260324.mbx

260324.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, March 24, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 59 Headlines ACCO BRANDS: Bennett Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ACTIVEHOURS INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Golubiewski Due June 4 ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Court Narrows Claims in Sundquist Suit AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Order in Notey Suit Entered AMERICAN AVENUE PROPERTY: Bolcar Files Suit in S.D. New York APEX ADVISING LLC: Brownlee Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ARENAL BUILDING: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property ASHLYNN MARKETING: Bids to Seal in Failure to Warn Suit Denied CALIFORNIA: Appeals Denied Stay Request in Thakkar Suit to 9th Cir. CARDINAL GROUP: Removes Nickum Suit to D. Colo. CBC FRAMING INC: Aguilar Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CENTERWELL CERTIFIED: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Harn Says CERNER CORP: Fails to Secure Clients' Personal Info, McGhee Says CERNER CORPORATION: Long Files Suit Over Data Breach CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Partial Bid to Dismiss Grimm Suit Tossed COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Barton Suit Transferred to S.D. New York COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid DAUPHIN COUNTY, PA: Little Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid DELTA AIR: $2.26MM Attorney's Fees Awarded to Class Counsel DELTA AIR: Class & PAGA Settlement in Toledo Suit Gets Final OK DR. FISHER'S MEDICAL: Alston Files Suit in Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas DUB BROTHERS: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Gavidia Suit Says EASTWOOD CONSTRUCTION: Adams Mill Suit Removed to D. South Carolina EASTWOOD CONSTRUCTION: Herber Suit Removed to D. South Carolina EISNER ADVISORY: Fallen Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota EISNER ADVISORY: Ouellette Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota EISNER ADVISORY: Watzka Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota ELITE AC AND HEATING: Murphy Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona ENOVIX CORPORATION: Parties Seek In-Person Argument for Hearing EOS ENERGY: Yung Sues Over Securities Exchange Act Violation EVERGREEN ALLIANCE: Conant Suit Removed to N.D. California FCA US: Regueiro Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Tossed FLORIDA: Initial Case Order Entered in Whelan Class Action G T GOOD: Faces Gaspar Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. GEICO: Class Cert. Discovery in Cude Closes May 18 GROW CARE INC: Doe Suit Transferred to S.D. New York HANESBRANDS INC: Ross Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Settlement in Bhangal Suit Wins Initial Nod HEALTH CARE: Must Oppose Rutherford Class Cert Bid by May 1 HEALTH CARE: Rutherford Seeks to Withdraw Renewed Class Cert Bid HP INC: Website Uses Tracking Tools, Ianozi Alleges INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Sued Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty JOEST LLC: Parties Seek to Stay Deadline of Class Cert Opposition KALSHI INC: Jennings Suit Transferred to S.D. New York KC INSTALLATION: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Octave Says LOS ANGELES, CA: Initial OK of Settlement in Bradshaw Sought LOWE'S HOME: Court Narrows Claims in Garner Suit MARKETSOURCE INC: Brum Renewed Bid for Class Cert Tossed MARYLAND: Court Narrows Claims in Foster Children Suit META PLATFORMS: Burman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. META PLATFORMS: Tejada Files Suit in N.D. California MICHAELS STORES: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid to 9th Circuit MIDLAND CREDIT: Beena Files FDCPA Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. MILLENNIUM DENTAL: Class Cert Bid in Fakhrzadeh Due Sept. 9 MINDVALLEY INC: Hamilton Sues Over Auto Renewal of Subscriptions MISSION BBQ: Parties Must Comply with M.D. Fla's Local Rules MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Lawson Suit Removed to E.D. Washington MONSANTO COMPANY: Elam Files Suit in N.J. Super. Ct. MONSANTO COMPANY: Estep Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide MONSANTO COMPANY: Gordon Sues Over Defective Roundup Herbicide MONSANTO COMPANY: Maynard Sues Over Defective Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Money Sues Over Roundup's Impact to Human Health MONSANTO COMPANY: Nesbitt Files Suit in N.J. Super. Ct. MONSANTO COMPANY: Reitz Sues Over Defective Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Roundup Herbicide "Defective," Monk Suit Claims MUNSON HEALTHCARE: Gerhart Consumer Suit Removed to W.D. Mich. MUNSON HEALTHCARE: Koegler Class Suit Removed to W.D. Mich. NAKED WHEY INC: Livingston Suit Transferred to E.D. California NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Mullis Appeals Settlements Order to 8th Cir. NAVIENT CORPORATION: Ballard Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. NELSON WORLDWIDE: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Prakash Alleges NO BOUNCE: Scheduling Order Entered in Largent Class Suit PDVSA PETROLEO: Standing Order in Ostrider Class Suit Entered PEPSICO INC: Petretti Suit Transferred to S.D. New York PLEASE FIDI LLC: Estigoy Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PRAGER UNIVERSITY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Chandra Due July 2 PRO COMPRESSION: Evans Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website PRO DISPOSAL USA: Allen Files Suit in D. South Carolina PROCTOR & GAMBLE: Bid to Bifurcate Discovery in Boykin Granted PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Schedule RAINDROPS ENTERPRISES: Lopez Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY: Reiman Sues Over Privacy Breach RICHARD CULLIFER: Class Cert Bid Filing in USA Suit Due April 30 RIVER HEIGHTS: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Kidd Suit Due Nov. 3 ROQ US: Bid for Conditional Cert. in Hanes Suit Due June 30 RYDER SYSTEM INC: Sequeira Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations SARES REGIS GROUP: Canton Files Suit in C.D. California SENTINEL OFFENDER: Duran-Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SIX FLAGS: Court Directs Parties to File Joint Report SIX FLAGS: I.L. Suit Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses SNAP INC: Yee Sues Over Sale of Confidential Personal Information SOUTHERN FINANCIAL: Court Tosses Alexander Suit with Prejudice SPIN MASTER: Class Cert Bid Filing in Gamino Continued to May 19 STERLING INFOSYSTEMS: Miller Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Georgia STITCH FIX: California Derivative Suit Stayed STOP & SHOP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Williams Due August 10 SUN HOSPITALITY INC: Chaidez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SWEEPSTEAKES LIMITED: Court Sends "Hall" to Arbitration TACOS LOS DESVELADOS: Medrano Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TASKRABBIT INC: Linehan Suit Removed to W.D. Washington TEACHERS INSURANCE: Claims as to Absent Class Members Tossed TECHNICAL EDUCATION: Dunagan Suit Removed to N.D. California TEVA PHARMA: Court Partly OKs Motion to Compel in "Burge" TOBIAS READ: Court Grants TRO in "Martin" TOYOTA MOTOR: Seeks to Exclude Expert Opinion in Dong Class Suit TRADE DESK: Medvedevu Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info TRANSFORCE INC: Garcia Suit Removed to C.D. California UNITED STATES: Fell Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses UNITED STATES: Parties Must Provide Joint Status Report UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Ellis Sues Over Telemarketing Robocalls UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS: Jackson Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime VALVE CORP: Matamoros Sues Over Illegal Online Gambling Game VERTEX INC: Fails to Secure Private Info, Penders Says VESTIS UNIFORMS: Bid to Dismiss Cisneros Class Suit Tossed VGW HOLDINGS: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Gaming Suit WAMA UNDERWEAR: Nonato Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website WEST LOS ANGELES: Settlement Deal in Cline Gets Initial Nod WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Settlement Deal in Costa Gets Initial Nod WHITE MEMORIAL MEDICAL: Arias Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WISNER BAUM LLP: Rutledge Files Suit in C.D. California WUNDERKIND CORPORATION: Wine Suit Transferred to S.D. New York [^] Register Now for 2026 Class Action Money & Ethics Conference! ********* ACCO BRANDS: Bennett Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------- LIVINGSTON BENNETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACCO BRANDS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02249 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 27, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.kensington.com/, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Acco Brands Corporation manufactures office products. The Company produces staplers, daily scheduling diaries, shredders, laminating equipment, and presentation boards. [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 Direct: (716) 281-5496 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law ACTIVEHOURS INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Golubiewski Due June 4 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAN GOLUBIEWSKI, and STEVEN CHECCHIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ACTIVEHOURS, INC., d/b/a EARNIN, Case No. 3:22-cv-02078-KM-SAC (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Mehalchick entered an order Motion for Class Certification and June 4, 2026 Expert Reports re Class Certification: Opposition to Motion for Class Aug. 3, 2026 Certification and Defendant's Expert Reports re Class Certification: The Plaintiff's Reply Brief to Class Sept. 2, 2026 Certification and the Plaintiff's supplemental expert reports: The Plaintiff's Expert Reports: Jan. 7, 2027 The Defendant's Expert Reports: Feb. 4, 2027 Activehours designs and develops application software. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KyrLEO at no extra charge.[CC] ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Court Narrows Claims in Sundquist Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY P. SUNDQUIST, JR., v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00719-JLT-HBK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thurston entered an order granting in part and denying in part motion to dismiss or strike. The motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is granted in part. On his current allegations, Sundquist does not have standing to pursue claims against entities other than Allstate itself. The motion is otherwise denied. Sundquist may file an amended complaint within 30 days. Sundquist has stated a claim for breach of contract, i.e., that Allstate denied benefits in violation of the policy's terms. Allstate's arguments for dismissal of Sundquist's bad faith claim are derivative of its arguments for dismissal of his contract claim. Its motion to dismiss both claims is therefore denied. Sundquist has standing to pursue his individual claims and putative class claims against Allstate, but not against the other defendants identified in his complaint. The claims against these other defendants are dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The Court cannot exclude the possibility that more concrete or detailed factual allegations -- or allegations by a different named plaintiff—could permit a potentially viable claim to proceed against other defendants under La Mar or Payton, discussed above. Sundquist may therefore file an amended or supplemental complaint within thirty days. Jeffrey Sundquist, Jr., alleges that Allstate Insurance Company wrongly denied his claim for benefits under an uninsured and underinsured motorist policy. He is pursuing claims for breach of contract and bad faith denial, and he proposes to litigate his claims on behalf of a class of people whose claims Allstate rejected on the same basis. Allstate moves to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, it moves to strike the class allegations, and it moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Court grants the motion in part. Sundquist has standing to pursue claims against Allstate, but his allegations do not show he has standing to pursue claims against entities other than Allstate, whether on his own behalf or on behalf of a class. The Court otherwise denies the pending motions. The case is not so obviously individualized. Sundquist alleges Allstate has a common practice of applying a single offset for all workers' compensation payments, no matter what individual differences might separate one claimant from the next. He alleges this practice violates the California Insurance Code and the terms of Allstate's policy in the same way in every case. The validity of Allstate's allegedly violative practice is a common issue, one that could at least conceivably drive a class action forward. True enough, a variety of individualized disputes might make individual litigation the superior choice. The Plaintiff alleges in this lawsuit that Allstate was wrong to interpret the statute and policy as permitting the larger reduction for the workers' compensation payments, and he alleges the company's evolving explanations—and its ultimate denial—were in bad faith. In addition to these individual claims, he proposes a class action on behalf of people with similar claims: "All persons insured under one or more automobile policies providing for UM/UIM coverage and issued in California by any Defendant, and who filed a UM/UIM claim under that policy, and where either: (1) there was a reduction or denial in benefits and/or settlement proceeds based in whole or in part on amounts paid or payable to another insured of Allstate under a workers' compensation law; or (2) there was a reduction or denial in benefits and/or settlement proceeds based in whole or in part on amounts paid or payable to the insured under a workers' compensation law, and the policy contains language stated that the insurer will not pay for an "element of 'loss'" if the person is entitled to receive payment for the same "element of 'loss'" under a workers' compensation, disability benefits or similar law." Allstate is a major American insurer. A copy of the Court's order dated March 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=00UTGw at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Order in Notey Suit Entered ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISRAEL DAYAN RANDYE NOTEY, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., SETSMART, LLC, Case No. 0:26-cv-60530-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Dimitrouleas entered an order requiring the Plaintiff's counsel to forward to all Defendants, upon receipt of a responsive pleading, a copy of this order. The Court further entered an order as follows: Pretrial discovery in this case shall be conducted in accord with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and Southern District of Florida Local Rule 16.1. Within 35 calendar days of the filing of the first responsive pleading by the last responding defendant, unless this action is excluded under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), the parties shall file a Joint Scheduling Report and Joint Proposed Order pursuant to Local Rule 16.1.B.2.1 In preparing the Joint Scheduling Report and Joint Proposed Order the parties shall adhere to the following deadlines: The parties must confer within fifteen (15) calendar days after the filing of the first responsive pleading by the last responding defendant, to consider the nature and basis of their claims and defenses and the possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the case, to make or arrange for the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1), and to develop a proposed discovery plan that indicates the parties’ view and proposals concerning the matters listed in Rule 26(f). The parties are jointly responsible for submitting a written report of this conference outlining the proposed discovery plan at the time they file their Joint Scheduling Report and Joint Proposed Order. Counsel for the parties shall hold a scheduling conference either at the same time as the discovery conference described in Rule 26(f) or within ten (10) calendar days thereafter. Within seven (7) calendar days of the scheduling conference, counsel shall file a joint scheduling report pursuant to Local Rule 16.1.B. This report shall indicate the proposed month and year for the trial plus the estimated number of trial days required. Should this be a case in which a class is sought, the report shall include a date by which any motions for class certifications shall be filed. D. The Court notes that, pursuant to Local Rule 16.2, parties are required to agree upon a mediator and advise the Clerk's Office of their choice within fourteen (14) days of this Court issuing a Scheduling Order. The parties may submit a single report combining the discovery plan report and the scheduling conference report. However, unilateral submissions are prohibited. Amazon.com is a major American multinational technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YAzzjX at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN AVENUE PROPERTY: Bolcar Files Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Avenue Property Management LLC. The case is styled as Brian Bolcar, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. American Avenue Property Management LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-01914 (S.D.N.Y., March 9, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. American Avenue Property Management LLC -- https://www.americanave.com/ -- provides residents with the nation's best rental experience for affordable single-family homes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, Florida 33305 Phone: 813-340-8838 Email: zane@jibraellaw.com APEX ADVISING LLC: Brownlee Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apex Advising LLC. The case is styled as Gayle Brownlee, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Apex Advising LLC, Case No. 26CV172357 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Feb. 23, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Commercial/Business Tort (Not Fraud/ Breach of Contract)." Apex -- https://www.apex-advising.com/ -- provides hands on management support to small to middle market businesses facing challegning, time critical situations.[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 ARENAL BUILDING: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property -------------------------------------------------------- Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. ARENAL BUILDING ENTERPRISES, LLC and SANTANDER ENTERPRISES INC. D/B/A SEDANOS SUPERMARKET #11, Case No. 1:26-cv-21488-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 5, 2026), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA. Although over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendant has yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who is disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant's property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the commercial property, cafeteria and restaurant business located within the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial plaza and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that is in violation of the ADA at the subject commercial property. The barriers to access at Defendants' commercial property and commercial grocery store has each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial property and supermarket and has endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. SANTANDER ENTERPRISES INC. D/B/A SEDANOS SUPERMARKET #11, owned and operated a commercial supermarket located in Hialeah, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Phone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com ASHLYNN MARKETING: Bids to Seal in Failure to Warn Suit Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned J.J., C.D., C.B., and D.F., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Ashlynn Marketing Group, Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB (S.D. Cal.), Judge Gonzalo Paul Curiel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied without prejudice all three pending motions to seal filed by both parties in a putative class action lawsuit over Defendant's alleged failure to warn consumers of the addictive nature of its kratom-based products. Three motions were before the Court: (1) Plaintiffs' motion to seal exhibits filed in support of their motion for class certification; (2) Defendant's motion to seal its opposition to class certification and supporting exhibits; and (3) Plaintiffs' motion to seal exhibits filed in support of their motion for sanctions. The Court applied the compelling reasons standard to the first two motions, as they related to class certification, and the lesser good cause standard to the third motion, as it related to a non-dispositive sanctions filing. Under both standards, the Court found that neither party met the applicable burden. Defendant's counsel, who submitted declarations in support of all three motions, lacked the required personal knowledge of Defendant's business interests to constitute factual evidence supporting a compelling reason. Additionally, the sealing requests were found to be overbroad, as the parties sought to seal most documents in their entirety rather than through narrowly tailored redactions. Accordingly, the Court denied all three motions without prejudice and ordered the parties to meet and confer and, within 20 days of the March 13, 2026 order, file a single chart identifying by document name, sealed document number, and page and line number the precise information they maintain should remain under seal, accompanied by declarations from persons with the required personal knowledge. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Vgbk3e from PacerMonitor.com CALIFORNIA: Appeals Denied Stay Request in Thakkar Suit to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- NIKITA JULIA KOKHNENKO is taking an appeal from a court order denying her stay request in the lawsuit entitled Ushakant Thakkar, Trustee of the Thakkar Restated Revocable Family, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Nikita Julia Kokhnenko, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-11227-MWF-SK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Civil Rights Act. On Jan. 9, 2026, Defendant Kokhnenko filed an emergency immediate stay of relief, which Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald denied on Feb. 3, 2026. The appellate case is styled as Thakkar v. Kokhnenko, et al., Case No. 26-1376, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 9, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on April 20, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on May 20, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee USHAKANT THAKKAR, Trustee of the Thakkar Restated Revocable Family, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Heidi Marie Wyckoff, Esq. ZELMS ERLICH AND MACK 20920 Warner Center Ln., Suite B Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 368-9002 Defendant-Appellant NIKITA JULIA KOKHNENKO appears pro se. CARDINAL GROUP: Removes Nickum Suit to D. Colo. ----------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of ALEX NICKUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARDINAL GROUP MANAGEMENT & ADVISORY, LLC d/b/a CARDINAL GROUP MANAGEMENT; GLENDALE PROPERTIES I, LLC d/b/a MINT URBAN INFINITY; and GLENDALE PROPERTIES II, LLC d/b/a MINT URBAN INFINITY, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the District Court of the State of Colorado, County of Denver (Case No. 2024CV31109) to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on Feb. 27, 2026. The clerk of court for the District of Colorado assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00812. The case is assigned to Judge S Kato Crews. Cardinal Group Management & Advisory, LLC operates as an real estate investment firm. The Company focuses on real estate investment, construction, development, and management services. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Derek C. Anderson, Esq. Jennifer R. O'Shea, Esq. WINGET, SPADAFORA & SCHWARTZBERG, LLP 2530 Junction Place, Suite 102 Boulder, CO 80301 Telephone: (720) 699-1800 Facsimile: (720) 699-1801 Email: anderson.d@wssllp.com oshea.j@wssllp.com CBC FRAMING INC: Aguilar Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against CBC Framing, Inc. The case is styled as Francisco Perez Aguilar, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CBC Framing, Inc., Case No. 26STCV07615 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., March 9, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." CBC Framing Inc. is a rough wood framing construction contractor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq. BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, PC 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6006 Phone: 310-975-1493 Fax: 310-675-0861 Email: mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com CENTERWELL CERTIFIED: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Harn Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRENDA HARN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENTERWELL CERTIFIED HEALTHCARE CORP. and HUMANA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-174-CHB (W.D. Ky., March 12, 2026) arises from Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI") that was entrusted to them, and their accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The complaint relates that as part of their businesses, Defendants collect and maintain the Private Information of hundreds of thousands, if not hundreds of millions, current and former patients. Plaintiff and Class Members are comprised of current and former patients of Defendants. The Private Information provided by Plaintiff and Class Members includes, but is not limited to names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, health insurance information, and medical information. Defendants lost control over that data when the cybercriminals infiltrated and Defendants insufficiently protected computer systems in the Data Breach, resulting in cybercriminals having unfettered access and, upon information and belief, the exfiltration of Plaintiff and Class Members' Private Information. Despite learning of the Data Breach on March 6, 2026, Defendant CenterWell still has not provided Plaintiff and Class Members notice on their website to inform the victims of the Data Breach. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members, suffered concrete injuries in fact including, but not limited to: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) theft of their Private Information; (iii) lost or diminished value of Private Information; (iv) lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (v) loss of benefit of the bargain; (vi) lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (vii) statutory damages; (viii) nominal damages; and (ix) the continued and certainly increased risk to their Private Information, says the suit. Through this Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of herself, and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed during the Data Breach. Plaintiff Brenda Harn is a resident and citizen of Seminole County, Florida. Defendant CenterWell Certified Healthcare Corp. d/b/a CenterWell operated by Humana, provides a range of healthcare services for seniors, including primary care, pharmacy services and prescriptions, and home health services in over 30 U.S. states. Defendant Humana, Inc. is an American for-profit healthcare insurance company based in Louisville, Kentucky.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew E. Mize, Esq. J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. Miles McDowell, Esq. STRANCH JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: amize@stranchlaw.com gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com mmcdowell@stranchlaw.com CERNER CORP: Fails to Secure Clients' Personal Info, McGhee Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- NAOMI MCGHEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CERNER CORPORATION D/B/A ORACLE HEALTH, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF NORTH KANSAS CITY HOSPITAL, and MERITAS HEALTH CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-00192-JAM (W.D. Mo., March 10, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of confidence, breach of fiduciary duty, invasion of privacy, declaratory judgment, and violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within Oracle Health/Cerner systems following a data breach as early as January 22, 2025. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Cerner Corporation, doing business as Oracle Health Inc., is an electronic health records (EHR) company, with its principal place of business in Kansas City, Missouri. Board of Trustees of North Kansas City Hospital is the governing body of North Kansas City Hospital in Missouri. Meritas Health Corporation is a subsidiary of North Kansas City Hospital, with its principal place of business in North Kansas City, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman E. Siegel, Esq. Barrett J. Vahle, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64113 Telephone: (816) 714-7112 Email: siegel@stuevesiegel.com vahle@stuevesiegel.com - and - Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL, LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Suite #300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 Email: thudson@wcllp.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 Email: ltoops@cohenmalad.com athomas@cohenmalad.com - and - Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY LLP 1809 7th Ave., Ste. 1610 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 802-1272 Email: tloeser@cpmlegal.com CERNER CORPORATION: Long Files Suit Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDER LONG and JESSICA UPTHEGROVE, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CERNER CORPORATION D/B/A ORACLE HEALTH and JUPITER MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-00205-BCW (W.D. Mo., March 12, 2026) arises from the Defendants' failure to protect highly sensitive data. The complaint relates that Oracle Health should have industry-leading data security systems in place. Oracle Health acknowledges that it "has been trusted with some of the world's most sensitive and regulated data" and understands that it has a legal duty to safeguard that data from unauthorized access and disclosure. But Oracle Health failed to meet its duty, leading to a massive data breach in January 2025 that compromised the extremely sensitive financial and medical information entrusted to it by patients and their healthcare providers (the "Data Breach"). In a letter dated January 14, 2026, Jupiter notified Plaintiffs that "Jupiter Medical Center recently learned that an unauthorized third party gained access to and obtained data that was maintained by an electronic medical record (EHR) vendor, Cerner. The vendor has determined through an investigation that at least as early as January 22, 2025, an unauthorized third party gained access to personal health information on legacy Cerner systems." As a direct and proximate result of the Data Breach that Defendants caused and allowed to occur, Plaintiff has suffered, and imminently will suffer, injuries-in-fact and damages. The Plaintiff was also recently locked out of banking accounts due to fraudulent activity flagged by his bank. Moreover, Plaintiff has experienced a significant increase in spam texts and phone calls using his Private Information that he has received since the Data Breach. He receives 20-25 spam calls a day, filling his voicemail box every 24 hours. This is approximately ten times the rate of spam calls he received before the Data Breach, notes the complaint. In addition, as a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff also suffered diminution in the value of his Private Information, a form of intangible property that he entrusted to Defendants for the sole purpose of obtaining medical services. Plaintiffs Alexander Long and Jessica Upthegrove were patients who received care from Jupiter before the Data Breach. Defendant Oracle Health, formerly Cerner Corporation, is the second-largest electronic health record ("EHR") vendor in the United States, holding about 22% of the U.S. EHR industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman E. Siegel, Esq. Barrett J. Vahle, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64113 Telephone: (816) 714-7112 E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com vahle@stuevesiegel.com - and - Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL, LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Suite #300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: thudson@wcllp.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com athomas@cohenmalad.com - and - Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY LLP 1809 7th Ave., Ste. 1610 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 802-1272 E-mail: tloeser@cpmlegal.com CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Partial Bid to Dismiss Grimm Suit Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIELLE GRIMM, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00603-AMN-PJE (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Nardacci entered an order denying the Defendant's partial motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff provides factual allegations about the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective Plaintiffs, namely that they are or were employed by Charter in a salaried position as a call center supervisor, call center facilitator, call center representative, or a substantially similar position, worked overtime on or after May 13, 2022, and were subject to the same policy that prohibits the reporting of all hours worked, including overtime, on timesheets. Thus, Plaintiff defines the group of Charter employees at issue, identifies the time period during which Charter allegedly withheld overtime wages, and provides Defendant with notice regarding the common decision, policy, or plan that allegedly subjected Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs to an FLSA overtime violation. Accordingly, while Defendant may contest the certification of a collective action once Plaintiff files a motion for certification, Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient at the pleading stage to permit the FLSA collective action claim to proceed. On May 13, 2025, Plaintiff Danielle Grimm filed a complaint against Defendant Charter. On June 26, 2025, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the New York Labor Law, the Family and Medical Leave Act (NYSHRL), in connection with Plaintiff's employment at Charter. The Defendant is a communications company that provides Internet, television, and phone services. A copy of the Court's order dated March 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tDQdCa at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel M. Kirschenbaum, Esq. Leah Seliger, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM 45 Broadway – Suite 320 New York, NY 10006 The Defendant is represented by: Laura M. Jordan, Esq. Scott Budow, Esq. THOMPSON, COBURN LLP One US Bank Plaza St. Louis, MO 63101 COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Barton Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Nathan Barton, Cynthia Fahrnkopf, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Colgate-Palmolive Company, Case No. 3:25-cv-02833 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on March 9, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-01931-UA to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. The Colgate-Palmolive Company -- https://www.colgatepalmolive.com/en-us -- commonly known as Colgate-Palmolive, is an American multinational consumer products company headquartered on Park Avenue in Midtown Manhattan, New York City.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Naomi B. Spector, Esq. KAMBERLAW LLP 3451 Via Montebello, Ste 192-212 Carlsbad, CA 92009 Phone: (310) 400-1053 Fax: (212) 202-6364 Email: nspector@kamberlaw.co COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lock et al., v. Costco Wholesale Corporation., Case No. 2:23-cv-07904-SJB-ST (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time to initiate the anticipated motion for class certification from March 20. The Plaintiffs also request that the Defendant's time to oppose the motion be adjourned to May 1. No other deadlines will be affected by granting this request. This is the second request to extend this deadline for a total of 28 days. The Plaintiffs seek this additional time to continue focusing the Parties' time and resources on settlement negotiations. The Parties have had several more exchanges that have brought the Parties close to resolving this matter, whether in whole or in part. Costco operates a chain of membership-only big-box warehouse club retail stores. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qE3AWi at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Garrett Kaske, Esq. KESSLER MATURA P.C. 534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 499-9100 DAUPHIN COUNTY, PA: Little Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KANI LITTLE et al., v. DAUPHIN COUNTY, et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-02169-KM-LAL (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order to: (1) extend the deadline for the Plaintiffs to amend their pleadings and/or join additional parties by 35 days from March 6, 2026, to April 10, 2026; and (2) extend the deadline for Plaintiffs to move for class certification by a corresponding 35 days from April 6, 2026, to May 11, 2026. The Defendants have not yet answered certain interrogatories or produced several categories of documents which, in the Plaintiffs' view, will be necessary for the Plaintiffs to fully identify Doe defendants and/or name additional parties who participated in the alleged constitutional violations at issue in this case. The Plaintiffs anticipate that the requested extension will provide sufficient time for the Defendants to produce the responsive materials and Plaintiffs to incorporate them into a revised pleading if appropriate. If the requested extension of the amendment/joinder deadline is granted, that deadline would fall after the existing deadline for Plaintiffs to move for class certification. It would be illogical for Plaintiffs to move for class certification based upon an inoperative pleading. A corresponding extension of the class cert deadline would allow Plaintiffs to make any motion for class certification based on the pleading that is in effect at the time and sets forth all alleged class claims against all relevant Defendants. Dauphin is a county in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IJDSdx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raymond Durham, Esq. Douglas E. Lieb, Esq. KAUFMAN LIEB LEBOWITZ & FRICK LLP 18 E. 48th Street, Suite 802 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 660-2332 - and - Bret Grote, Esq. Margaret Hu, Esq. ABOLITIONIST LAW CENTER 990 Spring Garden, Suite 306 Philadelphia, PA 19123 Telephone: (412) 654-9070 The Defendants are represented by: Andrew Norfleet, Esq. Jennifer Ruth, Esq. MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN, P.C 200 Corporate Center Drive Suite 300 Camp Hill, PA 17011 E-mail: AWNorfleet@mdwcg.com jlruth@mdwcg.com DELTA AIR: $2.26MM Attorney's Fees Awarded to Class Counsel ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARVIN TOLEDO, v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00081-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguin entered an order granting the motion for attorney's fees, costs, and incentive awards as follows: -- Class counsel is awarded $2,262,745.18 in attorney's fees from the common fund and $47,274.12 in costs; -- Phoenix Settlement Administrators is awarded $29,000 for the cost of its settlement administration services; and -- Plaintiff Toledo is awarded $10,000 for his service to the class. The Court finds an attorney's fee award of 20% of the settlement fund ($2,262,745.18) is fair and reasonable in light of all relevant factors including the risks involved, the results obtained, the contingent nature of the litigation, and the skill level demonstrated by counsel. The proposed settlement provides a gross non-reversionary settlement amount of $12,000,000 to approximately 4,762 class members. At the time of the filing of the motion for preliminary approval, the average net class member award was expected to be approximately $1,488.20. The monetary recovery represents a significant result for the class members. Delta Air is a major airline in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated March 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cEbQxJ at no extra charge.[CC] DELTA AIR: Class & PAGA Settlement in Toledo Suit Gets Final OK --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARVIN TOLEDO, v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00081-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín entered an order granting final approval of class and PAGA settlement. Having received and considered the Settlement, the supporting papers filed by the Parties, and the evidence and argument received by the Court at the final approval hearing on February 26, 2026, the Court grants final approval of the settlement and determines as follows: 1. The Court confirms certification, for settlement purposes only, the settlement class as follows: "All persons employed by Delta in non-exempt positions in California at any time during the Class Period, but excluding flight attendants, pilots, and those persons who participated in Delta's Enhanced Retirement or Voluntary Opt-Out Programs in 2020 and who did not thereafter work for Delta in a non-exempt position in California during the Class Period." The Class Period is Dec. 3, 2017, through Nov. 8, 2024. 2. Pursuant to the preliminary approval order, a class notice was sent to each class member by first-class U.S. mail. 3. Two individuals, Karen Aikey and Paula Jacobson, shall be excluded from the settlement class because they timely submitted opt-out requests. 4. For the reasons stated in the preliminary approval order, the Court finds and determines that the proposed class, as defined in the definitions section of the settlement and conditionally certified by the preliminary approval order, meets all of the legal requirements for class certification, and it is ordered that the class is finally approved and certified as a class for purposes of the settlement. 5. The Court finds and determines the $600,000 allocated for PAGA penalties to be fair and reasonable and approves the Settlement pursuant to California Labor Code Section 2699(l). The Court orders payment of PAGA penalties in the amount of $450,000 to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA") representing the LWDA's 75% share of the $600,000 allocated to PAGA penalties and payment of the remaining 25% to PAGA Members as provided for in the Settlement. Delta Air is a major airline in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated March 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=P2qso8 at no extra charge.[CC] DR. FISHER'S MEDICAL: Alston Files Suit in Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dr. Fisher's Medical Weight Loss & Aesthetic Centers. The case is styled as Marie Alston, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dr. Fisher's Medical Weight Loss & Aesthetic Centers, Case No. 260301170 (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas, Philadelphia Cty., March 9, 2026). The case type is stated as "Negligence." Dr. Jon Fisher -- https://www.bodybyfishernow.com/ -- has been the most renowned and successful weight loss physician, and Aesthetic Center in Philadelphia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: (310) 474-9111 Fax: (310) 474-8585 Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com DUB BROTHERS: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Gavidia Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ GAVIDIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DUB BROTHERS HOLDING COMPANY, INC. DBA TRADECRAFT FARMS, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01501-GPC-DDL (S.D. Cal., March 10, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending unwanted telemarketing text messages to the cellular telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers in an attempt to promote its products or services without obtaining prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's action, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages including intrusion upon seclusion, invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of their daily life. DUB Brothers Holding Company, Inc., doing business as Tradecraft Farms, is a manufacturer of cannabis products, headquartered in Studio City, California. [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 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com EASTWOOD CONSTRUCTION: Adams Mill Suit Removed to D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Adams Mill Owners' Association, Inc. and Melissa Calandra and Kim Bright, both individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EASTWOOD CONSTRUCTION, LLC f/k/a EASTWOOD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., EASTWOOD CONSTRUCTION d/b/a EASTWOOD HOMES, EASTWOOD CONSTRUCTION, LLC N/K/A EASTWOOD CONSTRUCTION PARTNERS, LLC, FTB DEVELOPMENT, INC., P&L ENTERPRISES, LLC, RODELU PAINTING, LLC, RAFAEL MARTINEZ, ALPHA OMEGA CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., DAVIS FRAMING, LLC, GARCIA BROTHERS LANDSCAPING, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 50, Case No. 2026-CP-23-00434 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Greenville Court, State of South Carolina, to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina on March 6, 2026, and assigned Case No. 6:26-cv-00986-BHH. The Plaintiffs assert claims against the Defendants for Contract & Quasi-Contract Claims with the nature of suit stated as "Other Contract."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Brian E. Wolfe, Esq. Robert C. Gunst, Jr., Esq. Joshua R. Hinson, Esq. John R. Evans, Esq. WOLFE, GUNST & HINSON, PLLC 215 Queens Road, Suite 200 Charlotte, NC 28204 Phone: 704-827-3774 Fax: 252-408-6859 Email: bwolfe@wolfegunst.com rgunst@wolfegunst.com jhinson@wolfegunst.com jevans@wolfegunst.com EASTWOOD CONSTRUCTION: Herber Suit Removed to D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Robert Herber, both individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EASTWOOD CONSTRUCTION, LLC f/k/a EASTWOOD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., EASTWOOD CONSTRUCTION d/b/a EASTWOOD HOMES, EASTWOOD CONSTRUCTION, LLC N/K/A EASTWOOD CONSTRUCTION PARTNERS, LLC, FTB DEVELOPMENT, INC., P&L ENTERPRISES, LLC, RODELU PAINTING, LLC, RAFAEL MARTINEZ, ALPHA OMEGA CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., DAVIS FRAMING, LLC, GARCIA BROTHERS LANDSCAPING, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 50, Case No. 2026-CP-23-00652 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Greenville Court, State of South Carolina, to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina on March 7, 2026, and assigned Case No. 6:26-cv-00987-BHH. The Plaintiffs assert claims against the Defendants for Contract & Quasi-Contract Claims with the nature of suit stated as "Other Contract."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Brian E. Wolfe, Esq. Robert C. Gunst, Jr., Esq. Joshua R. Hinson, Esq. John R. Evans, Esq. WOLFE, GUNST & HINSON, PLLC 215 Queens Road, Suite 200 Charlotte, NC 28204 Phone: 704-827-3774 Fax: 252-408-6859 Email: bwolfe@wolfegunst.com rgunst@wolfegunst.com jhinson@wolfegunst.com EISNER ADVISORY: Fallen Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as David Fallen, Chris Ouellette, Hannah Watzka, Timothy Rushing, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Eisner Advisory Group LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03044 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on March 6, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-01773-DWF-DTS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. EisnerAmper -- https://www.eisneramper.com/ -- offers businesses, government organizations, and individuals a comprehensive set of accounting and audit, tax, advisory, and outsourcing services.[BN] EISNER ADVISORY: Ouellette Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Chris Ouellette, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Eisner Advisory Group LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03069 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on March 6, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-01774-DWF-DTS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. EisnerAmper -- https://www.eisneramper.com/ -- offers businesses, government organizations, and individuals a comprehensive set of accounting and audit, tax, advisory, and outsourcing services.[BN] EISNER ADVISORY: Watzka Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Hannah Watzka, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Eisner Advisory Group LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03081 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on March 6, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-01775-JMB-DTS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. EisnerAmper -- https://www.eisneramper.com/ -- offers businesses, government organizations, and individuals a comprehensive set of accounting and audit, tax, advisory, and outsourcing services.[BN] ELITE AC AND HEATING: Murphy Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Elite AC and Heating LLC. The case is styled as Matthew Murphy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Elite AC and Heating LLC doing business as: Elite AC & Heating, Case No. 2:26-cv-01444-DWL (D. Ariz., Feb. 27, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Elite AC & Heating LLC -- https://www.eliteacinc.com/ -- provides expert HVAC services in Christiansburg, Virginia including heating, cooling, and air quality solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David James McGlothlin, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 3240 E. Union Hills Drive, Suite 105 Phoenix, AZ 85050 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Email: david@kazlg.com - and - Ryan Lee McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio S., Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Email: ryan@kazlg.com ENOVIX CORPORATION: Parties Seek In-Person Argument for Hearing --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE ENOVIX CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 3:23-cv-00071-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order requesting in-person argument for hearing on amended class certification motion. The Parties jointly request that, for the benefit of the Parties and the Court, the hearing on Plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification scheduled for March 13, 2026 at 10:00 AM before the Honorable Susan Illston, United States District Judge, at the United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102, Courtroom 1, be conducted in-person with a Zoom streaming option. Enovix designs, develops, and manufactures lithium-ion battery cells in the United States and internationally. A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vwm1Lg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Joshua Baker, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com jbaker@rosenlegal.com - and - Lawrence M. Rolnick, Esq. Marc B. Kramer, Esq. Nicole T. Castiglione, Esq. Shane Kunselman, Esq. ROLNICK KRAMER SADIGHI LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 597-2800 E-mail: lrolnick@rksllp.com mkramer@rksllp.com ncastiglione@rksllp.com skunselman@rksllp.com The Defendants are represented by: Emily C. Kapur, Esq. Andrew J. Rossman, Esq. Courtney C. Whang, Esq. Brenna D. Nelinson, Esq. Jesse Bernstein, Esq. Sasha Boutilier, Esq. W. Jackson Vallar, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: (650) 801-5000 Facsimile: (650) 801-5100 E-mail: emilykapur@quinnemanuel.com andrewrossman@quinnemanuel.com courtneywhang@quinnemanuel.com brennanelinson@quinnemanuel.com jessebernstein@quinnemanuel.com sashaboutilier@quinnemanuel.com jackvallar@quinnemanuel.com EOS ENERGY: Yung Sues Over Securities Exchange Act Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ Shui Shing Yung, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EOS ENERGY ENTERPRISES, INC., JOE MASTRANGELO, and NATHAN KROEKER, Case No. 2:26-cv-02372 (D.N.J., March 6, 2026), is brought on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Eos Energy securities between November 5, 2025 and February 26, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"), pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Throughout fiscal year 2025, the Company touted its allegedly highly efficient manufacturing systems, driven by a transition to a fully automated battery manufacturing line. The Company further touted the significant revenue and margin benefits allegedly derived from its highly automated manufacturing process, including guidance of $150 to $160 million for full fiscal year 2025 revenue. In the Company's earnings calls held in conjunction with fourth quarter and full year 2025 results on the same date, the Company's Chief Operating Officer, John Mahaz, disclosed that certain "issues prevented us from delivering our commitments," including that "battery line downtime ran well above industry norms, the design intent of the line and our internal forecast," and "the ability for the automated bipolar production to hit quality targets took longer than expected. That drove rework and lost revenue." On this news, Eos Energy's stock price fell $4.39, or 39.4%, to close at $6.74 per share on February 26, 2026 on unusually heavy trading volume. 