260325.mbx

260325.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, March 25, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 60 Headlines 301 SCRUBS: 2024 Data Breach Class Settlement Gets Initial Court OK AARP: Sacchi Files Suit in D. New Jersey ABLETO INC: TCPA Class Settlement Final OK Hearing Set July 28 ACE HARDWARE: Pflaumer Sues Over Website's Tracking Tools AEROMETALS INC: Munoz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AG1 (USA): Faces Class Suit Over Automatic Subscription Renewals AINS LLC: Crayton Files Suit in D. Columbia ALCOA USA: Appeals Attorney Fees Order in Butch Suit to 7th Circuit ALIGHT INC: Faces Class Suit Over Materially False Company Info ALL-WEATHER ARCHITECTURAL: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ALTO NEUROSCIENCE: Consolidated Stockholder Derivative Suit Stayed ALTO NEUROSCIENCE: Seeks to Dismiss Securities Class Suit AMERICAN HONDA: Pretrial Deadlines Entered in Orejuela Class Suit AMERICAN MEADOWS: Corbett Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ANGI INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Spam Calls and Texts ARIEL EMANUEL: Johnson Suit Transferred to C.D. California AT WORLD: Bolton Appeals Tuccori Antitrust Suit Order to 7th Cir. ATRIUM MANAGEMENT: Scheduling Order Entered in Wagner AUTODESK INC: Canadian Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. AVALON GLASS & MIRROR: Clavel Sues Over Unprovided Meal Periods BANK OF AMERICA: Lascelles Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BERNSTEIN MANAGEMENT: Wynter Suit Removed to D. Columbia BISHOP REHABILITATION: Anderson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages BLUE SKY CASINO: Ramirez Files Suit in N.D. Illinois BOEING CO: Federal Judge Certifies Shareholder Class Action BYTEDANCE INC: Tsering Sues Over Sale of Confidential Data CAREMARKPCS HEALTH: Faces Racketeering Class Action Lawsuit CARGURUS INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Kendrick Alleges CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Nava Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy CHOWCHOW CLOUD: Faces Securities Class Action Suit in S.D.N.Y. CHRISTIAN DIOR: Agrees to Settle 2025 Data Breach Class Suit CLIPPER REALTY: Appeals Class Cert. and Summary Judgment Order COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Protect Private Info, Madoff Alleges COLLINS FOODS: $29 Mil. Settlement in Rest Breaks Suit Reached COMMUNITY HEALTH: Appeals Remand Order in Frankfurter Class Suit COMMUNITY HEALTH: Appeals Remand Order in Rodriguez Class Suit CP SKIN: Blind Users Face Barriers to Website Access, Cazares Says CRUNCH HOLDINGS: Gao Files Suit in N.D. California DANAHER CORP: Faces Class Action Suit Over DEI Hiring Program DEPOP INC: Dinh Files Suit in N.D. California DICK'S DRIVE-IN: Faces Class Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Missed Breaks DOMTAR PAPER: Class Suit Claims Horrible Noxious Odor Emissions EDWARD-ELMHURST HEALTHCARE: Appeals Order in Miller Suit to 7th Cir ELIOR INC: Duran-Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ENERGY CAPITAL: Celestine Files Suit in S.D. Texas EQUIFAX WORKFORCE: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid to 3rd Circuit ERIC ROKOSKY: Reano Files Suit in D. New Jersey EVENTS GROUP: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Moinian Alleges EVER PRETTY: Corbett Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FIDELITY NATIONAL: Agrees to Settle Securities Class Action Suit G6 HOSPITALITY: Doe Sues Over Child Abuse and Trafficking GAP INC: Bazabal Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping GARTNER INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit in D. Conn. GEMINI SPACE: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit HARBOR FREIGHT: Botto Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Settlement in Bhangal Suit Wins Initial Nod HEIGHTS FINANCE: Alexander Suit Dismissed with Prejudice HIGH 5 ENTERTAINMENT: Goodwin Sues Over Illegal Online Gambling HOME DEPOT: Misleads Customers Over Product Prices, Suit Says HOMELAND INSURANCE: Wilson Sues Over Unlawful Marketing Call HORDERLY LLC: Feldman Sues Over Unpaid Wages HUMANA INC: Faces Class Action Over Tobacco Surcharges in W.D Ky. ICONTAINERS USA: Briefing on Bid to Certify Class Stayed INSPIRE RESTAURANT: Griffin Sues Over Unpaid Wages INVIDA FINANCIAL NETWORK: Bland Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas IRON ARCH: Jones Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation JOHN TSOUKARIS: Lemus-Cisneros Files Suit in D. New Jersey KIND LLC: Dark Chocolate Clusters Contain Lead, Class Suit Says KROGER CO: Morgan Appeals Labor Suit Dismissal to 10th Circuit LADY PRIMROSE'S: Brownlee Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping LANCASTER COUNTY, PA : Kling Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime LIBERTY MUTUAL: Settles Underinsured Motorist Suit for $6.5MM LIGHTHOUSE LICENSED: Vonczerniewicz Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. LOS ANGELES, CA: Bradshaw Seeks Initial Approval Of Attys' Fees MASIMO CORP: M&A Investigates Sale to Danaher Corporation META PLATFORMS: Stearns Sues for Invasion of Privacy MID AMERICA: Sussman Appeals Class Settlement Order to 2nd Circuit MODERNIST PANTRY: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Corbett Says MODOC MEDICAL: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach MONSANTO COMPANY: Bosch Sues Over Negligent Advertising & Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Bunch Sues Over Wrongful Advertising of Herbicide MONSANTO COMPANY: Naragon Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide MONSANTO COMPANY: Phillips Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Radford Sues Over Negligent Advertising & Sale MYERS AUTO: Settles 2025 Data Breach Class Action Suit for $15,000 NAVIA BENEFIT: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach NEW YORK, NY: Violates Disability-Accommodation Rights, Suit Says NIDEC CORP: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims PACIRA BIOSCIENCES: Western Appeals Suit Dismissal to 3rd Circuit PERION NETWORK: Carr Stockholder Derivative Suit Stayed QUETTA ACQUISITION: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Smart Kreate QUTOUTIAO INC: Korines Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. RAGHAV SHARMA: Marigliano Sues Over Unlawful Monthly Charges ROBERTSON INDUSTRIES: Mata-Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Wages RUGGABLE LLC: Faces TCPA Class Suit Over Unlawful Marketing Texts SES AI CORP: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims SOUTHLAND INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kitchen Says ST. FRANCIS HOTEL: Truis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. STAFFMARK INVESTMENT: Stacker Files Suit Over FCRA Violation STRYKER CORPORATION: Mesmer Files Suit Over Data Breach TALKSPACE INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Universal Health TANGOE US: 2022 Data Breach Class Settlement Gets Prelim OK TASTEFUL SELECTIONS: Mireles Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. THIRDLOVE INC: Faces Class Suit for Alleged Quite Hours Violations TRIA INSPIRED: Appeals Court Order in Williams-Wagner Suit UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Suit Claims UberX Rides Fail to Arrive on Time UNITED STATES: Appeals Postponement Order in African Class Suit WALT DISNEY: Settles Livestream Subscriber Class Action for $50MM WEDBUSH SECURITIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cortez Suit Alleges WOFLOW INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over 2026 Cyberattack WOFLOW INC: Fails to Protect Private Information, Suhr Alleges XAI CORP: Uses Photos to Generate Child Exploitation Material YOUNG'S MARKET: Miller Appeals Labor Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit [] Litigation Funding Threatens US College Financial Aid Lawsuit ********* 301 SCRUBS: 2024 Data Breach Class Settlement Gets Initial Court OK ------------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that 301 Scrubs Investors, doing business as Scrubs & Beyond and Kindthread, has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit that alleged the medical scrubs retailer failed to protect the private information of its current and former employees from a June 2024 data breach. The 301 Scrubs class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on February 10, 2026 and covers all living individuals in the United States who were sent notice informing them that their private information was implicated in the June 2024 data breach. The court-approved website for the 301 Scrubs data breach settlement can be found at 301ScrubsDataSettlement.com. According to the website, 301 Scrubs settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form have multiple options for reimbursement. Class members who submit with their claim form proof of documented losses resulting from the breach are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of up to $2,500, also referred to as "Cash Payment A" in court documents. The settlement agreement states that class members must submit third-party documentation, such as receipts, to receive reimbursement for losses related to identity theft, fraud, obtaining credit reports, credit monitoring, freezing and unfreezing credit, costs to replace identification, and miscellaneous expenses like postage, incurred between June 6, 2024 and May 18, 2026. Class members may not receive compensation for any documented losses that have already been reimbursed, the agreement adds, including the credit monitoring and identity theft protection product offered by 301 Scrubs as compensation in the data breach notice. In lieu of a documented-loss payment, settlement class members may instead file a claim form to receive a one-time alternate $50 cash payment, which the agreement also calls "Cash Payment B," with no proof required. Class members may receive their payout via check or electronic payment, the agreement notes, and all checks must be cashed within 120 days of issuance before expiration. In addition to any monetary benefits, all 301 Scrubs settlement class members may file a claim to receive an enrollment code for two free years of CyEx Identity Defense Complete, which includes one-bureau credit monitoring and identity theft insurance, per the settlement site. To file a 301 Scrubs settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and log in using the unique ID and PIN found on their received copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members may download a PDF of the claim form to print, fill out and return by mail to the address of the settlement administrator listed on the second page of the document. All 301 Scrubs data breach claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by May 18, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the 301 Scrubs data breach settlement following a hearing on June 2, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals are resolved. The 301 Scrubs class action lawsuit alleged that the nationwide retailer, which makes medical scrubs for healthcare professionals and operates as Scrubs & Beyond and Kindthread, failed to implement proper cybersecurity measures to protect the sensitive