation is due one week prior to the continued Further Case Management Conference. 3. All class certification-related and discovery deadlines are continued by 180 days as follows: a. Feb. 28, 2027: Class certification motion and Plaintiff's expert disclosures due. b. April 23, 2027: Class certification opposition and the the Defendants' expert disclosures due. c. May 20, 2027: Expert discovery cutoff. d. June 17, 2027: Class certification reply due. e. July 27, 2027: Fact discovery cutoff. Ulta Salon operates beauty stores. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sjqr23 at no extra charge.[CC] UNDEROUTFIT INC: Walker Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers ---------------------------------------------------------------- LEAH WALKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNDEROUTFIT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02071 (N.D. Ill., February 24, 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://underoutfit.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: ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text on graphics, the lack of navigation links, 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. Underoutfit, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Email: achan@ealg.law UNITED AMERICAN: Partly Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Rivas ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CESAR RIVAS, et al., v. UNITED AMERICAN SECURITY, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-03748-SLS (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Sparkle Sooknanan entered a judgment granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denying the Defendants' alternative Motion to Stay. The Court grants the Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to any portion of Ms. Velasquez's claims predicated on work performed before she obtained her security officer certification in November 2024. Mr. Rivas filed this lawsuit against GardaWorld on Dec. 16, 2023, alleging that for the preceding three years he had not been paid the District's minimum wage for security officers. Unlike the plaintiff in Williams, Mr. Rivas and Ms. Velasquez have not moved for summary judgment. This Court thus has not been asked to conclude as a matter of law that the Plaintiffs are entitled to the security officer minimum wage, and it declines to go that far. But it finds that a reasonable jury could conclude that the duties assigned to Mr. Rivas and Ms. Velasquez qualify them as security officers under the DCMWA. Accordingly, this is not a basis to grant summary judgment for the Defendants. The Court agrees that Garda World is entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim but disagrees about JLL's potential liability. Ultimately, the Plaintiffs in this case seek to have their claims heard expeditiously, having filed them more than two years ago. And they have represented an intent to opt out of any class that gets certified in any other case. The Defendants have pointed to no authority suggesting a stay is warranted in these circumstances. And in fact, other courts have rejected similar arguments to the ones the Defendants have made here. Accordingly, the Court exercises its discretion to deny the Defendants’ request for a stay. This case will proceed to trial on the claims that survive summary judgment. United provides security guard training, uniformed security guards, property protection, and vehicle safety services. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Feb. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SoRv3R at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED AMERICAN: Seeks to Strike Class Certification Exhibits ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDON CHANG, et al., v. UNITED AMERICAN SECURITY, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-02377-BAH (D.D.C.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order to strike several exhibits from the Plaintiff Brandon Chang and Anya Forrest's motion for class certification. These exhibits are inadmissible, prejudicial, and/or were submitted in violation of a protective order, the Defendant avers. The Defendant is a provider of physical security services. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 16, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=S5zWHJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Adam T. Calandra, Esq. Teresa L. Jakubowski, Esq. BARNES & THORNBURG, LLP 555 12th Street NW, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 289-1313 Facsimile: (202) 289-1330 E-mail: adam.calandra@btlaw.com teresa.jakubowski@btlaw.com UNITED CONCORDIA: Seeks to File Class Cert Opposition Sur-Reply --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN J. LYNGAAS, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, v. UNITED CONCORDIA COMPANIES, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 2:21-cv-11604-JJCG-APP (E.D. Mich.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for leave to file sur-reply in opposition to the Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification. The Plaintiff has filed a Reply (ECF No. 140) that relies upon new authorities and raises new arguments to which UCCI should be permitted to respond. Specifically, in its Reply, Plaintiff relies upon, for the first time, In re Humana, Inc., 163 F.4th 376 (6th Cir. 2025). UCCI should be permitted to respond to the Plaintiff's reliance on this new authority. Moreover, the Plaintiff also misstates UCCI's arguments, the facts, and the applicable law regarding fax logs, consent, and online fax services. UCCI should be permitted to respond to these misstatements. If permitted by the Court, UCCI would file the Sur-Reply attached as Exhibit 1. United Concordia offers affordable dental insurance plans. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xnIHtH at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Timothy J. Lowe, Esq. MCDONALD HOPKINS 39533 Woodward Ave, Suite 318 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (248) 220-1359 Facsimile: (248) 646-5075 E-mail: tlowe@mcdonaldhopkins.com - and- Justin J. Kontul, Esq. Timothy R. Carwinski, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 225 Fifth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 288-3131 Facsimile: (412) 288-3063 E-mail: jkontul@reedsmith.com tcarwinski@reedsmith.com UNITED STATES: Class Expert Disclosures Due Sept. 8 --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARRY PRIDE, et al., v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-02292-LLA (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Alikhan entered a scheduling order as follows: Finalization of Agreed Custodians and March 16, 2026 Search Terms: Substantial Completion of Production of June 30, 2026 Documents & Responses for Class Certification Written Discovery: The Plaintiffs' Rule 23 Motion with Class Sept. 8, 2026 Expert Disclosures: Depositions of the Plaintiffs' Initial Oct. 6, 2026 Class Experts: Depositions of the Defendants' Class Experts: Jan. 19, 2027 The Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Rule Feb. 16, 2027 23 Brief with Rebuttal Class Experts: The court will thereafter determine whether a hearing on the Plaintiffs' Rule 23 motion is necessary. USDA is an executive department of the United States federal government that aims to meet the needs of commercial farming and livestock food production. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oG6Scb at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Faces Aceituno Suit Over Warrantless Arrests ----------------------------------------------------------- WILLY WENDER ACEITUNO, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00146-SCR-WCM (W.D.N.C., February 24, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for warrantless arrests without individualized removability determinations and individualized escape risk determinations in violation of 8 U.S.C. Section 1357(a)(2). According to the complaint, the Defendants arrested the Plaintiffs without warrants. Before each arrest, the Defendants failed to make the required individualized finding that the person arrested was in violation of the immigration laws or that the person arrested posed a flight risk. The Plaintiffs seek to declare unlawful the Defendants' policy and practice of making warrantless immigration arrests without a valid pre-arrest, individualized determination of probable cause that the person being arrested is in the United States in violation of law or regulation. U.S. Department of Homeland Security is a federal agency in the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kristi Graunke, Esq. Corina Scott, Esq. Jaclyn Maffetore, Esq. ACLU of North Carolina Legal Foundation P.O. Box 28004 Raleigh, NC 27611 Telephone: (919) 354-5066 Email: kgraunke@acluofnc.org cscott@acluofnc.org jmaffetore@acluofnc.org - and - Johanna M. Hickman, Esq. Adnan Perwez, Esq. Steven Y. Bressler, Esq. Brian Netter, Esq. DEMOCRACY FORWARD FOUNDATION P.O. Box 34553 Washington, DC 20043 Telephone: (202) 448-9090 Email: hhickman@democracyforward.org aperwez@democracyforward.org sbressler@democracyforward.org bnetter@democracyforward.org - and - Spencer Amdur, Esq. Oscar Sarabia Roman, Esq. ACLU Foundation Immigrants' Rights Project 425 California Street, 7th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 343-0770 Email: samdur@aclu.org osarabia@aclu.org org - and - Kathryn Huddleston, Esq. Lucia Goin, Esq. ACLU Foundation Immigrants' Rights Project 915 15th Street NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (212) 549-2500 Email: khuddleston@aclu.org lgoin@aclu.org org - and - Jacob H. Sussman, Esq. SOUTHERN COALITION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE P.O. Box 51280 Durham, NC 27717 Telephone: (919) 323-3380 Email: jsussman@scsj.org UNITED STATES: Hilton Sues Over Violation of Constitutional Rights ------------------------------------------------------------------ ELINOR HILTON and COLLEEN FAGAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of Homeland Security; TODD LYONS, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; JOHN A. CONDON, Acting Executive Director, Homeland Security Investigations; RODNEY SCOTT, Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection; MICHAEL BANKS, Chief, U.S. Border Patrol; THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; HOMELAND SECURITY INVESTIGATIONS; U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; U.S. BORDER PATROL; UNIDENTIFIED FEDERAL AGENCIES; and UNIDENTIFIED FEDERAL AGENTS, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00092-JAW (D. Me., February 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the First Amendment including retaliation, threats, and harassment. The case arises from the Defendants' violations of the constitutional rights and liberties of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals by subjecting them to adverse actions for engaging in protected First Amendment activities. According to the complaint, the Defendants are collecting and maintaining Plaintiffs' and other Class members' biometric data and other personal information because of their exercise of their First Amendment rights. This information is maintained in one or more government databases or watchlists. As a result of the Defendants' conduct, the Plaintiffs and the Class suffered damages. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is a federal agency headquartered in Washington, DC. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is a component agency of DHS headquartered in Washington, DC. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is a component agency of DHS headquartered in Washington, DC. U.S. Border Patrol is a component of CBP headquartered in Washington, DC. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Melissa A. Hewey, Esq. David M. Kallin, Esq. DRUMMOND WOODSUM 84 Marginal Way, Suite 600 Portland, ME 04101 Telephone: (207) 253-0528 Email: mhewey@dwmlaw.com dkallin@dwmlaw.com - and - JoAnna Suriani, Esq. Janine M. Lopez, Esq. PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT 2020 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite # 163 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 579-4582 Email: joanna.suriani@protectdemocracy.org janine.lopez@protectdemocracy.org - and - Genevieve Nadeau, Esq. Kenneth Parreno, Esq. PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT 15 Main Street, Suite 312 Watertown, MA 02472 Telephone: (202) 579-4582 Email: genevieve.nadeau@protectdemocracy.org kenneth.parreno@protectdemocracy.org - and - Jessica Marsden, Esq. PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT 510 Meadowmont VIII. Cir. No. 328 Chapel Hill, NC 27517 Telephone: (202) 579-4582 Email: jess.marsden@protectdemocracy.org - and - Karen L. Dunn, Esq. Jeannie S. Rhee, Esq. L. Rush Atkinson, Esq. Yotam Barkai, Esq. John Paredes, Esq. Benjamin J. Cabranes, Esq. DUNN ISAACSON RHEE LLP 401 9th Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 240-2900 Email: kdunn@dirllp.com jrhee@dirllp.com ratkinson@dirllp.com ybarkai@dirllp.com jparedes@dirllp.com bcabranes@dirllp.com UNITED STATES: Must Provide Class Certification Discovery --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PRIDE, et al., v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-02292 (D.D.C., Filed Aug. 8, 2023), the Hon. Judge Loren L. Alikhan entered an order that the Defendants shall produce as part of class certification discovery: (1) the additional data fields in the Dr. Robb spreadsheet of Direct Loan Program ("DLP") data for FY 2017-2024 that are responsive to Plaintiffs' requests for production, and (2) brief descriptions of any Robb DLP data fields that Defendants choose not to produce. The Court further entered an order that Plaintiffs' requests for Discrimination Financial Assistance Program application data are denied. The nature of suit states Civil Rights. USDA is an executive department of the United States federal government that aims to meet the needs of commercial farming and livestock food production.[CC] US HEALTHWORKS: Class Settlement in Raines Gets Final Nod --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTINA RAINES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. U.S. HEALTHWORKS MEDICAL GROUP, a corporation; et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-01539-DMS-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sabraw entered an order granting final approval of the class action settlement agreement and further granting the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. 1. The Court confirms as final the appointment of the Plaintiffs Kristina Raines and Darrick Figg as the Class Representatives under Rule 23. 2. The Court confirms as final the appointment of the following law firms and attorneys as Class Counsel for the Rule 23 Class: Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP; and Light & Miller LLP. 3. Legal Aid At Work is awarded a cy pres award in the amount of $172,039 to be paid by the Defendants. 4. The class administration costs for Verita Global are approved in the amount of $140,234.22 to be paid by the Defendants. 5. The Plaintiffs' request for incentive awards is granted and the Plaintiffs Kristina Raines and Darrick Figg are awarded $15,000 ($7,500 each) in incentive and service awards. 6. The Plaintiffs are awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $1,628,386 and litigation expenses in the amount of $146,614 to be paid by the Defendants. US HealthWorks is an urgent care & occupational health service provider. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8V76L8 at no extra charge.