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: the Company was unable to achieve the ramp in production and capacity utilization required to achieve its previously set guidance; the Company's battery line downtime was running well above industry norms, the design intent of the line, and internal forecasts; the Company was experiencing delays in the ability for its automated bipolar production to hit quality targets; the Company's inadequate systems and processes prevented it from ensuring reasonably accurate guidance and that its public disclosures were timely, accurate, and complete; and 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. 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 complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Eos Energy securities during the Class Period. Eos Energy designs, manufactures, and markets zinc-based battery energy storage systems intended for utility-scale commercial and industrial applications.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. Donald A. Ecklund, Esq. Kevin G. Cooper, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Phone: (973) 994-1700 Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com decklund@carellabyrne.com kcooper@carellabyrne.com EVERGREEN ALLIANCE: Conant Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Laura Conant, individually, and on behalf of Aggrieved Employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act v. EVERGREEN ALLIANCE GOLF LIMITED, L.P.; ARCIS GOLF LLC; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 25CV15841 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on March 6, 2026, and assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-01964. The PAGA Complaint seeks penalties under PAGA for Labor Code violations including failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay proper minimum wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to pay compliant meal break premiums; failure to provide rest periods; failure to pay rest break premiums; failure to timely pay wages during employment; failure to timely pay wages upon termination; failure to provide compliant wage statements; failure to keep requisite payroll records; and failure to reimburse necessary business expenses.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Grace Y. Horoupian, Esq. Kristina Noel Buan, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 2050 Main Street, Suite 1000 Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: (949) 851-2424 Facsimile: (949) 851-0152 Email: ghoroupian@fisherphillips.com kbuan@fisherphillips.com FCA US: Regueiro Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Tossed -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTAL REGUEIRO, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-05521-SPG-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Garnett entered an order denying the motion denying the Plaintiff's renewed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement, certification of settlement class, and approval of class notice. The Court orders the parties to meet-and-confer and to file a joint status update with the Court within 21 days of the issuance of this Order, notifying the Court of the parties' intentions and proposing a schedule for resolution of this case, including a possible amendment to the SAC. Because the Plaintiff is not a member of the Out-of-Pocket Subclass, her claims are not typical of this Subclass. Because the Plaintiff cannot satisfy the typicality requirement, the Court cannot grant preliminary certification of the class, even for settlement purposes. The Settlement Agreement defines the Settlement Class as follows: "All individuals who, as confirmed by FCA US's records, purchased one or more of the following vehicles equipped with a 3.6L engine in the states of California (the 'California Class') and Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, or Washington ('Reg. 177 States') (the 'Reg. 177 Class'): model-year 2015-2020 Ram 1500; model-year 2015-2019 Dodge Journey; model-year 2015-2020 Jeep Wrangler; model-year 2015-2020 Dodge Challenger; model-year 2015-2020 Dodge Charger; model-year 2015-2020 Chrysler 300; model-year 2015-2020 Chrysler Town & Country or Dodge Grand Caravan; model-year 2015-2017 Chrysler 200; model-year 2015 2020 Ram Promaster; model-year 2015-2020 Dodge Durango; or model-year 2015-2020 Grand Cherokee." FCA designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HmtiZR at no extra charge.[CC] FLORIDA: Initial Case Order Entered in Whelan Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANJOU MARIE WHELAN, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, DANEILLA KNIGHT-TRACEY, CHILD PROTECTIVE TEAM SUPERVISORS 1-10, COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP FOR CHILDREN, INC., SHAYLA RODNEY and LATOYA BAPTISTE, Case No. 6:26-cv-00484-JSS-RMN (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Sneed entered an initial case order: No later than 14 days from the date of this Order, Lead Counsel and any pro se plaintiff shall file a notice as to whether a related action is pending in the Middle District or elsewhere as required under Local Rule 1.07(c). The court screens every case to identify parties and interested corporations in which any assigned judge may be a shareholder, as well as for other matters that might require consideration of recusal. Accordingly, no later than 14 days from the date of this Order, each party, pro se party, governmental party, intervenor, non-party movant, and Rule 69 garnishee shall file the attached Disclosure Statement and Certification as required under Local Rule 3.03. Any party or entity that appears after the date of this Order must file the Disclosure Statement within 14 days of appearance. When required by Local Rule 3.02, counsel and any unrepresented party shall confer and file a Case Management Report using the standard form on the court’s website (1) within 40 days after any defendant appears in an action originating in this court, (2) within 40 days after the docketing of an action removed or transferred to this court, or (3) within 70 days after service on the United States attorney in an action against the United States, a United States agency, a United States officer or employee sued only in an official capacity, or a United States officer or employee sued in an individual capacity in connection with a duty performed on behalf of the United States. Under Local Rule 2.0l(b)(l)(G), all attorneys appearing before this court are required to register for CM/ECF docketing within 14 days of their entry of appearance in any action pending before this court. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AyRw6j at no extra charge.[CC] G T GOOD: Faces Gaspar Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------- CUAUHTEMOC IVAN CALIXTO GASPAR and WILMER DONARY QUIJADA CARDOZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. G T GOOD DISTRIBUTION LLC d/b/a GRAND TRADING CORP. and RU PING LIN, BIN LIU and CHEN BIN, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01388 (E.D.N.Y., March 10, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiffs Gaspar and Cardoza were employed by the Defendants as organizers, loaders, and helpers from in or around August 2022 until in or around November 2025 and from in or around February 2023 until in or around September 2025, respectively. G T Good Distribution LLC, doing business as Grand Trading Corp., is a retail company based in Brooklyn, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 GEICO: Class Cert. Discovery in Cude Closes May 18 -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER CUDE, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a GEICO, Case No. 3:25-cv-00475-N (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Godbey entered an order granting the Parties' third joint motion to modify class certification scheduling order granting third joint motion to modify class certification. The Class Certification Scheduling Order is modified as follows: The Plaintiffs designate rebuttal experts, May 1, 2026 if any: Class certification discovery closes: May 18, 2026 The Defendant serves (but does not file) June 3, 2026 response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, including all supporting evidence and supporting brief: The Plaintiffs serve on the Defendant (but do July 1, 2026 not file) their reply to Defendant's response, including rebuttal evidence, if any, and supporting brief: Submission Date: July 16, 2026 GEICO is an American vehicle insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lQNgnh at no extra charge.[CC] GROW CARE INC: Doe Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Grow Care, Inc., Case No. 5:24-cv-09122 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on March 9, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-01929-VSB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Growcare -- https://growtherapy.com/ -- provides professional, medical equipment and expertise to come home for continued compassionate care.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brittany Skye Scott, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 28 Geary Street, Suite 650, No. 1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: (415) 839-7000 - and - Ines Diaz Villafana, Esq. 1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Email: idiaz@bursor.com - and - Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Phone: (914) 874-0710 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Scott Robert Drury, Esq. DRURY LEGAL, LLC 6 Carriage Lane Highwood, IL 60040 Phone: (312) 358-8225 The Defendant is represented by: Amy P. Lally, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 West Fifth Street Los Angeles, CA 90013 Phone: (213) 896-6000 Email: alally@sidley.com - and - Ian M. Ross, Esq. STUMPHAUZER FOSLID SLOMAN ROSS & KOLAYA, PLLC Two S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1600 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 614-1400 Email: iross@sfslaw.com - and - Laura Veronica Herrera-Sarabia, Esq. COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP 1 Montgomery St, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94104-5500 Phone: (415) 391-4800 - and - Sarah Elizabeth Gallo, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 101 California Street, Suite 3500 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 772-7490 Fax: (415) 772-7400 HANESBRANDS INC: Ross Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Donna Ross, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Hanesbrands, Inc., Case No. CV-2026-01029 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on March 6, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00378. The Plaintiff's suit is one of a growing number of suits attempting to relabel routine website analytics and advertising technologies--e.g., pixels, tags, cookies, and similar client-side code--as unlawful "wiretapping." The Complaint asserts causes of action against Hanesbrands for: violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act ("WESCA"); invasion of privacy / intrusion upon seclusion; and breach of contract.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor Pittsburgh PA, 15222 Phone: 412.322.9243 Email: NickC@lcllp.com The Defendants are represented by: Henry M. Sneath, Esq. Samuel H. Simon, Esq. Erik M. Bergenthal, Esq. Robert H.C. Ralston, Esq. HOUSTON HARBAUGH, P.C. Three Gateway Center, 22nd Floor 401 Liberty Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: 412-281-5060 Fax: 412-281-4499 HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Settlement in Bhangal Suit Wins Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BHAPINDERPAL S. BHANGAL, et al., v. HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-04332-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order re motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement as follows: 1. This action is provisionally certified as a class action, for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Court preliminarily certifies the following Settlement Class: "All persons and entities other than the defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired HEI securities between Feb. 28, 2019 and Sept. 4, 2023, both dates inclusive, and were damaged thereby." 2. The Court preliminarily appoints Pomerantz LLP as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. 3. The Court preliminarily appoints Lead Plaintiff Daniel Warren as Class Representative for the Settlement Class. 4. The deadline for class members to object to the Settlement Agreement and/or Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and costs shall June 25, 2026. 5. The Plaintiffs shall file their motion for final approval by July 30, 2026. 6. The parties shall appear before this Court for a final approval hearing on Aug. 13, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. via Zoom video. Hawaiian Electric is a supplier of electricity in the US state of Hawaii. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nFFv07 at no extra charge.[CC] HEALTH CARE: Must Oppose Rutherford Class Cert Bid by May 1 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHNNY C. RUTHERFORD, JR. and MARY RUTHERFORD, and JOHNNY RUTHERFORD on behalf of those similarly situated, v. HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION, A Mutual Legal Reserve Company, doing business in Montana as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana, and MONTANA UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, Case No. 6:24-cv-00081-BMM (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Morris entered an order clarifying class certification briefing schedule. 1. HCSC has until May 1, 2026, to file oppositions to any motions related to class certification. 2. The Court's previous amended scheduling order in Doc. 192, remains in effect. The Court declines to address HCSC's concerns about Rutherford potentially filing multiple class certification motions in the absence of Rutherford actually filing multiple motions. The Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging a series of claims against Health Care Service Corporation doing business in Montana as Blue Cross Blue Shield of Montana and the Montana University System. Rutherford filed a Motion to Certify Class: Renewed, Supplemental Motion to Certify Class Under Rule 23(b)(3) on Feb. 24, 2026. HCSC filed a Motion to Clarify Class Certification Briefing Schedule on Feb. 27, 2026. HCSC provides health coverage options for employers large and small, individuals and families, and Medicare and Medicaid plans. A copy of the Court's order dated March 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4n154k at no extra charge.[CC] HEALTH CARE: Rutherford Seeks to Withdraw Renewed Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHNNY C. RUTHERFORD, JR. and MARY RUTHERFORD, and JOHNNY RUTHERFORD ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION, a Mutual Legal Reserve Company, doing business in Montana as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana, and the MONTANA UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, Case No. 6:24-cv-00081-BMM (D. Mont.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting withdrawal of their renewed supplemental motion for class Certification and the accompanying brief in support. The Motion is withdrawn without prejudice. Based on the Court's Order of March 2, 2026, the Plaintiff anticipates filing an appropriate renewed supplemental class certification motion by April 10, 2026. HCSC provides health coverage options for employers large and small, individuals and families, and Medicare and Medicaid plans. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t9do2p at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John M. Morrison, Esq. Scott L. Peterson, Esq. MORRISON, SHERWOOD, WILSON, & DEOLA, PLLP 401 N. Last Chance Gulch St. Helena, MT 59601 Telephone: (406) 442-3261 Facsimile: (406) 443-7294 E-mail: john@mswdlaw.com speterson@mswdlaw.com HP INC: Website Uses Tracking Tools, Ianozi Alleges --------------------------------------------------- JAMES IANOZI, ROSS WHEELER, ADAM SORKIN, MINORK CALLES, JEAN HOUSEMAN, and LINAY JAMES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HP INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-02164 (N.D. Cal., March 12, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for deploying Tracking Tools which transmit users' data to the advertising, social media, and analytics companies that designed and operate the Tracking Tools. The complaint relates that HP operates a commercial website, https://www.hp.com/us-en/home.html through which users browse products, customize computers and printers, access support services, create accounts, make purchases, and explore promotional offers. Like many modern websites, the Website displays a cookie banner and a "cookie preferences" interface purporting to give users meaningful control over what data the Website shares with third parties. Though HP's banner appears differently in California and New York, in all instances, HP assures users that they may control the sale or sharing of their personal information and must opt in to any tracking. Users in locations such as New York were misled by the cookie banner, which claimed that their data would only be shared when they clicked "Accept." HP was aware that this banner was insufficient and misleading, as it chose to show a more substantial banner in other locations. According to the complaint, HP's Cookie Settings deceive users by (1) placing Tracking Tools on users' browsers, which allow Tracking Entities to intercept users' communications with the Website before users have the ability to interact with the cookie banner, and by (2) continuing to use Tracking Tools that intercept and transmit user data to Tracking Entities after users toggle off the sale/sharing of personal information and reject all non-essential cookies. HP's Website design and procurement of Tracking Entities and Tracking Tools to monitor, intercept, and transmit user data constitute invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, and fraud. Misrepresenting the effectiveness of a cookie opt-out mechanism effectively deprives users of control over their personal information, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiffs and the members of the Nationwide Classes seek all available relief for this claim, including compensatory damages, restitution, disgorgement of profits, statutory and punitive damages where available, and injunctive relief to prevent further unlawful tracing. Plaintiff James Ianozi accessed and used Defendant's Website for its intended consumer purposes. Most recently, in August 2025, Ianozi visited the Website while physically located in Delaware to browse and compare prices for printer cartridges and laptop computers. Plaintiff Ross Wheeler accessed and used Defendant's Website for its intended consumer purposes while physically located in Oregon. Most recently, Wheeler visited the Website in January 2026 for consumer browsing purposes. Plaintiff Adam Sorkin accessed and used Defendant's Website while physically located in Illinois. Most recently, Sorkin visited the Website in January 2026 for consumer browsing purposes. Plaintiff Minork Calles accessed and used Defendant's Website while physically located in California. Most recently, Plaintiff Calles visited the Website in January 2026 for consumer browsing purposes. Plaintiff Jean Houseman accessed and used Defendant's Website while physically located in New York. Most recently, Plaintiff Houseman visited the Website in February 2025 for consumer browsing purposes. Plaintiff Linay James accessed and used Defendant's Website while physically located in California. Most recently, Plaintiff James visited the Website in June 2025 for consumer browsing purposes. Defendant HP Inc. is a for-profit corporation that designs, manufactures, and sells personal computing devices, printers, and related products and services, and offers its products for sale through its nationally accessible commercial website https://www.hp.com/us-en/home.htm [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq. Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. Gia Jung, Esq. COTCHETT PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 687-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com tloeser@cpmlegal.com gjung@cpmlegal.com - and - Karin B. Swope, Esq. Jacob M. Alhadeff, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 1809 7th Avenue, Suite 1610 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 802-1272 Facsimile: (206)-299-4184 E-mail: kswope@cpmlegal.com jalhadeff@cpmlegal.com - and - Edward Korsinsky, Esq. Mark Jensen, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: ek@zlk.com mjensen@zlk.com INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Sued Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty ------------------------------------------------------------- Oak Harbor Lions Foundation, Aaron Taggert, Teresa Addison, Oak Harbor Lions Club Board of Directors (by and through its legitimate, duly constituted Board of Directors as Derivative Plaintiff), Plaintiffs v. The International Association of Lions Clubs, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00415-TL (W.D. Wash., Feb. 5, 2026) is a derivative action brought by certain members and duly constituted officers of the Oak Harbor Lions Club, acting on behalf of the Club, an unincorporated association, and similarly situated members for breach of fiduciary duties. The Plaintiffs are members of the Club who are duly constituted members of the Club's Board of Directors. Certain Club members purported to allow the election of a new treasurer without removing the old treasurer; i.e., the Plaintiff, Mr. Aaron Taggert. The International Association of Lions Clubs, dba Lions Club International appointed Ms. Sharon Sikes as a Conciliator to assist in remedying the situation, with alleged authority to unilaterally make decisions regarding the disputed governance of the Club if she could not bring the CLUB members to resolve their differences. The Plaintiffs and the legitimate board have made repeated efforts to obtain appropriate action and redress from the Club's governance structure and membership, seeking resolution of disputed election(s), financial irregularities, and the harmful impact of decisions by LCI through its agent Sharon Sikes. The Plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of the Club, its legitimate board, and all those whose interests are aligned in protecting the Club's assets, mission, and reputation. The derivative plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Oak Harbor Lions Club and its members similarly situated, as required by law and equity. The International Association of Lions Clubs is an international service organization, currently headquartered in Oak Brook, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark S. Knapp, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARK KNAPP PLLC PO Box 914 Liberty Lake, WA 99019 Telephone: (253) 202-2081 E-mail: mark@firearmslawyer.net JOEST LLC: Parties Seek to Stay Deadline of Class Cert Opposition ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YVONNE MEZOFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JOEST LLC and JOSEPH DEQUATTRO, Case No. 1:26-cv-10555-RGS (D. Mass.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order staying the deadline for the Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification through March 20, 2026. The Parties are currently engaged in good-faith settlement discussions and believe those discussions may resolve or significantly narrow the issues presented in this matter. In order to permit the Parties to focus their efforts on those discussions, and to conserve both judicial resources and the resources of the Parties, the Parties jointly request that the deadline for the Defendants' opposition be stayed. This is the first request for a stay of this deadline. No party will be prejudiced by the requested stay. Joest is in the vibration technology business. A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DJlATF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Patton, Esq. Raven Moeslinger, Esq. Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq. ORTIZ & MOESLINGER, P.C. One Boston Place, Suite 2600 Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 338-9400 E-mail: mdp@mass-legal.com The Defendants are represented by: Zachary M. Wallack, Esq. Carson M. Shea, Esq. Trevin C. Schmidt, Esq. Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC Two International Place, 16th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 342-6800 E-mail: zwallack@eckertseamans.com cshea@eckertseamans.com tschmidt@eckertseamans.com KALSHI INC: Jennings Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Christopher Jennings, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kalshi Inc., KalshiEX LLC, Kalshi Klear Inc., Kalshi Trading LLC, Susquehanna International Group LLP, Susquehanna Government Products, LLP, Case No. 2:26-cv-00071 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on March 9, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-01924-UA to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Kalshi Inc. -- https://kalshi.com/ -- is a web-based prediction market platform based in Manhattan, New York City.