260323.mbx

260323.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, March 23, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 58 Headlines ACME TRUCK: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Taylor Alleges ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Website Conceals Tracking Tools, Zhen Says AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Albrigo Sues Over Misleading Body Wash Labels AMERGIS HEALTHCARE STAFFING: Brown Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AMERICAN AIRLINES: Winchester Seeks Flight Attendants' Unpaid Wages ASIAN BOX PALO: Erickess-Caluya Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ATERIAN INC: Brannon Files Suit in D. New Jersey AVATAR FOODS: Lara Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BEAUTY CARE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Pittman Says BICOASTAL ALLIANCE: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BOARDWALK 1000: Does Not Properly Pay Casino Workers, Foster Says BONAVIST ASSOCIATES: Burdette Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices BRAEMAR HOTELS: Cal. Employment Class Suit Settlement Advances BRAEMAR HOTELS: Final OK Hearing on Settlement Set for April 20 C.R. ENGLAND INC: Gonzalez Suit Transferred to D. Utah CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Underpays Casino Employees, Hoffmann Says CAMPING WORLD: Siverd Files Suit Over Share Price Drop CARVED LLC: Henry Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users CCS INTERVENTION: MacKenzie Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Tennessee CERNER CORPORATION: Thomas Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri CLARITY DEBT RESOLUTION: Medrano Files Suit in Tex. Dist. Ct. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Lee Balks at Failure to Protect Personal Info CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL: Gomez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. COVE DRINKS INC: Rodriguez Suit Removed to C.D. California CROWN BRIDGE: Wins Dismissal of Social Life, RedHawk Claims CSX TRANSPORTATION: Burgess Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina DFA DAIRY BRANDS: Cornwell Suit Removed to C.D. California DGMB CASINO: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Hoffmann Says DIGIMARC CORP: Consolidated Securities Derivative Suit Stayed DIGIMARC CORP: Continues to Defend Sperry Derivative Suit DIGIMARC CORP: Continues to Defend Ullom Securities Class Suit DIGIMARC CORP: Johnson Shareholder Derivative Suit Stayed DOLLS KILL: Dalton Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website DOORDASH INC: Phillips Files Employment Suit in Cal. Super. EAT JUST INC: Botteh Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. EM ORGANICS: Johnston Files Suit Over TCPA Violation EOS PRODUCTS: Hampton Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind EPIC SYSTEMS: Faces Suit Over Monopoly and System Barriers in EHR EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Rosario Suit Removed to N.D. New York EVOLV TECHNOLOGIES: First Delaware Derivative Suit Stayed FLEX LOGISTICS: Pacheco Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices FLOCK GROUP INC: Javorsky Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FOUNTAIN OF YOUTH: Lopez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind GAP INC: Faces Rodriguez Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HARDWOODS SPECIALTY: Ramirez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HOMECOURT INC: Henry Sues Over Website's Non-Compliance With ADA HYATT CORPORATION: Montes Suit Removed to S.D. California IDMERIT LLC: Fails to Secure Private Info, Andrizzi Says INSIGHTIN HEALTH: Coulson Files Personal Injury Suit in D. Md. INTEGRITY ADMIN GROUP: Guadian Files Suit in Tex. Dist. Ct. IVANTI INC: Faces Noetling Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty JLR LOS ANGELES: Brownley Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued for Aiding Goliath Cryptocurrency Ponzi Scheme JTS VENTURES LLC: Sanderson Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. KALSHIEX LLC: Risch Sues Over Predatory Prediction Market Scheme KRISTI NOEM: Ramirez Files Suit in S.D. Florida LABORATORY CORPORATION: Sanchez Suit Removed to W.D. Washington LENOVO UNITED: Faces Reyes Suit Over TCPA Breach LIVE NATION: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Hussein Says LOUISIANA: LaBranche Files Civil Rights Suit in M.D. La. LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Cantu Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio MACY'S INC: Allen Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MAD FOR CHICKEN: Faces Lopez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. MADECASSE LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Lopez Says MARINA DISTRICT: Underpays Casino Employees, Foster Alleges MEMORIAL HEART: Court Grants Prelim OK of $3.75MM Class Settlement META PLATFORMS: Canady Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy METACOMMERCE INC: Bennett Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store MINNOW SWIM: Faces Youngren Suit Over Website's Access Barriers MONDAY.COM LTD: Disseminates False Business Info, Potter Says MONGODB INC: Bid to Dismiss Baxter Suit Pending MONGODB INC: S.D.N.Y. Shareholder Derivative Suit Stayed MONGODB INC: Sansone Derivative Suit Stayed MONSANTO CO: Poster Sues Over Illness Linked to Glyphosate Exposure MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces Ward Suit Over Defective Roundup Herbicide MONSANTO COMPANY: Harper Balks at Defective Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Heinrich Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Henderson Sues Over Defective Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Roundup "Defective," Harvey Claims MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Roundup "Defective," Jones Says MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Roundup "Defective," Maternick Claims MONSANTO COMPANY: Jackson Sues Over Defective Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Kneisley Sues Over Wrongful Distribution MONSANTO COMPANY: Mascia Sues Over Negligent Advertising & Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Neal Sues Over Roundup's Impact to Human Health MONSANTO COMPANY: Roundup Herbicide "Defective," Smith Suit Claims MONSANTO COMPANY: Salisbury Sues Over Negligent Advertising MONSANTO COMPANY: Scott Sues Over Wrongful Sale of herbicide MONSANTO COMPANY: Shenefield Sues Over Defective Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Shneyer Sues Over Negligent Advertising MOUNT FRANKLIN FOODS: Hughes Suit Removed to E.D. California NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Beltran Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas NEW ADVANCES: Hernandez Files Employment Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NEW VISION SERVICES: Chambers Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NEW YORK: Wins Bid to Dismiss "Charles" ADA Claims NOTE SERVICING CENTER: Ghani Suit Removed to W.D. North Carolina NYC 79 LACOYA: Deleg Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages OPTIONS FOR LEARNING: Mosavi Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ORGAIN LLC: Ballard Sues Over Mislabeled Protein Bars, Powders POSH PEANUT: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Youngren Suit Says PREMIER ENTERTAINMENT: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Johnson Says PROCTER & GAMBLE: Brownlee Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PROMEDEV LLC: Pelaez Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website QUALDERM PARTNERS: Fails to Secure Private Info, Zupancich Says QUALDERM PARTNERS: Howell Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS: Dennis Suit Removed to W.D. North Carolina REEVE TRUCKING COMPANY: Valentine Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. REIMAGINED PARKING: Mcginity Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. REPUBLIC NATIONAL: Meraz Suit Removed to C.D. California ROUND 2 LLC: Pelaez Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website SA RECYCLING LLC: McConnell Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SCREENING ONE: Hearns FCRA Suit Removed to M.D. Fla. SENIOR ADVISOR: Boslow Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages SERGIO ALBARRAN: Lemus-Cisneros Files Suit in E.D. California SERVBANK SB INC: Ayra Sues Over Unpaid Compensations SMURFIT KAPPA: Melendez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SOCIAL GAMING: Krivatch Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio, Eastern Div. SPEEDY DELIVERY: Mansilla Employment Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. STITCH FIX: Securities Derivative Suit in California Stayed SUPERHUMAN PLATFORM: Misappropriates Author's Names, Angwin Says TALKING RAIN: Lopez Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users THULE INC: Blind Users Face Barriers to Website Access, Pelaez Says TMCAA INC: Faces Sides Suit Over Illegal Telemarketing Texts TOO LOST LLC: Guralnick Files Suit in S.D. New York TRACY VM INC: Meachem Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TRIP.COM GROUP: De Wilde Sues Over Share Price Drop TRIZETTO PROVIDER: Wolf Sues Over Unprotected PII and PHI UNLOCK HEALTH: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, Doe Suit Alleges VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Gorlamari Class Suit VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Stockholder Derivative Suit Stayed VETNIQUE LABS: Mueller Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website VIOME LIFE: Dalton Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website WEBER GRILL: Wood Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website WELLSPAN HEALTH: Kline Files FLSA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania WEST TEXAS HEALTH: Lawver Files Suit in Tex. Dist. Ct. WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Pou Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Practices WIRX PHARMACY: Ortega Sues Over Failure to Exercise Care with PHI WM TECHNOLOGY: Court Extends Stay of Shareholder Derivative Suit WM TECHNOLOGY: Hearing on Initial OK of Settlement Set for April 13 WORTH CLARK INC: Flesher Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California WYNN RESORTS: Poffenberger Sues Over Data Breach YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN: Cameron Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. YOUNG'S MARKET COMPANY: Gomez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ********* ACME TRUCK: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Taylor Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ CHARLES TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACME TRUCK LINE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00519-BWA-JVM (E.D. La., March 10, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant arising out of Defendant ACME's failures to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. The complaint relates that the Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted cyberattack this month to compromise Defendant's network that contained personally identifiable information ("PII" or "the Private Information") of Plaintiff and other individuals. Specifically, on March 3, 2026, the threat actor "Medusa" successfully breached ACME's inadequately protected computer systems and accessed and exfiltrated an unknown quantity of highly sensitive customer data. The incident was publicly reported on BreachSense on March 3, 2026. As of the filing of this Complaint, Defendant has not provided any kind of notice to affected individuals. The types of information that Medusa has routinely exfiltrated in their ransomware attacks include: names, birthdates, addresses, Social Security numbers, health insurance details, medical treatment data, financial records, intellectual property, accounting documents, legal files, personnel and customer information, banking details, and etc. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. Plaintiff and Class Members must now and for years into the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members may also incur out-of-pocket costs for, e.g., purchasing credit monitoring services, credit freezes, credit reports, or other protective measures to deter and detect identity theft, adds the complaint. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant seeking redress for its unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for: (i) negligence and negligence per se, (ii) breach of implied contract, (iii) unjust enrichment, and (iv) declaratory relief. The Plaintiff seeks remedies including compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief including improvements to Defendant's data security systems, future annual audits, as well as long-term and adequate credit monitoring services funded by Defendant, and declaratory relief. Plaintiff Charles Taylor is a citizen of the State of Louisiana, residing in the city of Laplace, and is a former employee of ACME. Defendant ACME Truck Line, Inc. is a national transportation service based in Gretna, Louisiana on the west bank of New Orleans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Palmer Lambert, Esq. PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, L.L.C. 3500 N. Causeway Blvd, Suite 402 Metairie, LA 70002 Telephone: (504) 355-0086 Facsimile: (504) 355-0089 E-mail: plambert@pbclawfirm.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. Danielle L. Perry, Esq. MASON & PERRY LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Ste. 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com E-mail: dperry@masonllp.com ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Website Conceals Tracking Tools, Zhen Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ZHICHENG ZHEN AND KAREN ELIZABETH SIGURDSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02669 (N.D. Ill., March 10, 2026) is a class action arising from an egregious privacy violation and breach of consumer trust in violation of California and federal laws. The complaint relates that Allstate assured insurance customers and other website visitors that their private information would remain confidential. When website users visit Allstate's website, www.allstate.com Defendant displays a popup cookie consent banner. The Defendant purports to give insurance customers and other website users the option to opt-out of cookies and trackers used for the purpose of targeted advertising. However, the Defendant's popup cookie banner contains false representations and gives insurance customers and other website users a false sense of security that their communications with Defendant and other actions on Defendant's website are not tracked. Even after website visitors decline consent, Defendant surreptitiously and illegally installs website tracking tools from third parties--including Adobe, Meta/Facebook, Pinterest, Google, DoubleClick, Invoca, Acoustic, and YouTube (collectively the "Third Parties" and their "Trackers")--that track users' browsing activities and eavesdrop on users' private communications with Defendant for the purpose of profiting through serving targeted advertising. The Third Party Trackers installed by Defendant enable the Third Parties to lurk unknown in the background, silently capturing the information visitors share with Defendant via its website even after the Defendant expressly promised it would not allow this. The Defendant shares with Third Parties at least the following information, which Defendant solicits as part of the application process: (1) the applicant's first name; (2) the applicant's last name; (3) the type of insurance the applicant is seeking (e.g., "Renters"); and (4) the applicant's "postalCode" and "state." As a result of Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered injuries-in-fact and damages including: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) loss of benefit of the bargain; (iii) diminution of value of private information; (iv) statutory damages; (v) continued and ongoing risks to their private information; and (vi) the potential for higher insurance rates or denial of insurance coverage, says the suit. Plaintiff ZhiCheng Zhen is a user of Defendant's website and used Defendant's website to search for and apply for car insurance. Plaintiff Karen Elizabeth Sigurdson is a user of Defendant's website and used Defendant's website to search for and apply for insurance. Defendant The Allstate Corporation is a major insurance provider in Illinois and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian Levin, Esq. LEVIN LAW, P.A. 2665 South Bayshore Drive, PH-2B Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 613-0318 E-mail: brian@levinlawpa.com AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Albrigo Sues Over Misleading Body Wash Labels ------------------------------------------------------------------ LAURA WILLIS ALBRIGO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00844 (W.D. Wash., March 12, 2026) is a class action seeking to hold Defendant Amazon.com Services LLC accountable for falsely labeling and marketing its Amazon Basics brand Body Wash for Sensitive Skin as "hypoallergenic," "unscented," and suitable for "sensitive skin." This case involves Defendant's widespread, deceptive use of the terms "hypoallergenic," "unscented," and "sensitive skin" on the Product's labels and marketing materials. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff purchased the Product because she has sensitive skin and fragrance ingredients have irritated her skin in the past. While using the Product, Plaintiff developed a rash due to an allergic reaction. Plaintiff reviewed and relied on the "hypoallergenic," "unscented," and "sensitive skin" representations on the Product's front label and the Product's landing page on amazon.com before buying it. However, the Product is neither hypoallergenic," "unscented," nor suitable for "sensitive skin" because it contains fragrance chemicals and other skin sensitizers in sufficient quantities to cause skin irritation and allergic reactions in the Product's intended users (i.e., consumers with sensitive skin). If Plaintiff had known the Product was falsely labeled and marketed, and was not in fact hypoallergenic or unscented or for sensitive skin, Plaintiff would not have bought it or would have paid less. Plaintiff Laura Willis Albrigo purchased a single 22 fluid ounce bottle of the Product from amazon.com on October 25, 2025 while residing in San Diego. Defendant Amazon.com Services LLC is a Delaware corporation with its principal office located at 410 Terry Avenue N., Seattle, WA 98109. Defendant advertises, distributes, and sells the Product under its brand Amazon Basics brand online at amazon.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd Wyatt, Esq. WYATT GRONSKI PLLC 540 Newport Way NW, Suite 200 Issaquah, WA 98027 Telephone: 425-395-7784 E-mail: todd@wdlawgroup.com - and - Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 28 Geary Street, Ste. 650 # 1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: 415-839-7000 E-mail: yeremey@skclassactions.com - and - Joel D. Smith, Esq. Aleksandr "Sasha" Litvinov, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor, Ste. 1520 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: 617-377-7404 E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com E-mail: sasha@skclassactions.com AMERGIS HEALTHCARE STAFFING: Brown Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amergis Healthcare Staffing, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Earl Brown, Jr., individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Amergis Healthcare Staffing, Inc., Sam Joaquin General Hospital Auxiliary, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0001452 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Feb. 27, 2026). The case type is stated "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Amergis Healthcare Staffing, Inc. -- https://www.amergis.com/ -- are an educational staffing agency dedicated to recruiting, training, and managing professionals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1450 Los Angeles, California 90071 Phone: (213) 985-1150 Fax: (213) 985-2155 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Winchester Seeks Flight Attendants' Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- SAMSON WINCHESTER, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Plaintiff, AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV05439 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 19, 2026) is brought as a representative action arising from the Defendant's violations of the Private Attorney General Act, California Labor Code. This action is commenced by Plaintiff on behalf of similarly situated aggrieved employees of Defendant in California, who, during the relevant time period: (1) were not paid wages for all hours worked by Defendant, including minimum, regular and/or overtime wages; (2) were not provided timely and off-duty meal periods and rest periods; (3) were not furnished timely and accurate wage statements; (4) were not timely paid wages and (5) were not reimbursed necessarily incurred business expenses. Additionally, the Plaintiff on behalf of aggrieved employees seeks penalties for Defendant's failure to keep accurate payroll records pursuant to Labor Code. The Plaintiff is a current California-based hourly non-exempt flight attendant employed by Defendant from 2015 through the present, based out of Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles, California. American Airlines, Inc. provides retail air transportation both throughout the State of California and on a national and international basis. The Company employs flight attendants at multiple airport locations throughout California, including LAX.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David R. Markham, Esq. Lisa Brevard, Esq. THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM 888 Prospect Street, Suite 200 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (619) 399-3995 Facsimile: (619) 323-1684 E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com lbrevard@markham-law.com - and - Matthew R. Bainer, Esq. THE BAINER LAW FIRM 1901 Harrison St., Suite 1100 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 922-1802 Facsimile: (510) 844-7701 E-mail: mbainer@bainerlawfirm.com ASIAN BOX PALO: Erickess-Caluya Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asian Box Palo Alto LLC, et al. The case is styled as Danielle Rosaline Erickess-Caluya, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Asian Box Palo Alto LLC, Asian Box Holdings, Inc., Does 1 Through 50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC26634435 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Feb. 26, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Asian Box -- https://www.asianbox.com/ -- is a Vietnamese made from scratch kitchen made with fresh, real ingredients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohamed Bholat, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 475 14th St., #700 Oakland, CA 946127 Phone: 213-381-9988 Email: mohamed.bholat@wilshirelawfirm.com ATERIAN INC: Brannon Files Suit in D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aterian, Inc. The case is styled as Sarah Brannon, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Aterian, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-02381-EP-AME (D.N.J., March 6, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Aterian -- https://www.aterian.io/ -- is a market leading technology-enabled consumer products platform that builds, acquires and partners with best-in-class e-commerce brands.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph Lipari, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Phone: (845) 483-7100 Fax: (888) 749-7747 Email: ndeckant@bursor.com AVATAR FOODS: Lara Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avatar Foods International, Inc. The case is styled as Janelly Bermudez Lara, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Avatar Foods International, Inc., Case No. 26CV174710 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., March 6, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Avatar Foods -- https://avatarnaturalfoods.com/ -- is part of Chef Silva's vision of making American food clean and healthy.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Molly Ann DeSario, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Blvd., Ste. 300 Los Angeles, CA 90024-4937 Phone: 310-438-5555 Fax: 310-300-1705 Email: mdesario@tomorrowlaw.com BEAUTY CARE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Pittman Says -------------------------------------------------------------- DEBBIE PITTMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Beauty Care Choices, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-2665 (N.D. Ill., March 10, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, https://www.beautycarechoices.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Pittman and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Pittman's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint relates that Pittman was searching online for beauty and personal care products, specifically, being interested in premium hair care products designed to protect and maintain color-treated hair. During her search, Pittman visited the Defendant's Website, Beautycarechoices.com which offers a wide selection of professional and salon-brand beauty products. While comparing retailers, Pittman was influenced by positive customer reviews highlighting product quality, effectiveness, and competitive pricing. On multiple occasions and most recently on February 20, 2026, while browsing the Website, Pittman intended to purchase a Goldwell Dualsenses Color Brilliance Shampoo. However, while navigating the Website using her screen reader and keyboard, Pittman encountered accessibility barriers that significantly interfered with her ability to complete the purchase. Pittman is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The access barriers denied Pittman full and equal access to the website. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Pittman and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of the Website, asserts the complaint. Accordingly, Pittman seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Defendant Beauty Care Choices provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase beauty and personal care products, including hair care, skin care, makeup, nail products, beauty tools, grooming items, and wellness products.[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 BICOASTAL ALLIANCE: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Bicoastal Alliance, LLC d/b/a ModCloth, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-01824 (D. Minn., March 11, 2026) arises because Defendant's Website (www.modcloth.com) 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 and its implementing regulations. The complaint relates that as a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like her full and equal access to important Website content. The Plaintiff has been denied full and equal access to the Website and has been denied the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations offered therein on a full, independent, and equal basis, asserts the complaint. The Defendant has engaged in unfair discriminatory practices against Plaintiff and the putative class. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota, damages; and a damage multiplier pursuant to the Minnesota Statutes. Plaintiff Julie Dalton is legally blind and as been a resident of Minnesota. Defendant Bicoastal Alliance, LLC is a California Company that offers women's clothing and apparel for sale including, but not limited to, tops, bottoms, dresses, coats, jackets, sweaters, shoes, jewelry, accessories, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com BOARDWALK 1000: Does Not Properly Pay Casino Workers, Foster Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- RICKY D. FOSTER, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOARDWALK 1000, LLC d/b/a HARD ROCK HOTEL & CASINO ATLANTIC CITY, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02476 (D.N.J., March 10, 2026) is a class action seeking unpaid wages and/or overtime against the Defendant. Defendant Boardwalk 1000, LLC d/b/a Hard Rock Hotel & Casino Atlantic City operates as a casino located in Atlantic City, New Jersey. The Defendant required Plaintiff and all other table games dealers to pool all their tips. For the most part, Defendant would then redistribute those tips to all dealers based on when and how much they worked. The Defendant also principally paid table games dealers like Plaintiff through the tip credit. In other words, Defendant relied on the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law (NJWHL) minimum wage exception that allows an employer to credit some of the tips an employee earns against the minimum wage the employee is owed. The complaint alleges that the Defendant's tip pooling arrangement is unlawful for two reasons. First, Defendant's use of the tip credit is unlawful under New Jersey law because of the way Defendant structures its table games dealers' work. The typical string (or schedule) for a table games dealer is 60 minutes of time dealing followed by a so-called 20-minute "rest" period. All of this time is "on-the-clock" because the dealers remain under Defendant's control for the duration of the rest period. Defendant takes a tip credit for all of this time. Second, Defendant has created a mandatory tip pool for dealers that carries significant administrative costs. One consequence of Defendant's policy is that there is a material cost to counting and redistributing those tips. That cost is a product of Defendant's decision and should be borne by Defendant. Instead, Defendant has retained dealer tips to defray its own expenses by requiring the dealers to work off-the-clock and pay them tips from the pool for performing the administrative function of counting tips. This voids the tip pool and the tip credit under both the NJWHL and the FLSA, says the complaint. Plaintiff Ricky D. Foster, Jr. was hired by Defendant in January 2023. Between January and through March 2023, Plaintiff worked as a Dual Rate Supervisor earning a direct cash wage of approximately $8 per hour as a dealer and $28 as a dual rate supervisor. This is a dual jobs role where Plaintiff worked part of the time as a dealer (a sub-minimum wage, tipped role) and part of the time as a dual rate supervisor (a non-tipped, managerial and supervisory role). All of Plaintiff's tips earned as a dealer were required to be pooled with other dealers. Plaintiff's pay rate is below the minimum wage under New Jersey law.