[CC] VENEZUELA: Mazzaccone Wins Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MASSIMO MAZZACCONE, v. THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA, Case No. 1:24-cv-06168-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Cote entered an order granting the Plaintiff's Sept. 19, 2025, motion for class certification. The Plaintiff is appointed as class representative, and Duane Morris is appointed as class counsel. Mazzaccone has satisfied Rule 23(a)'s requirements. Given the aggregate value of the bonds at issue and the existence of multiple related individual actions, the proposed classes are sufficiently numerous, a point defendant does not dispute. Commonality is likewise satisfied because liability turns on uniform bond terms and FAAs, and the same history of Venezuela's alleged nonpayment, presenting questions of law and fact common to all class members. Mazzaccone's claims are also typical of those of the proposed classes, as he is a beneficial owner of the bonds subject to the same contractual provisions and advancing the same breach-of-contract theory. Finally, although his acquisition of the bonds occurred under unique circumstances, Mazzaccone's interest in enforcing the bonds and obtaining repayment is fully aligned with that of the proposed classes, rendering him an adequate representative. The Defendant is a South American nation on the Caribbean coast. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Feb. 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CPzdAQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Costantini, Esq. Stephanie Lamerce, Esq. Jillian M. Dreusike, Esq. Harvey W. Gurland, Jr., Esq. Arti Fotedar, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 22 Vanderbilt 335 Madison Avenue, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10017 The Defendant is represented by: Camilo Cardozo, Esq. Dora Paula Georgescu, Esq. Marisa Antonelli, Esq. VINSON & ELKINS LLP 1114 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10036 VENEZUELA: Plaintiff Must Submit Class Member Notice by March 6 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Massimo Mazzaccone v. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Case No. 1:24-cv-06168-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Cote entered an order that the Plaintiff submit a proposed notice to class members in each certified class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B) by March 6, 2026. In advance of this deadline, the parties are encouraged to meet and confer regarding the proposed notice. The Court further entered an order that the parties meet and confer regarding a schedule for further pretrial proceedings in this case and file a joint proposed schedule by March 6, 2026. On Feb. 17, 2026, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification was granted. The Defendant is a South American nation on the Caribbean coast. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RATDmX at no extra charge.[CC] VERISK ANALYTICS: Faces Dinitz Personal Data Mishandling Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Verisk Analytics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2023, that it is facing case captioned "Adam Dinitz, et al. v. Verisk Analytics, Inc.," filed in the District of New Jersey federal court, Case No. 24-11157. It was transferred to the Northern District of Georgia to be part of the consolidated MDL. Defendants filed their motions to dismiss his claims on April 14, 2025. The complaint generally alleges that defendants collected consumers driver behavior data through vehicle software and Verisk shared the data with auto insurance companies, without their knowledge or consent. Plaintiffs seek certification of both nationwide classes of individuals and subclasses of various state residents who had their vehicle s driving data collected by defendants and shared with a third party without their consent. They also seek actual, statutory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, as well as reasonable attorney's fees and other costs. Verisk Analytics, Inc. is a strategic data analytics and technology partner to the global insurance industry. WALMART INC: Fuentes Sues Over Mislabeled Pesto Products -------------------------------------------------------- BRANDON FUENTES, Indvidually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-60534-XXXX (S.D. Fla., February 25, 2026) accuses the Defendant of mislabeling the calorie content on its Great Value Pesto product. The Defendant's product is labeled as containing 60 calories per sixty 60 gram serving. However, independent testing of the product shows the actual calorie count to be over three times the amount shown on the label with the actual calorie count for the 60 gram serving to be 188.4 calories. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's false labeling of the said product violates Florida's Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Moreover, Defendant's conduct also gives rise to common law claims of unjust enrichment, fraud by omission/intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and breaches of expressed and implied warranties. Walmart, Inc. operates discount stores, supercenters, and neighborhood markets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Lober, Esq. William Gregory Dobson, Esq. LOBER & DOBSON, LLC 1197 Canton St. Roswell, GA 30075 Telephone: (770) 741-0700 E-mail: mjlober@lddlawyers.com wgd@lddlawyers.com - and - Brent Irby, Esq. LYONS IRBY LLC 2201 Arlington Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 335-9102 E-mail: brent@lyonsirby.com - and - Todd L. Lord, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF TODD L. LORD Post Office Box 901 4 Courthouse Square Cleveland, GA 30528 Telephone: (706) 219-2239 Facsimile: (706) 348-8100 E-mail: attytllord@windstream.net WASTE MANAGEMENT: $9MM Attys Fees Awarded to Plaintiffs' Counsel ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned re Waste Management Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:22-cv-04838-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Schofield entered an order awarding Attorneys' fees and expenses and awards to lead plaintiffs pursuant to 15 u.s.c. section 78u-4(a)(4). Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel is awarded attorneys' fees of 30% of the $30,000,000 Settlement Amount, or $9,000,000, plus interest at the same rate earned by the Settlement Fund, to be paid from the Settlement Fund. The two firms that are Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel may determine the allocation of the attorneys' fees between them. The timing of payment shall be as follows: 60%, or $5,400,000.00, plus any applicable interest, shall be payable immediately, and the remaining 40%, or $3,600,000.00, plus any applicable interest, shall be payable after substantially all of the distributions to Class Members from the Settlement Fund are complete. Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel is also awarded reimbursement of litigation expenses in the amount of $946,662.31, plus interest at the same rate earned by the Settlement Fund, which is payable upon entry of this Order. The Lead Plaintiffs Seafarers Officers & Employees Pension Plan, Seafarers Money Purchase Pension Plan and United Industrial Workers Pension Plan are each awarded $10,000, for a total of $30,000, for the time they spent representing the Class, which is payable upon entry of this Order. It is further A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=P8oHWO at no extra charge.[CC] WEEZIE INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Ford Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- SANDRA FORD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Weezie, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02070 (N.D. Ill., February 24, 2026) is a civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://weezietowels.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Ford and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On September 1, 2025, Plaintiff Ford searched online for bath towels and discovered Defendant's website. She decided to visit the website to explore the available products and make a purchase. However, while navigating the website using a keyboard and screen reader, she encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from independently completing the purchase. These access barriers render the Website inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually impaired individuals, says the suit. Plaintiff Ford seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Weezie, Inc. operates the website that offers a variety of bath and home textile products, including towels, robes, and bath accessories, such as plush bath sheets, monogrammed hand towels, and washcloths.