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brittany Skye Scott, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 28 Geary Street, Suite 650, No. 1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: (415) 839-7000 KC INSTALLATION: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Octave Says -------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHAN OCTAVE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KC INSTALLATION, LLC, d/b/a KCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00244 (M.D.N.C., March 12, 2026) is a class action on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII") that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed on February 25, 2026. According to the complaint, the PII reportedly exposed in the breach includes some of the most sensitive types of data that cybercriminals seek in order to commit fraud and identity theft. As a result of Defendant's negligence, on August 22, 2025, cybercriminals were able to gain access to Defendant's internal systems, which contain data records and sensitive and valuable PII. Information disclosed in the Data Breach includes names or other personal identifiers and Social Security numbers. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of financial fraud and identity theft. Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks remedies including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief, including improvements to Defendant's data security system, future annual audits, and adequate credit monitoring services funded by Defendant. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other Class Members, asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and breach of fiduciary duty, and seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, monetary damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, equitable relief, and all other relief authorized by law. Plaintiff Stephan Octave is a contractor who regularly works on data and computer systems through a third party contracting service. Defendant KC Installation, LLC is a regional business that provides installation, engineering, and network support for telecommunications projects in the state.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Wilkerson, Esq. WILKERSON JUSTUS PLLC 9 SW Pack Square, Suite 301 Asheville, NC 28801 Telephone: 828-316-6902 E-mail: dwilkerson@wilkersonjustus.com - and - Todd S. Garber, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP One North Broadway, Suite 900 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298-3281 E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com LOS ANGELES, CA: Initial OK of Settlement in Bradshaw Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENNIS BRADSHAW, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal entity; MICHAEL FEUER, in his individual and official capacity; JAMES CLARK, in his individual and official capacity; THOMAS PETERS, in his individual and official capacity; THE LANDSKRONER LAW FIRM, LTD. dba LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN, LLC, a limited liability company; JACK LANDSKRONER, an individual; LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL J LIBMAN APC, a California Professional Corporation; MICHAEL J. LIBMAN, an individual; KIESEL LAW LLP, a California limited liability partnership; PAUL KIESEL, an individual; PARADIS LAW GROUP PLLC, a New York Professional Service Limited Liability Company; PAUL PARADIS, an individual, Case No. 2:19-cv-06661-GW-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Parties, on April 6, 2026, at 8:30 a.m., will jointly move for the Court's preliminary approval of the class action settlement they have reached with the assistance of mediator Hon. Daniel Buckley (Ret.). The Plaintiff and Settling Defendants also jointly move for approval of the proposed plan to notify the members of the proposed settlement class previously certified by the Court, who will receive significant compensation in exchange for the proposed resolution of their claims. The Plaintiff and Settling Defendants have agreed to the following class definition, which is: "All persons who were members of the settlement class in the Jones Action." The class excludes all persons who timely exercised their right to opt out of the settlement class in the Jones Action. The class also excludes prior class plaintiff Anton Jones, as well as his prior counsel, and counsel representing this class and all persons employed by said counsel, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (including, but not limited to, its officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives, employees, co-conspirators, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns) any judicial officer presiding over this matter, the members of their immediate families and judicial staff, and any other individual whose interests are antagonistic to other class members. The class also excludes any person who has filed a claim in court arising from the same subject matter as the present case, with the exception of Dennis Bradshaw. The Settlement consists of a non-reversionary monetary component in the amount of $1,650,000-$2,050,000, and following years of mediated settlement negotiations between experienced counsel for the Plaintiff and Settling Defendants. Los Angeles is a sprawling Southern California city and the center of the nation's film and television industry. A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KOhL1y at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Filippo Marchino, Esq. Carlos X. Colorado, Esq. Thomas E. Gray, Esq. THE X-LAW GROUP, P.C. 625 Fair Oaks Ave, Suite 390 South Pasadena, CA 91030 Telephone: (213) 599-3380 Facsimile: (213) 599-3370 E-mail: FM@XLAWX.com CC@XLAWX.com TG@XLAWX.com The Defendants are represented by: James J. Kjar, Esq. Gregory B. Emdee, Esq. KJAR, McKENNA & STOCKALPER, LLP 841 Apollo Street, Suite 100 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 217-3026 Facsimile: (424) 367-0400 E-mail: kjar@kmslegal.com gemdee@kmslegal.com Andrew J. Waxler, Esq. MILLER WAXLER 411 S Hewitt St. Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: (800) 720-2126 - and - Vikram Sohal, Esq. NEMECHECK COLE LLP 16255 Ventura Blvd, Ste 300 Encino, CA 91436-2300 Telephone: (818) 788-950 - and - James R. Rosen, Esq. John Aumer, Esq. ROSEN SABA, LLP 2301 Rosecrans Ave Suite 3180 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 285-1727 LOWE'S HOME: Court Narrows Claims in Garner Suit ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHRYN GARNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01592-BJR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein entered an order granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion to dismiss. 1. The Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. 2. The Motion is granted insofar as the Plaintiff's requests for declaratory and injunctive relief are stricken. 3. The Motion is denied in all other respects. The Defendant's argument that Garner fails to allege facts necessary for the Court to assess the reasonableness of the non-competition prohibition in Defendant's Code of Conduct consistent with the framework established in Freedom Vans fails. As Garner points out, the burden to establish reasonableness rests with the employer. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to dismiss based on the exception at RCW section 49.62.070(2)(b) is denied. The Defendant asserts that, as a former employee, Garner lacks standing to request declaratory relief. The Court agrees with the Defendant. The court agrees with the plaintiff that a motion to strike class allegations is more appropriately considered on a fully developed record, and not in the context of a Rule 12(f) motion. Garner alleges that she was employed by the Defendant in Washington State from Nov. 9, 2005, to Sept. 2, 2023. She asserts that, during her employment with Defendant, she earned less than twice the applicable state minimum hourly wage. Lowe's Home Centers is a home improvement retailer. A copy of the Court's order dated March 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Zc5Zov at no extra charge.[CC] MARKETSOURCE INC: Brum Renewed Bid for Class Cert Tossed -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER BRUM, et al., v. MARKETSOURCE, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-00241-DAD-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Drozd entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification: 1. The Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification is denied, without prejudice to its renewal; 2. The Plaintiffs shall file a notice specifying whether they intend to file a renewed motion for class certification within 14 days of the docketing of this order; 3. Any renewed motion for class certification shall be filed within 28 days of the docketing of this order; and 4. If the plaintiffs decline to file a renewed motion for class certification, the parties are directed to meet and confer on their availability, and within 14 days of the docketing of this order, to contact Courtroom Deputy Pete Buzo at (916) 930 4016 or pbuzo@caed.uscourts.gov with several proposed dates for the rescheduling of a Final Pretrial Conference and Jury Trial in this action. The court finds that based upon the showing made in the pending renewed motion for class certification the potential conflicts preclude class certification because neither the named plaintiffs nor counsel can adequately represent class members with such diverging interests. On Jan. 3, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a complaint initiating this wage and hour putative class action against the defendants. That same day, the defendants removed the action to this federal court. On March 29, 2024, the court adopted the assigned magistrate judge's findings and recommendations and denied the plaintiffs' initial motion for class certification because some class members had signed arbitration agreements and because plaintiffs failed to prove numerosity as to the one remaining sub-class. The Plaintiffs propose the following class and sub-classes: Class: "All individuals employed by defendants in California as non-exempt, hourly paid employees who worked for MarketSource in a retail capacity at any time from Jan. 3, 2013 through the date of class certification ("Class Period") and did not execute an arbitration agreement: Regular Rate Subclass: "All Class Members employed from Jan. 3, 2013 to April 1, 2015 who earned a non-discretionary bonus and/or incentive payment during the same week they earned overtime wages." Off-the-Clock Subclass: "All Class Members required to attend off-the-clock meetings and/or conference calls from Jan. 3, 2013, to the date of certification." Rest Break and Rest Break Premium Subclass: "All Class Members who worked at least one shift of three and one-half hours or more during the Class Period." Meal Break Premium Subclass: "All Class Members who worked at least one shift of more than five hours during the Class Period and recorded their time through Natural Insight." Business Expense Subclass: "All Class Members, excluding Field Service Representatives, employed by the defendants from Jan. 3, 2014, though the date of class certification." Final Pay Subclass: "All Class Members who ended their employment with the defendants at any time from Jan. 3, 2014, through the date of class certification." Wage Statement Subclass: "All Class Members who received at least one wage statement from Jan. 3, 2016, though the date of class certification." Market Source designs and delivers sales and marketing solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TH947N at no extra charge.[CC] MARYLAND: Court Narrows Claims in Foster Children Suit ------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as B.F., through his next friend Janice Falk, Y.C., through his next friend Sara Adams, and Y.D., through her next friend Christy L. Emely, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Rafael J. Lopez, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Maryland Department of Human Services, and Alger M. Studstill, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Maryland Social Services Administration, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00109-JRR (D. Md.), Judge Julie R. Rubin of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss the Class Action Amended Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief. Plaintiffs, who are in the foster care custody of the State, alleged they have suffered harm or face an unreasonable risk of harm from Defendants' failure to implement known systemic safeguards to protect them from the unwanted, unsafe, or unnecessary use of psychotropic medications. Specifically, they alleged the State failed to properly oversee the administration of psychotropic medications to children in its legal custody based on its failure to maintain adequate medical records for children in foster care, its failure to maintain an adequate informed consent process, and its failure to operate an adequate secondary review system for outlier prescriptions of psychotropic medications. As many as 34% of children in Maryland foster care statewide are administered psychotropic drugs, as compared to 8% of Medicaid-eligible children nationally who are not in foster care. Further, 53.68% of Maryland foster children who are taking psychotropic drugs are prescribed multiple drugs at the same time, a potentially dangerous practice known as polypharmacy. At least 72.1% of children in Maryland foster care who are taking psychotropic drugs do not have a documented psychiatric diagnosis. The Amended Complaint asserted three counts: Count I, violation of substantive due process rights under the U.S. Constitution; Count II, violation of procedural due process rights under the U.S. Constitution; and Count III, violation of rights under the Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act (AACWA), under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The State challenged Plaintiffs' injury in fact and redressability. The court found that Plaintiffs do not allege circumstances where they merely exist in the State's custody and that the State's systems are inadequate. Instead, Plaintiffs alleged they are minor children in the foster care system who have been prescribed psychotropic medications without regard for well-known associated risks, and have experienced harm in the form of medical, behavioral, psychological, and emotional deleterious effects. The court found Plaintiffs' theory is not conjectural or speculative; it is concrete. Accordingly, the court denied the motion on standing grounds. The court agreed that the proper standard is whether the State's decisions with regard to oversight of the administration of psychotropic medications constitute a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, consistent with the Fourth Circuit's decision in Doe 4 by and through Lopez v. Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center Commission, 985 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 2021). The court found that children in foster care receiving medical care are more akin to involuntarily committed patients than pre-trial detainees or prisoners. The Amended Complaint is replete with allegations regarding lack of oversight, including failure to ensure necessary medical records are compiled, provided, and considered; failure to consider whether psychotropic medications are appropriate for minor children; and failure to seek out additional opinions when red flags arise. The court found Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the State's actions with regard to administration and oversight of psychotropic medications shock the conscience. The motion to dismiss Count I was therefore denied. The State argued that Plaintiffs could have raised their concerns in ongoing state juvenile court proceedings. The court found that the juvenile court process is not tailored to the provision or administration of psychotropic medications and that no specific procedure related to the provision of same was identified. The court was persuaded that Plaintiffs adequately and plausibly pled a violation of procedural due process, and the motion to dismiss this aspect of Count II was denied. However, as to Plaintiffs' facial challenge to the constitutionality of Policy SSA-CW No. 15-8 (the Psychotropic Policy), the court granted the motion to dismiss. The court found that the Psychotropic Policy contemplates a designated individual to provide informed consent, communication with the parent or legal guardian, and regular medical intervention regarding psychotropic medication. On its face, the Psychotropic Policy is not without procedural safeguards to ensure children's interests are taken into account. That those procedural safeguards may fail or not be followed, even on a systemic basis, does not support a plausible inference that the Psychotropic Policy is facially unconstitutional. Accordingly, the facial challenge to the Psychotropic Policy failed as a matter of law. The State argued that AACWA does not confer federal rights actionable under Section 1983. The court examined Section 671(a)(16) and related definitions in Section 675(1) and Section 675(5)(D) of AACWA. Applying Gonzaga University v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002), and Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, 606 U.S. 357 (2025), the court found that the identified statutory language includes obligations of the State to individuals but does not constitute clear and unambiguous rights-creating language. The provisions do not mention rights of children in foster care or anyone else and focus solely on the obligations of a State in the context of a spending-power bargain. The motion to dismiss Count III was therefore granted. In sum, the court denied the motion to dismiss as to the substantive due process claim in Count I and the as-applied procedural due process claim in Count II. The facial challenge to the Psychotropic Policy within Count II and Count III in its entirety were dismissed. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A05rHY from PacerMonitor.com META PLATFORMS: Burman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Meta Platforms, Inc. The case is styled as Tim Burman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Case No. 26STCV07570 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 9, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit. Meta Platforms, Inc. -- https://about.meta.com/ -- doing business as Meta, and formerly named Facebook, Inc., and TheFacebook, Inc., is an American multinational technology conglomerate based in Menlo Park, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Phone: (310) 474-9111 Fax: (310) 474-8585 Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com META PLATFORMS: Tejada Files Suit in N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Meta Platforms, Inc. The case is styled as Nicolas Tejada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Samasource Impact Sourcing Inc. d/b/a Sama, Luxottica of America, Inc., Case No. 4:26-cv-02015-HSG (N.D. Cal., March 9, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Meta Platforms, Inc. -- https://about.meta.com/ -- doing business as Meta, and formerly named Facebook, Inc., and TheFacebook, Inc., is an American multinational technology conglomerate based in Menlo Park, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William J. Edelman, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 227 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: wedelman@milberg.com MICHAELS STORES: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid to 9th Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAELS STORES, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Sonni Echeverria-Corzan, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Michaels Stores, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-05839-YGR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged fraud conduct. On Sept. 12, 2025 and Jan. 16, 2026, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration and a motion to stay, respectively. On Feb. 6, 2026, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an Order denying the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and denying as moot the Defendant's motion to stay. The appellate case is styled as Echeverria-Corzan, et al. v. Michaels Stores, Inc., Case No. 26-1366, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 9, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on March 16, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on April 20, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on May 18, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees SONNI ECHEVERRIA-CORZAN, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Seth Adam Safier, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 835 Douglass Street San Francisco, CA 94114 - and - Hayley Reynolds, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Defendant-Appellant MICHAELS STORES, INC. is represented by: Amy Pesapane Lally, Esq. David Ryan Carpenter, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP 350 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071 MIDLAND CREDIT: Beena Files FDCPA Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit Management, Inc. The case is styled as Arshi Beena, Faizan Ali, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 606606/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., March 9, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Midland Credit Management, Inc.-- https://www.midlandcredit.com/ -- is an American debt buyer and debt collection company headquartered in San Diego, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Subhan Tariq, Esq. TARIQ LAW PC 99 Park Ave Suite 1530 New York, NY 10016 Phone: (866) 885-8529 MILLENNIUM DENTAL: Class Cert Bid in Fakhrzadeh Due Sept. 9 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMIR FAKHRZADEH, v. MILLENNIUM DENTAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-09896-MWC-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michelle Williams Court entered a civil trial order. The Scheduling Conference scheduled for March 13, 2026 is vacated. The Scheduling Order governing this action is set forth in the Schedule of Pretrial and Trial Dates chart below. The box in the upper right-hand corner of the chart states whether the trial will be by jury or court. If the parties seek to set additional dates, they may file a Stipulation and Proposed Order. This may be appropriate in class actions, patent cases, or cases for benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). Trial: Aug. 2, 2027 Final pretrial conference, hearing July 23, 2027 on motions in limine: Last date to hear motion to amend May 1, 2026 pleadings or add Parties: Last date to file class certification Sept. 9, 2026 motion: Fact discovery cut-off: Feb. 5, 2027 Millennium Dental provides dental care services. A copy of the Court's order dated March 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hDUOy8 at no extra charge.[CC] MINDVALLEY INC: Hamilton Sues Over Auto Renewal of Subscriptions ---------------------------------------------------------------- SHARON HAMILTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MINDVALLEY INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-10805-JJCG-APP (E.D. Mich., March 10, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, common law fraud, common law conversion, statutory conversion, unjust enrichment, and money had and received. The case arises from Mindvalley's alleged practice of automatically renewing subscriptions for its wellness and self-help programs without consent. According to the complaint, Mindvalley intentionally misleads consumers into thinking that a subscription to a Mindvalley offering lasts only for a discrete period. In reality, Mindvalley hides inadequate "disclosures" that its subscription instead automatically renews. Mindvalley hides and/or misrepresents the material facts about its offerings both before and after consumers purchase a subscription, and any disclosures it provides are either themselves misleading, or fail to cure the omission of material facts regarding its subscriptions. As a result of Mindvalley's deceptive practice, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered damages, says the suit. Mindvalley Inc. is a company that offers online, with its principal place of business in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan McDevitt, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Email: rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com - and - Ethan D. Roman, Esq. WITTELS MCINTURFF PALIKOVIC 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (914) 775-8862 Email: edr@wittelslaw.com - and - James Austin Long, Esq. THE LONG LAW FIRM, PLLC 120 E. Washington Street, Suite 928 Syracuse, NY 13202 Telephone: (315) 991-8000 Email: jlong@long.law MISSION BBQ: Parties Must Comply with M.D. Fla's Local Rules ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAYMOND T. MAHLBERG, v. MISSION BBQ MARKET PARTNERS OF SOUTHERN FLORIDA, LLC, Case No. 6:26-cv-00443-RBD-RMN (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Roy Dalton Jr. entered an order directing the parties to read and comply with the Middle District of Florida's Local Rules. While not exhaustive, the Order establishes deadlines for filings required at the initial stages of an action. The Court makes an active effort to review each case to identify parties and interested corporations in which the assigned District Judge or Magistrate Judge may have an interest, and for other matters that might require consideration of recusal. Compliant with Local Rule 3.03, within fourteen (14) days from the day of this Order or, if a party joins this action subsequent to the entry of this Order, from the date of a party's first appearance, each party, pro se party, governmental party, intervenor, non-party movant, and Rule 69 garnishee is directed to file and serve a Disclosure Statement substantially in the form attached. Each party has a continuing obligation to file and serve an amended disclosure within 14 days of discovering any ground for amendment, for conflict of interest, for recusal, or for disqualification of the judicial officer. No later than 14 days from the date of this Order, counsel and any pro se party shall comply with Local Rule 1.07(c) and shall file and serve a certification if the instant action should be designated as a similar or successive case pursuant to Local Rule 1.07. The parties shall utilize the attached form titled Notice of Pendency of Other Actions. The parties are directed to consult Local Rule 3.02 to determine whether this action requires a case management conference and case management report (CMR), or if it falls under one of the exceptions listed in Local Rule 3.02(d). Mission BBQ itself is a fast-casual chain. A copy of the Court's order dated March 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WzNGxr at no extra charge.