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC Twining Office Center, Suite 211 715 Twining Road Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: 215-884-2491 Facsimile: 215-884-2492 E-mail: asantillo@winebrakelaw.com mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com – and – George A. Hanson, Esq. Alexander T. Ricke, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com ricke@stuevesiegel.com – and – Ryan L. McClelland, Esq. McCLELLAND LAW FIRM, P.C. The Flagship Building 200 Westwoods Drive Liberty, MO 64068-1170 Telephone: (816) 781-0002 Facsimile: (816) 781-1984 E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com BONAVIST ASSOCIATES: Burdette Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRADLEY BURDETTE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BONAVIST ASSOCIATES, INC. D/B/A SOLAR REPUBLIC, a California corporation; BONAVIST GROUP LLC D/B/A SOLAR REPUBLIC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26CV003931 (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Feb. 19, 2026) is a class action brought by Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals, against the Defendants for wage theft and other violations of the California Labor Code, IWC Wage Orders, and the California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff seeks to recover, among other things, wages and penalties from unpaid wages earned and due, including but not limited to unpaid minimum wages, unpaid and illegally calculated overtime compensation, illegal meal and rest period policies, failure to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees, failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures and/or losses incurred in discharging their duties, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to maintain required records, and interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a senior expert appointment setter from November 13, 2024 to February 23, 2025. Bonavist Associates, Inc., d/b/a Solar Republic, is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taras Kick, Esq. Lauren Davis, Esq. Tyler Dosaj, Esq. THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC 815 Moraga Drive Los Angeles, CA 90049 Telephone: (310) 395-2988 Facsimile: (310) 395-2088 E-mail: Taras@kicklawfirm.com Lauren@kicklawfirm.com Tyler@kicklawfirm.com BRAEMAR HOTELS: Cal. Employment Class Suit Settlement Advances -------------------------------------------------------------- Braemar Hotels & Resorts Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending Dec. 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2026, that the California Employment class suit is in the settlement administration phase. On December 20, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against one of the Company's hotel management companies in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Contra Costa alleging violations of certain California employment laws, which class action affects two hotels owned by subsidiaries of the Company. The court has entered an order granting class certification with respect to: (i) a statewide class of non-exempt employees of the Company's manager who were allegedly deprived of rest breaks as a result of the manager's previous written policy requiring its employees to stay on premises during rest breaks; and (ii) a derivative class of non-exempt former employees of the manager who were not paid for allegedly missed breaks upon separation from employment. Notices to potential class members were sent out on February 2, 2021. Potential class members had until April 4, 2021 to opt out of the class; however, the total number of employees in the class has not been definitively determined and is the subject of continuing discovery. The opt-out period has been extended until such time that discovery has concluded. In May 2023, the trial court requested additional briefing from the parties to determine whether the case should be maintained, dismissed, or the class de-certified. After submission of the briefs, the court requested that the parties submit stipulations for the court to rule upon. On February 13, 2024, the judge ordered the parties to submit additional briefing related to on-site breaks. A tentative settlement in the amount of $850,000 was reached on February 14, 2025. Final court approval was obtained on September 12, 2025. Braemar's portion of the settlement is 11.7%. The case is now in the settlement administration phase. As of December 31, 2025, the settlement liability amount has been accrued. Braemar Hotels & Resorts Inc. is a real estate investment trust (REIT) that invests primarily in high RevPAR, full-service, and luxury hotels and resorts. BRAEMAR HOTELS: Final OK Hearing on Settlement Set for April 20 --------------------------------------------------------------- Braemar Hotels & Resorts Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending Dec. 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2026, that the PAGA class suit settlement final approval hearing is set for April 20, 2026. On June 8, 2022, a lawsuit was filed against various Hilton entities on behalf of a class of all hourly employees at all Hilton-branded managed properties in California, including Hilton La Jolla Torrey Pines. The complaint includes claims for unpaid wages, meal and rest break violations, and unreimbursed business expenses, along with various derivative claims including wage statement, final pay, and Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims. On November 30, 2023, Hilton mediated this litigation, which did not initially result in a settlement; however, at the end of the mediation, the mediator submitted a mediator's proposal for approximately $3.5 million, which the parties have since agreed to. The allocation to Hilton La Jolla Torrey Pines is approximately $401,000, which was accrued as of December 31, 2025. The court granted a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement on October 27, 2025, and a hearing on a motion for final approval is set for April 20, 2026. Braemar Hotels & Resorts Inc. is a real estate investment trust (REIT) that invests primarily in high RevPAR, full-service, and luxury hotels and resorts. C.R. ENGLAND INC: Gonzalez Suit Transferred to D. Utah ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Jose Gonzalez and Shelton Perrin, as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. C.R. ENGLAND, INC., a Utah Corporation; ERIC WILLIAMS, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 5:25-cv-00713 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on March 5, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00186-HCN to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Civil Rights - Employment. C.R. England -- https://www.crengland.com/ -- is an American trucking company headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Drew R. Hansen, Esq. NOSSAMAN LLP 18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1800 Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: 949.833.7800 Facsimile: 949.833.7878 Email: dhansen@nossaman.com - and – Madeline G. Hassell, Esq. NOSSAMAN LLP 777 South Figueroa Street, 34th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213.612.7800 Facsimile: 213.612.7801 Email: mhasell@nossaman.com CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Underpays Casino Employees, Hoffmann Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN M. HOFFMANN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and HARRAH'S ATLANTIC CITY OPERATING COMPANY, LLC d/b/a HARRAH'S RESORT ATLANTIC CITY, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-02525 (D.N.J., March 11, 2026) is a class action seeking unpaid wages and/or overtime against the Defendants. The complaint relates that the Defendants required Plaintiff and all other table games dealers to pool all their tips. In other words, dealers could not retain their tips from patrons and instead were required to pool them among all other dealers. For the most part, Defendants would then redistribute those tips to all dealers based on when and how much they worked. The Defendants also principally paid table games dealers like Plaintiff through the tip credit. In other words, Defendants relied on the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law (NJWHL) minimum wage exception that allows an employer to credit some of the tips an employee earns against the minimum wage the employee is owed. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other table games dealers also spend a considerable amount of their time idle waiting for customers at the tables, attending pre- and post-shift meetings, and other non-tip producing tasks. Defendants pay all of this time at the tip credit rate. All the time spent by the dealers is included in the tip pool formula as hours eligible for tips from the pool. As a matter of course and logic, tables games dealers spend well more than 20% of their working time paid at the tip credit rate doing tasks for which they could not possibly be paid tips. Defendants know and have known dealers are spending more than 20% of their time on non-tip producing tasks and has chosen to require them to pool their tips and to pay them pursuant to the tip credit anyway. The complaint alleges that the Defendants' tip pooling arrangement is unlawful for two reasons. First, Defendants' use of the tip credit is unlawful under New Jersey law because of the way Defendants structure their table games dealers' work. Second, Defendants have created a mandatory tip pool for dealers that carries significant administrative costs, says the suit. Plaintiff Justin M. Hoffmann worked as a table games dealer for Harrah's, one of Caesars' casinos located in Atlantic City, New Jersey. Between February 2023 and April 2024, Plaintiff worked as a table games dealer earning a direct cash wage of $6.75 per hour plus tips. Defendant Caesars Entertainment, Inc. operates multiple casino properties in Atlantic City, New Jersey, including Harrah's located at 777 Harrah's Blvd, Atlantic City, NJ 08401, and Caesars Atlantic City Hotel & Casino at 2100 Pacific Ave, Atlantic City, NJ 08401. Defendant Harrah's Atlantic City Operating Company, LLC d/b/a Harrah's Resort Atlantic City is a casino hotel in the marina district of Atlantic City, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC Twining Office Center, Suite 211 715 Twining Road Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: 215-884-2491 Facsimile: 215-884-2492 E-mail: asantillo@winebrakelaw.com mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com - and - George A. Hanson, Esq. Alexander T. Ricke, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com ricke@stuevesiegel.com - and - Ryan L. McClelland, Esq. McCLELLAND LAW FIRM, P.C. The Flagship Building 200 Westwoods Drive Liberty, MO 64068-1170 Telephone: (816) 781-0002 Facsimile: (816) 781-1984 E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com CAMPING WORLD: Siverd Files Suit Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------ SHAUN SIVERD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Camping World Holdings, Inc., Marcus A. Lemonis, Matthew D. Wagner, And Thomas E. Kirn, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-02710 (N.D. Ill., March 10, 2026) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Camping World securities between April 29, 2025 and February 24, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"), pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The complaint relates that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (i) the Company overstated its ability to "surgically manage [its] inventory" to optimize profit using "data analytics;" (ii) the Company overstated the retail demand of consumers it was experiencing and/or reasonably expected; (iii) as a result, the Company would require "strict, corrective inventory management objectives," negatively impacting gross profit and margins; (iv) the Company's inadequate systems and processes prevented it from ensuring reasonably accurate disclosures and/or guidance, including about the health of its balance sheet and/or the ability to manage SG&A expenses; and (v) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On February 24, 2026, after the market closed, Camping World released its fourth quarter 2025 results, reporting, among other things, that it had "implemented strict, corrective inventory management objectives to structurally improve [its] turnover rates" creating gross margin headwinds into 2026. The Company reported financial results, including that "net loss was $(109.1) million for the fourth quarter of 2025, an increased loss of $49.6 million, or 83.3%," "adjusted EBITDA was $(26.2) million, an increased loss of $23.7 million," "gross profit was $338.2 million, a decrease of $38.7 million, or 10.3%, and total gross margin was 28.8%, a decrease of 247 basis points." The Company also announced that it would be pausing its quarterly cash dividend, effective immediately. On this news, Camping World's stock price fell $1.79, or 16.5%, to close at $9.06 per share on February 25, 2026, on unusually heavy trading volume. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Plaintiff Shaun Siverd purchased Camping World securities during the Class Period, and suffered damages as a result of the alleged federal securities law violations and false and/or misleading statements and/or material omissions. Camping World Holdings, Inc. retails recreational vehicles ("RVs"), and related products and services in the United States. Defendant Marcus A. Lemonis ("Lemonis") was the Company's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") from 2006 to December 31, 2025. Defendant Matthew D. Wagner ("Wagner") has been the Company's CEO since January 1, 2026. Defendant Thomas E. Kirn ("Kirn") was the Company's Chief Financial Officer ("CFO").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony F. Fata, Esq. Cormac H. Broeg, Esq. KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP 211 West Wacker Drive, Suite 550 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 767-5180 Facsimile: (312) 767-5181 E-mail: afata@kmllp.com cbroeg@kmllp.com - and - Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY WOLKE & ROTTER LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: clinehan@glancylaw.com - and - Rebecca Dawson, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY WOLKE & ROTTER LLP 230 Park Ave, Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (213) 521-8007 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: rdawson@glancylaw.com - and - Frank R. Cruz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800 Century City, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 914-5007 CARVED LLC: Henry Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users ------------------------------------------------------------ CONSTANCE HENRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Carved, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-2667 (N.D. Ill., March 10, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.carved.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Henry and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff Henry attempted to complete a purchase on Carved.com on September 23, 2025, while searching for a handcrafted phone case. After selecting the product, she attempted to proceed with the purchase. However, while navigating the website using screen reader software, she encountered multiple accessibility barriers that made the browsing experience inaccessible, ultimately preventing her from completing the purchase. She encountered sub-menu buttons that expanded automatically when they received keyboard focus, forcing her to navigate through each sub-menu item before continuing. This added unnecessary steps, increased the time and effort required to reach the main content, and disrupted the overall flow of her browsing experience. These access barriers render the Website inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually impaired individuals, says the suit. Plaintiff Henry 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. Carved, LLC operates the website that offers a variety of handcrafted wooden and epoxy products, including phone cases, keyholders, pocket knives, wallets, wireless charges.[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 CCS INTERVENTION: MacKenzie Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Tennessee ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CCS Intervention Operations, LLC. The case is styled as Nancy MacKenzie, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. CCS Intervention Operations, LLC doing business as: ComplexCare Solutions, Case No. 3:26-cv-00255 (M.D. Tenn., March 5, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. CCS Intervention Operations, LLC doing business as ComplexCare Solutions -- https://complexcaresolutions.com/ -- is a leading provider of Member Engagement and Health Information Management services for health plan networks nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Guibao, Esq. GUIBAO LAW OFFICE 242 Poplar Ave. Memphis, TN 38103 Phone: (901) 274-5400 Fax: (901) 274-5111 Email: pguibao@gmail.com CERNER CORPORATION: Thomas Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Margaret Thomas, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Cerner Corporation doing business as: Oracle Health Inc., Munson Healthcare, Case No. 1:26-cv-00331 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on March 5, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-00181-BP to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Federal Trade Commission Act. Cerner Corporation doing business as Oracle Health -- https://www.oracle.com/ -- is a US-based, multinational provider of health information technology platforms and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emily Hughes, Esq. Gregory A. Mitchell, Esq. E. Powell Miller, Esq. MILLER LAW FIRM (ROCHESTER) 950 W University Dr., Ste. 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Phone: (248) 841-2200 Email: eeh@millerlawpc.com gam@millerlawpc.com epm@millerlawpc.com The Defendant is represented by: Mark A. Ford, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP (MA) 60 State St. Boston, MA 02109 Phone: (617) 526-6000 Email: mark.ford@wilmerhale.com - and – Scott Christopher Holbrook, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP (OH) Key Tower 127 Public Square, Ste. 2000 Cleveland, OH 44114 Phone: (216) 621-0200 Email: sholbrook@bakerlaw.com CLARITY DEBT RESOLUTION: Medrano Files Suit in Tex. Dist. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clarity Debt Resolution, Inc. The case is styled as Gabriela Medrano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Clarity Debt Resolution, Inc., Case No. 2026DCV1089 (Tex. Dist. Ct., El Paso Cty., Feb. 25, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Civil." Clarity Debt Resolution -- https://usclarity.com/ -- is an American based company that aims to help US consumers reduce their debt by negotiating with creditors to settle their debts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian R. Rodriguez, Esq. 333 W Broadway, Ste. 1110 San Diego, CA 92101-3806 Phone: 619-557-7667 COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Lee Balks at Failure to Protect Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- SHANNON LEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORPORATION and TRIZETTO PROVIDER SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02444 (D.N.J., March 10, 2026) is a class action arising out of Defendants Cognizant and TriZetto's failures to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. According to the HIPAA Journal, TriZetto exposed the personally identifiable information and protected health information belonging to Plaintiff and more than 3.4 million Class members. Beginning in November 2024, and continuing for almost eleven months, until October 2, 2025, when TriZetto finally secured its network, a known cybercriminal gang, was able to access and exfiltrate the private information of more than 3.4 million patients that TriZetto managed on behalf of its clients. Due to Defendants' data security failures which resulted in the data breach, cybercriminals were able to target Defendants' computer systems and exfiltrate Plaintiff's and Class members' highly sensitive private information. As a result of this data breach, Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information was compromised and stolen and remains in the hands of those cybercriminals, says the suit. Through this Complaint, the Plaintiff seek to remedy these harms on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals whose private information was accessed during the data breach. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation provides custom information technology consulting services. The Company provides artificial intelligence, business process solutions, cloud, core modernization, cybersecurity, digital strategy, enterprise platform, and infrastructure services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com lverderame@edelson-law.com CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL: Gomez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Consolidated Electrical Distributors, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Daniel Gomez, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated and aggrieved under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 v. Consolidated Electrical Distributors, Inc. d/b/a Greentech Renewables, Does 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. CGC26634316 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Feb. 25, 2026). The case type is stated "Other Non-Exempt Complaints (Class and Representative Complaint)." Consolidated Electrical Distributors, Inc. doing business as Greentech Renewables -- https://www.greentechrenewables.com/ -- is a leading name in solar distribution, boasting over 100 locations strategically positioned in major solar markets nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Henry G. Glitz, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 WESTWOOD BLVD. Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: 310-438-5555 COVE DRINKS INC: Rodriguez Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Chris Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COVE DRINKS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 26STCV02385 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on March 6, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02412. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Cove falsely and misleadingly markets Cove Probiotic Soda products (the "Products") as containing no artificial sweeteners when the Products are made with stevia extract and/or erythritol. The challenged Products include all Cove Probiotic Soda products labeled with a "No Artificial Sweeteners" claim that contain stevia extract and/or erythritol as an ingredient. The Complaint asserts claims against Defendant for violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, and Breach of Express Warranty.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: William P. Cole, Esq. Matthew R. Orr, Esq. AMIN WASSERMAN GURNANI, LLP 515 South Flower St., 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 933-2330 Fax: (312) 884-7352 Email: wcole@awglaw.com morr@awglaw.com CROWN BRIDGE: Wins Dismissal of Social Life, RedHawk Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as DarkPulse, Inc., Social Life Network, Inc., and RedHawk Holdings Corp., Plaintiffs, v. Crown Bridge Partners, LLC, Soheil Ahdoot, and Sepas Ahdoot, Defendants,1: 22 Civ. 08163 (VM) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Victor Marrero of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion for summary judgment, and granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of choice-of-law. The class action allegations in this case were previously dismissed by agreement of the parties. Crown Bridge Partners, LLC is a limited liability company based in, and organized under the laws of, New York. Soheil Ahdoot and Sepas Ahdoot are the principal owners and members of Crown Bridge as well as its sole employees. Crown Bridge's business model is to purchase convertible notes from microcap securities issuers, convert those notes into newly-issued shares of stock, and then sell those shares on the public market. The notes each contained terms that imposed minimum effective annual interest rates ranging between fifty-one and seventy-five percent, without accounting for additional interest charged and or disguised as discounts, fees, or penalties. Plaintiffs' complaint asserts two counts: one for violation of Section 1962(c) through the collection of an unlawful debt, and another for conspiracy to collect an unlawful debt in violation of Section 1962(d). To allege a Section 1962(c) claim for the collection of unlawful debt, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the debt was unenforceable in whole or in part because of state or federal laws relating to usury, (2) the debt was incurred in connection with the business of lending money at a usurious rate, and (3) the usurious rate was at least twice the enforceable rate. The viability of Plaintiffs' claim comes down to the Court's choice-of-law analysis. For Plaintiffs' claim to succeed, the Court would need to disregard the Nevada choice-of-law clauses as provided in the notes and find instead that New York law governs. Defendants asked the Court to enforce the Nevada choice-of-law clauses and apply Nevada law, which does not criminalize usury. Plaintiffs asked the Court to disregard the choice-of-law clauses and instead apply New York law, which criminalizes usury. Courts may refuse to enforce a choice-of-law clause only where (1) the parties' choice has no reasonable basis, or (2) application of the chosen law would violate a fundamental public policy of another jurisdiction with materially greater interests in the dispute. Upon careful examination, the Court found a reasonable relationship between Social Life and Nevada. There is no dispute that Social Life is a Nevada corporation. As a matter of law, Social Life's incorporation in Nevada alone is sufficient to establish a reasonable relationship between Social Life and Nevada. The Court was skeptical of the arguments made by Social Life, a Nevada corporation, that the laws of its state of incorporation should not apply. Though Social Life may not have initially chosen Nevada as its place of incorporation, it has never sought to change its incorporation because of Nevada's favorable business environment. Accordingly, because Social Life's incorporation in Nevada is sufficient to establish a reasonable relationship, whether New York has the most significant contacts to the dispute is irrelevant. The Court also found a reasonable relationship between RedHawk and Nevada. There is no dispute that RedHawk is a Nevada corporation. While RedHawk's incorporation in Nevada alone was sufficient to establish a reasonable relationship, there were also additional contacts supporting that conclusion. RedHawk entered into at least half a dozen agreements and convertible notes with other lenders -- including Armada Capital, Auctus Fund, B.P. Capital NY, Inc., Eagle Equities, LLC, EMA Financial, LLC, and Labrys Fund LP -- all of which contained a Nevada choice-of-law clause. The existence of these similar contracts further demonstrated RedHawk's amenability to transacting business in Nevada. Therefore, because a reasonable relationship existed between RedHawk and Nevada, the choice-of-law clause controlled regardless of whether another state had more significant contacts to the dispute. According to the Court, there were not sufficient contacts between DarkPulse and Nevada to establish a reasonable relationship. Defendants alleged multiple connections, including a wholly-owned subsidiary in Nevada, other agreements with Nevada choice-of-law clauses, and two business visits to Nevada. The Court did not find these contacts to be sufficient. The incorporation of a DarkPulse subsidiary in Nevada years after the DarkPulse Note was executed had little to do with the formation of that note. DarkPulse also signed other agreements with a Nevada choice-of-law clause, but such a contact without more was not sufficient to establish a reasonable relationship. DarkPulse's two visits to Nevada had no connection to the DarkPulse Note and came years after the note's execution. These contacts, even when taken together, as a matter of law, are insufficient to create a reasonable relationship between the parties or the transaction and Nevada. Without an effective choice-of-law provision, New York courts look to the center of gravity of a contract to determine choice of law. Here, there is a genuine dispute of material fact about DarkPulse's current place of business, the location of the subject matter of the contract, and where performance of the contract was located. Given these outstanding disputes of material fact, the Court declined to grant summary judgment on the choice-of-law issue as to DarkPulse. Plaintiffs also failed to demonstrate that enforcing Nevada law would violate the fundamental public policy of New York. Corporations conducting their business transactions should be treated differently from individual consumers seeking personal credit. Plaintiffs are