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law WORLDWIDE GOLF: Evans Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES EVANS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Worldwide Golf Shops LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02069 (N.D. Ill., February 24, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.worldwidegolfshops.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Evans and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On October 16, 2025, while browsing the internet using his screen reader, the Plaintiff explored offerings available from various golf retailers. During his search among popular options, he came across Worldwide Golf and visited the Defendant's website. He decided to browse the product collections with the intention of making a purchase. While navigating the website, the Plaintiff encountered accessibility barriers. Many interactive elements were not properly labeled and were not announced correctly by the screen reader software, making it difficult for him to understand their purpose or destination. These access barriers render the Website inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually impaired individuals, says the suit. Plaintiff Evans seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Worldwide Golf Shops LLC operates the website that offers a variety of golf equipment, apparel, and accessories, including clubs, bags, balls, shoes, gloves, and training aids.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law WYNDHAM VACATION: Court Narrows Claims in Huskey Suit ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOGAN HUSKEY, HEATHER HUSKEY, NICOLE FOLDEN, DANIEL FOLDEN, RACHEL MCELVEEN, and OCIE MCELVEEN, v. WYNDHAM VACATION RESORTS, INC., and WYNDHAM RESORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Case No. 6:23-cv-00601-CEM-RMN (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Mendoza entered an order that: 1. The Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. a. The Motion is granted insofar as the Folden's claims are dismissed with prejudice as time-barred. b. The Motion is otherwise denied. 2. The Defendants' motion for leave to file a reply is denied. 3. The Plaintiffs' motion for extension of time to file class certification is granted. 4. On or before March 5, 2026, the parties shall submit an amended Case Management Report. The Court is satisfied that the Plaintiffs have standing to proceed at this stage. While the Foldens' monthly payments may constitute ongoing injury caused by the alleged violation, such payments do not constitute ongoing violations, and therefore, the continuing violation doctrine does not apply. Accordingly, the Foldens' claims are time-barred and will be dismissed. The Plaintiffs are servicemembers and their spouses who purchased and financed timeshares from the Defendants. The Plaintiffs allege that in these purchases, the Defendants violated the Military Lending Act ("MLA") in the following ways: "requiring covered borrowers to pay interest on loans which contain terms which are prohibited by the MLA"; "requiring borrowers to waive their legal right to participate in a class action or to have a jury trial of their claims"; "requiring borrowers to submit to arbitration"; and failing to include the required Military Annual Percentage Rate ("MAPR") disclosures. Wyndham is an American hospitality company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HA4iwu at no extra charge.[CC] WYNN RESORTS: Fails to Safeguard Private Information, Alba Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ROY ALBA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. WYNN RESORTS HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-v-00564-JCM-MDC (D. Nev., February 27, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of Plaintiff and Class Members, as current and former employees of Defendant, entrusted to them, including, personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information"). The complaint relates that the Defendant obtains, collects, uses, and derives a benefit from the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members. The Defendant uses the Private Information it collects to provide services and employment, making a profit therefrom. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties and knew or should have known it was responsible for protecting Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information from unauthorized disclosure. On February 20, 2026, the notorious ransomware group "ShinyHunters" announced that it had breached Defendant's network containing the Private Information of Defendant's employees. The Private Information cybercriminals accessed and exfiltrated from Defendant's systems included names, Social Security numbers, phone numbers, job titles, salaries, employment dates, dates of birth, and other sensitive personal information. The victims of the Data Breach include current and former Wynn employees. The complaint alleges that the Data Breach has caused Plaintiff to suffer fear, anxiety, and stress, which has been compounded by Defendant's delay in notifying his or the fact that his Private Information was accessed and/or acquired by criminals as a result of the Data Breach. Additionally, as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence per se, Plaintiff and the Class have suffered and will suffer imminent and impending injuries arising from the increased risk of future fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of the Class, seeking remedies including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, injunctive relief, reasonable attorney fees and costs, and other remedies this Court deems proper. Plaintiff Roy Alba is a former employee of Defendant and provided his Private Information to Wynn in exchange for employment. Defendant Wynn Resorts Holdings, LLC is a Nevada based owner and operator of casino gaming brands with resorts throughout the United States, which includes dining, live entertainment, accommodations, meetings and conferences, shopping, and gaming, including the Wynn on the Las Vegas Strip.1 Defendant also operates casino resorts and employs individuals in United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, and Macau.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick R. Leverty, Esq. LEVERTY & ASSOCIATES LAW CHTD. 3100 W Charleston Blvd., Suite 200 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Telephone: (702) 507-0201 MAILING ADDRESS 608 Lander Street Reno, NV 89509 Telephone: (775) 322-6636 - and - William B. Federman Jessica A. Wilkes FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com E-mail: jaw@federmanlaw.com WYNN RESORTS: Li Sues Over Unprotected Private Information ---------------------------------------------------------- TYRONE LI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WYNN RESORTS HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00505 (D. Nev., February 24, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff and Class Members' private information including their names, Social Security Numbers, phone numbers, positions, salaries, employment dates, dates of birth, and other sensitive personal information. On or about February 20, 2026, the notorious ransomware group ShinyHunters gained unauthorized access to Defendant's IT Network. To date, the Defendant, however, has failed to provide notice of the data breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this action individually and on behalf of a Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for: negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract. Headquartered in Las Vegas, NV, Wynn Resorts Holdings, LLC owns and operates casino gaming brands with resorts throughout the United States, which include dining, live entertainment, accommodations, meetings and conferences, shopping, and gaming. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan R. Ring, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 3100 W. Charleston Boulevard, Suite 208 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Telephone: (725) 235-9750 E-mail: lasvegas@stranchlaw.com - and - Jonathan Streisfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: streisfeld@kolawyers.com X CORP: Must File Class Cert Opposition in White by March 25 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as WHITE COAT CAPTIONING, LLC, et al., v. X CORP., INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-01594-SK (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sallie Kim entered an order granting the parties' stipulation to extend class certification briefing deadlines. The Court orders the following: 1. The Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class certification by Feb. 23, 2026. 2. The Defendant shall file its opposition to the Plaintiff's motion by March 25, 2026. 3. The Plaintiffs shall file their reply in support of its motion by April 1, 2026. 4. All other case deadlines in the Court's Dec. 30, 2025, order stand. X Corp. is an American technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 17, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ieAkYO at no extra charge.[CC] YOLO TECHNOLOGIES: Carson Bride Estate Seeks Default Judgment ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THE ESTATE OF CARSON BRIDE, by and through his appointed administrator, KRISTIN BRIDE; KRISTIN BRIDE; A.K.; A.C.; A.O.; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. YOLO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and DOES #1-20, Case No. 2:21-cv-06680-FWS-MBK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on March 19, 2026 at 10 a.m., will present its motion for a default judgment against the Defendant Yolo and a motion for class certification. Yolo is an IT consultant company that specializes in network, hardware, and application integration. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Mj11jd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Juyoun Han, Esq. Eric Baum, Esq. EISENBERG & BAUM, LLP 24 Union Square East, Penthouse New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 353-8700 Facsimile: (212) 353-1708 E-mail: jhan@eandblaw.com ebaum@eandblaw.com YORK LIFE: Bids for Class Cert. in Toolan Suit Due June 22 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Timothy Toolan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE AND ANNUITY CORPORATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-08457-JAV (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Vargas entered a civil case management plan and scheduling order as follows: -- All fact discovery shall be completed no later than Sept. 17, 2027. -- All expert discovery shall be completed no later than June 8, 2028. -- Any motions for class certification shall be filed no later than June 22, 2028. -- Any oppositions to motions for class certification shall be filed no later than Aug. 17, 2028. The Defendant can also simultaneously file any applicable Daubert motions relevant to the expert reports supporting class certification. -- Any replies in support of class certification shall be filed no later than Sept. 28, 2028. -- Any dispositive motions shall be filed no later than Oct. 26, 2028. -- Any opposition to dispositive motions shall be filed no later than Dec. 21, 2028. The Defendant provides annuity services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3WV9bi at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth Ard, Esq. Ryan Kirkpatrick, Esq. Ari Ruben, Esq. Eve Levin, Esq. Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. Glenn C. Bridgman, Esq. Halley W. Josephs, Esq. Kimberly C. Page, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. One Manhattan West, 50th Floor New York, NY 10001-8602 Telephone: (212) 336-8330 Facsimile: (212) 336-8340 E-mail: sard@susmangodfrey.com rkirkpatrick@susmangodfrey.com aruben@susmangodfrey.com elevin@susmangodrey.com ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com gbridgman@susmangodfrey.com hjosephs@susmangodfrey.com kpage@susmangodfrey.com The Defendant is represented by: Sandra D. Hauser, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 768-6700 E-mail: sandra.hauser@dentons.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Faces 3,700 Individual Claims as of Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------- As of December 31, 2025, 3M Company is a named defendant, with multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits in various courts that purport to represent approximately 3,700 individual claimants, compared to approximately 3,500 individual claimants with actions pending as of December 31, 2024, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company allege use of some of the Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages from the Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the workplace. A minority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company generally allege personal injury from occupational exposure to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the Company, which are often unspecified, as well as products manufactured by other defendants, or occasionally at Company premises. A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6hFgnR ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Defends Asbestos-Related Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------- AMETEK, Inc. (including its subsidiaries) has been named as a defendant in a number of asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. AMETEK states, "Certain of these lawsuits relate to a business which was acquired by the Company and do not involve products which were manufactured or sold by the Company. In connection with these lawsuits, the seller of such business has agreed to indemnify the Company against these claims (the "Indemnified Claims"). The Indemnified Claims have been tendered to, and are being defended by, such seller. The seller has met its obligations, in all respects, and the Company does not have any reason to believe such party would fail to fulfill its obligations in the future. To date, no judgments have been rendered against the Company as a result of any asbestos-related lawsuit. The Company believes that it has good and valid defenses to each of these claims and intends to defend them vigorously." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5ZKv0L ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Has $246MM Total Reserves at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ashland Inc. is subject to liabilities from claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. For the three months ended December 31, 2025, the Company has recorded 40 open claims as compared to 41 open claims recorded for the three months ended December 31, 2024. Total reserves for asbestos claims were $246 million and $258 million at December 31, 2025 and September 30, 2025, respectively. From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount it believes to be the best estimate of future payments for litigation defense and claim settlement costs. Ashland reviews this estimate and related assumptions quarterly and annually updates the results of a non-inflated, non-discounted approximate 40-year model developed with the assistance of Gnarus. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PNV9zI December 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carrier Global Has $218MM Total Liabilities ------------------------------------------------------------ Carrier Global Corporation has been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos allegedly integrated into certain Carrier products or business premises, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. As of December 31, 2025, the Company has reported total asbestos liabilities of $218 million, compared to $225 million total asbestos liabilities reported in December 31, 2024. A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=J9eOFy ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Faces Personal Injury Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Like many industrial manufacturers, the Columbus McKinnon Corporation is involved in asbestos-related litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In continually evaluating costs relating to its estimated asbestos-related liability, the Company reviews, among other things, the incidence of past and recent claims, the historical case dismissal rate, the mix of the claimed illnesses and occupations of the plaintiffs, its recent and historical resolution of the cases, the number of cases pending against it, the status and results of broad-based settlement discussions, and the number of years such activity might continue. Based on this review, the Company has estimated its share of liability to defend and resolve probable asbestos-related personal injury claims. This estimate is highly uncertain due to the limitations of the available data and the difficulty of forecasting with any certainty the numerous variables that can affect the range of the liability. The Company will continue to study the variables in light of additional information in order to identify trends that may become evident and to assess their impact on the range of liability that is probable and estimable. Based on actuarial information from fiscal 2025, the Company has estimated its net asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs to range between $3,600,000 and $6,500,000, net of insurance recoveries, using actuarial parameters of continued claims for a period of 38 years from December 31, 2025. The Company has estimated its asbestos-related aggregate liability that is probable and estimable, net of insurance recoveries, in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles approximates $4,987,000. The Company has reflected the liability gross of insurance recoveries of $5,896,000 as a liability in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2025. The recorded liability does not consider the impact of any potential favorable federal legislation. This liability will fluctuate based on the uncertainty in the number of future claims that will be filed and the cost to resolve those claims, which may be influenced by a number of factors, including the outcome of the ongoing broad-based settlement negotiations, defensive strategies, and the cost to resolve claims outside the broad-based settlement program. Of this amount, management expects to incur asbestos liability payments of approximately $1,800,000 over the next 12 months. Because payment of the liability is likely to extend over many years, management believes that the potential additional costs for claims will not have a material effect on the financial condition of the Company or its liquidity, although the effect of any future liabilities recorded could be material to earnings in a future period. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rhQ1HE ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coty Faces Numerous Product Liability Actions -------------------------------------------------------------- Coty Inc. has been named as a defendant in numerous civil actions alleging that certain cosmetic talcum powder products sold by the Company were contaminated with asbestos leading to bodily injury, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Coty states, "Most of these actions involve a number of co-defendants and, to date, many such actions have been resolved by settlement or other resolution acceptable to the Company. In each of the previous fiscal years the value of settlements, both individually and in the aggregate, has not been material but, due to the rising number of filed and pending cases against the Company, as well as the evolving litigation landscape, settlement values and other costs associated with these cases are likely to increase in the future. The Company believes that a limited portion of its costs incurred in defending and resolving certain of these claims will be covered by insurance policies issued by several insurance carriers, subject to deductibles, exclusions, retentions and policy limits and in some cases there may be indemnity obligations of third parties. While the Company and its legal counsel intend to continue to defend these cases vigorously, there can be no assurances regarding the ultimate resolution of these matters, individually or collectively. The Company has accrued for such litigation when the likelihood of loss is probable and a reasonable estimate of such loss can be made, and such accruals are not material to the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. However, the range of reasonably possible losses in excess of accrued liabilities currently cannot be reasonably estimated." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kpll3t ASBESTOS UPDATE: Estée Lauder Has 105 Pending Cases as of Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Estée Lauder Companies Inc. has been named as a defendant in civil actions alleging that certain cosmetic talcum powder products sold by the Company were contaminated with asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. As of December 31, 2025, there were 105 individual cases pending against the Company in state and federal courts throughout the United States, as compared to 84 cases as of June 30, 2025. During the six months ended December 31, 2025, 41 new cases were filed and 20 cases were resolved by settlement or voluntary dismissal. In view of the number of cases pending against the Company at June 30, 2024, as well as the evolution of the litigation landscape and expectations regarding future claims at that time, the Company took action from the end of August 2024 through October 2024 to mitigate its future exposure. During that period, the Company reached agreements with certain plaintiff law firms (collectively, the "talcum litigation settlement agreements") for: (i) the resolution of over 200 pending cosmetic talcum powder matters handled by those firms as well as (ii) a process for resolving potential future cosmetic talcum powder claims expected to be brought on behalf of plaintiffs by those firms from January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2029, with annual capped amounts per year for each participating law firm. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ewktJi ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Motor Defends Personal Injury Cases --------------------------------------------------------- Along with other vehicle manufacturers, Ford Motor Company, has been the target of asbestos litigation and, as a result, is a defendant in various actions for injuries claimed to have resulted from alleged exposure to Ford parts and other products containing asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Plaintiffs in these personal injury cases allege various health problems as a result of asbestos exposure, either from component parts found in older vehicles, insulation or other asbestos products in our facilities, or asbestos aboard our former maritime fleet. We believe that we are targeted more aggressively in asbestos suits because many previously targeted companies have filed for bankruptcy or emerged from bankruptcy relieved of liability for such claims. "Most of the asbestos litigation we face involves individuals who claim to have worked on the brakes of our vehicles. We are prepared to defend these cases and believe that the scientific evidence confirms our long-standing position that there is no increased risk of asbestos-related disease as a result of exposure to the type of