[CC] MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Lawson Suit Removed to E.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ashtyn Lawson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MOLINA HEALTHCARE, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 26-2-00557-32 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of Spokane, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on March 6, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00110. On January 29, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint for Unpaid Wages (the "Complaint") which sets forth the following 8 causes of action: Violations of RCW and WAC for Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Payment of Wages Less Than Entitled; Failure to Accrue and Allow Use of Paid Sick Leave; Unlawful Deductions and Rebates; Failure to Pay All Wages Due at Termination; and Willful Refusal to Pay Wages.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Tyler L. Farmer, Esq. Ariel A. Martinez, Esq. MARTINEZ & FARMER LLP 4020 East Madison St., Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98112 Phone: (206) 208-2270 - and - Erin F. Norris, Esq. Jemuel S. Gascon, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 623-9300 Facsimile: (213) 623-9924 Email: erin.norris@dentons.com jemuel.gascon@dentons.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Elam Files Suit in N.J. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monsanto Company. The case is styled as Doris Marie Elam, and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Bayer AG, Bayer Corporation, Bayer U.S. LLC, Bayer Cropscience LP, Case No. L-002877-26 (N.J. Super. Ct., Bergen Cty., March 9, 2026). The case type is stated as "Roundup Products." The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Asim M. Badaruzzaman, Esq. SBAITI & COMPANY NJ LLC 100 Mulberry Street 3 Gateway Center, Suite 1102 Newark, NJ 07102 Fax: (973) 954-9710 Phone: (973) 954-2000 Email: amb@sbaitilaw.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Estep Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide ------------------------------------------------------------- Harold Estep, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-03-170 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: Gordon Sues Over Defective Roundup Herbicide -------------------------------------------------------------- VIRGINIA R. GORDON on behalf of the estate of ROBERT GORDON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-198 MON (Del. Super., March 10, 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: Maynard Sues Over Defective Herbicide Roundup --------------------------------------------------------------- CANDY MAYNARD, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-249 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: Money Sues Over Roundup's Impact to Human Health ------------------------------------------------------------------ ROBERT MONEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-203 MON (Del. Super., March 10, 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: Nesbitt Files Suit in N.J. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monsanto Company. The case is styled as Joel W. Nesbitt, and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Bayer AG, Bayer Corporation, Bayer U.S. LLC, Bayer Cropscience LP, Case No. L-002878-26 (N.J. Super. Ct., Bergen Cty., March 9, 2026). The case type is stated as "Roundup Products." The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Asim M. Badaruzzaman, Esq. SBAITI & COMPANY NJ LLC 100 Mulberry Street 3 Gateway Center, Suite 1102 Newark, NJ 07102 Fax: (973) 954-9710 Phone: (973) 954-2000 Email: amb@sbaitilaw.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Reitz Sues Over Defective Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------- ARTHUR REITZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-224 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: Roundup Herbicide "Defective," Monk Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD MONK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-210 MON (Del. Super., March 10, 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 MUNSON HEALTHCARE: Gerhart Consumer Suit Removed to W.D. Mich. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case TERRI GERHART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MUNSON HEALTHCARE, Case No. 1:26-cv-00775, was removed from the Circuit Court for the County of Grand Traverse, Michigan, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan on March 10, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Michigan assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00775 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this suit against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and injunctive relief in connection with a data security incident. Munson Healthcare is a healthcare services provider in Traverse City, Michigan. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Scott C. Holbrook, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 127 Public Square, Ste. 2000 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 621-0200 Facsimile: (216) 696-0740 Email: sholbrook@bakerlaw.com MUNSON HEALTHCARE: Koegler Class Suit Removed to W.D. Mich. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as JUDITH KOEGLER, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly, situated, Plaintiff v. MUNSON HEALTHCARE, Defendant, Case No. 2026-37922-NZ, was removed from the Circuit Court for the County of Grand Traverse, Michigan to the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan on March 12, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00803 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent hiring in connection with a data security incident. The Incident involved unauthorized access to patient data hosted by Cerner Corporation--an electronic-health-record vendor--on behalf of its clients, including Munson. Munson Healthcare is northern Michigan's largest and leading healthcare system.[BN] Defendant Munson Healthcare is represented by: Scott C. Holbrook, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 127 Public Square, Ste. 2000 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: 216-621-0200 Facsimile: 216-696-0740 E-mail: sholbrook@bakerlaw.com NAKED WHEY INC: Livingston Suit Transferred to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Maria Livingston, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Naked Whey, Inc. doing business as: Naked Nutrition, Case No. 3:25-cv-10284 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on March 9, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00754-DAD-CSK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Naked Whey, Inc. doing business as Naked Nutrition -- https://nakednutrition.com/ -- offers 100% Grass Fed Pure Whey Protein with zero additives.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Naomi B. Spector, Esq. KAMBERLAW LLP 401 Center Street, Suite 111 Healdsburg, CA 95448 Phone: (760) 795-8529 Fax: (212) 202-6364 Email: nspector@kamberlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Rebecca M. Lee, Esq. AMIN WASSERMAN GURNANI LLP 515 S. Flower St., 18th Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 233-9330 Email: rlee@awglaw.com NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Mullis Appeals Settlements Order to 8th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES MULLIS, objector, is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of settlements in the lawsuit entitled Don Gibson, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The National Association of Realtors, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00788, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged engagement in a continuing contract, combination, or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain interstate trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. On Jan. 28, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval of settlements with the Defendants, which Judge Stephen R. Bough granted on Feb. 5, 2026. The Court hereby enters final judgment of dismissal with prejudice and without costs (except as provided in the respective Settlement Agreements) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) as to the Settling Defendants. The appellate case is styled as Don Gibson, et al. v. The National Association of Realtors, et al., Case No. 26-1405, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on March 9, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees DON GIBSON, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Alexander Aiken, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 401 Union Street, Suite 3000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 516−3880 Email: aaiken@susmangodfrey.com - and - Robert A. Braun, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL 1100 New York Ave NW, Eighth Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (206) 408−3697 Email: rbraun@cohenmilstein.com - and - Beatrice Franklin, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY LLP One Manhattan West, Ste. 50th Fl. New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 336−8330 Facsimile: (212) 336−8340 Email: bfranklin@susmangodfrey.com - and - Brandon J.B. Boulware, Esq. Jeremy M. Suhr, Esq. BOULWARE LAW LLC 1600 Genessee Street, Suite 760 Kansas City, MO 64102 Telephone: (816) 492−2826 Email: brandon@boulware−law.com jeremy@boulware−law.com - and - Eric L. Dirks, Esq. Matthew Lee Dameron, Esq. Michael Anthony Williams, Esq. WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 945−7110 Email: dirks@williamsdirks.com matt@williamsdirks.com mwilliams@williamsdirks.com - and - Michael S. Ketchmark, Esq. Scott A. McCreight, Esq. KETCHMARK & MCCREIGHT PC Two Hallbrook Place 11161 Overbrook Road, Suite 210 Leawood, KS 66211 Telephone: (913) 266−4500 Facsimile: (913) 317−5030 Email: mike@ketchmclaw.com smccreight@ketchmclaw.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. 1301 Second Ave., Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623−7292 Facsimile: (206) 623−0594 Email: steve@hbsslaw.com Defendants-Appellees NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, et al. are represented by: Charles W. Hatfield, Esq. Alexander Barrett, Esq. STINSON LLP 230 W. McCarty Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 Telephone: (573) 636−6263 (573) 556−3601 Facsimile: (573) 556−3632 (573) 556−3637 Email: chuck.hatfield@stinson.com alexander.barrett@stinson.com - and - Michael D. Bonanno, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 555 13th Street NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 538−8000 Facsimile: (202) 538−8100 Email: mikebonanno@quinnemanuel.com Objector-Appellant JAMES MULLIS is represented by: Randall P. Ewing, Jr., Esq. George A. Zelcs, Esq. Ryan Z. Cortazar, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY, LLC 205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1950 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 641-9750 Facsimile: (312) 641-9751 Email: gzelcs@koreintillery.com rewing@koreintillery.com rcortazar@koreintillery.com - and - Steven M. Berezney, Esq. Michael E. Klenov, Esq. Carol O'Keefe, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY LLC 505 N. 7th Street, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-4844 Email: sberezney@koreintillery.com mklenov@koreintillery.com cokeefe@koreintillery.com - and - Vincent Briganti, Esq. Christian Levis, Esq. Noelle Forde, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, PC 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 Email: vbriganti@lowey.com clevis@lowey.com nforde@lowey.com NAVIENT CORPORATION: Ballard Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JILL BALLARD, REBECCA VARNO, and MARK POKORNI, on behalf of themselves and the class members described herein, v. NAVIENT CORPORATION, NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, INC. and NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-00121-JFS-PJC (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to file a reply brief in support of their Motion For Class Certification in excess of the word count limit set by Local Rule 7.08(b), and to extend the deadline to file such reply to April 24, 2026. The Plaintiffs request that the Court permit a class certification reply brief of up to 15,000 words, and to extend the deadline for such reply to April 24, 2026. In the interests of fairness and justice, the Plaintiffs seek a period of 60 days to write a reply brief, which would extend their deadline to April 24, 2026. In order to adequately address the numerous arguments raised in the Defendants' response brief, the Plaintiffs also seek leave to file a reply brief with a word count limit of 15,000 words. Navient is an American financial services company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v8CO4r at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony Fiorentino, Esq. FIORENTINO LAW FIRM 6119 North Kenmore Ave., Ste. 410 Chicago, IL 60660 Telephone: (312) 305-2850 E-mail: anthony@fiorentinolaw.com - and - Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739-4200 E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com - and - Carlo Sabatini, Esq. SABATINI LAW FIRM, LLC 216 N. Blakely St. Dunmore, PA 18512 Telephone: (570) 341-9000 Telephone: carlo@sabatinilawfirm.com NELSON WORLDWIDE: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Prakash Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ DYUTHI PRAKASH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NELSON WORLDWIDE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-01818 (D. Minn., March 11, 2026) is a class action arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information about its current and former employees, including Plaintiff's. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. The cybercriminals were able to access employees' private information because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' private information. In short, the Defendant's failures placed the Class' private information in a vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the suit. Nelson Worldwide, LLC is a Minneapolis, Minnesota-based design firm consisting of a network of 20 offices that offer services including architecture, interior design, graphic design, and brand strategy services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com NO BOUNCE: Scheduling Order Entered in Largent Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RENEE LARGENT, v. NO BOUNCE PRO LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-02027-DC-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dena Coggins entered a scheduling order. Any motions or stipulations requesting leave to amend the pleadings must be filed no later Aug. 10, 2026. All fact discovery shall be completed no later than Feb. 5, 2027. All expert discovery shall be completed no later than May 7, 2027. All motions, except motions for continuances, temporary restraining orders, or other emergency applications, shall be filed on or before July 6, 2027. A copy of the Court's order dated March 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=s5x2y8 at no extra charge.[CC] PDVSA PETROLEO: Standing Order in Ostrider Class Suit Entered ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OSTRIDER LIMITED v. PDVSA PETROLEO, S.A., Case No. 1:26-cv-00740-ACR (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Reyes entered a standing order as follows: Except as authorized in this Order, the parties may not contact Chambers by telephone. If extraordinary circumstances or emergencies so require, however, counsel may contact Chambers jointly via telephone conference. Chambers will not provide legal advice of any kind. The parties shall comply with the following instructions when briefing any motion. Motions filed not in compliance with this Standing Order may be rejected by the Court. Motions for reconsideration are strongly discouraged. The Court will not entertain a motion that (a) reasserts arguments previously raised and rejected by the Court or (b) raises for the first time arguments that should have been advanced in the original motion. The Court expects the parties to evaluate the case for purposes of settlement. Toward that end, the parties may, by motion, request referral for mediation to a Magistrate Judge or the Court’s mediation program. The parties may also seek relief, by motion, from a Scheduling Order for arbitration, early neutral evaluation, or any other form of alternative dispute resolution that may be tailored to the needs of the case. If the case settles, in whole or in part, plaintiff’s counsel must promptly file a notice with the Court. The Defendant is the state-owned oil and natural gas company of Venezuela. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pqLLtR at no extra charge.[CC] PEPSICO INC: Petretti Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Rick Petretti, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Pepsico Inc., Walmart Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-10607 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on March 9, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-01922-UA to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust. PepsiCo, Inc. doing business as PepsiCo -- https://www.pepsico.com/en/ -- is an American multinational food and beverage corporation headquartered in Harrison, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daryl DeValerio Andrews, Esq. ANDREWS DEVALERIO P.O. Box 67101 Chestnut Hill, MA 02467 Phone: (617) 999-6473 PLEASE FIDI LLC: Estigoy Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Please FiDi LLC, et al. The case is styled as Christian Estigoy, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Please FiDi LLC, Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC26634434 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Feb. 26, 2026). The case type is stated "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariam Nazaretyan, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 660 S. Figueroa St., Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-381-9988 Email: mariam.nazaretyan@wilshirelawfirm.com PRAGER UNIVERSITY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Chandra Due July 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SYLVIA CHANDRA, v. PRAGER UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION, Case No. 2:25-cv-03984-MCS-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Scarsi entered a scheduling order as follows: Event Date Non-expert discovery cut-off: Dec. 4, 2026 Expert discovery cut-off: Jan. 4, 2027 Deadline to file a motion for class July 2, 2026 certification: Deadline to file an opposition to the July 23, 2026 motion for class certification: Deadline to file a reply in support of Aug. 13, 2026 the motion for class certification: Hearing date on motion for class Sept. 14, 2026, certification: at 9:00 a.m. The Defendant is an American 501(c)(3) nonprofit advocacy group and media organization. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SaGfom at no extra charge.[CC] PRO COMPRESSION: Evans Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- JAMES EVANS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Pro Compression, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02728 (N.D. Ill., March 11, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://procompression.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Evans and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On November 6, 2025, while searching online for compression socks to reduce leg discomfort, Evans discovered Defendant's website. He decided to explore the website's collection with the intent to make a purchase. During his visit, Plaintiff Evans became interested in the Marathon Heather Slate socks and attempted to purchase them. However, while navigating the website using his screen reader and keyboard, he encountered multiple accessibility barriers that limited his ability to complete the transaction independently. Specifically, on the home page, Evans encountered multiple ambiguous "Shop Now" links that did not clearly indicate the products associated with each link, making it difficult for him to determine their destinations. In addition, the screen reader announced identical descriptions for multiple product images because the alternative text failed to clearly differentiate between images or provide meaningful product details and features. These access barriers render the Website inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually impaired individuals, says the suit. Plaintiff Evans seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Pro Compression, LLC operates the website that offers a variety of compression products, including compression socks in various lengths, calf sleeves, arm sleeves, and joint compression braces.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (716) 281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law PRO DISPOSAL USA: Allen Files Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pro Disposal USA, LLC. The case is styled as Amber Allen, Lauren Juarez, Betsy Gray, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Pro Disposal USA, LLC, Case No. 9:26-cv-01012-DCN (D.S.C., March 9, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Pro Disposal -- https://goprodisposal.com/ -- provides commercial and residential waste management services to customers throughout West Central Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joel C. Hynes, Esq. HYNES LAW PC 498 McAlister Drive Little River, SC 29566 Phone: (810) 533-6296 Email: joelhynes@hyneslawpc.com PROCTOR & GAMBLE: Bid to Bifurcate Discovery in Boykin Granted -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAH-NITA BOYKIN, et al., v. THE PROCTOR & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No. 1:23-cv-00427-JPH (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Hopkins entered an order granting the Defendant's motion to bifurcate discovery. The parties are ordered to meet and confer and file an amended Rule 26(f) report within 21 days of the date of this Order. The Court finds that severability can be accomplished in a manner that preserves the parties' and the Court's resources. Thus, the Court will grant the Defendant' request to bifurcate. In so doing, however, the Court does not adopt, nor does it endorse P&G's proposal for how discovery on class certification should proceed. Instead, the Court directs the parties to again meet and confer to develop a plan related to the categories of discoverable materials and issues that would be appropriate consistent with the terms of this Order. The Court encourages the parties to identify and take advantage of any efficiencies that may be gained in discovery notwithstanding the bifurcated nature of the proceeding. The class action lawsuit originated on July 12, 2023 when Named Plaintiffs, Rah-Nita Boykin, Delaney Jones, Brenda Keegan, Rasheeda Alexander, Mackenzie Gallagher, Fabjon Shehu, Toni Kellyghan, and Janna Jeansonne filed suit against the Defendant alleging that Febreze Clips, an automotive air freshener product manufactured by P&G, contain a defect that causes the clips to leak oil and/or other fragrance substances, thereby damaging the interior surfaces of the vehicles to which they are clipped. The Defendant is an American multinational consumer goods corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mNBYwm at no extra charge.[CC] PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Schedule -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXANDRO (ALEX) KIRIGIN & LAUREN R. KIRIGIN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:24-cv-01545-BJR (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting joint motion for amended scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline Progressive's class expert disclosure: April 24, 2026 Motion for class certification: May 28, 2026 Opposition to motion for class June 23, 2026 certification: Reply in support of motion for July 21, 2026 class certification: Good cause exists to modify the schedule because the Defendant needs additional time to depose the Plaintiffs' identified witness, Jennifer Boschen. The Plaintiffs had not previously identified Ms. Boschen as a witness. The Plaintiffs' Counsel and Defendant’s Counsel have agreed to a deposition of Ms. Boschen on March 24, 2026. Progressive's retained experts are unable to prepare relevant opinions regarding Ms. Boschen's analysis until after Ms. Boschen’s deposition. A reasonable extension of the deadlines ensures that class certification is resolved based on reasonable discovery and disclosure of each party's contentions. Progressive underwrites auto, fire, marine, and casualty insurance. A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Nn7JF1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Beth E. Terrell, Esq. Blythe H. Chandler, Esq. Eleanor Eagan, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com bchandler@terrellmarshall.com eeagan@terrellmarshall.com The Defendant is represented by: Logan F. Peppin, Esq. Rodger L. Eckelberry, Esq. Christopher K. Riedel, Esq. BAKER HOSTETLER LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 566-7148 E-mail: lpeppin@bakerlaw.com reckelberry@bakerlaw.com criedel@bakerlaw.com RAINDROPS ENTERPRISES: Lopez Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RAINDROPS ENTERPRISES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01978 (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.raindropscandy.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 Raindrops Sour Belts Watermelon 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 unable to locate pricing and 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. Accordingly, 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. Raindrops Enterprises, LLC operates the website that sells candies.