corporations -- the antithesis of the type of needy and unsophisticated consumers for whom New York's public policy against usury counsels providing relief from a choice-of-law clause. Therefore, because the Plaintiffs are corporations that entered into commercial transactions with Defendants, the enforcement of the Nevada choice-of-law clauses does not violate New York's fundamental public policy against usury. The Court ordered that Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of choice-of-law is denied in part as to Social Life and RedHawk, but granted in part as to DarkPulse to the extent that the Nevada choice-of-law clause does not apply, though the Court declined to determine which state's law should apply under the center of gravity test. The Court further ordered that Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted in part as to Social Life and RedHawk, but denied in part as to DarkPulse. A copy of the Court's decision dated March 12, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=D9dhiz from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Sepas Ahdoot Represented By Jeffrey Fleischmann Jeffrey Fleischmann 646-657-9623 jf@lawjf.com Defendant Soheil Ahdoot Represented By Jeffrey Fleischmann Jeffrey Fleischmann 646-657-9623 jf@lawjf.com Defendant Crown Bridge Partners LLC Represented By Jeffrey Fleischmann Jeffrey Fleischmann 646-657-9623 jf@lawjf.com Plaintiff DarkPulse, Inc. Represented By Gustave Paul Passanante The Basile Law Firm P.C. 516-455-1500 gus@thebasilelawfirm.com Eric Benzenberg The Basile Law Firm, P.C. 516-455-1500 eric@thebasilelawfirm.com Plaintiff Redhawk Holdings Corp. Represented By Gustave Paul Passanante The Basile Law Firm P.C. 516-455-1500 gus@thebasilelawfirm.com Eric Benzenberg The Basile Law Firm, P.C. 516-455-1500 eric@thebasilelawfirm.com Plaintiff Social Life Network, Inc. Represented By Gustave Paul Passanante The Basile Law Firm P.C. 516-455-1500 gus@thebasilelawfirm.com Eric Benzenberg The Basile Law Firm, P.C. 516-455-1500 CSX TRANSPORTATION: Burgess Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jeff Burgess, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CSX Transportation, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00033 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on March 5, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:26-cv-00907-TMC-MGB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Labor for Family and Medical Leave Act. CSX -- https://www.csx.com/ -- is a leading supplier of rail-based freight transportation in North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan L. Stone, Esq. THE MOODY LAW FIRM, INC. 500 Crawford Street, Suite 200 Portsmouth, VA 23704 Phone: (757) 393-4093 Email: jstone@moodyrrlaw.com - and – Nicholas D. Thompson, Esq. CASEY JONES LAW FIRM 323 N Washington Ave, Ste 200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 293-5249 Email: nthompson@caseyjones.law DFA DAIRY BRANDS: Cornwell Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Darrin Cornwell, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DFA DAIRY BRANDS FLUID, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; HEARTLAND FARMS, LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV31125 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on March 6, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02393. The Complaint alleges ten causes of action: failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, waiting time penalties, wage statement violations, failure to timely pay wages, failure to indemnify all necessary business expenditures, violation of Labor Code section 227.3, Unfair Competition Law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Aaron H. Cole, Esq. Vi N. Applen, Esq. Patrick T. Cain, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 Email: aaron.cole@ogletree.com vi.applen@ogletree.com patrick.cain@ogletree.com DGMB CASINO: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Hoffmann Says --------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN M. HOFFMANN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DGMB CASINO, LLC d/b/a RESORTS CASINO HOTEL, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02526 (D.N.J., March 11, 2026) is a class action seeking unpaid wages and/or overtime against the Defendant. The complaint relates that the Defendant required Plaintiff and all other table games dealers to pool all their tips. In other words, dealers could not retain their tips from patrons and instead were required to pool them among all other dealers. For the most part, Defendant would then redistribute those tips to all dealers based on when and how much they worked. The Defendant also principally paid table games dealers like Plaintiff through the tip credit. In other words, Defendant relied on the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law (NJWHL) minimum wage exception that allows an employer to credit some of the tips an employee earns against the minimum wage the employee is owed. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other table games dealers also spend a considerable amount of their time idle waiting for customers at the tables, attending pre- and post-shift meetings, and other non-tip producing tasks. Defendant pays all of this time at the tip credit rate. The Defendant pays all of this time at the tip credit rate. All the time spent by the dealers is included in the tip pool formula as hours eligible for tips from the pool. As a matter of course and logic, tables games dealers spend well more than 20% of their working time paid at the tip credit rate doing tasks for which they could not possibly be paid tips. Defendant knows and has known dealers are spending more than 20% of their time on non-tip producing tasks and has chosen to require them to pool their tips and to pay them pursuant to the tip credit anyway. The complaint alleges that the Defendant's tip pooling arrangement is unlawful for two reasons. First, Defendant's use of the tip credit is unlawful under New Jersey law because of the way Defendant structures its table games dealers' work. Second, Defendant has created a mandatory tip pool for dealers the carries significant administrative costs, says the suit. Plaintiff Justin M. Hoffmann worked as a table games dealer for Defendant. Between September 2024 and August 2025, Plaintiff worked as a table games dealer earning a direct cash wage of $6.75 per hour and was required to pool tips with other dealers. Defendant DGMB Casino, LLC d/b/a Resorts Casino Hotel is a casino located in Atlantic City, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC Twining Office Center, Suite 211 715 Twining Road Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: 215-884-2491 Facsimile: 215-884-2492 E-mail: asantillo@winebrakelaw.com mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com - and - George A. Hanson, Esq. Alexander T. Ricke, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com ricke@stuevesiegel.com - and - Ryan L. McClelland, Esq. McCLELLAND LAW FIRM, P.C. The Flagship Building 200 Westwoods Drive Liberty, MO 64068-1170 Telephone: (816) 781-0002 Facsimile: (816) 781-1984 E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com DIGIMARC CORP: Consolidated Securities Derivative Suit Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------- Digimarc Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2026, that the United States District Court for the District of Oregon stayed the consolidated securities derivative suit pending resolution of the Company's anticipated motion to dismiss in the Ullom Action. Three shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed nominally on the Company's behalf, including three in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon: (i) Franchi v. McCormack et al., No. 3:25-cv-01543-AN, filed Aug. 29, 2025 (as amended Sept. 2, 2025) (the "Franchi Action"); (ii) Chadwick v. McCormack et al., No. 3:25-cv-01838-JR, filed Oct. 7, 2025 (the "Chadwick Action"); and (iii) Jensen v. McCormack et al., No. 3:25-cv-01891-SB, filed Oct. 14, 2025 (the "Jensen Action"). These derivative actions are based on the same alleged facts and circumstances as the Ullom Action and are against the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and directors. The derivative actions collectively assert claims pursuant to Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as for breaches of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets. Each of the derivative lawsuits seeks to recover damages on the Company's behalf and alleges that a legally required pre-suit demand on the Board of Directors would be futile and should be excused. On Nov. 4, 2025, the Chadwick, Jensen and Franchi Actions were consolidated and stayed pending resolution of the Company's anticipated motion to dismiss in the Ullom Action. Digimarc Corp. is a technology company focused on digital watermarking and related solutions that enable automatic identification of media, packaging and other items to improve efficiency, security and consumer engagement across retail, supply chain and other industries. DIGIMARC CORP: Continues to Defend Sperry Derivative Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Digimarc Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Sperry shareholder derivative suit in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon. A shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed nominally on the Company's behalf in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah captioned Sperry v. McCormack et al., No. 26-cv-00621, filed Jan. 6, 2026. The derivative action is based on the same alleged facts and circumstances as the Ullom Action and against the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and directors. The derivative action asserts claims pursuant to Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as for breaches of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets. The derivative lawsuits seeks to recover damages on the Company's behalf and alleges that a legally required pre-suit demand on the Board of Directors would be futile and should be excused. The case ise at an early stage, and the Company believes it has defenses against the claims and is responding accordingly. Digimarc Corp. is a technology company focused on digital watermarking and related solutions that enable automatic identification of media, packaging and other items to improve efficiency, security and consumer engagement across retail, supply chain and other industries. DIGIMARC CORP: Continues to Defend Ullom Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Digimarc Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Ullom securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. A putative securities class action captioned Ullom v. Digimarc Corp., et al., No. 3:25-cv-00779-JR (the Ullom Action), filed on May 8, 2025 against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, with an amended complaint filed on Nov. 26, 2025, asserting claims against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's shares between Aug. 14, 2024 and Feb. 26, 2025, and seeking to recover damages allegedly caused by purported misstatements and omissions regarding the renewal status of a commercial contract that allegedly inflated the price paid for the Company's common stock during the class period. The case is at an early stage, and the Company believes it has defenses against the claims and is responding accordingly. Digimarc Corp. is a technology company focused on digital watermarking and related solutions that enable automatic identification of media, packaging and other items to improve efficiency, security and consumer engagement across retail, supply chain and other industries. DIGIMARC CORP: Johnson Shareholder Derivative Suit Stayed --------------------------------------------------------- Digimarc Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2026, that the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon stayed the Johnson shareholder derivative suit pending resolution of the Company's anticipated motion to dismiss in the Ullom Action. A shareholder derivative lawsuit wase filed nominally on the Company's behalf in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah captioned (i) Johnson v. McCormack et al., No. 25-cv-56998, filed Oct. 23, 2025 (the "Johnson Action. The derivative action is based on the same alleged facts and circumstances as the Ullom Action and against the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and directors. The derivative action asserts claims pursuant to Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as for breaches of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets. The derivative lawsuit seeks to recover damages on the Company's behalf and alleges that a legally required pre-suit demand on the Board of Directors would be futile and should be excused. On Jan. 5, 2026, the Johnson Action was stayed pending resolution of the Company's anticipated motion to dismiss in the Ullom Action. The case is at an early stage, and the Company believes it has defenses against the claims and is responding accordingly. Digimarc Corp. is a technology company focused on digital watermarking and related solutions that enable automatic identification of media, packaging and other items to improve efficiency, security and consumer engagement across retail, supply chain and other industries. DOLLS KILL: Dalton Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Dolls Kill, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-01825-ECT-DLM (D. Minn., March 11, 2026) arises because Defendant's Website (www.dollskill.com) 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 and its implementing regulations. The complaint relates that as a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like her full and equal access to important Website content. The complaint alleges that the Defendant has engaged in unfair discriminatory practices against Plaintiff and others in that it has failed to ensure that Defendant's Website and online content is fully accessible to persons with disabilities on an independent and equal basis in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), and Minnesota Statute. The Plaintiff has been denied full and equal access to the Website and has been denied the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations offered therein on a full, independent, and equal basis. The Plaintiff is without adequate remedy at law, has suffered, and is suffering irreparable harm. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota, damages, and a damage multiplier pursuant to the Minnesota Statute. Plaintiff Julie Dalton is legally blind and has been a resident of Minnesota. Defendant Dolls Kill, Inc. is a California Company the offers women's clothing and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, tops, bottoms, dresses, lingerie, outerwear, festival wear, shoes, accessories, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com DOORDASH INC: Phillips Files Employment Suit in Cal. Super. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Doordash, Inc. The case is captioned as DARRELL PHILLIPS and JOHN DARRELL PHILLIPS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. DOORDASH, INC., a Delaware Corporation, et al., Case No. CGC26634132 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., Feb. 19, 2026). The case is brought over non-exempt complaints of Plaintiff and others similarly situated. A case management conference will be held on July 29, 2026. Doordash, Inc. is an American company operating online food ordering and food delivery.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shaun markley, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 E-mail: smarkley@nicholaslaw.org EAT JUST INC: Botteh Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eat Just, Inc. The case is styled as Daniel Botteh, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Eat Just, Inc., Case No. 26CV172997 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Feb. 25, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Commercial/Business Tort (Not Fraud/ Breach of Contract)." Eat Just -- https://www.ju.st/ -- is a food technology company that develops plant-based alternatives to egg and meat products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Houchin, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, PC 9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210-4614 Phone: (424) 478-2076 Email: mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com EM ORGANICS: Johnston Files Suit Over TCPA Violation ---------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against EM Organics LLC. The case is styled as Bianca Johnston, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. EM Organics LLC, Case No. 5:26-cv-00489-SSS-ACCV (C.D. Cal., Feb. 4, 2026). The suit is brought over Defendant's alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case is assigned to Judge Sunshine Suzanne Sykes. EM Organics LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company with its headquarters located in Oregon City, Oregon.[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 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com EOS PRODUCTS: Hampton Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- PHYLLIS HAMPTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Eos Products, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02674 (N.D. Ill., March 10, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://evolutionofsmooth.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Hampton and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On November 11, 2025, Plaintiff Hampton searched online for lip care products and discovered Defendant's website, Evolutionofsmooth.com, which appeared among the search results. She decided to visit the website to explore the available products and make a purchase. However, while navigating the website, Plaintiff Hampton encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from independently completing the order. When trying to purchase the selected product, she encountered a button "Almost there" which was not accessible from the keyboard. Plaintiff tried to activate it but due to the fact that it was non-interactive, nothing happened. These access barriers render the website inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually impaired individuals, says the suit. Plaintiff Hampton 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. Eos Products, LLC operates the website that offers a selection of lip care and skincare products, including nourishing lip butters, tinted lip moisturizers, lip treatments, exfoliators, and related beauty items.[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 EPIC SYSTEMS: Faces Suit Over Monopoly and System Barriers in EHR ----------------------------------------------------------------- THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR DISABILITY JUSTICE ("AADJ"), on behalf of its members and all others similarly situated; LARRY MILLER, on behalf of the Estate of John Miller; and JOHN HODGES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EPIC SYSTEMS CORPORATION, and their affiliates, subsidiaries, and parent companies, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00564 (W.D. Tex., March 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for monopolization, attempted monopolization, unlawful maintenance of monopoly power, and denial of access to an essential facility in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, monopolization and attempted monopolization in violation of the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act, and violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the 21st Century Cures Act. The case arises from the systemic barriers in electronic health records (EHR) interoperability and Epic Systems Corporation's monopolistic and gatekeeping practices that directly prevent disabled individuals from obtaining complete electronic medical records necessary to pursue Social Security Disability benefits, other governmental and public benefits, and for urgent medical treatment and diagnosis. The Plaintiffs bring this action to challenge Epic's conduct and to ensure that disabled individuals can obtain the medical records that federal law was designed to make accessible, suit says. The American Association of Disability Justice (AADJ) is a nonprofit organization in the U.S. Epic Systems Corporation is a software developer, headquartered in Verona, Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Maren Miller Bam, Esq. SALUS LAW, PLLC 723 The Parkway Richland, WA 99352 Telephone: (206) 485-4066 Facsimile: (206) 260-9136 Email: maren@salusdisability.com EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Rosario Suit Removed to N.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Desiree Rosario, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers v. Equifax Information Services, LLC., LoanCare LLC, Case No. 25cv462394 was removed from the Santa Clara Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York on March 5, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00356-ECC-MJK to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Equifax -- https://www.equifax.com/ -- is one of the three nationwide providers of consumer reports.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Zemel, Esq. ZEMEL LAW LLC 400 Sylvan Ave, Suite 200 Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 Phone: (862) 227-3106 Fax: (973) 525-2552 Email: dz@zemellawllc.com The Defendants are represented by: Gabriella Levine, Esq. Robert S. Rosborough, IV, Esq. WHITEMAN OSTERMAN & HANNA LLP One Commerce Plaza Albany, NY 12260 Phone: (518) 487-7654 Fax: (518) 487-7777 Email: glevine@woh.com rrosborough@woh.com Daniel S. Hughes, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 1801 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW-Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 378-9369 Fax: (202) 378-2319 Email: daniel.hughes@huschblackwell.com EVOLV TECHNOLOGIES: First Delaware Derivative Suit Stayed --------------------------------------------------------- Evolv Technologies 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 March 10, 2026, that the Delaware Court of Chancery stayed the First Delaware Derivative suit pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss the Class Action or a final order dismissing the Class Action with prejudice. On March 10, 2025, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the First Delaware Derivative Action), based on the same allegations in the Class Action and filed against certain former and current officers, and nominally against the Company, in which Plaintiff Steve Bersch, derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Evolv, brought claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and insider trading, seeking various forms of relief, including equitable relief, monetary damages, including restitution and fees, and a declaratory judgment, and this action is stayed pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss in the Class Action or a final order dismissing the Class Action with prejudice. Evolv Technologies Holdings, Inc. is a technology company that develops and provides AI-based weapons detection and security screening systems for venues and facilities seeking to enhance physical security and threat detection capabilities. FLEX LOGISTICS: Pacheco Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices ---------------------------------------------------------- RICARDO PACHECO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLEX LOGISTICS, LLC, a California limited liability company, UNITED EMPLOYMENT SOLUTIONS, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CVRI2600904 (Cal. Super., Riverside Cty., Feb. 4, 2026) is a class action brought by Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals, against the Defendants for wage theft and other violations of the California Labor Code, IWC Wage Orders, and the California Business and Professions Code. The complaint arises from the Defendants' failure to: provide required meal periods; provide required rest breaks; provide recovery periods; pay overtime wages; pay minimum and straight time wages; timely pay wages; pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees; furnish accurate itemized wage statements; maintain required records; reimburse necessary expenses; and for unfair business practices. During the relevant time period, the Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in the Shipping Department in Flex Logistics' warehouse where he would operate a forklift to load and unload pallets to container trucks used to transport products shipped and received at Flex Logistics facilities through interstate commerce. Flex Logistics is a business is a third-party logistics company that specializes in providing warehousing, distribution, and fulfillment services. United Employment Solutions is a private staffing company that provides temporary employees to work at Defendant, Flex Logistics, for short and long-term assignments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Ernest Wheeler, Esq. Justin A. Wheeler, Esq. THE WHEELER LAW FIRM, APC 250 West First Street, Suite 216 Claremont, CA 91711 Telephone: (909) 621-4988 Facsimile: (909) 621-4622 E-mail: sew@scottwheelerlawoffice.com FLOCK GROUP INC: Javorsky Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Flock Group, Inc. The case is styled as Daniel Javorsky, Anthony Mayor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Flock Group, Inc. d/b/a Flock Safety, Case No. CGC26634334 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Feb. 26, 2026). The case type is stated "Other Non-Exempt Complaints (Complaint for Damages)." Flock Group Inc. doing business as Flock Safety -- https://www.flocksafety.com/ -- is an American manufacturer and operator of security hardware and software.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David M. Berger, Esq. 4338 Laurel Canyon Blvd. Studio City, CA 91604-1709 Phone: 818-942-0228 Fax: 818-942-0228 Email: dmberger@adelphia.net - and – Heather M. Lopez, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 280 S. Beverly Dr., Ph. Beverly Hills, CA 90212-3905 Phone: 331-240-3015 Email: hlopez@milberg.com FOUNTAIN OF YOUTH: Lopez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FOUNTAIN OF YOUTH BEVERAGES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01945 (S.D.N.Y., March 10, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.drinkvibal.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on February 25, 2026, in an attempt to purchase Wild Honey from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. The Plaintiff was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. Fountain of Youth Beverages, LLC operates the website that offers sports & energy drinks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal GAP INC: Faces Rodriguez Class Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action has been filed against The Gap, Inc. The case is captioned as JESSE RODRIGUEZ, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated v. THE GAP, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. CGC26634141 (Cal. Super. San Francisco Cty., Feb. 19, 2026). The case is brought over non-exempt complaints of Plaintiff and others similarly situated. A case management conference will be held on July 29, 2026. The Gap, Inc., commonly known as Gap Inc., is an American multinational clothing and accessories retailer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John habashy, Esq. LEXICON LAW P.C. 633 W. 5th Street 28th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 223-5900 E-mail: john@lexiconlaw.com HARDWOODS SPECIALTY: Ramirez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hardwoods Specialty Products US LP. The case is styled as Isaac Ramirez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hardwoods Specialty Products US LP, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0001478 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Feb. 27, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Hardwoods Specialty Products -- https://hardwoods-inc.com/ -- has evolved into one of the largest architectural decor material suppliers in North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohamed Bholat, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 475 14th St., #700 Oakland, CA 946127 Phone: 213-381-9988 Email: mohamed.bholat@wilshirelawfirm.com HOMECOURT INC: Henry Sues Over Website's Non-Compliance With ADA ---------------------------------------------------------------- CONSTANCE HENRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Homecourt Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02483 (N.D. Ill., March 5, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff Henry brings civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://homecourt.co, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by blind or visually-impaired individuals. Moreover, the Defendant's website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and visually-impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software, says the suit. Based in Santa Monica, CA, Homecourt Inc. owns and operates the website which offers home and personal care products for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 (716) 281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law HYATT CORPORATION: Montes Suit Removed to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Josh Montes, an individual and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. HYATT CORPORATION dba THE SEABIRD - A DESTINATION HOTEL, a Delaware corporation; OCEANSIDE BEACH RESORT OWNER, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; S.D. MALKIN PROPERTIES, INC., a Delaware corporation; S.D. MALKIN OCEANSIDE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; DH2 HOLDING LLC dba MISSION PACIFIC HOTEL, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. 