information of its current and former employees, which led to a data breach sometime between June 6, 2024 and June 9, 2024. Per court documents, private information that may have been compromised by the breach includes names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers and employee identification numbers. [GN] AARP: Sacchi Files Suit in D. New Jersey ---------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AARP, et al. The case is styled as John Sacchi, "Consumer" Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AARP, United Healthcare Insurance Company, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:26-cv-01755-RK-RLS (D.N.J., Feb. 22, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. AARP -- https://www.aarp.org/ -- formerly the American Association of Retired Persons, is an interest group in the United States focusing on issues affecting those 50 and older.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen John Simoni, Esq. SIMONI CONSUMERS CLASS ACTION LAW OFFICES 30b Vreeland Road, Suite 100 Florham Park, NJ 07932 Phone: (917) 621-5795 Email: stephensimoni@yahoo.com ABLETO INC: TCPA Class Settlement Final OK Hearing Set July 28 -------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that AbleTo, Inc. has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit that alleged the virtual mental health services provider unlawfully sent prerecorded voicemail messages to the cell phones of Aetna policyholders in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA). The AbleTo class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on February 3, 2026 and covers all current or former Aetna members in the United States who received a prerecorded voicemail from AbleTo on their cell phone at any point between September 29, 2019 and February 3, 2026. The court-approved website for the AbleTo TCPA settlement can be found at AbleToTCPASettlement.com. According to the website, AbleTo settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form are eligible to receive a one-time $23 cash payment from the deal. The settlement agreement notes that only one claim form per class member will be honored, regardless of the number of calls or voicemails that they received. Class members may receive their payout via check or electronic payment, the agreement adds, and all checks must be cashed within 180 days of issuance before expiration. To file an AbleTo settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and log in either by entering the notice ID found on their received copy of the settlement notice or the phone number that received the calls/ voicemails and their last name. Class members who prefer an alternative to filing a claim form online may contact the settlement administrator to request a physical copy to be completed and submitted by mail. All AbleTo TCPA settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by June 3, 2026. Should a class member need to update their mailing address before receiving payment, they may do so on this page, also using the notice ID found on the settlement notice. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the AbleTo settlement following a final approval hearing on July 28, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The AbleTo class action lawsuit alleged that the virtual mental health service, in partnership with Aetna, sent prerecorded calls and voicemail messages to the cell phones of consumers with Aetna memberships who did not give prior consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. [GN] ACE HARDWARE: Pflaumer Sues Over Website's Tracking Tools --------------------------------------------------------- SCOTT PFLAUMER, HANS CUMMINGS, and MARK ROSENTHAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ACE HARDWARE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 26-cv-2151 (N.D. Cal., March 12, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for placing and transmitting cookies and other third-party tracking technologies on its website. According to the complaint, 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. However, the Defendant's assurances are false. The Website begins placing and transmitting cookies and other third-party tracking technologies (the "Tracking Tools") capable of transmitting users' data the moment users visit the Website, before they can interact with the Cookie Banner. The Tracking Tools collect detailed interaction and behavioral data, including users' selections of links, buttons, forms, and other on-page elements, as well as information entered into search fields. This data may include webpages and products viewed or purchased; inferred interests, preferences, age, location, or other characteristics based on user behavior and content engagement; and personal, device, and technical identifiers such as device type, operating system, and browser type. The data also includes persistent identifiers that enable recognition of users across sessions and websites, users' email addresses, and approximate geolocation information derived from IP addresses or similar signals. Collectively, this information is referred to as "Sensitive Information." This Sensitive Information is collected the moment a user arrives on the Website. However, even after users affirmatively disable the sale or sharing of their Sensitive Information and reject all non-essential cookies, regardless of which mechanism to achieve that goal, the Website continues to utilize and deploy Tracking Tools which transmit users' data to the advertising, social media, and analytics companies that designed and operate the Tracking Tools. The Plaintiffs visited the Website and communicated information to Defendant through their browsers, including browsing activity, product views, and interaction data reflecting their interests. Plaintiffs rejected non-essential cookies through Defendant's cookie controls in an effort to prevent third-party tracking. Defendant nonetheless caused Tracking Tools to intercept and transmit those communications and associated identifiers to third parties. Plaintiffs were thereby subjected to unauthorized disclosure of their communications and deprived of the benefit of the privacy choice that Defendant represented users could make, says the suit. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated users harmed by Defendant's deceptive and unlawful surveillance practices. Plaintiff Scott Pflaumer accessed and used Defendant's Website while physically located in California. Most recently, Plaintiff Pflaumer visited the Website in May 2025 for consumer browsing purposes. Plaintiff Hans Cummings accessed and used Defendant's Website while physically located in Indiana. Most recently, Plaintiff Cummings visited the Website in February 2026 for consumer browsing purposes. Plaintiff Mark Rosenthal accessed and used Defendant's Website while physically located in Colorado. Most recently, Plaintiff Rosenthal visited the Website in January 2026 for consumer browsing purposes. Defendant Ace Hardware Corporation operates a commercial website, https://www.acehardware.com through which users browse and purchase hardware products, tools, home improvement supplies, lawn and garden equipment, and related merchandise; locate and interact with local Ace stores; access product information and customer support services; create and manage accounts; and explore promotional offers and special deals.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raphael Janove, Esq. JANOVE PLLC 115 Broadway, 5th Floor New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (646) 347-3940 E-mail: raphael@janove.law - and - Edward Korsinsky, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 E-mail: ekorsinky@zlk.com AEROMETALS INC: Munoz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aerometals, Inc. The case is styled as Whitney Munoz, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Aerometals, Inc., Case No. 26CV0365 (Cal. Super. Ct., El Dorado Cty., Feb. 6, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Aero Metals -- https://www.aerometals.com/ -- has been a high-quality, high-precision investment casting manufacturer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Miriam Schimmel, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 310-622-4278 Fax: 855-786-6356 Email: mschimmel@blackstonepc.com AG1 (USA): Faces Class Suit Over Automatic Subscription Renewals ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Samuel Hoke filed a class action lawsuit against AG1 (USA) Inc. Why: Hoke claims AG1 surreptitiously enrolled consumers in automatic subscription renewals for its health supplements. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit claims AG1 failed to comply with California's Automatic Renewal Law by surreptitiously enrolling consumers in an automatically renewing subscription for its health supplements. Plaintiff Samuel Hoke claims AG1's automatic renewal scheme results in consumers being charged every month in perpetuity until they cancel their subscription. Hoke argues AG1 failed to provide the disclosures and authorizations required by California's Automatic Renewal Law prior to enrolling consumers into an automatically renewing subscription. "Whenever a consumer purchases the defendant's products -- whether it be on the website or through a social-media advertisement -- the defendant surreptitiously enrolls the consumer in an automatically renewing 'subscription' that, unbeknownst to the consumer at the time, results in recurring charges to the consumer's credit card, debit card or third-party payment account," the AG1 class action lawsuit says. AG1 allegedly failed to provide clear disclosure of renewal terms Hoke claims AG1 failed to present its automatic renewal offer terms in a clear and conspicuous manner prior to enrolling consumers into an automatically renewing subscription. Further, Hoke alleges AG1 failed to provide an acknowledgment that included the automatic renewal offer terms, cancellation policy and information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer. "Defendant then makes it exceedingly difficult and unnecessarily confusing for consumers to cancel the AG1 Subscriptions," the AG1 class action lawsuit says. Hoke claims AG1 is guilty of violating California's False Advertising Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law and of negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation and unjust enrichment. Hoke demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of actual, expectation, reliance, compensatory, statutory and/or punitive damages for himself and all class members. Also in violation of California's Automatic Renewal Law, OnlyFans.com stands accused of enrolling consumers in membership programs without providing clear and conspicuous disclosures. The plaintiff is represented by Frank S. Hedin of Hedin LLP and Adrian Gucovschi of Gucovschi Law Firm PLLC. The AG1 class action lawsuit is Hoke v. AG1 (USA) Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-01110, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. [GN] AINS LLC: Crayton Files Suit in D. Columbia ------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AINS, LLC. The case is styled as Nicole Crayton, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. AINS, LLC doing business as: OPEXUS also known as: CASEPOINT, Case No. 1:26-cv-00292-RDM (D.D.C, Feb. 2, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. AINS doing business as OPEXUS -- https://www.opexustech.com/ -- is a leading global provider of cloud-based, adaptive case management platforms and solutions for government and commercial markets.