asbestos formerly used in the brakes on our vehicles. The extent of our financial exposure to asbestos litigation remains very difficult to estimate and could include both compensatory and punitive damage awards. The majority of our asbestos cases do not specify a dollar amount for damages; in many of the other cases the dollar amount specified is the jurisdictional minimum, and the vast majority of these cases involve multiple defendants. Some of these cases may also involve multiple plaintiffs, and we may be unable to tell from the pleadings which plaintiffs are making claims against us (as opposed to other defendants). Annual payout and defense costs may become significant in the future. Our accrual for asbestos matters includes probable losses for both asserted and unasserted claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j618L4 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Freeport-McMoRan Still Faces Exposure Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- Since approximately 1990, various Freeport-McMoRan Inc. (FCX) affiliates have been named as defendants in a large number of lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos or talc allegedly contained in industrial products such as electrical wire and cable, raw materials such as paint and joint compounds, talc-based lubricants used in rubber manufacturing or from asbestos contained in buildings and facilities located at properties owned or operated by affiliates of FCX, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Many of these suits involve a large number of codefendants. Based on litigation results to date and facts currently known, FCX believes that the amounts of any such losses, individually or in the aggregate, are not material to its consolidated financial statements. There can be no assurance that future developments will not alter this conclusion. "In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the number of cases alleging the presence of asbestos contamination in talc-based cosmetic and personal care products and in cases alleging exposure to talc products that are not alleged to be contaminated with asbestos. The primary targets have been the producers of those products, but defendants in many of these cases also include talc miners. Cyprus Amax Minerals Company (CAMC), an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of FCX, and Cyprus Mines Corporation (Cyprus Mines), a wholly owned subsidiary of CAMC, are among those targets. Cyprus Mines was engaged in talc mining and processing from 1964 until 1992 when it exited its talc business by conveying it to a third party. In 2011, the third party sold that business to Imerys Talc America (Imerys), an affiliate of Imerys S.A." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5zIdtQ ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Defends 30,400 Exposure Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company is currently one of numerous defendants in legal proceedings in certain state and federal courts involving approximately 30,400 claimants at December 31, 2025 relating to their alleged exposure to materials containing asbestos in products allegedly manufactured by them or asbestos materials present at their facilities, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "We manufactured, among other things, rubber coated asbestos sheet gasket materials from 1914 through 1973 and aircraft brake assemblies containing asbestos materials prior to 1987. Some of the claimants are independent contractors or their employees who allege exposure to asbestos while working at certain of our facilities. It is expected that in a substantial portion of these cases there will be no evidence of exposure to a Goodyear manufactured product containing asbestos or asbestos in our facilities. The amount expended by us and our insurers on defense and claim resolution was $16 million during 2025. The plaintiffs in the pending cases allege that they were exposed to asbestos and, as a result of such exposure, suffer from various respiratory diseases, including in some cases mesothelioma and lung cancer. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified actual and punitive damages and other relief." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GJNxHb ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Corporation has been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos allegedly contained in, or accompanying, products made by the Company or from exposure to asbestos at its facilities, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company is a co-defendant with numerous other defendants in these lawsuits and intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. The claims in most of the Company's current lawsuits are similar to those made in previous asbestos-related suits that named the Company as a defendant, which either were dismissed when it was shown that the Company had not supplied products to the plaintiffs' places of work or were settled for immaterial amounts. The Company believes that the resolution of these asbestos-related lawsuits will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or results of operations. However, legal matters are subject to inherent uncertainties and there exists the possibility that the ultimate resolution of these asbestos-related lawsuits could have a material adverse impact on the Company's financial position and the results of operations. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=F7eGcz ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Still Defends Exposure Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. (HII) and its predecessors-in-interest are defendants in a longstanding series of cases that have been and continue to be filed in various jurisdictions around the country, wherein former and current employees and various third parties allege exposure to asbestos containing materials while on or associated with HII premises or while working on vessels constructed or repaired by HII, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In some instances, partial or full insurance coverage is available for the Company's liabilities. The costs to resolve cases during the years ended December 31, 2025, 2024, and 2023 were not material individually or in the aggregate. The Company's estimate of asbestos-related liabilities is subject to uncertainty because such liabilities are influenced by many variables that are inherently difficult to predict. Although the Company believes the ultimate resolution of current cases will not have a material effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows, it cannot predict what new or revised claims or litigation might be asserted or what information might come to light and can, therefore, give no assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of asbestos related litigation. A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vkwSKP ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Faces Products Liability Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson Controls International plc and certain of its subsidiaries, along with numerous other third parties, are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos containing materials, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "These cases have typically involved product liability claims based primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial products that either contained asbestos or were used with asbestos containing components." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C5Voor ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l. Defends Exposure Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------- Lennox International Inc. is involved in various claims and lawsuits incidental to its business, including those involving intellectual property infringement, labor relations, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials, and environmental matters, some of which claim significant damages, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Estimates related to our claims and lawsuits, including estimates for asbestos-related claims and related insurance recoveries, involve numerous uncertainties. Given the inherent uncertainty of litigation and estimates, we cannot be certain that existing claims or litigation or any future adverse legal developments will not have a material adverse impact on our financial condition." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VumkYf ASBESTOS UPDATE: Otis Worldwide Estimates $11MM Total Liabilities ----------------------------------------------------------------- Otis Worldwide Corporation has been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The estimated range of total liabilities to resolve all pending and unasserted potential future asbestos claims through 2059 is approximately $11 million to $31 million as of December 31, 2025, and approximately $11 million to $21 million as of December 31, 2024. Since no amount within the range of estimates is more likely to occur than any other, we have recorded the minimum amount of $11 million as of December 31, 2025 and 2024, which is principally recorded in Other long-term liabilities on our Consolidated Balance Sheets. Amounts are on a pre-tax basis, not discounted, and exclude the Company's legal fees to defend the asbestos claims (which will continue to be expensed as they are incurred). In addition, the Company has an insurance recovery receivable for probable asbestos related recoveries of approximately $3 million, which is principally included in Other assets on our Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2025 and 2024." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NKrLcK ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Defends Exposure Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------------- Rockwell Automation, Inc., (including its subsidiaries) have been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components of their products many years ago, including products from divested businesses for which they have agreed to defend and indemnify claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Currently there are lawsuits that name us as defendants, together with hundreds of other companies. But in all cases, for those claimants who do show that they worked with our products or products of divested businesses for which we are responsible, we nevertheless believe we have meritorious defenses, in substantial part due to the integrity of the products, the encapsulated nature of any asbestos-containing components, and the lack of any impairing medical condition caused by our products. We defend those cases vigorously. However, certain of our agreements relating to divested businesses do not provide us the ability to directly control management of those claims, and our ongoing reimbursement of outside counsel and other expenses relating to defense of such claims represent the vast majority of our annual asbestos net litigation spend. Historically, we have been dismissed from the vast majority of asbestos claims with no payment to claimants. Additionally, we have maintained insurance coverage that includes indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured retentions, for many of these asbestos claims. We believe these arrangements will provide substantial coverage for future defense and indemnity costs for these claims for many years into the future. The uncertainties of claim litigation make it difficult to predict accurately the ultimate outcome. That uncertainty is increased by the possibility of adverse rulings or new legislation affecting claim litigation or the settlement process. Subject to these uncertainties and based on our experience defending these claims, we do not believe these lawsuits will have a material effect on our business, financial condition, or results of operations." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yqKLrt ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Faces Product Liability Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company has been named as a defendant in a number of cases alleging injuries that the lawsuits claim resulted from exposure to asbestos-containing products, apparently based on the its historic use of vermiculite in certain of its products, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In many of these cases, the complaints are not specific about the plaintiffs' contacts with the Company or its products. The cases vary, but complaints in these cases generally seek unspecified monetary damages (actual, compensatory, consequential and punitive) from multiple defendants. The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit and is vigorously defending against them. The Company has not recorded any accruals in its condensed consolidated financial statements as the likelihood of a loss from these cases is not probable at this time. The Company does not believe a reasonably possible loss would be material to the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. In addition, the Company does not believe the ultimate resolution of these cases will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. There can be no assurance that future developments related to pending claims or claims filed in the future, whether as a result of adverse outcomes or as a result of significant defense costs, will not have a material effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=65rXky ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Technologies Faces Exposure Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------------------- Certain indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries and former companies of Trane Technologies PLC have been named as defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal courts, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "In virtually all of the suits, a large number of other companies have also been named as defendants. The vast majority of those claims were filed against predecessors of Aldrich and Murray and generally allege injury caused by exposure to asbestos contained in certain historical products sold by predecessors of Aldrich or Murray, primarily pumps, boilers and railroad brake shoes. None of the Company's existing or previously-owned businesses were a producer or manufacturer of asbestos." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ToysVy ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------- Union Carbide Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Dow Inc., is and has been involved in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the past several decades, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. These suits principally allege personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products and frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The alleged claims primarily relate to products that Union Carbide sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on Union Carbide's premises, and Union Carbide's responsibility for asbestos suits filed against a former Union Carbide subsidiary, Amchem. In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure, or that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to Union Carbide's products. A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lPP87M ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Reports $708MM Liability at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Union Carbide Corporation is and has been involved in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the past several decades, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. At December 31, 2025, the Corporation's total asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims, including future defense and processing costs, was $708 million ($791 million at December 31, 2024). A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8Qv0aj ********* 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 ***