25CU065911N was removed from the Superior Court for the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on March 5, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-01412-DMS-BJW. The Plaintiff's FAC asserts 10 causes of action against Defendant: Violation of Cal. Business & Professions Code Sections 17200 and Violation of Cal. Labor Codes for: Minimum Wages; Overtime; Meal Periods; Rest Break Violations; Wage Statement Violations; Untimely Final Wages; Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses; Failure to Permit Inspection of Employee Records; Failure to Provide Gratuities.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Brian P. Long, Esq. Richard B. Mojica, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793 Phone: (213) 270-9600 Facsimile: (213) 270-9601 Email: bplong@seyfarth.com rmojica@seyfarth.com - and – Michael Afar, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 Email: mafar@seyfarth.com IDMERIT LLC: Fails to Secure Private Info, Andrizzi Says -------------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE ANDRIZZI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. IDMERIT LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01527-BJC-AHG (S.D. Cal., March 11, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to secure the personally identifiable information ("PII")1 of Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Class. The complaint relates that on November 11, 2025, IDMerit was notified of a cybersecurity incident involving some of their internal systems. IDMerit determined that an unauthorized third party accessed and exfiltrated data from its internal file repositories, which contained the PII of individuals that was being stored on IDMerit's systems (the "Data Leak"). The PII accessed and exfiltrated from Defendant's systems included individuals' full names, home addresses, postal codes, dates of birth, national ID numbers, phone numbers, email addresses, and gender information. As a direct and proximate result of the Data Leak, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered actual and present injuries: (a) present, certainly impending, and continuing threats of identity theft crimes, fraud, scams, and other misuses of their Private Information; (b) diminution of value of their Private Information; (c) loss of benefit of the bargain (price premium damages); (d) loss of value of privacy and confidentiality of the stolen Private Information; (e) illegal sales of the compromised Private Information; (f) mitigation expenses and time spent responding to and remedying the effects of the Data Leak; (g) identity theft insurance costs; (h) "out of pocket" costs incurred due to actual identity theft; (i) credit freezes/unfreezes; (j) expense and time spent on initiating fraud alerts and contacting third parties; (k) decreased credit scores; (l) lost work time; and (m) anxiety, annoyance, and nuisance; (n) continued risk to their Private Information, which remains in Defendant's possession and is subject to further breaches so long as Defendant fails to undertake appropriate and adequate measures to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, says the suit. Through this lawsuit, Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the injuries they inflicted on Plaintiff and Class Members due to their impermissibly inadequate data security measures, and to seek injunctive relief to ensure the implementation of security measures to protect the Private Information that remains in Defendant's possession. Plaintiff Michelle Andrizzi is a resident and citizen of Los Angeles, California and a Data Breach victim. Defendant IDMerit, LLC is a global provider of identity verification designed to protect businesses at scale by addressing security and identity verification needs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Dr. Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com - and - M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. EMERY REDDY, PC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: 916-823-6955 Facsimile: 206-441-9711 E-mail: anderson@emeryreddy.com gregory@emeryreddy.com INSIGHTIN HEALTH: Coulson Files Personal Injury Suit in D. Md. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Insightin Health, Inc. et al. The case is captioned as David Coulson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Insightin Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-00461-BAH (D. Md., Feb. 4, 2026). The suit is brought against the Defendants over Plaintiff's personal injury claims. The case is assigned to Judge Brendan Abell Hurson. Insightin Health, Inc. provides data analytics and technology solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary Edmund Howerton, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 223 Duke of Gloucester Street Annapolis, MD 21401 Telephone: (410) 269-6620 Facsimile: (410) 269-1235 E-mail: zhowerton@milberg.com The Defendants are represented by: Matthew J. Youssef, Esq. NILES BARTON AND WILMER LLP 111 S Calvert St Ste 1400 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 783-6300 Facsimile: (410) 783-6452 E-mail: mjyoussef@nilesbarton.com INTEGRITY ADMIN GROUP: Guadian Files Suit in Tex. Dist. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Integrity Admin Group, Inc. The case is styled as Manuel Guadian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Integrity Admin Group, Inc., Case No. 2026DCV1031 (Tex. Dist. Ct., El Paso Cty., Feb. 23, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Civil." Integrity Admin Group -- https://www.integrityadmingroup.com/ -- is the service contract company that focuses on home and auto protection.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian R. Rodriguez, Esq. 333 W Broadway, Ste. 1110 San Diego, CA 92101-3806 Phone: 619-557-7667 IVANTI INC: Faces Noetling Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty ------------------------------------------------------------ PAMELA NOETLING, and GINNY SWEENEY, individually and on behalf of the Ivanti Inc. 401(K) Plan, and on behalf of all the similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the plan, Plaintiff v. IVANTI, INC. and John and Jane Does 1-30 in their capacities as fiduciaries, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-208 (D. Utah, March 11, 2026) is a class action seeking to remedy Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The complaint relates that the Defendants control and manage the operation and administration of the Plan–a defined contribution plan covering all eligible employees of Lockton, Inc., and participating subsidiaries. The Defendants have fiduciary responsibility for the investment of the assets of the Plan. As fiduciaries to the Plan, at all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants were obligated to act (1) prudently and (2) for the exclusive benefit of participants and beneficiaries. Defendants violated their fiduciary duties by both (1) initially selecting; and (2) consistently retaining the American Century Target Date Fund for years, even when it glaringly underperformed under all investment metrics and, consequently, in terms of returns. This lower-performing investment option reduced Plan participants' retirement funds by millions of dollars as compared to if Defendants did not breach their fiduciary duties. As a result of the Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan and violations of ERISA, and in particular Defendants' inclusion of the American Century One Choice target date fund series, Plaintiffs were subject to underperformance and suffered financial losses, says the suit. The Plaintiffs bring this action to obtain the relief provided under ERISA for losses suffered by the Plan resulting from the Defendants' fiduciary breaches, and for other appropriate equitable and injunctive relief under ERISA. Plaintiff Pamela Noetling resides in Pima County, Arizona and was invested in the American Century One Choice target date fund series. Plaintiff Ginny Sweeney resides in Johnson County, Kansas and was invested in the American Century One Choice target date fund series. Defendant Ivanti, Inc. is an IT software company headquartered in South Jordan, Utah, United States. John and Jane Does 1-30 are the fictitiously named defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason R. Hull, Esq. MARSHALL OLSON & HULL, PC Ten Exchange Place, Suite 350 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 456-7655 E-mail: jhull@mohtrial.com JLR LOS ANGELES: Brownley Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against JLR LOS ANGELES LLC, et al. The case is styled as Brianna E. Brownley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. JLR LOS ANGELES LLC, ASTON NEWPORT BEACH LLC, ASTON SAN DIEGO LLC, CADILLAC PASADENA LLC, JAGUAR LAND ROVER LOS ANGELES, JLR LOS ANGELES, LOTUS OF SAN DIEGO, US AUTO TRUST, US AUTO TRUST LLC, Case No. 26STCV07335 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 5, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Jaguar Los Angeles -- https://www.jaguarlosangeles.com/ -- has been serving drivers around Los Angeles by providing luxury vehicles and first-class attention.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Svetlana Hovhannisyan, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 250 N. Madison Ave. 2nd Floor, Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone: 818-962-6465 Fax: 818-962-6469 Email: L.Hovhannisyan@D.Law - and - David Keledjian, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Blvd., Ste. 840 Glendale, CA 91203-2920 Phone: 818-962-6465 Email: d.keledjian@d.law JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued for Aiding Goliath Cryptocurrency Ponzi Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------------- ROBBY ALAN STEELE, individually, and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 26-cv-02067 (N.D. Cal., March 10, 2026) arises from Chase's role in enabling, aiding, and abetting the cryptocurrency investment Ponzi scheme operated through its bank customer, Goliath. According to the complaint, this is a class action against Chase Bank for enabling a massive cryptocurrency fraudulent scheme orchestrated by Goliath Ventures, Inc. ("Goliath") -- a scheme that caused Plaintiff Steele to liquidate his retirement account only to see it vanish after he wired it to Goliath's bank account with Chase. Chase saw a great deal of investor money deposits, inadequate deposits into crypto currency exchanges for investment, woefully insufficient crypto currency exchange deposits coming back necessary to pay investor profits, and an array of banking activities blatantly at odds with the claimed business model. The volume of funds passing through Goliath's and its CEO, Christopher Delgado's account reflected a material disparity between what Chase expected from the operation of the businesses and Delgado's and Goliath's use of the account. The account activity was rife with wire fraud and money laundering, no doubt generating many alerts to bank employees, and eventually, Suspicious Activity Reports that Chase was required to file with the federal government, relates the complaint. Chase Bank observed and actively participated in banking behavior that contradicted the stated operation and actively assisted the misappropriation and siphoning of funds by Goliath and Delgado, adds the complaint. Chase knew that such actions with Goliath's funds were improper and harming Goliath and its investors. Goliath and Delgado's improper use of the accounts was apparent. Yet, Chase facilitated this use for years and through countless transactions involving hundreds of millions of dollars. All of this goes to show that Chase had actual knowledge of Goliath's Ponzi scheme and substantially assisted Goliath by refusing to close the account and lending the reputation of Chase to Goliath such that unsuspecting investors let their guard down when they believed that Chase would have stopped a Ponzi scheme from taking place, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class members suffered losses as a result of the same course of conduct by Defendant. Plaintiff's losses, like those of the Class, arise from Defendant's uniform conduct in facilitating the Goliath Ponzi scheme, says the suit. Plaintiff Robby Alan Steele is a resident of California. Plaintiff Steele invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in Goliath investment agreements, wiring the funds to accounts held at Chase. Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is a national banking association chartered by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency with its main office located in Columbus, Ohio, and with branches throughout the United States and substantial, and not isolated, operations in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary D. Ludens, Esq. SHAW LEWENZ 95 Third Street, Second Floor San Francisco, CA 94103 Telephone: (954) 361-3633 Facsimile: (954) 989-7781 Primary E-mail: zludens@shawlewenz.com Secondary E-mail: kackerman@shawlewenz.com - and - Jordan A. Shaw, Esq. Gabriel E. Morales, Esq. SHAW LEWENZ 110 SE 6th St., Suite 2900 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Primary E-mail: jshaw@shawlewenz.com; gmorales@shawlewenz.com Secondary E-mail: mlomastro@shawlewenz.com - and - Jeffrey R. Sonn, Esq. Brian Pastor, Esq. SONN LAW GROUP PA 19495 Biscayne Blvd Suite 607 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: 305-912-3000 Facsimile: 786-485-1510 Primary E-mail: Jsonn@sonnlaw.com Secondary E-mail: service@sonnlaw.com JTS VENTURES LLC: Sanderson Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against JTS Ventures, LLC. The case is styled as Kyle F. Sanderson Individually and on behalf of himself as a member of SAG COFFEE, LLC, and on behalf of all other members of said limited liability company similarly situated v. JTS Ventures, LLC, Sag Coffee, LLC, Brett Wright, Case No. 605617/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Feb. 27, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Commercial - Business Entity. JTS VENTURES, LLC are a Real Estate Investment company specializing in finding undervalued properties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Barnes, Esq. BARNES & BARNES, P.C. 445 Broadhollow Rd Suite #226 Melville, NY 11747 KALSHIEX LLC: Risch Sues Over Predatory Prediction Market Scheme ---------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Risch and Yonatan Gliksman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KALSHIEX LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; KALSHI INC., a Delaware corporation; KALSHI KLEAR LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; KALSHI KLEAR INC., a Delaware corporation; KALSHI TRADING LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:26-cv-02390 (C.D. Cal., March 5, 2026), is brought exposing a predatory scheme to exploit retail consumers in the emerging prediction market industry. The Defendants operate an online platform through which they invite consumers--including countless Californians--to purchase event contracts on real-world events, promising payouts if the consumer's prediction proves correct. But when those predictions come true and the payouts come due, Defendants unilaterally decide when, whether, and how much to pay—in direct contravention of the terms they presented to consumers at the time the trades were executed. This case represents the poster child of unfair competition, deceptive corporate behavior, and consumer fraud: a company that lures consumers in with clear promises, then pulls the rug out from under them when those promises become inconvenient. This case arises from Defendants' operation of a prediction market contract titled "Ali Khamenei out as Supreme Leader?" (the "Khamenei Market" or the "Market"), which was opened on or about January 8, 2026, on the Kalshi exchange platform. The Market invited users to trade event contracts on whether Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would leave office as Supreme Leader of Iran before specified dates, including March 1, 2026 and April 1, 2026. On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched military strikes against Iran. News outlets began reporting that Khamenei had been killed. Khamenei's death was subsequently confirmed. By any reasonable interpretation of the Market's terms, Khamenei had "left office" before March 1, 2026, and the Market should have resolved to "yes." Instead, after Khamenei's death became public, Defendants invoked a so Called "death carveout" provision—a fine-print mechanism designed to allow Defendants to avoid paying consumers what they were owed when the predicted event occurred through its most foreseeable scenario. Under this provision, Defendants asserted that if the leader "leaves solely because they have died," the Market would not resolve to "yes" but would instead settle based on an undefined "last traded price (prior to the death)." As a result, Plaintiffs and the proposed class members—who correctly predicted the outcome—did not receive the amounts they were promised. Plaintiffs Risch and Gliksman, like thousands of other consumers who correctly predicted the outcome, received arbitrary amounts unilaterally determined by Defendants that were significantly lower than their respective contract values, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs maintained accounts on the Kalshi platform and traded on the Khamenei Market. Kalshi operates one of the largest CFTC-regulated prediction market exchanges in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Novian, Esq. Lauren Woodland, Esq. Cody Fisher, Esq. NOVIAN & NOVIAN, LLP 1801 Century Park East, Suite 1201 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 553-1222 Facsimile: (310) 553-0222 Email: matthew@novianlaw.com Laurenw@novianlaw.com fisher@novianlaw.com KRISTI NOEM: Ramirez Files Suit in S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kristi Noem, et al. The case is styled as Valerio Perez Ramirez, on behalf of himself as an individual and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Kristi Noem, in Official Capacity, Secretary of Department of Homeland Security; US Attorney General Pam Bondi, in official capacity; Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); Warden, Broward Transitional Center; Case No. 1:26-cv-21469-RKA (S.D. Fla., March 5, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal). Kristi Noem was sworn in as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rogell Xavier Levers, Esq. THE LEVERS LAW FIRM 1840 Forest Hill Blvd., Ste. 100 West Palm Beach, FL 33406 Phone: (561) 721-6200 Fax: (561) 721-6202 Email: rxl@leverslaw.com LABORATORY CORPORATION: Sanchez Suit Removed to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Viviana Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 26-2-04298-5 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for King County, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on March 5, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00763. The Complaint seeks compensatory and exemplary damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and prejudgment interest on behalf of a putative statewide class for: failure to compensate for noncompliant meal and rest periods; failure to pay minimum wages; and failure to pay overtime wages.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey A. James, Esq. SEBRIS BUSTO JAMES 15375 SE 30th Place, Suite 310 Bellevue, WA 98007 Phone: (425) 454-4233 Email: jjames@sbj.law LENOVO UNITED: Faces Reyes Suit Over TCPA Breach ------------------------------------------------ PEEJAY REYES, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-02094-ASK (N.D. Cal., March 11, 2026) is a putative class action brought against the Defendant pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated TCPA by initiating telephone solicitations to telephone subscribers such as Plaintiff and the Class members before the hour of 8 a.m. or after the hour of 9 p.m. (local time at the called party's location). Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct which has resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to Plaintiff and the Class members. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of themselves and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Lenovo (United States) Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters located in Morrisville, North Carolina.[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 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com LIVE NATION: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Hussein Says -------------------------------------------------------------- SUMAYA HUSSEIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02680 (N.D. Ill., March 10, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.ticketmaster.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Hussein and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On December 1, 2025, the Plaintiff was searching online for music events tickets and came across the Defendant's website. After reviewing the company's positive ratings and customer feedback describing the platform's event listings, secure checkout process, and the convenience of ticket access, she decided to explore the website with the intent to complete a ticket purchase. However, Plaintiff Hussein encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from completing the transaction. Specifically, the calendar did not provide the necessary information or descriptions for the form controls, relying instead on visual cues and mouse interactions. This prevented Hussein from easily choosing a date using a keyboard or screen reader and making it impossible to filter events by date and view those relevant to her interests. These accessibility barriers render the Website inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually impaired individuals, says the suit. Plaintiff Hussein 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. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. operates the website that offers a range of live event tickets, including concerts, sports games, theater performances, comedy shows, festivals, VIP packages, resale tickets.[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 LOUISIANA: LaBranche Files Civil Rights Suit in M.D. La. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Jeff Landry. The case is captioned as Jamie LaBranche, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated No Party voters v. Jeff Landry, in his official capacity as Governor of Louisiana; Nancy Landry, in her official capacity as Secretary of State for Louisiana; and Louisiana State Board of Elections, Case No. 3:26-cv-00139-SDD-RLB (M.D. La., Feb. 4, 2026). The case is brought over Defendants' violation of civil rights in terms of voting. The suit is assigned to Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick. Jeff Landry is sued in official capacity as Governor of Louisiana.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Cantu Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jesse Cantu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA INC., an Ohio corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-09100 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on March 5, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00230-MWM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Luxottica Group S.p.A. -- https://www.essilorluxottica.com/en/ -- is an Italian eyewear multinational corporation headquartered in Milan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com The Defendants are represented by: Ana Tagvoryan, Esq. Erica R. Graves, Esq. Alycia S. Tulloch, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP 2029 Century Park East, 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 424.239.3400 Facsimile: 424.239.3434 Email: Ana.Tagvoryan@BlankRome.com Erica.graves@BlankRome.com Alycia.Tulloch@BlankRome.com MACY'S INC: Allen Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Macy's, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Cheryl Allen, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Macy's, Inc., Macy's Corporate Services, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0001465 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Feb. 27, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Macy's, Inc. -- https://macysinc.com/ -- is an American holding company of department stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER LLP 31365 Oak Crest Dr., Ste. 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Phone: 805-270-7100 Fax: 805-270-7589 Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com MAD FOR CHICKEN: Faces Lopez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDER LOPEZ, CARLOS DE JESUS TAPIA, EDGAR SIS MENDEZ, DARIO MATOS PINEDA, NELSON GOCAYO LOJA, PARESSA TSAMIS, AND CARLOS MATTOS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MAD FOR CHICKEN CHELSEA LLC (D/B/A MAD FOR CHICKEN CHELSEA), MAD FOR CHICKEN E14TH LLC (D/B/A MAD FOR CHICKEN), MAD FOR CHICKEN SUNNYSIDE LLC (D/B/A MAD FOR CHICKEN SUNNYSIDE), SEAN CHO, CLINTON OH, AND MOE ADAMS, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01954 (S.D.N.Y., March 10, 2026) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to pay at the basic minimum wage rate before allowances for each day Plaintiffs' spread of hours exceeded 10 hours, failure to provide with a written wage notice, failure to furnish with an accurate wage statement, failure to pay on a regular weekly basis, and failure to reimburse expenses for purchasing and maintaining equipment. The Plaintiffs are former restaurant employees of the Defendants. Mad For Chicken Chelsea LLC owns, operates, and controls a chain of Korean inspired restaurants in New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 MADECASSE LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Lopez Says -------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MADECASSE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01977 (S.D.N.Y., March 11, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.beyondgood.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law, New York City Human Rights Law, and New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on February 25, 2026, in an attempt to purchase an Espresso Chocolate Vanilla Martini from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. He was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Madecasse LLC operates the website that offers cocoa, vanilla, and espresso products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal MARINA DISTRICT: Underpays Casino Employees, Foster Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- RICKY D. FOSTER, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARINA DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC d/b/a BORGATA HOTEL CASINO & SPA, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02474 (D.N.J., March 10, 2026) is a class action seeking unpaid wages and/or overtime against the Defendant. The complaint relates that the Defendant required Plaintiff and all other table games dealers to pool all their tips. For the most part, Defendant would then redistribute those tips to all dealers based on when and how much they worked. The Defendant also principally paid table games dealers like Plaintiff through the tip credit. In other words, Defendant relied on the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law (NJWHL) minimum wage exception that allows an employer to credit some of the tips an employee earns against the minimum wage the employee is owed. The complaint alleges that the Defendant's tip pooling arrangement is unlawful for two reasons. First, Defendant's use of the tip credit is unlawful under New Jersey law because of the way Defendant structures its table games dealers' work. The typical string (or schedule) for a table games dealer is 60 minutes of time dealing followed by a so-called 20-minute "rest" period. All of this time is "on-the-clock" because the dealers remain under Defendant's control for the duration of the rest period. Defendant takes a tip credit for all of this time. Second, Defendant has created a mandatory tip pool for dealers that carries significant administrative costs. One consequence of Defendant's policy is that there is a material cost to counting and redistributing those tips. That cost is a product of Defendant's decision and should be borne by Defendant. Instead, Defendant has retained dealer tips to defray its own expenses by requiring the dealers to work off-the-clock and pay them tips from the pool for performing the administrative function of counting tips. This voids the tip pool and the tip credit under both the NJWHL and the FLSA, says the complaint. Plaintiff Ricky D. Foster, Jr. previously worked for Defendant as a dual rate supervisor from 2003 through 2019. This is a dual jobs role where Plaintiff worked part of the time as a dealer (a sub-minimum wage, tipped role) and part of the time as a dual rate supervisor (a non-tipped, managerial and supervisory role). He returned to employment with Defendant in April 2023 when he was hired again as a dual rate supervisor, in which role he continues to work. In terms of his work as a dealer, he is paid a base rate of $8.32 per hour plus tips, which Defendant requires him to pool with his fellow dealers. His dealer pay rate is below the minimum wage under New Jersey law. Defendant Marina District Development Company, LLC d/b/a Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa operates as a casino located in Atlantic City, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC Twining Office Center, Suite 211 715 Twining Road Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: 215-884-2491 Facsimile: 215-884-2492 E-mail: asantillo@winebrakelaw.com mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com - and - George A. Hanson, Esq. Alexander T. Ricke, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com ricke@stuevesiegel.com - and - Ryan L. McClelland, Esq. McCLELLAND LAW FIRM, P.C. The Flagship Building 200 Westwoods Drive Liberty, MO 64068-1170 Telephone: (816) 781-0002 Facsimile: (816) 781-1984 E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com MEMORIAL HEART: Court Grants Prelim OK of $3.75MM Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Stephen Cahill, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Memorial Heart Institute, LLC d/b/a The Chattanooga Heart Institute, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00179-CLC-CHS (E.D. Tenn.), Judge Curtis L. Collier of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Chattanooga granted Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the Rule 23 class action settlement agreement. This action arises from a data breach occurring between March 8, 2023, and March 16, 2023. Defendant discovered the breach on approximately April 17, 2023, and sent notice to approximately 460,000 individuals whose private information was accessed or potentially accessed. Of those, a subset of 287,000 individuals also potentially had their Social Security numbers compromised. Karakurt, a financially motivated cybercrime group that steals data and demands payments by threatening disclosure of personal information, claimed responsibility for the breach. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint on November 2, 2023, alleging that Defendant maintained private information in a reckless manner, failed to take preventative measures to safeguard patient private information, and failed to provide timely and adequate notice. The parties reached a class-wide settlement following a full-day virtual mediation on September 9, 2025. The settlement creates two classes: the Total Class of approximately 460,000 members and the SSN Class, a subset whose Social Security numbers were potentially compromised. Defendant agrees to pay $2,000,000 into the non-reversionary SSN Class Fund and up to $1,750,000 into the Total Class Fund. Total Class members may claim up to $5,500 for documented losses plus two years of medical monitoring. SSN Class members may also seek a pro rata cash payment. Named Plaintiffs will each receive a service award of $4,500, and combined attorney fees shall not exceed $1,250,000. The Court found that the settlement satisfies Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) requirements, including numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. Chestnut Cambronne PA and Mason LLP are appointed as class counsel. Stephen Cahill, Sheila Edwards, Sidney Jackson, Gisele Reed Allen, Jeff Bryden, and Elyn Painter are conditionally appointed as class representatives. Kroll Settlement Administration LLC is appointed as settlement administrator. A final approval and fairness hearing is scheduled for May 28, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time in Chattanooga, Tennessee. A copy of the Court's Memorandum is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=da1X8r from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Memorial Heart Institute, LLC Represented By Joseph Alan Jackson, II Spears, Moore, Rebman & Williams P.C. 423-757-0404 jaj@smrw.com Plaintiff Sheila Edwards Represented By Ronald Luke Widener Milberg, Coleman, Bryson, Phillips, Grossman 865-247-0080 lwidener@milberg.com Lisa Anne White Mason LLP 202-429-2290 lwhite@masonllp.com Philip J Krzeski Chestnut Cambronne PA 612-767-3613 pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com Bryan L Bleichner Chestnut Cambronne PA 612-339-7300 bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com Tyler James Bean Siri & Glimstad, LLP 646-357-1732 tbean@sirillp.com Gary M Klinger Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC 866-252-0878 gklinger@milberg.com META PLATFORMS: Canady Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy --------------------------------------------------------- PETER CANADY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. META PLATFORMS, INC.; and LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA, INC.; Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-02118 (N.D. Cal., March 11, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for collecting and disclosing Plaintiff's and Class Members' personal data without their informed consent. The complaint relates that the Meta AI Glasses come in a range of models, which all feature a camera to take videos and images, a microphone to capture audio, and an AI-based "assistant" to interact with the user in various ways. Among other things, the AI assistant provides responses to oral questions and prompts, translates languages, and sends messages and phone calls. The Glasses also enable wearers to direct the built-in assistant to take photos, videos, and livestream directly to Meta's social media platforms, Facebook and Instagram. Unbeknownst to users, Meta AI Glasses make and retain audiovisual recordings even if users do not intend to make recordings. Meta then sends such recordings, which can include private and even intimate material from users' lives, to subcontractors -- including a company called Sama based in Nairobi, Kenya -- for analysis by human agents known as "data annotators." The complaint alleges that the Defendants' conduct is a highly offensive invasion of privacy and repudiates prior promises that Defendants made about user privacy and data security. The Defendants' conduct violates the federal Wiretap Act as amended by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986; the California Invasion of Privacy Act; the California Unfair Competition Law; the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act; and New York General Business Law. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks punitive damages because Defendants are guilty of malice, oppression, and/or fraud. Plaintiff Peter Canady purchased a pair of Meta AI Glasses at a Sunglass Hut store, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Luxottica, in Brooklyn, New York. Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc. is a global technology company that provides social media platforms and communication services to users worldwide as well as advertising services to millions of companies. Defendant Luxottica of America, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that controls a significant portion of the eyewear market in the United States through its ownership of brands including Ray-Ban, Oakley, Wayfarer and Sunglass Hut and its operation of major retailers such as LensCrafters, Pearle Vision, and Target Optical.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip M. Black, Esq. Samuel Coffin, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 759-4600 Facsimile: (212) 486-2093 E-mail: pblack@wolfpopper.com scoffin@wolfpopper.com METACOMMERCE INC: Bennett Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ------------------------------------------------------------------- LIVINGSTON BENNETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. METACOMMERCE, INC., D/B/A HAIKU DESIGNS, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02637 (N.D. Ill., March 9, 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://haikudesigns.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate landmarks and heading structure, ambiguous link texts, inaccessible contact information, changing of content without advance warning, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Metacommerce, Inc., doing business as Haiku Designs, is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law MINNOW SWIM: Faces Youngren Suit Over Website's Access Barriers --------------------------------------------------------------- DUSTIN YOUNGREN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MINNOW SWIM LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02624 (N.D. Ill., March 9, 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://shopminnow.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inadequate focus order, changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, 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. Minnow Swim LLC 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 MONDAY.COM LTD: Disseminates False Business Info, Potter Says ------------------------------------------------------------- BEN POTTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONDAY.COM LTD., ROY MANN, EFRAN ZINMAN, ELIRAN GLAZER, and CASEY GEORGE, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01956 (S.D.N.Y., March 10, 2026) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Company common stock between September 17, 2025, to February 6, 2026, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants provided investors with material information concerning Monday's expected revenue target of $1.8 billion for 2027 alongside the growth trajectory for its core business trends. The Defendants' statements included, among other things, confidence in Monday's ability to capitalize on its growth potential through AI product innovation and enterprise expansion. The Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of Monday's revenue expansion outlook; notably decelerating growth, reduced expansion momentum and extended sales cycles, says the suit. The truth began to emerge on November 10, 2025 when Monday issued a press release announcing positive financial results for the third quarter 2025. In pertinent part, the Company reported revenue of $316.9 million, an increase of 26% year-over-year, and above consensus of 24%. Despite this positive news, the Company issued softer guidance for the fourth quarter 2025 due to a shift in its performance marketing strategy. In response to this news, Monday's stock price declined from $189.59 per share to $166.21 per share on November 10, 2025. However, Defendants materially misrepresented and/or concealed the true risks faced with respect to the Company's bold projections regarding enterprise customer growth, its multiproduct and AI-powered platform, and international expansion. Further, on the accompanying earnings call, management continued to reiterate its 2027 revenue target of $1.8 billion. Investors remained in the dark until the truth emerged on February 9, 2026, when Defendants issued a press release reporting positive results for the fourth quarter and fiscal year 2025. Notably in the same release, Defendants announced a weaker outlook for the Company’s 2026 guidance and a strategic shift away from its long term 2027 revenue target of $1.8 billion. Investors and analysts reacted immediately to Monday's revelation. The price of Monday's common stock declined dramatically from a closing market price of $98.00 per share on February 6, 2026, Monday's stock price fell to $77.63 per share on February 9, 2026, a decline of about 21%, notes the complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated investors, to recover losses sustained in connection with Defendants' fraud. MONDAY.COM LTD. is an international company that develops software applications in the United States, Europe, the Middle East, Africa and the United Kingdom.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com MONGODB INC: Bid to Dismiss Baxter Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------- MongoDB, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending January 31, 2026, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2026, that the bid to dismiss the Baxter securities class suit is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On July 9, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Baxter v. MongoDB, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against MongoDB, former CEO Dev Ittycheria, and former COO and CFO Michael Gordon. On Jan. 27, 2025, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit (the Securities Action) filed an Amended Complaint naming former Senior Vice President of Finance and former Interim CFO Srdjan Tanjga as an additional defendant. The operative complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, and alleges that defendants made material misstatements and/or omissions, including regarding MongoDB's sales strategy and its financial results. The complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired MongoDB common stock between June 1, 2023, and May 30, 2024. It seeks unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and other unspecified relief. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 9, 2025. Plaintiffs filed an opposition brief on July 1, 2025, and defendants filed their reply brief on July 29, 2025. The Court has not yet ruled on defendants' motion. MongoDB, Inc. is a leading, modern, general-purpose database platform company offering a developer data platform that enables developers to build, modernize, and deploy applications across a broad range of use cases in the cloud, on-premises, or in hybrid environments. MONGODB INC: S.D.N.Y. Shareholder Derivative Suit Stayed -------------------------------------------------------- MongoDB, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending January 31, 2026, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York stayed the consolidated shareholder derivative suit. On October 7, 2024, a purported shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case. No. 1:24-cv-07594, against the Company, as a nominal defendant, and former CEO Dev Ittycheria, former COO and CFO Michael Gordon, and several of the Company's current and former directors. The case is captioned Roy v. Ittycheria et al. The lawsuit alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties and committed other alleged misconduct in connection with the statements at issue in the Securities Action and by causing the Company to issue allegedly false and misleading statements to investors. Another similar case was subsequently filed in the same district and has been consolidated with the Roy action with the caption In re MongoDB, Inc. Shareholder Litigation (the "S.D.N.Y. Derivative Litigation"). The S.D.N.Y. Derivative Litigation and the Delaware Derivative Action are both at early stages and have both been stayed, pending the outcome of the Court’s decision on the defendants' motion to dismiss the Securities Action. MongoDB, Inc. is a leading, modern, general-purpose database platform company offering a developer data platform that enables developers to build, modernize, and deploy applications across a broad range of use cases in the cloud, on-premises, or in hybrid environments. MONGODB INC: Sansone Derivative Suit Stayed ------------------------------------------- MongoDB, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending January 31, 2026, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2026, that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware stayed the Sansone derivative suit. On September 12, 2025 another purported derivative action was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Case No. 2025-1030, against the Company, as a nominal defendant, and former CEO Dev Ittycheria, former COO and CFO Michael Gordon, and several of the Company's current and former directors. The case is captioned Sansone v. Ittycheria, et al. The lawsuit, like the S.D.N.Y. Derivative Action, alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties and committed other alleged misconduct in connection with the statements at issue in the Securities Action and by causing the Company to issue allegedly false and misleading statements to investors. The S.D.N.Y. Derivative Litigation and the Delaware Derivative Action are both at early stages and have both been stayed, pending the outcome of the Court's decision on the defendants' motion to dismiss the Securities Action. MongoDB, Inc. is a leading, modern, general-purpose database platform company offering a developer data platform that enables developers to build, modernize, and deploy applications across a broad range of use cases in the cloud, on-premises, or in hybrid environments. MONSANTO CO: Poster Sues Over Illness Linked to Glyphosate Exposure ------------------------------------------------------------------- JACK POSTER Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP Defendant, Case No. N26C-03-212 MON (Super. Ct., Del., March 10, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. According to the complaint, Defendants Monsanto Company and Bayer CropScience LP advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware. "Roundup" refers to all formulations of Monsanto's glyphosate-containing Roundup-branded products, including Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak herbicide, etc., or any other formulation of containing the active ingredient glyphosate. Despite the fact that Defendants knew or should have known that Roundup caused, or could cause, unreasonably dangerous side effects, Defendants continued and continues to market, manufacture, distribute, and/or sell Roundup to consumers, including Plaintiff. As a result, Plaintiff suffered from serious and dangerous side effects including, but not limited to, Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), as well as other severe and personal injuries which are permanent and lasting in nature, physical pain and mental anguish, diminished enjoyment of life, and financial expenses for hospitalization and medical care. Further, Plaintiff suffered life-threatening NHL, and severe personal injuries, which are permanent and lasting in nature, physical pain and mental anguish, including diminished enjoyment of life, says the suit. For this reason, Plaintiff asks the Court to enter judgment in his favor for compensatory damages, together with interest, costs herein incurred, attorneys' fees and all relief as the Court deems just and proper. Additionally, Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues. Plaintiff Jack Poster is a resident and citizen of California. Defendant Monsanto Company was in the business of, and did, design, research, manufacture, test, advertise, promote, market, sell, distribute, and/or has acquired and is responsible for the commercial herbicide Roundup. Defendant Bayer CropScience LP, a crop science company, authorized and directed and/or participated in the promotion and sales of the Roundup products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com – and – Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces Ward Suit Over Defective Roundup Herbicide ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARK WARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-157 MON (Del. Super., March 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, strict products liability, breach of implied warranties, and breach of consumer protection, unfair, and/or deceptive trade practices statutes. The case arises from the personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers as a result of their exposure to the Defendants' herbicide Roundup, which contains the active ingredient glyphosate. According to the complaint, Roundup is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff and the Class seek compensatory damages as a result of the actions and inactions of the Defendants. Monsanto Company is an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation with a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Bayer CropScience LP is a manufacturer of crop protection products based in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Harper Balks at Defective Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------- MONTY HARPER, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00353 (E.D. Mo., March 10, 2026) is a class action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Despite Defendants' knowledge that Roundup was associated with an elevated risk of developing cancer, the Defendant's promotional campaigns focused on Roundup's purported "safety profile." The development of Plaintiff's Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma was proximately and actually caused by exposure to Defendant's Roundup products. As a result of the injury, the Plaintiff has incurred significant economic and non-economic damages, says the suit. Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany Webber Carpenter, Esq. CORY WATSON, PC 254 Court Avenue, Suite 511 Memphis, TN 38103 E-mail: tcarpenter@corywatson.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Heinrich Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Sale ------------------------------------------------------------ Marcia Heinrich, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-03-168 MON (Del. Super. Ct., March 9, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Henderson Sues Over Defective Herbicide Roundup ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN HENDERSON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-211 MON (Del. Super., March 10, 2026) is a class action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Despite Defendants' knowledge that Roundup was associated with an elevated risk of developing cancer, the Defendant's promotional campaigns focused on Roundup's purported "safety profile." The development of Plaintiff's Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma was proximately and actually caused by exposure to Defendant's Roundup products. As a result of the injury, the Plaintiff has incurred significant economic and non-economic damages, says the suit. Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Roundup "Defective," Harvey Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- GREGORY HARVEY, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-205 MON (Del. Super., March 10, 2026) is a class action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Despite Defendants' knowledge that Roundup was associated with an elevated risk of developing cancer, the Defendant's promotional campaigns focused on Roundup's purported "safety profile." The development of Plaintiff's Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma was proximately and actually caused by exposure to Defendant's Roundup products. As a result of the injury, the Plaintiff has incurred significant economic and non-economic damages, says the suit. Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Roundup "Defective," Jones Says ----------------------------------------------------------- BARBARA ANN JONES, on behalf of the estate of JAMES DAUGHERTY Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendant, Case No. N26C-03-245 MON (D. Del., March 11, 2026) is a class action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Plaintiff Jones is a natural person and is the Representative of James Daugherty, deceased. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine, as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, James Daugherty developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, says the suit. Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Roundup "Defective," Maternick Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW MATERNICK, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-193 MON (Del. Super., March 10, 2026) is a class action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Despite Defendants' knowledge that Roundup was associated with an elevated risk of developing cancer, the Defendant's promotional campaigns focused on Roundup's purported "safety profile." The development of Plaintiff's Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma was proximately and actually caused by exposure to Defendant's Roundup products. As a result of the injury, the Plaintiff has incurred significant economic and non-economic damages, says the suit. Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Jackson Sues Over Defective Herbicide Roundup --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL JACKSON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-226 MON (Del. Super., March 11, 2026) is a class action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Despite Defendants' knowledge that Roundup was associated with an elevated risk of developing cancer, the Defendant's promotional campaigns focused on Roundup's purported "safety profile." The development of Plaintiff's Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma was proximately and actually caused by exposure to Defendant's Roundup products. As a result of the injury, the Plaintiff has incurred significant economic and non-economic damages, says the suit. Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Kneisley Sues Over Wrongful Distribution ---------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Kneisley, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-03-174 MON (Del. Super. Ct., March 9, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Mascia Sues Over Negligent Advertising & Sale --------------------------------------------------------------- John Mascia on behalf of the estate of Patricia Mascia, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-03-171 MON (Del. Super. Ct., March 9, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff John Mascia is a natural person and is the Representative of Patricia Mascia, deceased, who developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Neal Sues Over Roundup's Impact to Human Health ----------------------------------------------------------------- WALTER NEAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-162 MON (Del. Super., March 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, strict products liability, breach of implied warranties, and breach of consumer protection, unfair, and/or deceptive trade practices statutes. The case arises from the personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers as a result of their exposure to the Defendants' herbicide Roundup, which contains the active ingredient glyphosate. According to the complaint, Roundup is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff and the Class seek compensatory damages as a result of the actions and inactions of the Defendants. Monsanto Company is an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation with a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Bayer CropScience LP is a manufacturer of crop protection products based in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Roundup Herbicide "Defective," Smith Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ REBECCA SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-176 MON (Del. Super., March 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, strict products liability, breach of implied warranties, and breach of consumer protection, unfair, and/or deceptive trade practices statutes. The case arises from the personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers as a result of their exposure to the Defendants' herbicide Roundup, which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine, as well as many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. According to the complaint, Roundup is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff and the Class seek compensatory damages as a result of the actions and inactions of the Defendants. Monsanto Company is an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation with a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Bayer CropScience LP is a manufacturer of crop protection products based in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Salisbury Sues Over Negligent Advertising ----------------------------------------------------------- Rhett Salisbury, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-03-169 MON (Del. Super. Ct., March 9, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Scott Sues Over Wrongful Sale of herbicide ------------------------------------------------------------ Marshall Scott on behalf of the estate of Dixie Taylor, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-03-172 MON (Del. Super. Ct., March 9, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Marshall Scott is a natural person and is the Representative of Dixie Taylor, deceased, who developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Shenefield Sues Over Defective Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARK SHENEFIELD, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-206 MON (Del. Super., March 10, 2026) is a class action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Despite Defendants' knowledge that Roundup was associated with an elevated risk of developing cancer, the Defendant's promotional campaigns focused on Roundup's purported "safety profile." The development of Plaintiff's Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma was proximately and actually caused by exposure to Defendant's Roundup products. As a result of the injury, the Plaintiff has incurred significant economic and non-economic damages, says the suit. Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Shneyer Sues Over Negligent Advertising --------------------------------------------------------- Mark Shneyer, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-03-173 MON (Del. Super. Ct., March 9, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MOUNT FRANKLIN FOODS: Hughes Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Ebony Hughes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MOUNT FRANKLIN FOODS, LLC, Case No. CU26-01231 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Solano, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on March 5, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-at-00411. The Complaint purportedly asserts three causes of action against MFF for violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and the California False Advertising Law ("FAL").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michelle L. Landry, Esq. VEDDER PRICE (CA), LLP 1 Post Street, Suite 2400, San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 749-9500 Facsimile: (415) 749-9502 Email: mlandry@vedder.com NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Beltran Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Martin Beltran, Nicolle Ayers, Patrice Norwood, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC doing business as: Mr Cooper, Case No. 3:25-cv-04412 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 Texas on March 9, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:25-cv-62118-XXXX to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, doing business as Mr Cooper -- https://www.mrcooper.com/ -- is the consumer brand for the mortgage servicing and originations operation.