[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 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY: Reiman Sues Over Privacy Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Susan Reiman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Case No. 30-2026-01545205-CU-BT-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty., Feb. 2, 2026), is brought arising from UCI Health's violation of patients' privacy and breach of patients' trust in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"). Despite explicitly promising consumers that their data would not be shared with third parties, UCI Health installed tracking technology from at least four third parties and allowed these third parties to harvest patients' personal information, including confidential health information like the specific medical conditions for which patients' sought treatment and the identity of the doctor from whom they sought and/or received treatment. When patients visit Defendant's website, ucihealth.org, Defendant displays a cookie consent banner. Defendant's cookie banner claims that patients may "Reject Optional Cookies" by clicking the corresponding button.1 A button marked "Manage Cookie Settings" brings patients to a popup explaining that there are four types of "Optional" tracking technologies, all of which will be removed if the patient declines consent. The four types of tracking technologies Defendant promises to remove are: "Advertising and Targeting," "Analytics," "Performance," and "Functional." By knowingly deploying these tracking technologies in violation of its own express assurances and without meaningful user consent, Defendant violated the CIPA and fundamental expectations of privacy inherent in California law and the California Constitution. The expectation of privacy is particularly important here, where the user's interactions with Defendant's website usually involve seeking medical treatment, and the information illegally disclosed by Defendant includes an identifier uniquely associated with the patient coupled with the specific type of medical condition for which treatment is sought and the name of the doctor from whom they receive treatment. Plaintiff brings this action to hold Defendant accountable for its unlawful wiretapping and its deceptive practices that left patients exposed without warning, without choice, and without recourse, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a user of Defendant's website and used Defendant's website to coordinate her medical care. The Regents of the University of California owns and operates UCI Health and its website at ucihealth.org.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: (Eddie) Jae K. Kim, Esq. Tiffine E. Malamphy, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 9171 Towne Centre Dr, Ste 180 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: (619) 762-1910 Facsimile: (858) 313-1850 Email: ekim@lcllp.com tiffine@lcllp.com RICHARD CULLIFER: Class Cert Bid Filing in USA Suit Due April 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. RICHARD H. CULLIFER, Case No. 9:25-cv-81111-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Matthewman entered a Pretrial Scheduling Order as follows: March 27, 2026 Discovery Plan shall be filed. April 30, 2026 Joinder of Additional Parties and Amend Pleadings. April 30, 2026 Any motions for class certification shall be filed. July 23, 2026 All discovery shall be completed. Settlement: If the case is settled, counsel shall promptly inform the Court by filing a notice on the docket and, within 10 days of notification of settlement to the Court, submit the appropriate closing documents for dismissal, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). The parties shall attend all hearings and abide by all time requirements unless and until an order of dismissal is filed. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t3LDdz at no extra charge.[CC] RIVER HEIGHTS: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Kidd Suit Due Nov. 3 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Kidd, Donna McKnight, and Barbara Johnson, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. River Heights Capital, LLC, David Kennedy Bifulco, and Pollack & Rosen, P.A., Case No. 2:25-cv-05112-MRP (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Perez entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. All factual discovery shall be completed on or before July 6, 2026. 2. Any initial expert reports shall be disclosed on or before Aug. 3, 2026. 3. Any rebuttal expert reports shall be disclosed on or before Aug. 24, 2026. 4. Any reply expert reports shall be disclosed on or before Sept. 8, 2026. 5. All expert discovery shall be completed on or before Oct. 5, 2026. 6. Any class certification motion shall be filed on or before Nov. 3, 2026. 7. Briefs in response to motions for class certification shall be filed by Nov. 25, 2026. 8. Any remaining deadlines, including dispositive motions, pre-trial filings, and trial dates will be scheduled following the Court’s decision on the motions for class certification. River Heights is a debt collection law firm. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JfZgra at no extra charge.[CC] ROQ US: Bid for Conditional Cert. in Hanes Suit Due June 30 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS HANES, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated, v. ROQ US, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, Case No. 3:25-cv-06076-TMC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Cartwright entered an order granting the parties' stipulated motion to enter proposed scheduling order. The Plaintiff's deadline to file any motion for conditional certification and notice shall be June 30, 2026. The Defendant's deadline to file a response to the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification and notice shall be July 21, 2026. The Plaintiff's deadline to file a reply in support of his motion for conditional certification and notice shall be July 28, 2026. The Plaintiff's deadline to file any motion for Rule 23 class certification shall be Jan. 29, 2027. The Defendant's deadline to file a response to motion for Rule 23 class certification shall be Feb. 19, 2027. The Plaintiff's deadline to file a reply in support of his motion for Rule 23 class certification shall be Feb. 26, 2027. The Defendant produces silkscreen and digital printing, folding and packaging machines for textile and other industries. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3k3O11 at no extra charge.[CC] RYDER SYSTEM INC: Sequeira Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Oliver Antonio Lopez Sequeira, an individual, on behalf of the State of California and all other similarly situated aggrieved employees v. RYDER SYSTEM, INC., a Florida corporation; CITISTAFF SOLUTIONS, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES I through 25, Inclusive, Case No. 26STCV05680 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 20, 2026), is brought under the California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, as codified in Labor Code Sections 2698, et seq. ("PAGA") against Defendants for civil penalties, interest, cost of suit and attorney's fees, and all other appropriate relief, resulting from Defendants' wage-and-hour violations and other unlawful conduct. The Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to violations of his rights under the California Labor Code and is therefore an aggrieved employee for the purposes of the Private Attorneys General Act. During the course of employment, Defendants violated several provisions of the Labor Code by failing to pay for all overtime, failing to provide sufficient meal breaks, failing to provide sufficient rest breaks, failing to provide proper paid sick leave, failing to reimburse business expenses, failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failing to maintain accurate wage records, failing to timely pay wages when due during the course of employment and upon termination, failing to provide safe and healthful work environment, failing to provide work equipment, and failing to comply with California warehouse quota laws, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a picker, and began training him to use machinery, from June of 2024 to December 26, 2024. Ryder is a Florida corporation, which operates a nationwide logistics and freight business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Hewgill, Esq. EMPLOYEE JUSTICE LEGAL GROUP PC 1001 Wilshire Blvd 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 382-2222 Fax: (213) 382-2230 Email: jhewgill@ejlglaw.com SARES REGIS GROUP: Canton Files Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sares Regis Group Residential, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Eve Canton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sares Regis Group Residential, Inc., CLPF Verandas LP, Case No. 2:26-cv-01628-DMG-MAR (C.D. Cal., Feb. 17, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Sares Regis Group -- https://www.sares-regis.com/ -- is a real estate development, investment and management firm that specializes in residential and commercial properties in the western US.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Max Stuart Roberts, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7408 Fax: (212) 989-9163 Email: mroberts@bursor.com - and - Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq. BURSOR AND FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Fax: (925) 407-2700 Email: sbogdanovich@bursor.com SENTINEL OFFENDER: Duran-Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sentinel Offender Services LLC. The case is styled as Ezra Duran-Garcia, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sentinel Offender Services LLC, Case No. 26STCV03764 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 2, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Sentinel Offender Services -- https://sentineladvantage.com/ -- is a criminal justice services and original equipment manufacturing company based in Anaheim, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justen A. Lipeles, Esq. 1060 Aviation Blvd, 100 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Phone: 310-322-2211 SIX FLAGS: Court Directs Parties to File Joint Report ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as I.L. v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp. et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01769-KES-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order that: 1. No later than March 9, 2026, the parties' shall file a joint report setting forth details of their intended efforts to resolve the action over the requested 120-day period the action is to be stayed, including, as appropriate, an anticipated timeline for pursuing private mediation. 2. The deadline within which to file objections to the pending findings and recommendations, issued on Feb. 13, 2026, is continued to March 16, 2026. 3. The parties' deadline to comply with the Court's order on the parties' respective requests to seal is unaffected by this order. In their request, the parties do not provide any proposed plan, schedule, or particulars concerning their intended efforts to explore resolution. Without such details, the Court is unable to determine whether a stay of 120 days' length is warranted. Thus, the Court will direct the parties' to file a joint report setting forth the particulars of their intended efforts regarding resolution of the action over the length of the requested stay. The Court also will grant a brief extension of the deadline to prepare and file objections to the findings and recommendations. Six Flags was an American amusement park corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ICvY1U at no extra charge.[CC] SIX FLAGS: I.L. Suit Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as I.L. v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp. et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01769-KES-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Nov. 13, 2025, at 10:30 a.m., will move the Court for an Order: (i) granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the Classes and Subclasses; (ii) appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and (iii) appointing Bursor & Fisher, P.A., as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). The Plaintiffs request certification of the following two Nationwide Classes and two California Subclasses. The Nationwide Classes seek only injunctive relief pursuant to Title III of the ADA1 and under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), while the California Subclasses seek statutory minimum and treble damages pursuant to the Unruh Act2 under Rule 23(b)(3): 1. The Impermissible Inquiry Classes: a. Nationwide Class: "All persons in the United States with an ADA-qualifying disability who, from Dec. 26, 2020, to and through the date of final judgment in this action, submitted an IBCCES application for accommodations in connection with a planned visit to any of the Defendants' theme, amusement, and/or water parks in the United States (the "Impermissible Inquiry Class" or "Nationwide Impermissible Inquiry Class")." b. California Subclass: "All members of the Nationwide Impermissible Inquiry Class who, from Dec. 26, 2021, to and through the date of final judgment in this action, submitted an IBCCES application in connection with a planned visit to any of Defendants’ theme, amusement, and/or water parks in California (the "Impermissible Inquiry Subclass" or "California Impermissible Inquiry Subclass")." 2. The Inability To Seek Accommodations (“ISA”) Classes: a. Nationwide Class: "All persons in the United States with an ADA-qualifying disability who, from December 26, 2020, to and through the date of final judgment in this action, visited any of the Defendants' theme, amusement, and/or water parks in the United States and attempted to request an accommodation at the Parks without having registered in advance with IBCCES, and were therefore unable to seek or obtain reasonable accommodations at Defendants' facilities on the day of the individual's park visit (the "ISA Class" or "Nationwide ISA Class")." b. California Subclass: "All members of the Nationwide ISA Class who, from Dec. 26, 2021, to and through the date of final judgment in this action, visited any of the Defendants' theme, amusement, and/or water parks in California and attempted to request an accommodation at any of the California Parks without having registered in advance with IBCCES, and were therefore unable to seek or obtain reasonable accommodations at the Defendants' facilities on the day of the individual's park visit (the "ISA Subclass" or "California ISA Subclass")." The Defendants have allegedly violated Title III of the Americans with Disability Act ("ADA"), and the Unruh Civil Rights Act ("Unruh Act"), through their disability accommodations request procedure. Specifically, the Defendants have been discriminating against Plaintiffs and other disabled persons since 2020, when Six Flags uniformly implemented its current procedures for making accommodation requests at each of the Parks in the United States, called the "Attraction Accessibility Program." Six Flags owns and/or operates theme, amusement, and/or water parks. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3uObpI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Julia K. Venditti, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard, 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com jvenditti@bursor.com SNAP INC: Yee Sues Over Sale of Confidential Personal Information ----------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Yee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SNAP, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-01528-VC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 20, 2026), is brought against the Defendant to enforce their constitutional rights to privacy and to seek damages under Federal and California law for the harm caused by the collection and sale of their confidential data and personal information. The Defendant surveils of millions of Americans, including millions of people who do not have Snapchat accounts, through their activity on the Internet and mobile applications. Snap, through its software products, tracks in real time and records indefinitely non-anonymous personal information and specific web activity of hundreds of millions of Americans. The Defendant collects this information to identify users of the Snap social media platform and serve them with advertisements based on their activity off the platform and, in doing so, connects intimate details about their person and behavior to an individual's email address and phone number. This, on its own, is invasive enough, but Snap also collects and stores the information of millions of people who do not have Snap accounts. This unlawfully collected information is worth billions of dollars to Defendant because it fuels the advertising machine on Snap, at the expense of Americans' privacy, says the complaint. The Plaintiff visited numerous websites where Snap's tracking technology was present and had his activity on those websites and subsequent activity on other websites tracked by Defendant. Snap, Inc. owns and operates the Snap Pixel and the Snapchat social media platform, including its advertising service.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 50 Main St., Ste. 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Phone: (914) 874-0710 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Kaili C. Lynn, Esq. Joshua R. Wilner, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: klynn@bursor.com jwilner@bursor.com - and - Max S. Roberts, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10069 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: mroberts@bursor.com SOUTHERN FINANCIAL: Court Tosses Alexander Suit with Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AUSTIN ALEXANDER, v. SOUTHERN FINANCIAL LIFE INS. CO., Case No. 3:24-cv-00393-DJH-CHL (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Hale entered an order as follows: (1) Alexander's motion to certify class is denied as moot. (2) This action stands dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and is closed and stricken from the Court's active docket. The Defendant sells credit life and disability insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Hpbwd6 at no extra charge.[CC] SPIN MASTER: Class Cert Bid Filing in Gamino Continued to May 19 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TESHA GAMINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SPIN MASTER, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-02242-DMG-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Gee entered an order continuing current Class Certification briefing and hearing dates as follows: Event Date Deadline to file the Plaintiff's motion May 19, 2026 for class certification, including any expert reports upon which the Plaintiff relies in the motion: Deadline to complete depositions and Aug. 18, 2026 document productions for the Plaintiff's experts re: Class Certification: Deadline to file the Defendant's Aug. 28, 2026 opposition to class certification, including any expert reports and any Daubert motion as to the Plaintiff's experts: Deadline to file reply in support of Nov. 17, 2026 class certification, including any rebuttal expert reports upon which the Plaintiff relies in her Motion, and any Daubert motion as to Defendant's experts: Class certification hearing: Dec. 4, 2026 By March 24, 2026, the parties shall meet and confer and file either a Joint Status Report or a stipulation and proposed order if the remaining dates and deadlines must be modified. Spin Master is a Canadian multinational company specializing in toys, games, entertainment, and digital games for children. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5uH3Rd at no extra charge.[CC] STERLING INFOSYSTEMS: Miller Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sterling Infosystems, Inc. The case is styled as Latona Mille, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Sterling Infosystems, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-01147-JPB-CMS (N.D. Ga., Feb. 27, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Sterling Infosystems Inc. -- https://www.sterlingcheck.com/ -- doing business as Sterling, provides human resource services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jayson Watkins, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (816) 281-7162 Email: jwatkins@sirillp.com - and – MaryBeth Vassil Gibson, Esq. GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 4279 Roswell Road, Suite 208-108 Atlanta, GA 30342 Phone: (678) 642-2503 Email: marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com STITCH FIX: California Derivative Suit 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 the derivative suit. On July 22, 2025, another derivative action was filed by the same stockholder against certain of the Company's current and former directors and officers, among others, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging claims based on similar factual allegations underlying the Securities Class Action and seeking, inter alia, the disgorgement and redistribution of alleged insider trading profits by the insider trading defendants to stockholders, damages and restitution to be paid to the Company by the individual defendants, governance changes, and attorneys' fees and costs; this action in the Northern District of California is currently stayed. 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. STOP & SHOP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Williams Due August 10 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Williams v. The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-12055 (D. Mass., Filed Aug. 9, 2024), the Hon. Judge Julia E. Kobick entered an order granting joint motion to Partially Amend Scheduling Order: -- Fact Discovery to be completed by July 13, 2026 -- Disclosure of Plaintiff's Class Certification Experts and Filing of Class Certification Expert Reports shall be done by Aug. 10, 2026 -- The Plaintiff's Class Certification Motion to be filed by Aug. 10, 2026 -- Deadline for Depositions of Plaintiff's Class Certification Experts shall be done by Sept. 14, 2026 -- The Defendants Class Certification Opposition to be filed by Oct. 12, 2026 -- Disclosure of Defendants' Class Certification Experts and Filing of Defendants' Class Certification Expert Report(s) shall be done by Oct. 13, 2026 -- Plaintiffs Class Certification Reply to be filed by Nov. 13, 2026 -- The Plaintiffs Class Certification Expert Rebuttal Report(s) to be filed by Nov. 13, 2026 -- The Parties to submit proposed schedule for briefing of Daubert motions pertaining to class certification, if any, by Nov. 20, 2026 The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. The Stop & Shop is an American regional chain of supermarkets.[CC] SUN HOSPITALITY INC: Chaidez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sun Hospitality Inc. The case is styled as Maricela Chaidez, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Sun Hospitality Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0001119 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Feb. 17, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." SUN Hospitality -- https://www.sunhospitality.com/ -- is proud to provide expert housekeeping and cleaning services to property managers, business owners, and homeowners.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arby Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 Arden Ave., Ste. 20 Glendale, CA 91203-4007 Phone: 818-265-1020 Fax: 818-265-1021 Email: arby@calljustice.com SWEEPSTEAKES LIMITED: Court Sends "Hall" to Arbitration ------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Laura Hall, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Sweepsteakes Limited d/b/a Stake.us, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-345-RAH (M.D. Ala.), Chief Judge R. Austin Huffaker, Jr., of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama granted the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration in this putative class action. The case is stayed pending the conclusion of arbitration proceedings. Sweepsteakes Limited d/b/a Stake.us operates a Cyprus-based online gaming website that offers virtual casino-style games such as slots, scratch cards, poker, and other table games. Plaintiff Laura Hall claimed that players could purchase gold coins, which came bundled with stake cash that could be wagered for monetary prizes. She alleged that the games on the website constituted illegal gambling under Alabama law and sought damages on behalf of herself, her minor child, and a putative class under Alabama Code Section 8-1-150(a), as well as declaratory and injunctive relief on a class-wide basis. To play games on Stake's website, a player must create a user account and agree to the Terms and Conditions, which were presented in a scrollwrap format requiring the player to scroll through the entire document before clicking a checkbox confirming agreement. The Terms and Conditions contained a bolded and underlined dispute resolution provision stating that any and all disputes, including any question regarding the existence, validity, enforceability, or termination of the Terms, as well as the decision of whether the dispute should be arbitrated in the first place, shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration administered by the American Arbitration Association. Hall conceded that the Terms and Conditions contained an arbitration agreement and that the arbitration agreement contained a delegation clause. She nevertheless argued that the agreement was unenforceable for lack of legal consideration, lack of mutuality of obligation, unconscionability, and fraud. She further argued that the declaratory relief sought in Count 1 fell outside the scope of the arbitration agreement. The Court found that the arbitration agreement contained an express delegation clause and incorporated the American Arbitration Association's Consumer Arbitration Rules, by which the parties clearly and unmistakably agreed to delegate questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator. The Court concluded that Hall's challenges regarding mutuality, fraud, and unconscionability were directed at the contract as a whole and therefore constituted issues of arbitrability delegated to the arbitrator. As to the consideration challenge directed specifically at the delegation clause, the Court found it without merit. The delegation clause was supported by valid consideration separate and apart from the remainder of the agreement because mutual promises to arbitrate and mutual promises to delegate certain issues to the arbitrator constituted adequate consideration under Alabama law. The Court further found that Hall's declaratory judgment claim was a merits-based claim that clearly fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and that whether the agreement covered that claim was itself an issue of arbitrability for the arbitrator to resolve. Accordingly, the Court ordered as follows: (1) Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration is granted; (2) the parties are compelled to arbitration pursuant to the arbitration agreement contained in the Terms and Conditions; (3) the case is stayed pending conclusion of the arbitration; and (4) on or before July 1, 2026, the parties shall file a status report concerning the arbitration, with updated reports every 90 days thereafter. The Court expressed no opinion on the merits of Hall's claims or on the underlying arbitrability of her claims. A copy of the Court's decision dated 12th March is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7zIPJn from PacerMonitor.com Defendant Sweepsteakes Limited Represented By Gerald Palfery Gillespy Forrest Stephen Latta Burr & Forman LLP 205-458-5348 gillespy@burr.com forrest.latta@burr.com Alain Jeff Ifrah Robert William Ward George Reid Calhoun, V Abbey Elizabeth Block Ifrah PLLC jeff@ifrahlaw.com rward@ifrahlaw.com george@ifrahlaw.com ablock@ifrahlaw.com Plaintiff Laura Hall Represented By James Mitchell Williams Beasley Allen Crow Methvin Portis & Miles P.C 334-269-2343 mitch.williams@beasleyallen.com Henry Clay Barnett, III Beasley Allen Crow Methvin Portis & Miles 334-269-2343 clay.barnett@beasleyallen.com Paul W. Evans Beasley Allen Crow Methvin Portis & Miles 334-495-1699 paul.evans@beasleyallen.com Wilson Daniel Miles, III Beasley Allen Crown Methvin Portis & Miles PC 334-269-2343 dee.miles@beasleyallen.com Leon Hampton, Jr. Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. 334-269-2343 leon.hampton@beasleyallen.com Trenton Harrell Mann, I Beasley Allen Law Firm 334-269-2343 trent.mann@beasleyallen.com Dylan Thomas Martin Beasley Allen Law Firm 334-269-2343 dylan.martin@beasleyallen.com Joel D. Smith Smith Krivoshey, PC 617-377-7404 joel@skclassactions.com Plaintiff J. S. Represented By James Mitchell Williams Beasley Allen Crow Methvin Portis & Miles P.C 334-269-2343 mitch.williams@beasleyallen.com Henry Clay Barnett, III Beasley Allen Crow Methvin Portis & Miles 334-269-2343 clay.barnett@beasleyallen.com Paul W. Evans Beasley Allen Crow Methvin Portis & Miles 334-495-1699 paul.evans@beasleyallen.com Wilson Daniel Miles, III Beasley Allen Crown Methvin Portis & Miles PC 334-269-2343 dee.miles@beasleyallen.com Leon Hampton, Jr. Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. 334-269-2343 leon.hampton@beasleyallen.com Trenton Harrell Mann, I Beasley Allen Law Firm 334-269-2343 trent.mann@beasleyallen.com Dylan Thomas Martin Beasley Allen Law Firm 334-269-2343 dylan.martin@beasleyallen.com Joel D. Smith Smith Krivoshey, PC 617-377-7404 joel@skclassactions.com TACOS LOS DESVELADOS: Medrano Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tacos Los Desvelados. The case is styled as Salvador Adalberto Medrano, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tacos Los Desvelados d/b/a Desvelado's Cantina, Case No. 26STCV04001 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 2, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Tacos Los Desvelados doing business as Desvelado's Cantina -- https://www.tacosdesveladosca.com/ -- offers an array of delicious tacos, handcrafted cocktails, and a welcoming atmosphere.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justen A. Lipeles, Esq. 1060 Aviation Blvd, 100 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Phone: 310-322-2211 TASKRABBIT INC: Linehan Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Sarah Linehan, individually and on behalf of the proposed class v. TASKRABBIT, INC., Case No. 26-2-04547-0 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on March 6, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00771. The Plaintiff alleges that Taskrabbit "implemented multiple text based referral programs which prompted existing users to send pre-packaged referral messages to their contacts by text message" in violation of Washington's Consumer Electronic Mail Act ("CEMA") and Consumer Protection Act ("CPA"). The Plaintiff further alleges that "Defendant's scheme operates nationwide and Defendant has thousands of customers in Washington" which "foreseeably resulted in promotional texts targeting hundreds or thousands of Washington residents." Based on Taskrabbit's review of its relevant business records and based on reasonable business assumptions, Taskrabbit estimates that at least 3,334 Washington residents received referral text messages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Tack-Hooper, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 92 Lenora Street, #179 Seattle, WA 98121 Email: ryan@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.comm The Defendants are represented by: Kenneth E. Payson, Esq. Lauren B. Rainwater, Esq. Emma C. Englund, Esq. Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Phone: 206-622-3150 Email: kennethpayson@dwt.com laurenrainwater@dwt.com emmaenglund@dwt.com TEACHERS INSURANCE: Claims as to Absent Class Members Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN CARFORA, SANDRA PUTNAM, and JUAN GONZALES, individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated individuals, v. TEACHERS INSURANCE ANNUITY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA and TIAA-CREF INDIVIDUAL & INSTITUTIONAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-08384-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katherine Polk Failla entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim as to absent class members for lack of standing. The Plaintiffs may not attempt to pursue classwide claims for those plans in which they did not participate. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 105. The parties are directed to submit a joint letter concerning proposed next steps in the case on or before March 27, 2026. The Plaintiffs are suing a service provider, not the Plan Sponsors, so standing doctrine does not require them to establish that they were harmed by each Plan Sponsor. The Plaintiffs need only have suffered injury-in-fact due to TIAA's actions, which they sufficiently allege. The Plaintiffs brought this putative class action against the Defendants in connection with Defendants' provision of various administrative and investment-related services to the Plaintiffs' employer-sponsored retirement plans, which are covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). Teachers Insurance is a financial services company primarily focused on providing retirement services. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dFvRYz at no extra charge.[CC] TECHNICAL EDUCATION: Dunagan Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Samantha Jean Dunagan, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TECHNICAL EDUCATION SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; TECHNICAL EDUCATION SERVICES, INC., a Virginia corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,, Case No. 26CV163571 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on March 6, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-01969. The Complaint asserts the following eight causes of action: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime compensation; failure to provide meal periods; failure to authorize and permit rest breaks; failure to indemnify necessary business expenses; failure to timely pay final wages at termination; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and unfair business practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Brooke S. Hammond, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 Phone: 310.553.0308 Facsimile: 800.715.1330 Email: bhammond@littler.com - and - Michael R. Minguet, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213.443.4300 Facsimile: 800.715.1330 Email: mminguet@littler.com TEVA PHARMA: Court Partly OKs Motion to Compel in "Burge" --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as DENA BURGE, LEIGH HOCKETT, JORDAN FURLAN, CRISTINE RIDEY, PATRICIA SAWCZUK, and ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES, LTD., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., TEVA PARENTERAL MEDICINES, INC., TEVA NEUROSCIENCE, INC., TEVA SALES AND MARKETING, INC., and CEPHALON, INC., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-2501-DDC-TJJ (D. Kan.), Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Regarding Goodwin Procter LLP's Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs' Subpoena to Produce Documents. Plaintiffs, representing a proposed class, allege Defendants and their co-conspirators entered an unlawful reverse payment settlement and conspired to safeguard their monopoly on Nuvigil, a wakefulness drug with the generic name armodafinil. Plaintiffs allege Defendants agreed to stay out of the EpiPen market, allowing Mylan and Pfizer to maintain their EpiPen monopoly. In exchange, Plaintiffs contend, Mylan and Pfizer agreed to stay out of the Nuvigil market, allowing Defendants to maintain their Nuvigil monopoly. Plaintiffs refer to these agreements as the trade-for-delay agreement. Since June 2024, the case was bifurcated, with Phase I discovery focused on the timeliness of Plaintiffs' claims under the applicable statutes of limitations and the related issues of tolling and fraudulent concealment. Plaintiffs served a subpoena duces tecum upon Goodwin Procter LLP (Goodwin), one of the law firms representing Defendants in this action, which also represented Teva with regard to the EpiPen settlement and Nuvigil settlement. The subpoena set an April 29, 2025 date for compliance and set forth nine challenged document requests covering: communications concerning the EpiPen settlement (Request 1), communications concerning the Nuvigil settlement (Request 2), documents and communications concerning the Mylan and Teva press releases (Requests 3-4), documents and communications concerning disclosure of settlement terms (Requests 5-6), documents concerning any relationship between the two settlements (Request 7), and documents relating to Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (MMA) filings pertaining to each settlement (Requests 8-9). The applicable time period for all requests was April 30, 2012 through the present. Goodwin served its objections and responses on May 30, 2025, objecting to all the requests and stating it would not search for, log, or produce any documents or communications in response. Goodwin argued the subpoenaed documents were largely duplicative of documents already produced or logged as privileged by Defendants, overly broad, irrelevant, and protected from disclosure as attorney work product. Defendants had already produced over 81,000 documents and logged thousands more on a privilege log. Following failed meet-and-confer conferences and an unresolved pre-motion discovery conference with the Court, Plaintiffs timely filed their motion to compel on August 6, 2025. The Court found the subpoena likely would require Goodwin to produce or log a significant number of duplicate documents already produced or logged by Defendants, given Goodwin's attorney-client relationship with Defendants and the number of times Goodwin attorneys appeared on Defendants' privilege log. The Court found requiring Goodwin to produce or log duplicate documents would be unduly burdensome, inefficient, and cause needless delay and expense. Accordingly, the Court modified Requests 1-9 to exclude responsive communications and documents that had already been produced by Defendants or logged on a privilege log in the case. Goodwin objected to Requests 3-9 to the extent they required production of its internal law firm communications and documents, arguing they were irrelevant unless conveyed to the client and were protected as attorney work product. The Court found that Goodwin's wholly internal communications and documents would not be relevant unless conveyed to its client, because the actions or inactions of Defendants, not Goodwin, were at issue. Accordingly, the Court sustained Goodwin's relevance objection and modified Requests 3-9 to exclude internal law firm communications and documents. The Court found the April 30, 2012 through the present time frame overly broad on its face. The settlements at issue were finalized and press releases issued in 2012, and the lack of any end date would subject Goodwin to an undue burden. The Court modified Requests 1-7 to the one-year time period January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012, noting Goodwin's own acknowledgment that the two settlements were independently negotiated over a four-month period between January and April 2012. For Requests 8-9, the Court found a December 31, 2016 end date reasonable based on Plaintiffs' showing that Goodwin attorneys were involved in drafting MMA-related filings throughout 2016, and limited Requests 8-9 to April 30, 2012 through December 31, 2016. Goodwin proposed limiting Requests 1-2 and 5-6 to communications in which no Teva personnel appeared. The Court rejected this proposal as too narrow. The Court found the modifications already ordered adequately addressed Goodwin's concerns and directed that Goodwin must produce communications and documents responsive to the challenged requests as modified, even where Teva personnel were included on the communication. The Court ordered Goodwin to produce documents responsive to the subpoena, as modified, within fourteen days. If Goodwin withholds documents on the basis of any privilege or work product, it must provide a privilege log describing the withheld documents within thirty days after the ordered production. A copy of the Court's decision March 13, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=J1V4Sf from PacerMonitor.com TOBIAS READ: Court Grants TRO in "Martin" ----------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Mary Martin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tobias Read, in his official capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Oregon, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00433-SI (D. Or.), Judge Michael H. Simon of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon granted Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order, limited to the named Plaintiff only, in this putative class action. On September 29, 2025, the Oregon Legislature passed House Bill 3991, raising the state gasoline tax from $0.40 to $0.46 per gallon, effective January 1, 2026. Citizens responded by launching Referendum Petition 2026-302, now known as Measure 120. Petitioners gathered more than 250,000 signatures, exceeding the 78,116 required under Oregon law. During the 2026 legislative session, Senate Bill 1599A moved the referendum vote from the November 2026 general election to the primary election scheduled for May 19, 2026. Governor Tina Kotek signed Senate Bill 1599A into law on March 2, 2026. Secretary of State Tobias Read then issued a temporary administrative rule setting March 12, 2026 at 5:00 p.m. as the firm deadline for submission of all Voters' Pamphlet arguments. Plaintiff Mary Martin is a 73-year-old widow confined to a wheelchair, subsisting on a fixed income of $1,400 per month in social security widow's benefits. Under Oregon Revised Statute Section 251.255(2)(a), any person seeking to publish an argument in the Voters' Pamphlet must either pay a $1,200 fee or gather 500 original wet-ink signatures of active electors. Plaintiff contended she could neither afford the fee nor physically gather the required signatures within the compressed timeframe. Plaintiff brought an as-applied challenge to Section 251.255(2)(a), asserting violations of: (1) the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment; (2) the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and (3) Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12132. Upon careful examination, the Court found serious questions going to the merits. Prior Ninth Circuit decisions in Kaplan v. County of Los Angeles and NAACP, Los Angeles Branch v. Jones foreclosed a facial challenge to the statute, but neither addressed an as-applied challenge where the alternative path for indigent persons was, as a practical matter, unavailable due to a confluence of highly unusual facts. The Court also found serious questions under Title II of the ADA, concluding that the compressed timeframe rendered the signature-gathering pathway inaccessible to persons with disabilities like Plaintiff. The Court further found that a colorable First Amendment claim constitutes irreparable injury sufficient to merit relief. If Plaintiff's right to have her argument published in the statewide Voters' Pamphlet were denied, there would be no remedy available at the conclusion of the lawsuit. Regarding class action status, the putative class has not moved for provisional certification. The Court declined to extend classwide relief, finding it unnecessary to preserve jurisdiction or provide complete relief to the named Plaintiff. The Court also noted several potential problems with the proposed class definition. Accordingly, the balance of hardships tipped sharply in Plaintiff's favor with respect to individual relief, while granting classwide relief would impose substantial hardship on Defendant. Therefore, the Court enjoined Defendant from enforcing Section 251.255(2)(a) against Mary Martin with respect to either of that statute's two alternative conditions for publishing her written argument regarding Measure 120 in the Oregon statewide Voters' Pamphlet. The Court waived all security requirements under Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Order expires fourteen days after entry, unless otherwise extended by stipulation of the parties or further Order of the Court. Plaintiff is represented by Ryan Adams of Fir Law Group LLC, Silverton, Oregon. Defendant is represented by Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, and Senior Assistant Attorneys General Thomas H. Castelli and Jacob Reisberg of the Oregon Department of Justice, Portland, Oregon. A copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated 11th March is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4qstUl from PacerMonitor.com Plaintiff Mary Martin Represented By J. Ryan Adams, Esq., at Fir Law Group, 503-880-5900, ryan@firlawgroup.com TOYOTA MOTOR: Seeks to Exclude Expert Opinion in Dong Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YAN DONG, SARA HADI and JUN IMAIZUMI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., a California corporation; and TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., a California corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-09613-JLS-SSC (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants, on April 24, 2026 will move the Court for an order excluding the expert opinions, declaration, and testimony of Murat Okçuoglu submitted in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Toyota moves to exclude all of Okçuoglu's opinions related to the Plaintiffs' motion because the opinions he offers for class certification go far beyond HVAC systems, are unsupported and irrelevant under the governing legal standard, will not be helpful to a jury, and fail to apply any reliable methodology. Additionally, Toyota moves to exclude Okçuoglu's opinions regarding odor and mold and Okçuoglu's opinions regarding what Toyota should have done because he is unqualified to offer them and they are mere unsupported lay opinions that do not help the jury. Toyota is the North American Toyota sales, marketing, and distribution subsidiary devoted to the United States market. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NEq1su at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: David L. Schrader, Esq. Lisa R. Weddle, Esq. Evan A. Ormond, Esq. Matthew M. Papkin, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue Twenty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Telephone: (213) 612-2500 Facsimile: (213) 612-2501 E-mail: david.schrader@morganlewis.com lisa.weddle@morganlewis.com evan.ormond@morganlewis.com matthew.papkin@morganlewis.com TRADE DESK: Medvedevu Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info --------------------------------------------------------------- NELI MEDVEDEVU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE TRADE DESK, INC. and REGIONAL WOMEN'S HEALTH GROUP, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02537 (C.D. Cal., March 10, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, intrusion upon seclusion, negligence, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. The Trade Desk, Inc. is a technology company, with its principal place of business in Ventura, California. Regional Women's Health Group, LLC, doing business as Axia Women's Health Management and/or Axia Women's Health, is a private healthcare system based in Oaks, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. Melanie R. Monroe, Esq. Trevor Flynn, Esq. Allison Ferraro, Esq. Daniel E. Sachs, Esq. FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN PC 2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 215-1741 Email: jfitzgerald@fmfpc.com mmonroe@fmfpc.com tflynn@fmfpc.com aferraro@fmfpc.com dsachs@fmfpc.com TRANSFORCE INC: Garcia Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Sandra Garcia, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. TRANSFORCE, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive), Case No. CIVSR2510935 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 20, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-00892-JGB-ACCV. The Plaintiff alleges 10 claims on behalf of herself and the putative class members: unpaid overtime; unpaid meal period premiums; unpaid rest period premiums; unpaid minimum wages; final wages not paid timely; wages not paid timely during employment; non-compliant wage statements; failure to keep requisite payroll records; unreimbursed business expenses; and violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Shannon B. Nakabayashi, Esq, Trenten N. Bilodeaux, Esq, JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4615 Phone: (415) 394-9400 Facsimile: (415) 394-9401 Email: Shannon.Nakabayashi@jacksonlewis.com Trenten.Bilodeaux@jacksonlewis.com UNITED STATES: Fell Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHANIE FELL, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-04206-TSC (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting certification of the following proposed class and subclasses: Class: "All federal employees who, prior to judgment, have been subject to separation from the federal government pursuant to the anti‑DEIA EOs and OPM's implementing directives." Title VII Gender Subclass: "All female or non-binary federal employees who, prior to judgment, have been subject to separation from the federal government pursuant to the anti‑DEIA EOs and OPM's implementing directives." Title VII Race/Ethnicity Subclass: "All African American/Black, Hispanic/Latino, Asian American/Pacific Islander, or Native American/Indigenous federal employees who, prior to judgment, have been subject to separation from the federal government pursuant to the anti‑DEIA EOs and OPM's implementing directives." The Plaintiffs further request that the Court appoint all of the Plaintiffs as representatives of the Class; appoint the Plaintiffs Carrillo-Figueroa, Fell, Gilliard, Jensen, Oliver, Smith, and Stainnak as representatives of the Title VII Gender Subclass; appoint Plaintiffs Carrillo-Figueroa, Gilliard, Laboy, Oliver, and Smith, as representatives of the Title VII Race/Ethnicity Subclass; and appoint the Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs challenge a uniform, government-wide policy and practice to eliminate from federal service all employees classified by the federal government as associated with diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility ("DEIA"). The Plaintiffs, proud public servants, were subject to an unlawful Reduction in Force ("RIF") pursuant to Executive Order 14151, "Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferences," Executive Order 14173, "Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity," (the "anti-DEIA EOs"), and the Office of Personnel Management ("OPM")'s implementing directives. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=n1XA5z at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edward Baker, Esq. Jessica A. Moldovan, Esq. Jahi J. Liburd, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 E-mail: kdermody@lchb.com ebaker@lchb.com jmoldovan@lchb.com jliburd@lchb.com - and - Mary E. Kuntz, Esq. Anna Kathryn B. Barry, Esq. Hector Ruiz, Esq. Samantha A. Sloane, Esq. KALIJARVI, CHUZI, NEWMAN & FITCH P.C. 818 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 331-9260 Facsimile: (866) 452-5789 E-mail: mkuntz@kcnlaw.com akbarry@kcnlaw.com hruiz@kcnlaw.com ssloane@kcnlaw.com - and - Scott Michelman, Esq. Aditi Shah, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 529 14th Street NW, Suite 722 Washington, DC 20045 Telephone: (202) 457-0800 E-mail: smichelman@acludc.org ashah@acludc.org UNITED STATES: Parties Must Provide Joint Status Report ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE JUAN CORONEL EVARISTO v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL., Case No. 5:25-cv-00215-BJB-LLK (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Beaton entered an order directing the parties to provide a joint status report within seven days of the order to certify compliance with the Court's order. a group brought a putative class action in the Central District of California, seeking a declaratory judgment on behalf of a nationwide class that the Government’s statutory interpretation was wrong. Jose Juan Coronel Evaristo is (undisputedly) a member of the Bautista class. He's a 35-year-old citizen of Mexico who has resided in the United States for the last twenty years, having entered through the southern border without inspection. Until now, the Government has maintained that § 1225(b)(2) authorizes its continued detention of the Petitioner. But Bautista's final judgment, as explained in this Court’s opinions, precludes that reliance. Now limited to and by section 1226(a), the Government must follow the bond-hearing and eligibility framework required by that statute and its implementing regulations. Without adherence to those procedures, the Government lacks a lawful basis for the Petitioner’s continued detention and, therefore, must release him. The Department of Homeland Security is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for public security, roughly comparable to the interior, home, or public security ministries in other countries. A copy of the Court's opinion & order dated March 2, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dzKquO at no extra charge.