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO AND RATHOD LLP 412 H. St. N.E., Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Phone: (202) 470-3520 Fax: (202) 800-2730 Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com ALCOA USA: Appeals Attorney Fees Order in Butch Suit to 7th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- ALCOA USA CORP., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses in the lawsuit entitled Edmond M. Butch, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Alcoa USA Corp., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00258-RLY-CSW, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Defendants following the termination of their life insurance coverage. Alcoa announced the termination of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated retirees' life insurance coverage, to be effective January 1, 2020 despite Unions and Alcoa having negotiated that retirees are entitled to company-paid life insurance. The Plaintiffs contest that the retiree life insurance provided by the collective bargaining agreements cannot be unilaterally terminated or modified by the Defendants. On March 25, 2024, the Court entered summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs on Counts I–IV of the complaint. On Oct. 6, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for attorney fees, costs, and expenses, which Judge Richard L. Young granted on Feb. 12, 2026. The Court awards the Plaintiffs $1,362,313.17 in attorney's fees and $35,166.42 in expenses. The Court awards the Plaintiffs costs in the amount of $8,720.40. The appellate case is captioned as Edmond Butch, et al. v. Alcoa USA Corp., et al., Case No. 26-1491, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on March 12, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees EDMOND M. BUTCH, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Barry A. Macey, Esq. Jeffrey A. Macey, Esq. MACEY SWANSON AND ALLMAN 445 N. Pennsylvania St., Suite 401 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 637-2345 Facsimile: (317) 637-2369 Email: bmacey@maceylaw.com jmacey@maceylaw.com - and - David R. Jury, Esq. UNITED STEEL, PAPER AND FORESTRYM RUBBER, MANUFACTURING, ENE Boulevard of the Allies, Room 807 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 562-2545 Facsimile: (412) 562-2524 Email: djury@usw.org - and - Joel R. Hurt, Esq. Pamina Ewing, Esq. Ruairi McDonnell, Esq. FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC LLC 429 Fourth Avenue Law & Finance Building Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 281-8400 Email: jhurt@fdpklaw.com pewing@fdpklaw.com rmcdonnell@fdpklaw.com Defendants-Appellants ALCOA USA CORP., et al., are represented by: Thomas Birsic, Esq. Jeffrey Richter, Esq. Michael Pence, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 210 Sixth Avenue K&L Gates Center Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 355-6500 Facsimile: (412) 355-6501 Email: thomas.birsic@klgates.com jeff.richter@klgates.com mick.pence@klgates.com - and - Mark E. Miller, Esq. MARK MILLER LAW OFFICE 915 Main Street, Suite 203 P.O. Box 3009 Evansville, IN 47708 Telephone: (812) 303-3444 Email: mmiller@indianalawonline.com ALIGHT INC: Faces Class Suit Over Materially False Company Info --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who acquired Alight, Inc. ("Alight" or the "Company") (NYSE:ALIT) securities during the period of November 12, 2024 through February 18, 2026, inclusive ("the Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your Alight investments, you have until May 15, 2026 to request lead plaintiff appointment. Courts do not consider lead plaintiff applications submitted after this deadline. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. For more information about the lawsuit: https://www.kmllp.com/cases-investigations/alight-inc What Is This Lawsuit About? The lawsuit alleges that the Company provided overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of Alight's growth potential and financial stability; notably, that the Company was not truly equipped to execute on its claimed potential and could not maintain its promised dividend as a result. Rather, Alight would require significantly higher compensation and incentive expenses to achieve the projections put forth by management. On August 5, 2025, during Alight's second quarter earnings report, the Company announced disappointing results and cut its revenue guidance for the year. Alight highlighted both a slowdown in annual recurring revenue bookings and a worsening decline of project revenue than previously projected. The Company pointed partially to macroeconomic uncertainty, though management had previously minimized such impact in just the prior quarter, as well as insufficient commercial execution. Following this news, the price of Alight's common stock declined dramatically. On this news, the price of Alight shares declined by $0.94 per share, or approximately 18.3%, from $5.13 per share on August 4, 2025 to close at $4.19 on August 5, 2025. On November 24, 2025, Alight announced that CEO Dave Guilmette will step down as CEO and from the Company's Board on December 31, 2025 to be replaced by Rhoit Verma as CEO. On December 18, 2025, Alight announced that