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Vess Allen Miller, Esq. Natalie Ann Lyons, Esq. COHEN AND MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 636-6481 Fax: (317) 636-2593 Email: vmiller@cohenandmalad.com nlyons@cohenandmalad.com - and - Carly M. Roman, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: croman@straussborrelli.com - and - James Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH JENNINGS & GARVEY PLLC 223 Rosa L Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Fax: (615) 250-3937 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Allison Schoenthal, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 Phone: (212) 813-8800 Fax: (212) 355-3333 Email: ASchoenthal@goodwinlaw.com - and - Rebecca Tarneja GOODWIN PROCTER 601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 4100 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 426-2516 Email: rtarneja@goodwinlaw.com - and - William Kyle Tayman GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 1900 N St. NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 346-4000 Fax: (202) 346-4444 Email: KTayman@goodwinlaw.com NEW ADVANCES: Hernandez Files Employment Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against New Advances for People with Disabilities. The case is captioned as Rebecca Hernandez, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. New Advances for People with Disabilities, Case No. 26CUB00663 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., Feb. 19, 2026). The suit is brought over Defendant's alleged employment law violation. The case is assigned to Judge Gregory A. Pulskamp. A case management conference will be held before Judge Pulskamp on August 18, 2026. New Advances for People with Disabilities provides services and programs to adults and children with intellectual/developmental disabilities.[BN] NEW VISION SERVICES: Chambers Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Vision Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Sequioa Chambers, individually, and on behhalf of all others similarly situated v. New Vision Services, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0001482 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Feb. 27, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." New Vision Services, Inc. -- https://newvisionsvcs.com/ -- is a trusted residential care in California for children, adults, and seniors.[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.com NEW YORK: Wins Bid to Dismiss "Charles" ADA Claims -------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as KRYSTAL P. CHARLES, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, Case No. 25-cv-6219 (BMC) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Brian M. Cogan of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and withheld ruling on Plaintiff's state law claims, granting Plaintiff leave to amend. Plaintiff Krystal P. Charles worked at the New York City Department of Correction for twelve years, holding positions including Assistant Deputy Warden and Correction Captain, and received satisfactory or better-than-satisfactory job performance ratings during her employment. In February 2021, she sustained significant injuries to her neck and spinal cord after an inmate threw toilet water in her face and caused her to abruptly wrench her neck. She subsequently requested sick leave, which the Department's Health Management Division approved. The Department thereafter demoted Plaintiff from Assistant Deputy Warden to Captain, and subsequently to Officer. While on sick leave, Plaintiff communicated several requests for reasonable accommodation in an effort to return to active employment, but the Department ignored her requests and failed to engage in the interactive process. On May 26, 2022, the Department proposed Plaintiff's termination for excessive absenteeism, as she had reported sick in excess of 200 days from March 20, 2021, through April 30, 2022. Plaintiff maintained she was out of work on properly approved sick leave. On May 10, 2023, following an administrative hearing, Plaintiff was terminated. The New York City Civil Service Commission affirmed her termination on appeal in July 2025. Plaintiff subsequently filed charges with the New York State Division of Human Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, received a Right to Sue Notice in August 2025, and timely commenced this action. Plaintiff brought claims for disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Disability discrimination claims may be brought under a theory of adverse employment action or of failure to provide reasonable accommodation. To establish a prima facie case, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant is covered by the ADA; the plaintiff suffers from a disability within the meaning of the ADA; the plaintiff was qualified to perform the essential functions of the job, with or without reasonable accommodation; and the plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action because of her disability. The Court found that Plaintiff pleaded the qualification element only in conclusory fashion, failing to identify the essential functions of her job or to explain how any accommodation would have enabled her to perform them. The adverse employment action claim under the ADA was therefore dismissed. To state a failure-to-accommodate claim under the ADA, a plaintiff must plead that she is a person with a disability; an employer covered by the statute had notice of the disability; with reasonable accommodation, she could perform the essential functions of the job; and the employer refused to make such accommodations. The Court found Plaintiff's failure-to-accommodate claim similarly deficient: she did not identify the essential functions of her job or the accommodation she requested, nor did she plausibly allege that any accommodation would have allowed her to perform those essential functions. The Court further noted that an employer's failure to engage in the interactive process does not form the basis of a claim under the ADA unless the plaintiff also establishes that, at least with the aid of some identified accommodation, she was qualified for the position at issue. The failure-to-accommodate claim under the ADA was therefore dismissed. To state a retaliation claim under the ADA, a plaintiff must allege that she engaged in protected activity of which her employer was aware, that the employer took adverse action against her, and that the two were causally linked. Plaintiff alleged that the Department terminated her in retaliation for her requests for reasonable accommodation. The Court found it impossible to assess temporal proximity between Plaintiff's accommodation requests and her termination because she did not specify when those requests were made. With no allegations of retaliatory animus or disparate treatment, the retaliation claim failed for lack of causation and was therefore dismissed. Despite Plaintiff's failure to amend after receiving prior notice of the pleading deficiencies, the Court granted leave to amend. In her amended complaint, Plaintiff must identify, at minimum, the essential functions of her job; the dates on which she requested reasonable accommodations and the nature of those accommodations; and why those accommodations would have allowed her to perform the essential functions of her job. Plaintiff was directed to file an amended complaint within 10 days. The Court withheld judgment on whether it will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law claims until it determines whether Plaintiff's ADA claims will go forward. A copy of the Court's Memorandum decision and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uiZvgo from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Commissioner Lynelle Maginley-Liddie 75-20 Astoria Boulevard South East Elmhurst, NY 11370 Represented By Conner Quinn New York City Law Department 347-530-5922 coquinn@law.nyc.gov Defendant Commissioner Louis A. Molina One Centre Street 17th Floor South New York, NY 10007 Represented By Conner Quinn New York City Law Department 347-530-5922 coquinn@law.nyc.gov Defendant New York City Department of Correction 75-20 Astoria Boulevard South East Elmhurst, NY 11370 Represented By Conner Quinn New York City Law Department 347-530-5922 coquinn@law.nyc.gov Plaintiff Krystal P. Charles Represented By Aaron R. Pam Tully Rinckey, PLLC 914-454-3558 apam@tullylegal.com NOTE SERVICING CENTER: Ghani Suit Removed to W.D. North Carolina ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Usman Ghani and Tahira U. Ghani, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated consumers v. NOTE SERVICING CENTER, INC., NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, and HOUSING GROUP RECOVERY FUND, LP, Case No. 25CV068811-590 was removed from the General Court of Justice Superior Court Division of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina on March 5, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00171. The Plaintiffs assert claims against Mr. Cooper, NSC, and HGR Fund under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the "FDCPA"), and the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA") and Regulation Z in connection with a mortgage loan agreement secured by Plaintiffs' residence and on behalf of similarly situated residential mortgage borrowers. Plaintiffs also assert claims against Mr. Cooper and NSC under the North Carolina Debt Collection Act (the "NCDCA"), and against HGR Fund under the North Carolina Collection Agency Act (the "NCCAA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Elizabeth Zwickert Timmermans, Esq. Peter J. Wright, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 501 Fayetteville Street, Suite 500 Raleigh, NC 27601 Phone: (919) 755-6576 Email: eztimmermans@mcguirewoods.com pwright@mcguirewoods.com NYC 79 LACOYA: Deleg Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------- Manuel Jesus Deleg Deleg, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NYC 79 LACOYA LLC a/k/a NYC 79 LACOYA HOLDINGS LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-01936 (S.D.N.Y., March 9, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), and the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations ("NYCRR"), that he and others similarly situated are entitled to recover from Defendant: unpaid overtime wages, statutory penalties for failure to provide proper wage notices and wage statements, liquidated damages for late payment of wages, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendant required Plaintiff, putative collective members, and putative class members to work scheduled hours exceeding forty hours per week, yet systematically failed to compensate them for all overtime hours worked. Specifically, Defendant required Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to work a regular schedule of forty-nine hours per week but paid them a flat monthly salary with no overtime premium, resulting in nine unpaid overtime hours each week. The Defendant's improper pay practices are designed to, and in fact do, result in a windfall of improperly retained unpaid compensation owed to Plaintiff, putative collective members, and putative class members, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant to work as a cleaner in 2010. The Defendant owns and operates buildings and directly employs cleaners and maintenance workers at each location.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Madeline Howard, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, New York 10022 Phone: (212) 227-5700 Fax: (212) 656-1889 Email: madeline@employeejustice.com OPTIONS FOR LEARNING: Mosavi Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Options For Learning, et al. The case is styled as Zahid Mosavi, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Options For Learning, Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, Case No. 26STCV07366 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 6, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Options for Learning -- https://www.optionsforlearning.org/ -- offers free and low-cost, high-quality child care and early learning services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Power Jean Hopkins, Esq. Roman Shkodnik, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N Brand Blvd., Ste. 840 Glendale, CA 91203-2920 Phone: 818-962-6465 Email: j.power@d.law r.shkodnik@d.law ORGAIN LLC: Ballard Sues Over Mislabeled Protein Bars, Powders -------------------------------------------------------------- DWAYNE BALLARD and TAMMY SMIRIN, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ORGAIN, LLC, and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV03757 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 4, 2026) arises from Defendant's mislabeling and false advertising of certain of its protein bars and powders in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising Law, and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant labels the misbranded products with claims intended to appeal to health conscious consumers. The labeling states that the products provide "clean nutrition," "better nutrition," "good health," "clean," "maximum nutrition," "good clean nutrition," and "higher standards." This misleading labeling is reinforced by non-label advertising, including on Defendant's website, where it sells the misbranded products directly to consumers with statements like, "delicious nutrition on the go," "clean nutrition," "when we say 'good' -- we mean it in every sense of the word!," and "High Quality Ingredients." Contrary to the health-focused marketing, the products actually contain a potentially lethal sugar alcohol called erythritol, which has been found to significantly increase the likelihood of blood clots, stroke, and heart attack. The presence of erythritol makes the misbranded products far from healthy and contrary to the expectations of those consuming them, says the suit. The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated consumers, seek damages, restitution, and injunctive relief to remedy the harm suffered as a result of Defendant's unlawful labeling practices. Orgain, LLC provides nutritional products. The Company produces and markets protein shakes, bars, and powders. Orgain operates in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony J. Orshansky, Esq. Alexandria R. Kachadoorian, Esq. Justin Kachadoorian, Esq. COUNSELONE, P.C. 9301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 650 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 277-9945 Facsimile: (424) 277-3727 E-mail: anthony@counselonegroup.com alexandria@counselonegroup.com justin@counselonegroup.com POSH PEANUT: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Youngren Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- DUSTIN YOUNGREN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POSH PEANUT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02628 (N.D. Ill., March 9, 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://poshpeanut.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order, changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, 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. Posh Peanut, 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 PREMIER ENTERTAINMENT: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Johnson Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ TYRON L. JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PREMIER ENTERTAINMENT AC, LLC d/b/a/ BALLY'S ATLANTIC CITY, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02477 (D.N.J., March 10, 2026) is a class action seeking unpaid wages and/or overtime against the Defendant. The complaint relates that the Defendant required Plaintiff and all other table games dealers to pool all their tips. In other words, dealers could not retain their tips from patrons and instead were required to pool them among all other dealers. For the most part, Defendant would then redistribute those tips to all dealers based on when and how much they worked. The Defendant also principally paid table games dealers like Plaintiff through the tip credit. In other words, Defendant relied on the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law (NJWHL) minimum wage exception that allows an employer to credit some of the tips an employee earns against the minimum wage the employee is owed. The Defendant's tip pooling arrangement is unlawful for two reasons, asserts the complaint. First, Defendant's use of the tip credit is unlawful under New Jersey law because of the way Defendant structures its table games dealers' work. The typical string (or schedule) for a table games dealer is 60 minutes of time dealing followed by a 20-minute rest period. All of this time is "on-the-clock" because the dealers remain under Defendant's control for the duration of the so-called rest period. Defendant takes a tip credit for all of this time. Second, Defendant has created a mandatory tip pool for dealers the carries significant administrative costs. One consequence of Defendant's policy is that there is a material cost to counting and redistributing those tips. That cost is a product of Defendant's decision and should be borne by Defendant. Instead, Defendant has retained dealer tips to defray its own expenses by requiring the dealers to work off-the-clock and pay them tips from the pool for performing the administrative function of counting tips. This voids the tip pool and the tip credit under both the NJWHL and the FLSA. The Defendant's mandatory tip pool was invalid and the use of the tip credit was unlawful, which means Defendant has not paid table games dealers minimum wage (or overtime to the extent they worked over 40 hours in a workweek) under federal and state law, says the complaint. Plaintiff Tyron L. Johnson was hired by Defendant in June 2022 to work as a table games dealer. Between June 2022 and through March 2023, Plaintiff worked as a table games dealer earning a direct cash wage of approximately $5 to $6 per hour plus tips. All of Plaintiff's tips earned as a dealer were required to be pooled with other dealers. Plaintiff's pay rate was below the minimum wage under both federal and New Jersey law, the complaint alleges. Defendant Premier Entertainment AC, LLC d/b/a Bally's Atlantic City operates as a casino located in Atlantic City, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC Twining Office Center, Suite 211 715 Twining Road Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: 215-884-2491 Facsimile: 215-884-2492 E-mail: asantillo@winebrakelaw.com mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com - and - George A. Hanson, Esq. Alexander T. Ricke, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com ricke@stuevesiegel.com - and - Ryan L. McClelland, Esq. McCLELLAND LAW FIRM, P.C. The Flagship Building 200 Westwoods Drive Liberty, MO 64068-1170 Telephone: (816) 781-0002 Facsimile: (816) 781-1984 E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Brownlee Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Procter & Gamble Company. The case is styled as Gayle Brownlee, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Procter & Gamble Company, Case No. 26CV173065 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Feb. 26, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Commercial/Business Tort (Not Fraud/ Breach of Contract)." The Procter & Gamble Company -- https://us.pg.com/ -- is an American multinational consumer goods corporation incorporated and headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James Michael Treglio, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (858) 375-7385 Fax: (888) 422-5191 Email: jimt@potterhandy.com PROMEDEV LLC: Pelaez Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- JUDITH PELAEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Promedev, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-99 (N.D. Ind., March 10, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, https://www.relieffactor.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Pelaez and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, violation of Pelaez's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. On February 19, 2026, while searching online for dietary supplements to improve her sleep quality, Pelaez discovered the Defendant's website, Relieffactor.com. Pelaez became interested in purchasing Z Factor, created to promote relaxed and restful sleep. However, she encountered accessibility barriers that prevented her from completing the purchase independently. Pelaez is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The access barriers denied full and equal access to the website. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Pelaez and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations, and/or opportunities of the Website, says the suit. Pelaez seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Defendant Promedev, LLC provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a specialized range of drug-free, plant-based supplements centered on a signature four-ingredient formula for pain and inflammation, along with targeted solutions for sleep, energy, and heart health.[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 QUALDERM PARTNERS: Fails to Secure Private Info, Zupancich Says --------------------------------------------------------------- KIM ZUPANCICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUALDERM PARTNERS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00291 (M.D. Tenn., March 11, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to keep Plaintiff' and Class Members' Sensitive Private Information secure. The complaint relates that the Defendant has directly and indirectly collected highly sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII") such as names, dates of birth, email addresses, and government-issued identification information and protected health information ("PHI") such as names, medical records, treatment information, diagnosis information, and health insurance information from hundreds of thousands of patients of QualDerm-affiliated practices. By collecting and maintaining Plaintiff and the Class Members' Sensitive Private Information, Defendant was required by law to exercise reasonable care and comply with industry and statutory requirements to protect that information. Indeed, QualDerm recognizes that "medical information is personal" and promise patients that it is "committed to protecting" their information. Despite this promise and its legal obligations to safeguard the Sensitive Private Information entrusted to it, Defendant implemented inadequate data security measures and allowed the information of tens of thousands of patients to be stolen by cybercriminals. Between December 23, 2025, and December 24, 2025, cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's computer systems, accessed and exfiltrated file repositories that contained Plaintiff' and Class Members' Sensitive Private Information. Criminals can use victims' names, birth dates, social security numbers, and addresses to open new financial accounts, rack up fraudulent charges, obtain government benefits and IDs, fabricate identities, file fraudulent tax returns, and commit medical insurance fraud well before the person whose Sensitive Private Information was stolen becomes aware of it. Any one of these instances of identity theft can have devastating consequences for the victim--causing years of damage to their credit scores, financial stability, and personal security, says the suit. Through this lawsuit, Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the injuries it inflicted on Plaintiff and tens of thousands of similarly situated individuals due to its impermissibly inadequate data security measures, and to obtain injunctive relief requiring, among other things, the implementation of security measures sufficient to protect the Sensitive Private Information that remains in Defendant's custody and control. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of themselves and the proposed Class for, among other things, negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, violation of state consumer protection statutes, and declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiff Kim Zupancich is a patient of a QualDerm clinic, whose Sensitive Private Information was collected, stored, and maintained by Defendant in connection with his employment. Defendant QualDerm Partners, LLC is a dermatology management services organization that partners with and supports affiliated dermatology practices by providing administrative, operational, and business services to facilitate the delivery of medical and cosmetic dermatological care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin H. Sharp, Esq. Kasi Wautlet, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP MCKNIGHT LLP 611 Commerce Street, Suite 3100 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 434-7000 Facsimile: (615) 434-7020 E-mail: ksharp@sanfordheisler.com lstcharles@sanfordheisler.com kwautlet@sanfordheisler.com kmcgregor@sanfordheisler.com - and - Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Michael L. Laird, Esq. Madison M. DeMaris, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com michael.laird@zimmreed.com madison.demaris@zimmreed.com QUALDERM PARTNERS: Howell Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- DONNA HOWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUALDERM PARTNERS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00256 (M.D. Tenn., March 5, 2026) arises out of a recent cyberattack and data breach resulting from Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and industry-standard data security practices to protect patients' personal identifying information, including private information. Between December 23, 2025, and December 24, 2025, an unauthorized individual accessed and exfiltrated Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive Private Information. On or about December 23, 2025, the Defendant sent Notice to those affected. However, Defendant did not state why it was unable to prevent the Data Breach or which security feature(s) failed. Additionally, the Defendant did not state 1) how the unauthorized actors gained access 2) how Defendant failed to detect these intrusions, and 3) how Defendant intends to avoid these types of incidents in the future. Headquartered in Brentwood, TN, Qualderm Partners, LLC provides 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 - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 E-mail: 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 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS: Dennis Suit Removed to W.D. North Carolina ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Bernard Dennis and Josephine Dennis, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 25CV068804-590 was removed from the General Court of Justice, Superior Court for Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina on March 6, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00173-MEO-DCK. The Complaint asserts eight claims for relief on behalf of Plaintiffs and putative class members including alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and alleged violations of the Truth In Lending Act ("TILA") and Regulation Z, and against Defendant.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rashad Blossom, Esq. BLOSSOM LAW PLLC 126 N. McDowell St., 2nd Floor Charlotte, NC 28204 Phone: (704) 256-7766 Facsimile: (704) 486-5952 Email: rblossom@blossomlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Nishma Patel, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 1120 S. Tryon Street, Suite 900 Charlotte, North Carolina 28203 Phone 980.215.7797 Fax 980.215.7771 Email: nishma.patel@hklaw.com - and - Alison Ross Ellis, Esq. 200 South 10th Street, Suite 1000 Richmond, Virginia 23219 Phone: 804-799-6707 Email: Alison.Ellis@hlkaw.com REEVE TRUCKING COMPANY: Valentine Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Reeve Trucking Company, Inc. The case is styled as Dakota Valentine, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Reeve Trucking Company, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0001460 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Feb. 27, 2026). The case type is stated "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Reeve Trucking Company, Inc. -- https://reevetrucking.com/ -- provides trucking and transport services. The Company offers flatbed, reefer, vans, heavy haulers, and drop deck trucks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John G. Yslas, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wishire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: 213-255-3937 Email: jyslas@wilshirelawfirm.co REIMAGINED PARKING: Mcginity Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Reimagined Parking, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Sean Mcginity, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Reimagined Parking LLC, d/b/a Imperial Parking (U.S.), LLC, a.k.a Impark; Does 1 Through 100, inclusive Case No. CGC26634173 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Feb. 23, 2026). The case type is stated as "Business Tort." Reimagined Parking -- https://reimaginedparking.com/ -- provides a range of parking technology solutions that improve the customer experience across each parker's journey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER - WHITE PLAINS 50 Main Street, Ste. 