[CC] UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Ellis Sues Over Telemarketing Robocalls ----------------------------------------------------------- Terrace Ellis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC., Case No. 27-CV-26-2787 (Minn. 4th Judicial Dist. Ct., Hennepin Cty., Feb. 20, 2026), is brought against Defendant to stop its incessant and aggravating telemarketing robocalls that harass people throughout the country in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and the National Do Not Call Registry prohibitions. By breaking our country's well-established telemarketing robocall laws UNH gains a massively unfair business advantage over other companies who are compliant with the TCPA and obtain express consent when selling their products. Loading up a robodialer and sending prerecorded messages is very cheap compared to following the law and leaving messages by an actual person. By breaking our country's well established laws surrounding the National Do Not Call Registry UNH makes more money than businesses who do not call people on the Registry. By calling people on the Do Not Call Registry UNH knows people will be more likely to answer calls believing that the calls are not telemarketing. To promote its products and profits, UNH engages in unsolicited and unlawful marketing, harming and annoying Americans with millions of unwanted prerecorded calls. The Plaintiff brings this class action to get relief for consumers from UNH's invasive, annoying and illegal telemarketing robocalls, says the complaint. The Plaintiff received all of UNH's robocalls on her personal cellular telephone, for which she is a residential subscriber. UNH is headquartered in Eden Prairie, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Michelle Drake, Esq. John G. Albanese, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Phone: 612.594.5999 Fax: 612.584.4470 Email: emdrake@bergermontague.com jalbanese@bergermontague.com - and - William (Billy) Peerce Howard, Esq. THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM 401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2340 Truist Place Tampa, FL. 33602 Phone: (813) 500-1500 Facsimile: (813) 435-2369 Email: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com - and - Alexander Burke, Esq. BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC 909 Davis St, Ste 500 Evanston, IL 60201 Phone: 312-729-5288 Email: aburke@burkelawllc.com UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS: Jackson Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Imari Jackson, an individual, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Universal Logistics Holdings, Inc., a Domestic Profit Corporation, Case No. 2:26-cv-10807-FKB-CI (E.D. Mich., March 10, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid overtime and retaliation case in which the Plaintiff was paid only his hourly rate when he worked overtime, as opposed to time and a half. On January 27, 2026, Plaintiff's manager told him that he was "not worth" an overtime rate. On January 29, 2026, submitted a forma complaint for unpaid wages and overtime to Universal's Human Resources ("HR") team. On February 18, 2026, Universal fired Plaintiff due to "downsizing." This reason is pretextual because Universal is still hiring mechanics, The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other mechanics who were not properly paid an overtime rate when working over 40 hours in a week by Universal. The Plaintiff also brings this action on behalf of himself for Universal retaliatory termination., says the complaint. The Plaintiff became Defendant's employee on July 2024 as a Mechanic. The Defendant's business operations are located in this district, and it regularly conducts business in this district.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ertis Tereziu, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 150 W. Jefferson Ave., Suite 1400 Detroit, MI 48226 Phone: (248) 739-1953 Fax: (248) 739-1978 Email: etereziu@forthepeople.com VALVE CORP: Matamoros Sues Over Illegal Online Gambling Game ------------------------------------------------------------ CARLOS MATAMOROS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VALVE CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00812 (W.D. Wash., March 11, 2026) arises from the Defendant's violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act after it has profited from its operation of unlawful games of chance, amassing hundreds of millions of dollars from the losers of its Loot Box Game. Valve designed and operates a for-profit illegal gambling game within the Valve Games: the Loot Box Game. The Plaintiff and other players obtain Loot Boxes either while playing the Valve Games, or by purchasing them on Steam. They must pay Valve real money to open Loot Boxes. Opening Loot Boxes with a Key provides players a chance to win digital assets, created by Valve. In Counter-Strike, the digital asset is frequently something called a "Skin." Skins change the appearance of a player's weapons within Counter Strike but have no functional impact on gameplay. Like Counter-Strike, the digital assets found in Team Fortress 2 and Dota 2 Loot Boxes contain items that allow Players to change the appearance of weapons or characters in each game. According to the complaint, Valve's Loot Box Game is an illegal gambling game under Washington law because players wager things of value (Keys) and by an element of chance (using a Key to open a Loot Box) are able to obtain things of value (virtual items, like Skins), which in turn can be exchanged for Valve's hardware, software, and extended Loot Box Game gameplay. By operating its illegal online gambling game, Valve violated Washington law and illegally profited from consumers. Accordingly, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and a Class of similarly situated individuals, brings this lawsuit to recover their losses, as well as costs and attorneys' fees. Valve Corporation is the publisher and developer of the videogame Counter-Strike. It owns and operates the online store Steam.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas H. Sanders, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 1311 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Ste 600 San Juan, PR 00917 Telephone: (516) 206-7616 Facsimile: (516) 282-7888 E-mail: dsanders@milberg.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. William J. Edelman, Esq. Michael A. Acciavatti, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Adam E. Polk, Esq. Simon Grille, Esq. Fatima Ladha, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 E-mail: apolk@girardsharp.com sgrille@girardsharp.com fladha@girardsharp.com VERTEX INC: Fails to Secure Private Info, Penders Says ------------------------------------------------------ SALLY PENDERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VERTEX, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01603 (E.D. Pa., March 12, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII" or "Private Information) that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The complaint relates that as a condition of receiving employment, Plaintiff was required to provide her Private Information to Defendant. On March 9, 2026, the notorious ransomware group ShinyHunters gained unauthorized access to Defendant's IT Network. ShinyHunters gained access to a wide variety of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. To date, Defendant has yet to formally notify impacted individuals about the Data Breach. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose Private Information was compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to: (i) adequately protect the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members; (ii) warn Plaintiff and Class Members of Defendant's inadequate information security practices; (iii) effectively secure hardware containing protected Private Information using reasonable and adequate security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents; and (iv) timely notify Plaintiff and Class Members of the Data Breach. Defendant's conduct amounts to at least negligence and violates federal and state statutes, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for: negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of herself, and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. Plaintiff Sally Penders is a former employee of Defendant and a data breach victim. Defendant Vertex, Inc. offers tax compliance products and services to businesses across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 65 Overhill Rd Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com VESTIS UNIFORMS: Bid to Dismiss Cisneros Class Suit Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MANUEL CISNEROS, v. VESTIS UNIFORMS AND WORKPLACE SUPPLIES, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-03695-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order denying motion to dismiss or to stay. Accordingly, because the parties and issues in this case are not substantially similar to those in Fernandez/Brown, dismissing or staying this action under the first-to-file rule is not necessary to prevent inefficiencies, avoid conflicting determinations, or conserve judicial resources. The Court denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss or to stay under the first to-file rule. This order terminates docket number 18. The Court sets a case management conference on March 17, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. The hearing will be held by Public Zoom Webinar. All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/hsg. All attorneys and pro se litigants appearing for the case management conference are required to join at least 15 minutes before the hearing to check in with the courtroom deputy and test internet, video, and audio capabilities. The Court directs parties to submit a joint case management statement by March 10, 2026. The parties should be prepared to discuss how to move this case forward expeditiously. The cases that Defendant relies upon do not compel a different conclusion. In those cases, the similarity-of-the-issues requirement was satisfied because the cases at issue asserted the same claims against the same defendant. The same is not true here. Accordingly, this factor weighs against dismissing or staying this action under the first-to file rule. The Plaintiff brings this proposed class action against his former employer, Vestis Uniforms and Workplace Supplies, Inc., for alleged violations of California's Labor Code and the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), and for penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). The proposed class includes: "Similarly situated employees of Vestis Uniforms and Workplace Supplies, Inc. in California." The Defendant is in the hospitality services industry and provides services relating to food, facilities management, and hospitality management. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7IwzJE at no extra charge.[CC] VGW HOLDINGS: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Gaming Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Diane Johnston, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VGW Holdings, Ltd., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-653-RAH (M.D. Ala.), Chief Judge R. Austin Huffaker, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama granted Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and stayed all proceedings pending the conclusion of the arbitration. VGW Holdings, Ltd., VGW Malta Ltd., VGW Games Ltd., VGW Holdings U.S., Inc., and VGW U.S., Inc. (collectively, VGW) operate an online gaming website called Chumba Casino that offers virtual casino-style games such as slots, scratch cards, poker, and other table games. Plaintiff Diane Johnston claimed the website included casino-style games of chance that are illegal under Alabama law, and she sought damages and declaratory and injunctive relief on a class-wide basis. According to the Court, a player could access the website and play games for free using gold coins in which the player paid nothing and received nothing in return. However, a player could also purchase additional gold coins to enhance their experience, along with sweeps coins received as a bonus. Players could then use the sweeps coins to wager for prizes, including cash and cash equivalents such as gift cards. Johnston claimed she had wagered and lost money on the VGW website. To play any of the games, a player was required to register a Chumba Casino account by affirmatively clicking a checkbox indicating agreement to the Chumba Casino Terms and Conditions (TOC). Whenever an updated version of the TOC was released, the player was required to affirmatively accept the updated terms in a pop-up notice before continuing to play. The TOC Johnston accepted on July 31, 2025, immediately before filing suit, contained a dispute resolution provision under which both parties agreed to resolve any disputes -- including any dispute concerning the enforceability, validity, scope, or severability of the agreement to arbitrate -- through final and binding arbitration. Johnston conceded that the TOC contained an arbitration agreement but argued it was unenforceable because it lacked legal consideration, the arbitral forum would not administer the arbitration, the agreement lacked mutuality of obligation, and it was unconscionable. She also claimed her declaratory relief claim fell outside the scope of the arbitration agreement. Upon careful examination, the Court found that the arbitration agreement contained an express delegation clause and incorporated JAMS Streamlined Arbitration Rules, evidencing a clear and unmistakable intent by the parties to arbitrate threshold arbitrability disputes. The Court concluded that all but Johnston's first argument -- that the delegation clause was unsupported by valid consideration -- were issues of arbitrability for the arbitrator, not the Court. On the consideration challenge, the Court held that the delegation clause was supported by valid consideration separate and apart from the remainder of the agreement, because mutual promises to arbitrate and mutual promises to delegate certain issues to the arbitrator constituted adequate consideration. The Court further held that challenges to the legality of the TOC as a whole were expressly delegated to the arbitrator. On the remaining arguments, the Court found that whether JAMS would administer the arbitration was itself an issue of arbitrability delegated to the arbitrator. Johnston's arguments regarding illusoriness, lack of mutuality, and unconscionability were found to be too generalized to constitute a specific challenge to the delegation clause, and were therefore also matters for the arbitrator to resolve. Accordingly, the Court ordered as follows: (1) Defendant's motion to dismiss was denied as moot; (2) Defendant's alternative motion to compel arbitration was granted; (3) the parties were compelled to arbitration pursuant to the arbitration agreement in the TOC; (4) the case was stayed pending conclusion of the arbitration; and (5) the parties were directed to file a status report on or by July 1, 2026, and updated reports every 90 days thereafter. The Court expressed no opinion on the merits of Johnston's claims or the underlying arbitrability of her claims. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xtXGtJ from PacerMonitor.com Defendants VGW Games Ltd., VGW Holdings U.S., Inc., VGW Holdings, Ltd., VGW Malta Ltd., and VGW U.S., Inc., Represented By: Behnam Dayanim Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP 202-339-8400 bdayanim@orrick.com Helen Kathryn Downs Maynard Nexsen, PC 205-251-1996 hk.downs@butlersnow.com Gregory D. Beaman Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP 212-506-5019 gbeaman@orrick.com Plaintiff Diane Johnston Represented By: Joel D. Smith Smith Krivoshey, PC 617-377-7404 joel@skclassactions.com Henry Clay Barnett, III James Mitchell Williams Dylan Thomas Martin Wilson Daniel Miles, III Trenton Harrell Mann, I Beasley Allen Crow Methvin Portis & Miles clay.barnett@beasleyallen.com mitch.williams@beasleyallen.com dylan.martin@beasleyallen.com dee.miles@beasleyallen.comćWesley Warrington Barnett trent.mann@beasleyallen.com Davis & Norris, LLP 205-930-9900 wbarnett@davisnorris.com WAMA UNDERWEAR: Nonato Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE NONATO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WAMA UNDERWEAR LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02664 (N.D. Ill., March 10, 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://wamaunderwear.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, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, 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. WAMA Underwear 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 WEST LOS ANGELES: Settlement Deal in Cline Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robin Cline v. West Los Angeles College et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02335-MWF-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fitzgerald entered an order granting joint motion to certify class, and preliminary approving the proposed settlement agreement. The class is provisionally certified for purposes of settlement only; and the notice and plan of dissemination are approved. The Proposed Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement is adopted and incorporated into this Order by reference, except that the Final Approval Hearing shall be scheduled for July 20, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. The "Settlement Class" is defined as: "all individuals who have disabilities that make it difficult for them to navigate long distances, up inclines, and/or uneven terrain, and attend, would like to attend, or will attend on-campus classes or events at West Los Angeles College." The proposed settlement is procedurally and substantively fair. The proposed class also meets the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2). The lawsuit arises out of the alleged failure of the Defendants to provide transportation assistance to the Plaintiff, a student with a physical disability, at WLAC, after having previously provided a shuttle service but since discontinuing it. West Los Angeles College is a public community college in Culver City, Los Angeles County, California. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=He498o at no extra charge.[CC] WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Settlement Deal in Costa Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STACY COSTA, RYAN BUTLER, MARK GANDARA, NATHANIEL GUERRERO, DAVID HAYDEN, PATRICK KEMPF, WALLACE MCDUFFEY, TIMOTHY MIDDLEBROOKS, MISSY ROBINSON, MISTY ROMBACH, KRISTEN TATA, MELANIE FIORUCCI, LAMONT KINCAID, and LESLIE LAMANNA individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Case No. 1:24-cv-00188-MN (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge Maryellen Noreika entered an order as follows: 1. The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement Agreement, and its terms, as fair reasonable, and adequate under Rules 23(e)(1)(B)(i) and 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, subject to further consideration at the Fairness Hearing. 2. The Court preliminarily certifies, for settlement purposes only, the following Settlement Class: "All persons who purchased (other than for resale) or otherwise obtained in accordance with Section IV.A.1 of the Agreement, a Class Refrigerator for residential use within the United States and its territories from the Defendant or its authorized resellers." Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) officers, directors, and employees of Whirlpool or its parents, subsidiaries, or affiliates, (ii) attorneys appearing in this case and their household members, (iii) insurers of Settlement Class Members, (iv) subrogees or all entities claiming to be subrogated to the rights of a Class Refrigerator purchaser, a Class Refrigerator owner, or a Settlement Class Member, (v) issuers or providers of extended warranties or service contracts for Class Refrigerators, and (vi) persons who timely and validly exercise their right to be removed from the Settlement Class. 3. The Plaintiffs are preliminarily certified as Class Representatives. 4. The Court appoints Timothy N. Mathews, Scott M. Tucker, Zachary P. Beatty, Alex M. Kashurba, and Marissa N. Pembroke of Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP as Lead Class Counsel. Further, the Court appoints Peter Bradford deLeeuw of deLeeuw Law LLC; Daniel C. Levin and Nicholas J. Elia of Levin Sedran & Berman; D. Aaron Rihn and Sara Watkins of Robert Pierce & Associates; and Nicholas Migliaccio and Jason S. Rathod of Migliaccio & Rathod LLP as additional Class Counsel. 5. The Fairness Hearing shall be held before this Court on July 9, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. Whirlpool is an American multinational manufacturer and marketer of home appliances. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bcd7kD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy N. Mathews, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP 361 West Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 E-mail: tnm@chimicles.com The Defendant is represented by: Andrew M. Unthank, Esq. WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP 370 17th Street, Suite 4500 Denver, CO 80202 E-mail: unthank@wtotrial.com WHITE MEMORIAL MEDICAL: Arias Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against White Memorial Medical Group, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Joanna Arias, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. White Memorial Medical Group, Inc., Case No. 26STCV07620 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 9, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." White Memorial Medical Group Inc is a medical group practice located in Los Angeles, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vache A. Thomassian, Esq. KJT LAW GROUP, LLP 230 N. Maryland Ave., Ste. 306 Glendale, CA 91206-4281 Phone: 818-507-8525 Fax: 818-507-8588 Email: vache@kjtlawgroup.com WISNER BAUM LLP: Rutledge Files Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wisner Baum, LLP. The case is styled as Matthew Rutledge, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Wisner Baum, LLP, Case No. 2:26-cv-01033-PD (C.D. Cal., Feb. 2, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort Action. Wisner Baum LLP -- https://www.wisnerbaum.com/ -- has become one of the nation's top plaintiffs' civil trial law firms.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason M. Wucetich, Esq. Dimitrios Vasiliou Korovilas, Esq. WUCETICH AND KOROVILAS LLP 222 North Pacific Coast Highway Suite 2000 El Segundo, CA 90245 Phone: (310) 335-2001 Fax: (310) 364-5201 Email: jason@wukolaw.com dimitri@wukolaw.com WUNDERKIND CORPORATION: Wine Suit Transferred to S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Daniel Wine, Allison Blank, Sandra Sion, Kevin Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wunderkind Corporation, Case No. 4:25-cv-10079 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on March 9, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-01933-UA to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust. Wunderkind Corporation -- https://www.wunderkind.co/ -- operates as a software company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Jay Mogin, Esq. Timothy Z. LaComb, Esq. MOGIN LAW LLP 4225 Executive Square, Suite 600 La Jolla, CA 92037 Phone: (619) 798-5333 Email: dmogin@moginlawllp.com - and - Cadio R. Zirpoli, Esq. SAVERI & SAVERI, INC. 706 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 217-6810 Fax: (415) 217-6813 Email: zirpoli@saveri.com - and - Joseph Richard Saveri, Esq. Kevin E. Rayhill, Esq. SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP 550 California St., Suite 910 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 500-6800 Fax: (415) 395-9940 Email: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com krayhill@saverilawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Ashley Lynn Shively, Esq. REED SMITH LLP (SF) 101 Second Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 659-5695 Fax: (415) 391-8269 Email: ashively@reedsmith.com - and - Qian Shen, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 787 Seventh Avenue, Ste 31st Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 513-3200 Email: qian.shen@hklaw.com [^] Register Now for 2026 Class Action Money & Ethics Conference! ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mark your calendar for the 10th Annual Class Action Money & Ethics Conference, presented by Beard Group, Inc. #CAME2026 will be held May 20-21, 2026, at The Harmonie Club, in New York City. This exclusive in-person gathering brings together the industry's top professionals to explore the latest trends, challenges, and opportunities in class action litigation. #CAME2026 features: Insightful keynote presentations from leading experts Dynamic live panel discussions tackling cutting-edge issues Valuable networking opportunities with peers and influencers This year's event kicks off with the Opening Night Cocktail Reception on May 20th from 5:00–7:00 p.m. Whether you're a plaintiff attorney, defense counsel, funder, or industry stakeholder, this is the must-attend event of the year for staying ahead in class action practice. Register today and secure your spot at this value-packed conference! Click here -- https://www.classactionconference.com/2025-video-replays.html -- for the 2025 conference videos, available to purchase and download. Last year's confab was sponsored by: Major Sponsors: Atticus Claimscore Duane Morris Esquire Bank Labaton Keller Sucharow SMIaware Tremendous Patron Sponsors: AB Data Darrow Miller Kaplan Supporting Sponsors: EisnerAmper Verita Media Partners: Class Action Insight PacerMonitor Contact Will Etchison at 305-707-7493 or will@beardgroup.com, or visit https://www.classactionconference.com/ for more information. CLE accreditation will be submitted upon request -- details available on the website. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2026. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***