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Phone: (914) 874-0710 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com REPUBLIC NATIONAL: Meraz Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Julian A. Meraz, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. REPUBLIC NATIONAL DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, LLC; YOUNG'S MARKET COMPANY, LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV03097 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 March 5, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02353. The Complaint contains one cause of action of Violation of Labor Code ("PAGA"). The Plaintiff seeks PAGA penalties for: Failure to Pay Wages for All Hours Worked at Minimum Wage; Failure to Authorize or Permit Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize or Permit Rest Periods; Failure to Indemnify Employees for Employment-Related Losses/Expenditures; Failure to Timely Pay All Earned Wages During Employment; Failure to Provide Complete and Accurate Wage Statements; Secretly Payment of Lower Wages Than Designated by Statute; Failure to Provide Complete and Accurate Wage Statements; and Failure to Pay Employees All Wages Due at Separation.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Fermin H. Llaguno, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: 949.705.3000 Facsimile: 949.724.1201 Email: fllaguno@littler.com - and – Nathaniel H. Jenkins, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2000 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916.830.7200 Facsimile: 916.561.0828 Email: njenkins@littler.com - and – Cirrus B. Jahangiri, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 101 Second Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415.433.1940 Facsimile: 415.399.8490 Email: cjahangiri@littler.com ROUND 2 LLC: Pelaez Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website ------------------------------------------------------------- JUDITH PELAEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROUND 2, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00094 (N.D. Ind., March 9, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.autoworldstore.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy, inadequate focus order, 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. Round 2, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in Indiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason B. Marshall, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 Email: jmarshall@ealg.law SA RECYCLING LLC: McConnell Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SA Recycling LLC, et al. The case is styled as Shana McConnell, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. SA Recycling LLC, IJC-HRS Staffing Limited Liability Company, Case No. 26STCV07452 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 6, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." SA Recycling -- https://www.sarecycling.com/ -- is recognized as a world leader in the metal recycling and processing industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Barbara Duvan-Clarke, Esq. BLACKSTONE PC 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 310-361-0599 Email: BDC@blackstonepc.com SCREENING ONE: Hearns FCRA Suit Removed to M.D. Fla. ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Cynthia Hearns, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Screening One, Inc., Case No. 26-CA-000783, was removed from the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on Feb. 19, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:26-cv-00463-MSS-CPT to the proceeding. The case is brought over Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The suit is assigned to Judge Mary S. Scriven. Screening One, Inc. provides compliant background checks, verifications, and drug testing solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc Reed Edelman, Esq. Sophia Walker, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN PA 201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 577-4722 Facsimile: (813) 257-0572 E-mail: medelman@forthepeople.com sophia.walker@forthepeople.com The Defendant is represented by: Grayson Moronta, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW 1075 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2500 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 704-9761 E-mail: gmoronta@seyfarth.com SENIOR ADVISOR: Boslow Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Cheyenne Boslow, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. THE SENIOR ADVISOR INSTITUTE INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC a Florida limited liability company, Case No. 1:26-cv-21535-JEM (S.D. Fla., March 9, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), for unpaid overtime wages and related damages. The Defendant maintained a uniform policy and practice of classifying Agents as "independent contractors" and paying them on a commission or per-enrollment basis. Defendant, however, exercised substantial control over Agents' work. Although Defendant labeled Agents as independent contractors, it exercised substantial control over how they performed their work. Defendant set operating hours, required attendance at meetings and trainings, monitored performance, imposed discipline, and restricted Agents from selling through other agencies. Despite classifying Agents as independent contractors, Defendant directed and controlled the manner and means of Agents' work, required Agents to adhere to company hours of operation and meeting/training obligations, monitored performance, imposed disciplinary rules, and restricted Agents from working for competitors or selling through other agencies. The Plaintiff and similarly situated Agents regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff regularly worked approximately 45 hours per week, but Defendant failed to pay overtime compensation at one-and-one-half times the regular rate for hours worked over forty. The Defendant's violations were willful. Defendant knew or showed reckless disregard for whether its pay practices complied with the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as a telephonic Medicare enrollment agent for Defendant from February 24, 2025 through October 15, 2025. The Defendant operates a telephonic insurance sales and enrollment business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael V. Miller, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT-JORDAN RICKARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10th suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Phone: (954) 8710050 Email: Michael@USAEmploymentLauyers.com - and - Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq. EGGNATZ PASCUCCI, PA. 7450 Griffin, Suite 230 Davie, Florida 33314 Phone: (954) 889-3359 Email: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com SERGIO ALBARRAN: Lemus-Cisneros Files Suit in E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sergio Albarran, et al. The case is styled as Genaro Lemus-Cisneros, and those similarly situated, Petitioner v. Sergio Albarran, Kristi Noem, Todd M. Lyons, Pamela J. Bondi, Christopher Chestnut; Respondent, Case No. 1:26-cv-01795-JLT-SKO (E.D. Cal., March 5, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal).[BN] The Petitioner is represented by: Kyle Jordan Howard, Esq. VALLEY IMMIGRATION LAW GROUP, INC. 744 P Street, Suite 130 Fresno, CA 93721 Phone: (559) 256-9800 Fax: (559) 256-9792 Email: vilglaw@yahoo.com SERVBANK SB INC: Ayra Sues Over Unpaid Compensations ---------------------------------------------------- Raquel Ayra, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. SERVBANK, SB INC., an Illinois Corporation, Case No. 1:26-cv-02609 (N.D. Ill., March 9, 2026), is brought for unpaid compensations arising from Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), New York Labor Law, and for common law claims of breach of contract or (in the alternative) unjust enrichment. The Defendant routinely fails to compensate its hourly LMAs for all hours worked. Specifically, Defendant routinely fails to pay LMAs for the time spent loading and logging into essential computer programs at the beginning of their shifts and when returning from lunch. Similarly, Defendant routinely fails to compensate its hourly LMAs for the time spent correcting rejected applications at the end of their shifts, re-submitting the same to underwriting, and reviewing documents that outline loans that required priority review the following day. Defendant also routinely fails to compensate LMAs for the times spent logging out of and shutting down their essential computer and essential programs at the end of their shifts. The Plaintiff seeks to represent in this action all current and former LMAs who are similarly situated to each other in terms of their positions, job duties, pay structure and Defendant's violations of federal and state law. The Defendant knew or should have known how long it takes LMAs to complete their off-the-clock work, and Defendant could have properly compensated Plaintiff and the putative Collective and Class for this work but did not. The Defendant knew or should have known that LMAs, including Plaintiff, worked overtime hours for which they were not compensated. The Defendant knew or should have known how to properly calculate the overtime rate for LMAs in pay periods that a non-discretionary bonus was paid and overtime was worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an LMA from April 1, 2023 to February 19, 2026. The Defendant "is one of the nation's largest bank subservicers."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq. ASH LAW, PLLC 43000 W. 9 Mile Rd. Novi, MI 48375 Phone: (734) 234-5583 Email: cash@nationalwagelaw.com SMURFIT KAPPA: Melendez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Smurfit Kappa North America, et al. The case is styled as Marta Melendez on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Smurfit Kappa North America LLC, Does 1 through 10 inclusive, Case No. 26STCV07184 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 5, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Smurfit Kappa -- https://www.smurfitkappa.com/us -- is a FTSE 100 company and one of the leading providers of paper-based packaging in the world, with operations in over 30 countries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen Victor Feghali, Esq. Kane Moon, Esq. Kaleb Oliver, Esq. MOON LAW GROUP, PC 725 S Figueroa St., Ste. 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5404 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: afeghali@moonlawgroup.com kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com SOCIAL GAMING: Krivatch Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio, Eastern Div. ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as BRENDA KRIVATCH, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOCIAL GAMING LLC, d/b/a Fortune Coins, Defendants, Case No. 25-CV-00742, was erroneously filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division at Cincinnati, and hereby transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division at Columbus, on Feb. 19, 2026. The District Court Clerk reassigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00201-ALM-CMV to the proceeding. The case is assigned to District Judge Algenon L. Marbley. This class action lawsuit is brought by Plaintiff seeking damages, declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief individually on behalf the other Class members, each of whom are Ohio residents who have paid and lost money or other things of value on fortunecoins.com. Social Gaming LLC, d/b/a Fortune Coins, owns and operates a popular, casino-oriented internet gaming website called www.fortunecoins.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alyson Steele Beridon, Esq. HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL, LENISKI AND WALL, PLLC 600 Vine St., Ste 2720 Cincinnatti, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 381-2224 Facsimile: (615) 994-8625 E-mail: alyson@hsglawgroup.com - and - Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq. HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL, LENISKI, AND WALL PLLC 1920 Adelicia Street, Suite 300 Nashville, TN 37212 Telephone: (615) 716-9163 Facsimile: (615) 994-8625 E-mail: ben@hsglawgroup.com - and - W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. James Mitchell "Mitch" Williams, Esq. Dylan T. Martin, Esq. Trenton H. Mann, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 272 Commerce Street Post Office Box 4160 Montgomery, AL 36103-4160 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com mitch.williams@beasleyallen.com dylan.martin@beasleyallen.com trent.mann@beasleyallen.com The Defendant is represented by: Seth A. Schwartz, Esq. 1900 Chemed Center 255 E. 5th Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 977-8565 E-mail: seth.schwartz@dinslaw.com - and - Gavin J. Rooney, Esq. One Lowenstein Drive Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 597-2472 Facsimile: (973) 597-2473 E-mail: grooney@lowenstein.com - and - Haellie Meredith Gordon, Esq. MANLEY BURKE LPA 225 W Court Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 721-5525 E-mail: hgordon@manleyburke.com SPEEDY DELIVERY: Mansilla Employment Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as JOSE BRAULIO ELIAS MANSILLA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPEEDY DELIVERY, LLC, a Washington Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CIVRS2509815, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on March 11, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-01137 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint in the state court action asserted these causes of action: (1) failure to provide meal periods; (2) failure to provide rest breaks; (3) failure to provide recovery periods; (4) failure to pay overtime wages; (5) failure to pay minimum and straight time wages; (6) waiting time penalties; (7) failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements; (8) failure to maintain required records; (9) failure to indemnify business expenses; and (10) unfair and unlawful business practices. Plaintiff also alleges a representative cause of action seeking penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act. Speedy Delivery, LLC is a third party logistics provider of warehousing, distribution and Last Mile delivery.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Marie D. DiSante, Esq. Erin A. Owen, Esq. John S. Keeney, Esq. F LABOR LAW LLP 18300 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 622-1661 E-mail: mdisante@cdflaborlaw.com eowen@cdflaborlaw.com jkeeney@cdflaborlaw.com STITCH FIX: Securities Derivative Suit in California Stayed ----------------------------------------------------------- Stitch Fix, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending January 31, 2026, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Northern District of California stayed a securities derivative suit. On Nov. 12, 2025, a derivative action was filed by certain of the Company's stockholders against certain of its current and former directors and officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, based on similar factual allegations underlying the Securities Class Action, seeking, inter alia, damages, restitution, and disgorgement to be paid to the Company by the individual defendants, governance changes, and attorneys' fees and costs, and this action is currently stayed. The Company further notes that it is involved in various other legal proceedings and may in the future become involved in other private actions, collective actions, investigations, and various other legal proceedings, and that the results of such matters are inherently unpredictable and could, if determined adversely or resolved through settlement, have an adverse effect on its business, financial condition, and operating results. Stitch Fix, Inc. is an online personal styling service that delivers curated selections of apparel and accessories to clients using a combination of data science and human stylists. SUPERHUMAN PLATFORM: Misappropriates Author's Names, Angwin Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JULIA ANGWIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SUPERHUMAN PLATFORM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 26 Civ. 02005 (S.D.N.Y., March 11, 2026) is a class action challenging Grammarly's misappropriation of the names and identities of hundreds of journalists, authors, writers, and editors to earn profits for Grammarly and its owner, Superhuman. The complaint relates that on 2025, Grammarly launched a tool called Expert Review that enabled Grammarly users to receive feedback on their writing from well-known journalists like Ms. Angwin, and even famous authors like Stephen King. For $12 a month, Grammarly users could upload their writing and receive real-time comments on how to improve their prose from Ms. Angwin, Mr. King, and other acclaimed writers. But Grammarly failed to obtain the consent of Ms. Angwin and hundreds of other "experts" before Grammarly launched the product nationwide, sold subscriptions that included Expert Review using those experts' names, and began earning revenue and profits from appropriating the names and identities of Ms. Angwin and others. In fact, Grammarly did not even tell these experts that their names or identities would be used in Expert Review, says the complaint. Grammarly is not only using these experts' names, but is also using their publicly-available work to craft writing advice that these experts did not give. Users are then left with the impression that they received writing advice from Ms. Angwin that she had no knowledge of and may disagree with entirely, adds the complaint. The complaint alleges that Ms. Angwin and other journalists, authors, and editors have been injured by Superhuman's violations of California and New York Law. Superhuman's conduct has caused Ms. Angwin and other journalists, authors, and editors to lose control of the commercial use of their names and identities and the work product that the public associates with them. In addition, Ms. Angwin and other journalists, authors, and editors have suffered economic injury because they were not compensated for the use of their name and identities. Through this action, Ms. Angwin seeks to stop Grammarly and its owner, Superhuman, from trading on her name and those of hundreds of other journalists, authors, editors, and even lawyers, and to stop Grammarly from attributing words to them that they never uttered and advice that they never gave. Plaintiff Julia Angwin is an award-winning journalist and editor. Defendant Superhuman Platform, Inc. is the owner and operator of Grammarly.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Romer-Friedman, Esq. PETER ROMER-FRIEDMAN LAW PLLC 1629 K Street NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 355-6364 E-mail: peter@prf-law.com - and - David Berman, Esq. PETER ROMER-FRIEDMAN LAW PLLC 16 Court Street Fl. 33 Brooklyn, NY 11241 Telephone: 347-229-1514 E-mail: berman@prf-law.com TALKING RAIN: Lopez Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users -------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TALKING RAIN BEVERAGE COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01976 (S.D.N.Y., March 11, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.sparklingice.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law, New York City Human Rights Law, and New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on February 25, 2026, in an attempt to purchase bottles of Sparkling Ice in different flavors from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. He was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Talking Rain Beverage Company, Inc. operates the website that offers sparkling beverages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal THULE INC: Blind Users Face Barriers to Website Access, Pelaez Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDITH PELAEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Thule, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-100 (N.D. Ind., March 10, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, https://www.caselogic.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Pelaez and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Pelaez's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. On February 12, 2026, while searching online for a bag to safely store and carry her laptop and other personal items, Pelaez discovered Caselogic.com, which offers bags and storage solutions designed to keep electronic devices protected and organized. After learning about Case Logic's reputation and global presence, Pelaez became interested in purchasing their products and decided to order the Case Logic Era. However, while browsing, she encountered many accessibility issues. Pelaez is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The access barriers deny her a full and equal access to the website. Accordingly, Pelaez seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Defendant Thule, Inc. provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a comprehensive range of protective storage solutions, including laptop bags, tablet sleeves, and camera cases, complemented by specialized organizers for electronics and professional accessories designed to simplify mobile organization for work, study, and travel.[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 TMCAA INC: Faces Sides Suit Over Illegal Telemarketing Texts ------------------------------------------------------------ JOSEPH SIDES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TMCAA, INC. d/b/a ALLIGATOR ALLEY HARLEY-DAVIDSON, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-60310-AHS (S.D. Fla., Feb. 4, 2026) is a putative class action arising out of Defendant's systematic and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and its implementing regulations and Defendant's concurrent violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. To promote its goods, services, and/or properties, the Defendant allegedly engages in unsolicited text messaging and continues to solicit consumers after they have opted out of Defendant's solicitations. The Defendant also engages in telemarketing without the required policies and procedures, and training of its personnel engaged in telemarketing to ensure regulatory compliance with the TCPA and the FTSA. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the intrusion upon seclusion, invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of Plaintiff and members of the Classes. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Classes, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. TMCAA, Inc., d/b/a Alligator Alley Harley-Davidson, is a Harley-Davidson dealer in Sunrise, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Gold, Esq. GOLD LAW, PA 350 Lincoln Rd., 2nd Floor Miami Beach, FL 33139 Telephone: (305) 900-4653 E-mail: chris@chrisgoldlaw.com - and - Garrett Berg, Esq. GARRETT BERG LAW, P.A. 555 NE 15th St., PH A Miami, FL 33132 E-mail: garrett@gberglegal.com TOO LOST LLC: Guralnick Files Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Too Lost LLC. The case is styled as West Guralnick, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Too Lost LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-01832 (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. Too Lost -- https://toolost.com/ -- is a music and technology company, providing SaaS solutions for independent music creators.[BN] The Plaintiff is 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 TRACY VM INC: Meachem Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tracy VM, Inc. The case is styled as Evan Meachem, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tracy VM, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0001485 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Feb. 27, 2026). The case type is stated "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Tracy VM (often referred to as Tracy Volkswagen Inc.) -- https://www.tracyvw.com/ -- is a car dealership located in Tracy, California, specializing in new and used Volkswagen vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John G. Yslas, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wishire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: 213-255-3937 Email: jyslas@wilshirelawfirm.com TRIP.COM GROUP: De Wilde Sues Over Share Price Drop --------------------------------------------------- MOHAMMED ADAM MIKAEL BIN MUSTAPHA DE WILDE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRIP.COM GROUP LIMITED, JANE JIE SUN, and CINDY XIAOFAN WANG, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01420 (E.D.N.Y., March 11, 2026) is a class action seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On April 29, 2024, and April 11, 2025, the Company filed with the SEC its Annual Reports on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2023 and December 31, 2024, respectively. Attached to the 2023 and 2024 Annual Reports were signed certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 signed by Defendants Sun and Wang attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company's internal controls over financial reporting, and the disclosure of all fraud. The complaint alleges that the statements in the Annual Reports were materially false and misleading at the time it was made because by stating that Trip.com's business "could" be adversely affected by anti-monopoly laws, it materially understated the risk facing Trip.com of regulatory enforcement in China, given its monopolistic business activities, as well as vigorous anti-monopoly enforcement by the Chinese government As a result, Defendants' statements about Trip.com's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On January 14, 2026, Bloomberg published an article entitled "China Starts Antitrust Probe of Trip.com Ahead of Travel Peak." The article stated, among other things, that "China is investigating [Trip.com] over alleged antitrust conduct, taking aim at the country's dominant online travel platform[.]" It further noted that the "State Administration for Market Regulation accused [Trip.com] of abusing its market position and engaging in monopolistic practices." On this news, the price of Trip.com ADSs fell $12.90 per ADS, or 17.05%, to close at $62.78 per ADS on January 14, 2026. The next day, it fell a further $1.48 per ADS, or 2.35%, to close at $61.30 on January 15, 2026. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common shares, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff Mohammed Adam Mikael Bin Mustapha De Wilde purchased Trip.com securities during the Class Period and was economically damaged thereby. Defendant Trip.com Group Limited is a leading global one-stop travel service provider, integrating a comprehensive suite of travel products and services and differentiated travel content. Defendant Jane Jie Sun ("Sun") served as the Company's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"). Defendant Cindy Xiaofan Wang ("Wang") served as the Company's Chief Financial Officer ("CFO").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: philkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com TRIZETTO PROVIDER: Wolf Sues Over Unprotected PII and PHI --------------------------------------------------------- John Wolf, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRIZETTO PROVIDER SOLUTIONS, LLC. AND COGNIZANT TECH SOLUTIONS CORP., Case No. 2:26-cv-02344 (D.N.J., March 6, 2026), is brought against Defendants failure to protect the Plaintiff's personally identifiable information ("PII") and personal health information ("PHI"). The Defendant acquired, collected, and stored Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII 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 PHI/PII. On no later than October 2, 2025, upon information and belief, unauthorized third-party cybercriminals gained access to Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII as hosted with Defendant, with the intent of engaging in the misuse of the PHI/PII, including marketing and selling Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII. The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, the PHI/PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party--an undoubtedly nefarious third party that seeks to profit off this disclosure by defrauding Plaintiff and Class Members in the future, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a victim of the Data Breach. TriZetto Provider Solutions, LLC ("TriZetto") is a healthcare technology company that provides management services to healthcare providers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Phone: (215) 789-4462 Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com - and - Andrew J. Sciolla, Esq. SCIOLLA LAW FIRM LLC Land Title Building 100 S. Broad Street, Suite 1910 Philadelphia, PA 19110 Phone: (267) 328-5245 Fax: (215) 972-1545 Email: andrew@sciollalawfirm.com UNLOCK HEALTH: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, Doe Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN DOE, JANE DOE, and JACK DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNLOCK HEALTH INC., MEDICOM DIGITAL, INC. d/b/a MEDICOM HEALTH INTERACTIVE and MEDICOM HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00289 (M.D. Tenn., March 11, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for surreptitiously divulging their health information to Google via Google's online marketing systems, known as Google Analytics, when patients exchanged communications with their healthcare providers via online Health Risk Assessment forms ("Health Risk Assessments" or "HRAs") provided by Defendants. Defendants did all this without patients' knowledge, authorization, or consent. According to the complaint, the Defendants are some of the largest providers of health information technology and marketing services in the United States, providing online Health Risk Assessments to millions of patients. The Defendants' flagship products are Health Risk Assessments that patients and potential patients are encouraged to fill out online. These Health Risk Assessments include online health evaluation forms for many of the most sensitive and private medical conditions imaginable, including HRAs for anxiety, depression, substance abuse, heart health, strokes, lung cancer, and bladder control. Defendants and their healthcare clients encourage patients to fill out these forms, which require patients to enter detailed medical histories and contact information. Patients who fill out these forms are subsequently contacted by the marketing intake departments at hospitals and healthcare systems, who use the risk assessments to encourage individuals to becoming paying customers at their healthcare facilities. Despite their legal and ethical obligations, and unbeknownst to patients, Defendants deployed various third-party analytics technologies, including Google digital marketing and automatic rerouting tools, on Health Risk Assessment forms that Defendants offered the public. Via these tools, Defendants purposefully and intentionally disclosed patients' Protected Health Information to third parties who exploited the information and used it for advertising. By using these tools, Defendants took patients' confidential communications and Protected Health Information and automatically sent them to Google and other third parties--an express violation of patients' reasonable expectations of privacy, their rights as patients, and their rights under federal and state law. Defendants further encouraged and enabled their healthcare clients to similarly deploy surreptitious tracking technologies on HRAs for the express purpose of illegally sharing patients' Protected Health Information with a variety of tech companies, including Facebook, Tik Tok, Google, and LinkedIn. Defendants did all this knowing it constituted a violation of HIPAA and state law, for the purpose of reaping the illicit financial gains from its criminal and tortious disclosures of patients' PHI, adds the complaint. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered harm and injury, including the invasion of their privacy rights. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek all monetary and non-monetary relief allowed by law, including actual damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff John Doe is a resident of Riverside County, California, who is a long-standing patient of Temecula Valley Hospital. Plaintiff Jane Doe is a resident of Spotsylvania County, Virginia, who is a patient at Inova Health. Plaintiff Jack Doe is a resident of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, who is a long- standing patient at Ochsner Health in Louisiana. Defendant Unlock Health, Inc. is the nation's premier healthcare marketing agency. Defendant Medicom Health Interactive d/b/a Medicom Health and Medicom Digital, Inc. ("Medicom Health") is a subsidiary of Unlock Health. It is a healthcare-focused digital marketing agency specializing in patient acquisition and engagement.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. Michael Tackeff, 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 mtackeff@stranchlaw.com - and - Foster C. Johnson, Esq. Joseph Ahmad, Esq. Mark Holden, Esq. AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, & MENSING, PLLC 1221 McKinney Street, Suite 3460 Houston TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 655-1101 E-mail: fjohnson@azalaw.com ahmad@azalaw.com mholden@azalaw.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, #1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Gorlamari Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Verrica Pharmaceuticals Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Gorlamari class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff Kranthi Gorlamari filed a putative class action complaint captioned Gorlamari v. Verrica Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on June 6, 2022, against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. On January 12, 2023, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging that Defendants violated federal securities laws by, among other things, failing to disclose certain manufacturing deficiencies at the facility where its contract manufacturer produced bulk solution for the YCANTH (VP-102) drug device and that such deficiencies posed a risk to the prospects for regulatory approval of YCANTH (VP-102) for the treatment of molluscum. The amended complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of Plaintiff and all other persons and entities which purchased or otherwise acquired its securities between May 19, 2021 and May 24, 2022. In addition, due to the inherent uncertainties in legal proceedings, the Company cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of any such proceedings. This or any future litigation, regardless of the merits of any such proceeding, could harm its reputation and result in substantial costs and diversion of management's attention and resources, which could adversely impact its business. Although the Company have directors' and officers' liability insurance, it provides for a substantial retention of liability and is subject to limitations and may not cover a significant portion, or any, of the expenses or liabilities it may incur or be subject to in connection with these lawsuits or other litigation to which the Company is a party. The costs it incurs in defending itself or associated with settling such proceedings, as well as a material final judgment or decree against the Company, that are not covered by its directors' and officers' liability insurance could materially adversely affect its financial condition. Verrica Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a dermatology therapeutics company developing medications for skin diseases with significant unmet needs, including treatments based on its YCANTH (VP-102) drug-device combination for molluscum contagiosum and other dermatologic conditions. VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Stockholder Derivative Suit Stayed ----------------------------------------------------------- Verrica Pharmaceuticals Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania stayed a consolidated stockholder derivative suit. On October 21, 2024, May 12, 2025, and June 26, 2025, plaintiffs Ivan S. Cohen, Paul Cannon, and Joseph Bonaccorso, respectively, each filed a putative stockholder derivative lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Each derivative complaint names the Company as a nominal defendant and purports to bring claims on behalf of the Company against certain of its current and former directors and officers for alleged violations of the federal securities laws and breaches of their fiduciary duties in relation to substantially the same factual allegations as the above-described putative class action lawsuit. Each derivative complaint primarily seeks to recover for the Company compensatory damages for losses allegedly sustained related to the facts alleged, restitution, and punitive damages. On December 16, 2024, the Court granted the parties' joint stipulation to stay the Cohen derivative lawsuit. On July 28, 2025, the Court granted the parties' joint stipulation in the Cohen and Cannon derivative lawsuits to consolidate the two actions and stay the consolidated action. On July 24, 2025, the plaintiff in the Bonaccorso derivative lawsuit filed a corrected complaint to clarify that the named plaintiff is not Joseph (Joe) Bonaccorso, the former Chief Commercial Officer of the Company. On July 29, 2025, the plaintiff in the Bonaccorso derivative lawsuit filed a notice voluntarily dismissing the action without prejudice. In addition, due to the inherent uncertainties in legal proceedings, the Company cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of any such proceedings. This or any future litigation, regardless of the merits of any such proceeding, could harm its reputation and result in substantial costs and diversion of management's attention and resources, which could adversely impact its business. Although the Company have directors' and officers' liability insurance, it provides for a substantial retention of liability and is subject to limitations and may not cover a significant portion, or any, of the expenses or liabilities it may incur or be subject to in connection with these lawsuits or other litigation to which the Company is a party. The costs it incurs in defending itself or associated with settling such proceedings, as well as a material final judgment or decree against the Company, that are not covered by its directors' and officers' liability insurance could materially adversely affect its financial condition. In addition, additional lawsuits may be filed, the conclusion of which in a manner adverse to the Company and for which it incur substantial costs or damages not covered by its directors' and officers' liability insurance could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and business. Verrica Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a dermatology therapeutics company developing medications for skin diseases with significant unmet needs, including treatments based on its YCANTH (VP-102) drug-device combination for molluscum contagiosum and other dermatologic conditions. VETNIQUE LABS: Mueller Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- TARA NICOLE MUELLER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VETNIQUE LABS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-470 (S.D. Ind., March 10, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, https://vetnique.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Mueller and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Mueller's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff TARA NICOLE MUELLER is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. On February 4, 2026, while searching online for pet health supplements and wellness products, she discovered Defendant's Website, Vetnique.com, which specializes in veterinarian-formulated pet supplements designed to support joint health, digestive health, and overall pet wellness. Encouraged by positive reviews, she decided to visit the Website to explore its offerings and make a purchase. However, when she began navigating the Website using the keyboard, Mueller encountered accessibility barriers. The Website contains access barriers that deny full and equal access to Mueller. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Mueller and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations, and/or opportunities of the Website, asserts the complaint. Mueller seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Defendant VETNIQUE LABS LLC provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a variety of pet health products across categories like digestive, hip and joint care, ear care, skin and allergy care, and dental care available in formats such as chews, powders, wipes, sprays, and drops.[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 VIOME LIFE: Dalton Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Viome Life Sciences, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-01826-LMP-EMB (D. Minn., March 11, 2026) arises because Defendant's Website (www.viome.com) 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 and its implementing regulations. The complaint relates that as a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, 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. The Plaintiff alleges that she was injured when she attempted to access Defendant's Website from Minnesota but encountered barriers that denied her full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota, damages, and a damage multiplier pursuant to Minnesota Statue. Plaintiff Julie Dalton is legally blind and has been a resident of Minnesota. Defendant Viome Life Sciences, Inc. is a Washington Company that offers personalized health tests and supplements for sale including, but not limited to, full body intelligence tests, gut intelligence tests, oral health intelligence tests, precision supplements, biotic toothpaste, oral lozenges, probiotics, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com WEBER GRILL: Wood Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------ Michael Wood, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Weber Grill Restaurants, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-02509 (N.D. Ill., March 6, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://webergrillrestaurant.com/ (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website") to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Wood and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the Website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant controls and operates the Website which is an online platform that provides American charcoal-grilled cuisine experience offered by Defendant in connection with its physical locations.[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 Email: chan@ealg.law WELLSPAN HEALTH: Kline Files FLSA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against WellSpan Health. The case is styled as Cameron Kline, individually and for others similarly situated v. WellSpan Health, Case No. 1:26-cv-00508-JFS (M.D. Pa., Feb. 27, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. WellSpan Health -- https://www.wellspan.org/ -- is an American integrated health system located in South-Central Pennsylvania and parts of northern Maryland.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Edmund Charles Celiesius, Esq. Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Richard J. Burch, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 352-1100 Fax: (713) 352-3300 Email: adunlap@mybackwages.com eceliesius@mybackwages.com mjosephson@mybackwages.com rburch@brucknerburch.com The Defendant is represented by: Caleb P. Setlock, Esq. David J. Freedman, Esq. Jill S. Welch, Esq. BARLEY SNYDER LLC 126 E King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 Phone: (717) 399-1567 Email: csetlock@barley.com dfreedman@barley.com jwelch@barley.com WEST TEXAS HEALTH: Lawver Files Suit in Tex. Dist. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against West Texas Health, PLLC, et al. The case is styled as Monica Lawver, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. West Texas Health, PLLC, Privia Medical Group West Texas, PLLC, Case No. 29707-B (Tex. Dist. Ct., Taylor Cty., Feb. 27, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Injury or Damage." West Texas Health -- https://www.westtexashealth.com/ -- operates from various locations within Abilene and the surrounding areas, making quality healthcare services available to the entire family.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma, OK 73120 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Fax: (405) 239-2112 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Pou Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------ PATRICIA POU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC DBA POTTERY BARN, Defendant, Case No. 242163420 (Fla. Cir., 11th Judicial, Miami-Dade Cty., Feb. 19, 2026) is a putative class action against the Defendant brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. To promote its goods, services, and/or properties, the Defendant allegedly engages in unsolicited text messaging and continues to text message consumers after they have opted out of Defendant's solicitations. Defendant also engages in telemarketing without the required policies and procedures, and training of its personnel engaged in telemarketing. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the intrusion upon seclusion, invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of Plaintiff and members of the Class. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Williams Sonoma, Inc d/b/a Pottery Barn, offers a range of products, such as French cookware, home furnishings, and other home-related items.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rena A. Lerner, Esq. Mitchell D. Hansen, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (813) 340-8838 E-mail: rena@jibraellaw.com mitchell@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com WIRX PHARMACY: Ortega Sues Over Failure to Exercise Care with PHI ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Mungia Ortega, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WIRX PHARMACY, Case No. 2:26-cv-01423 (E.D. Pa., March 5, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to exercise reasonable care in securing and safeguarding individual's sensitive personal data and protected health information ("PHI")--including, but not limited to: clinical information (diagnosis/conditions, medications, and other treatment information), demographic information (Social Security number, address, date of birth, and other identifiers), and claims information (collectively known as "Private Information"). On December 7, 2025, WIRX noted suspicious activity in its network environment. WIRX conducted a subsequent investigation into this suspicious activity that uncovered a cybercriminal had accessed files containing the Private Information of its patients (the "Data Breach") from December 6, 2025 to December 7, 2025. Thus, the Private Information of innumerable patients was compromised. Although WIRX discovered the cyberattack on or around December 7, 2025, it did not notify affected parties until February 12, 2026: more than two months after it discovered the Data Breach. The Defendant's security failures enabled the hackers to steal the Private Information of Plaintiff and Members of the Class (defined below). These failures put Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information and interests at serious, immediate, and ongoing risk and, additionally, caused costs and expenses to Plaintiff and Class Members associated with delayed healthcare treatment, time spent and the loss of productivity from taking time to address and attempt to ameliorate, mitigate and deal with the actual and future consequences of the Data Breach, including, as appropriate, reviewing records for fraudulent charges and healthcare services billed for but not received, cancelling and reissuing payment cards, purchasing credit monitoring and identity theft protection services, imposition of withdrawal and purchase limits on compromised accounts, initiating and monitoring credit freezes, and the stress, nuisance and annoyance of dealing with all issues resulting from the Data Breach. The Data Breach was caused and enabled by Defendant's violation of its obligations to abide by best practices and industry standards concerning the security of patients records and Private information. Defendant failed to comply with security standards and allowed its customers' Private Information to be compromised by cutting corners on security measures that could have prevented or mitigated the Data Breach that occurred. Accordingly, Plaintiff asserts claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment/quasi-contract, breach of confidence, and breach of fiduciary duty, says the complaint. The Plaintiff's Private Information was provided to WIRX in furtherance of her workers' compensation claim and specifically, for receipt of perspective pharmaceutical services. WIRX Pharmacy is a Pennsylvania corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Abramowicz, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC 6901 Lynn Way, Suite 503 Pittsburgh, PA 15208 Phone: (412) 223-5740 Email: kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com - and – Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Saran Q. Edwards, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street NE Ste 302 Washington, DC 20002 Phone: (202) 470-3520 Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com jrathod@classlawdc.com sedwards@classlawdc.com WM TECHNOLOGY: Court Extends Stay of Shareholder Derivative Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- WM Technology, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending Dec. 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Central District of California extended the stay of the consolidated shareholder derivative suit until April 10, 2026. On November 8, 2024, a shareholder derivative action, captioned DeGennaro v. Francis, et. al, Case No. 8:24-cv-02454, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against certain members of its board of directors and certain former and current officers. The derivative complaint alleges that the individual defendants authorized or permitted materially false statements and/or material omissions of fact relating to historical public reporting of MAUs. On November 18, 2024, a shareholder derivative action, captioned Pearson v. Francis, et al., Case No. 8:24-cv-02525 (the Pearson Action), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against certain former and current members of the Company's board of directors and certain former and current officers. The derivative complaint alleges, among other things, that the individual defendants authorized or permitted materially false statements and/or material omissions of fact relating to historical public reporting of MAUs and corporate governance matters. The derivative complaint asserts claims for violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, as well as claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act, and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of the Company, restitution, corporate governance reforms, declaratory relief, and an award of costs and expenses to the derivative plaintiff, including attorneys' fees. On Dec. 10, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued an order consolidating the DeGennaro Action and the Pearson Action (the Consolidated Derivative Action). On Oct. 3, 2025, the court granted the parties' joint stipulation to stay the Consolidated Derivative Action until resolution of the motions to dismiss the Securities Class Action. On Feb. 17, 2026, in light of the notice of settlement in the Securities Class Action and the denial of the motions to dismiss as moot, the court ordered the parties to show cause regarding the continued stay of the Consolidated Derivative Action, and on Feb. 25, 2026, the court extended the stay to April 10, 2026 to provide the parties additional time to discuss a potential resolution to the Consolidated Derivative Action, pursuant to a court-entered stipulation by the parties. As of Dec. 31, 2025, the Company’s legal and advisory fees included costs related to, among other things, ongoing litigation related to shareholder class action and derivative actions, and as of Dec. 31, 2024, included legal and advisory fees related to the SEC enforcement matter and SEC settlement. WM Technology, Inc. operates Weedmaps, an online marketplace and technology platform for cannabis consumers and businesses, providing listings, advertising, software, and data solutions to licensed cannabis retailers and brands. WM TECHNOLOGY: Hearing on Initial OK of Settlement Set for April 13 ------------------------------------------------------------------- WM Technology, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending Dec. 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Central District of California has set the preliminary approval hearing for the Seret shareholder class suit settlement on April 13, 2026. On Oct. 17, 2024, a putative shareholder class action complaint, captioned Seret Ishak v. WM Technology, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-08959 (the Securities Class Action), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, naming the Company and certain former and current officers and/or directors of the Company and Silver Spike as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the Company made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact relating to historical public reporting of MAUs in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The putative class action is brought on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between May 25, 2021, and Sept. 24, 2024, inclusive, and seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. On May 12, 2025, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint. On July 11, 2025, the defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs amended class action complaint. On Feb. 12, 2026, the parties filed a notice of settlement stating that they had reached an agreement in principle to fully settle all pending claims in the action and requesting the court to not rule on the pending motions to dismiss as they were now moot. On Feb. 13, 2026, the court denied as moot the motions to dismiss and ordered lead plaintiff to file a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement by April 13, 2026. The settlement remains subject to approval by the court and certain other conditions and contingencies out of the Companys control, and there can be no guarantee that all of these conditions and contingencies will occur. Should a material condition or contingency to the settlement fail to occur, one or both of the parties to the settlement may exercise their right to terminate the settlement agreement. The Company recorded an accrued liability of $2.8 million related to this preliminary settlement agreement, representing management's reasonable estimate of its settlement obligation, which is included in accounts payable and accrued expenses as of Dec. 31, 2025 in the consolidated balance sheets, with the corresponding expense recognized for the year ended Dec. 31, 2025 in general and administrative expense in the consolidated statement of operations. WM Technology, Inc. operates Weedmaps, an online marketplace and technology platform for cannabis consumers and businesses, providing listings, advertising, software, and data solutions to licensed cannabis retailers and brands. WORTH CLARK INC: Flesher Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Worth Clark, Inc. The case is styled as Alizah Flesher, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Worth Clark, Inc. doing business as: Greater Austin Home Areas, Case No. 3:26-cv-01438-DMS-DEB (S.D. Cal., March 6, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Worth Clark, Inc. -- https://worthclark.com/ -- are a true full-service real estate brokerage, offering innovative, value-driven solutions that empower our Realtors to deliver outstanding service.[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 WYNN RESORTS: Poffenberger Sues Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------ Brian Poffenberger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WYNN RESORTS LIMITED, Case No. 2:26-cv-00621 (D. Nev., March 5, 2026), is brought against the Defendant as a result of failure to properly use up-to-date security practices to prevent the Data Breach. On February 19, 2026, Wynn Resorts discovered it had lost control over its computer network and the highly sensitive personal information stored on its computer network when infamous cyberhacker, ShinyHunters, announced that it had successfully perpetrated a data breach of Defendant's systems ("Data Breach"). Upon information and belief, the Data Breach has impacted thousands of current and former employees. Following an internal investigation, Defendant learned cybercriminals had gained unauthorized access to employees' personally identifiable information ("PII"). Cybercriminals were able to breach 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 PII of Plaintiff, and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII--rendering it an easy target for cybercriminals. The Defendant's continue to obfuscate the nature of the breach and the threat it posted--refusing to tell its employees how many people were impacted, how the breach happened, when the breach actually occurred, or why Defendant continues to delay notifying victims that cybercriminals had gained access to their highly private information. 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. 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 misuse. In failing to adequately protect its employees' information, adequately notify them about the breach, and obfuscating the nature of the breach, Defendant violated state law and harmed an unknown number of its current and former employees, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an employee and Data Breach victim. Wynn Resorts, an "award winning" resort that employs almost 30, 000 employees, boasts that it "is recognized globally for offering high end guest experiences that are simply unmatched."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan R. Ring, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 3100 W. Charleston Boulevard, Suite 208 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Phone: (725) 235-9750 Email: lasvegas@stranchlaw.com YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN: Cameron Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Young Men's Christian Association of Metropolitan Los Angeles, et al. The case is styled as Orchid Cameron, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Young Men's Christian Association of Metropolitan Los Angeles, YMCA Metro LA LLC, Case No. 26STCV06557 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 27, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Young Men's Christian Association of Metropolitan Los Angeles -- https://www.ymcala.org/ -- is a non-profit organization in Los Angeles, California Community-focused nonprofit established in 1844 with recreational programs & services for all ages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1450 Los Angeles, California 90071 Phone: (213) 985-1150 Fax: (213) 985-2155 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com YOUNG'S MARKET COMPANY: Gomez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Young's Market Company, LLC. The case is styled as Santiago Gomez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Young's Market Company, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0001362 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Feb. 25, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Young's Market Company, LLC wholesales and distributes alcoholic beverages.[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 ********* 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 ***