CFO Jeremy Heaton would depart the Company to be replaced by Greg Giometti as the Interim CFO, effective January 9, 2026. On February 19, 2026, during Alight's fourth quarter earnings report, the Company announced a significant earnings shortfall against its prior guidance, alongside further shortfalls for bookings and project revenue growth. Alight's new management noted the Company failed to "meet our internal financial targets and new bookings and renewals did not meet our expectations, leading us to miss our forecast to the market." They pointed the blame significantly on management's execution and highlighted the new administration would bring "a change in the execution of the company" in order to "driv[e] operational excellence." The new management further cancelled the dividend, noting there are "more efficient capital allocation activities," and triggered an earnings shortfall due to "an increase in compensation expense" in order to "promot[e] service quality," and overall improve sales execution. On this news, the price of Alight shares declined by $0.50 per share, or approximately 38.2%, from $1.31 per share on February 18, 2026 to close at $0.81 on February 19, 2026. The Lead Plaintiff Appointment Process. The federal securities laws permit any investor who acquired eligible securities during the class period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit. Courts typically appoint the investor(s) with the largest financial loss in the case and the ability to represent the class rather than investors with simply the largest investment portfolio. Courts regularly appoint individual investors, whether acting alone or as a group, as lead plaintiffs. The rights of any investor who bought shares during the class period are generally already protected. However, lead plaintiffs have the power to influence case strategy and have a say in settlement decisions, as well as decisions concerning allocation of settlement funds among class members. What Should I Do? If you purchased or otherwise acquired Alight securities, have information, or would like to learn more about this investigation, please contact Lauren Molinaro of Kirby McInerney LLP by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or fill out the contact form below, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters at no cost. Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at Kirby McInerney LLP's website. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Lauren Molinaro, Esq. Kirby McInerney LLP Telephone: (212) 699-1171 https://www.kmllp.com https://securitiesleadplaintiff.com/ investigations@kmllp.com [GN] ALL-WEATHER ARCHITECTURAL: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against All-Weather Architectural Aluminum, Inc. The case is styled as Jorge Edwardo Carrillo Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. All-Weather Architectural Aluminum, Inc., Case No. CU26-01782 (Cal. Super. Ct., Solano Cty., Feb. 20, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment." All Weather Architectural Aluminum -- https://www.allweatheraa.com/ -- specializes in custom windows and doors, providing innovative solutions for both residential and commercial projects.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92318 Phone: (949) 387-7200 Fax: (949) 387-6676 ALTO NEUROSCIENCE: Consolidated Stockholder Derivative Suit Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------------ Alto Neuroscience, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending Dec. 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Northern District of California stayed the consolidated stockholder derivative suit pending resolution of the motion to dismiss in the securities class action. It disclosed that a consolidated stockholder derivative action, captioned In re Alto Neuroscience, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 5:25-cv-07144-NW, was filed on behalf of the Company against certain executive officers and certain current and former directors for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and violations of the federal securities laws. The claims arise out of the same factual allegations as the putative class action described above. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, as well as interest, fees, and costs. The consolidated stockholder derivative action was stayed on January 14, 2026 pending resolution of the motion to dismiss in the securities class action. The Company believes that these claims lack merit. Alto Neuroscience, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing personalized treatments for psychiatric and neurological conditions using data-driven neuroscience and AI-based patient stratification. Alto Neuroscience, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing personalized treatments for psychiatric and neurological conditions using data-driven neuroscience and AI-based patient stratification. ALTO NEUROSCIENCE: Seeks to Dismiss Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Alto Neuroscience, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending Dec. 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2026, that the company plans to submit a motion to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to dismiss a securities class suit. On July 21, 2025, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a lawsuit against the Company, certain executive officers, and certain current and former directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:25-cv-06105). The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 23, 2026. The complaint is a putative class action alleging violations of the Securities Act related to the Company's IPO in February 2024, and violations of the Exchange Act thereafter. The proposed classes consist of purchasers or acquirers of the Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's IPO as well as purchasers or acquirers of the Company's common stock between March 18, 2024 and October 22, 2024, both dates inclusive. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, as well as interest, fees, and costs. The complaint claims, among other things, that the Company's offering documents and subsequent public disclosures contained materially false and misleading statements and omitted material facts about the prospects of ALTO-100. The Company believes these allegations lack merit, and the Company intends to move to dismiss. Alto Neuroscience, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing personalized treatments for psychiatric and neurological conditions using data-driven neuroscience and AI-based patient stratification. AMERICAN HONDA: Pretrial Deadlines Entered in Orejuela Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jonathan Orejuela, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-03747-JAK-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kronstadt entered an order setting pretrial deadlines as follows: March 30, 2026 Last day to amend pleadings or add parties May 1, 2026 Last day to participate in a settlement conference/mediation Sept. 14, 2026 Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off Oct. 26, 2026 Expert Discovery Cut-Off Oct, 26, 2026 Last day to file all motions In light of the Plaintiffs' statement in the Joint Report that they do not plan to file a motion for class certification, the aforementioned dates assume that this action will proceed as an individual one, i.e., as to the Plaintiff. This is without prejudice to a statement by the Plaintiffs by April 6, 2026, that they will be pursuing a class action. If such a statement is filed, on or before April 13, 2026, the parties shall file a Joint Report with their respective and/or collective positions as to the dates for the filing of the motion for class certification, opposition, reply and hearing, as well as any proposed changes to the schedule in this Order. The parties are ordered to have a representative with authority to make final decisions as to this matter present at the settlement conference. If a settlement is reached, the parties are ordered to file a notice of settlement, with a proposed date by which the matter will be dismissed. No appearance will be required on May 18, 2026, if such notice is filed on or before May 8, 2026. If a notice of settlement is not filed, counsel shall file a joint report by May 8, 2026, regarding the status of settlement and whether a second session would be productive. The joint report shall not disclose the substantive contents of any settlement communications between the parties. American Honda is the North American subsidiary of Japanese Honda Motor Company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CqSor5 at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN MEADOWS: Corbett Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- KATHERINE CORBETT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. American Meadows Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00210 (W.D. Wis., March 13, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, https://www.americanmeadows.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Corbett and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Corbett's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint relates that Corbett attempted to complete a purchase on the Website. On October 28, 2025, Katherine Corbett searched online for plants and seeds for her home garden. During this search, she discovered Defendant's Website, Americanmeadows.com. After reviewing positive customer feedback describing the Website as a reputable online retailer specializing in high-quality wildflower seeds, perennials, and bulbs, she decided to visit the Website to explore the available products and make a purchase. While browsing, she intended to purchase the Native Southeast Wildflower Seed Mix. However, the Website contained several accessibility barriers that hindered her ability to navigate the Website and make a purchase using a keyboard and screen reader. The Website contains access barriers that deny full and equal access to Corbett. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Corbett and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of the Website, says the suit. Corbett seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff Katherine Corbett is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant American Meadows Inc. provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a selection of gardening and landscaping products including wildflower seeds, flower seed mixes, grass seeds, bulbs, and live plants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 718-554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law ANGI INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Spam Calls and Texts -------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Catherine Spoon filed a class action lawsuit against Angi Inc. Why: Spoon claims Angi sent unwanted calls and text messages to consumers who had their numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry. Where: The Angi class action lawsuit was filed in Colorado federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses Angi Inc. of sending unwanted calls and text messages to consumers who had their numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry. Plaintiff Catherine Spoon filed the class action complaint against Angi on Oct. 10, 2025, in Colorado federal court, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Angi is a digital platform that connects consumers with service professionals for home improvement, repair and other services. Spoon claims the company conducted a wide-scale telemarketing campaign that sent unsolicited calls and text messages to consumers, including those on the Do Not Call Registry, without their consent. The TCPA prohibits telemarketing calls to numbers on the Do Not Call Registry without prior express invitation or permission. Spoon says she registered her phone number on the Do Not Call Registry after acquiring it in October 2025. Despite this, she alleges she received multiple unsolicited calls and a text message from Angi in December 2025. The calls and text messages were intended to solicit Spoon to purchase a membership to Angi's network and related services, the Angi class action lawsuit claims. TCPA lawsuit: Angi ignored consumers' privacy rights Spoon claims she never provided her phone number to Angi, never had a business relationship with them, and never opted in to receive any solicitations. She argues that Angi was aware that the calls and text messages were sent to consumers who had not consented to receive them. Additionally, Angi allegedly failed to transmit the required Caller ID information, displaying only the phone number and not the telemarketer's name, Spoon says. The class action lawsuit alleges that Angi's actions caused actual harm to consumers, including annoyance, invasion of privacy, and wear and tear on their phones. Spoon is looking to represent anyone in the U.S. who received more than one phone call or text message from Angi within a 12-month period for the purpose of encouraging the purchase of a product or service, where the person's phone number had been registered with the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 30 days. Spoon is demanding a jury trial and requesting an injunction to stop Angi's alleged unlawful telemarketing activities and seeking statutory damages for the class members, along with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. Recently, subscription-based radio service Sirius XM agreed to a $28 million settlement to resolve claims it violated the TCPA with unsolicited telemarketing calls. The plaintiff is represented by Patrick H. Peluso of Peluso Law LLC. The Angi class action lawsuit is Spoon, et al. v. Angi, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-00523, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. [GN] ARIEL EMANUEL: Johnson Suit Transferred to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Kajan Johnson, Clarence Dollaway, Tristan Connelly, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Ariel Emanuel, Case No. 2:21-cv-01189-RFB was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 17, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-mc-00015-MEMF-PVC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Itak Moradi, 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 imoradi@saverilawfirm.com - and - Benjamin Doyle Brown, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN HAUSFELD AND TOLL West Tower 1100 New York Avenue NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 408-4600 Fax: (202) 408-4699 Email: bbrown@cohenmilstein.com - and - Christopher Kar-Lun Young, Esq. Kevin E. Rayhill, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: (415) 500-6800 Fax: (415) 395-9940 Email: cyoung@saverilawfirm.com krayhill@saverilawfirm.com - and - Joshua Paul Davis, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 505 Montgomery Street Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 906-0684 Fax: (215) 875-4604 Email: jdavis@bm.net The Defendants are represented by: Ellison Merkel, Esq. Maaren A. Shah, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART AND SULLIVAN, LLP 295 Fifth Ave. New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 849-7362 Fax: (212) 849-7100 Email: ellisonmerkel@quinnemanuel.com maarenshah@quinnemanuel.com - and - Sami H. Rashid, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART AND SULLIVAN LLP 51 Madison Avenue 22nd Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (212) 849-7000 Fax: (212) 849-7100 Email: samirashid@quinnemanuel.com - and - William R. Sears, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART AND SULLIVAN LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 443-3282 Fax: (213) 443-3100 Email: willsears@quinnemanuel.com AT WORLD: Bolton Appeals Tuccori Antitrust Suit Order to 7th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- AARON BOLTON is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled James Tuccori, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. At World Properties, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00150, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit, which was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, is brought against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Sherman Act. The appellate case is styled as James Tuccori, et al. v. At World Properties, LLC, Case No. 26-1483, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on March 12, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees JAMES TUCCORI, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Paul T. Geske, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW PC 55 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 Defendant-Appellee AT WORLD PROPERTIES, LLC is represented by: Robert J. Palmersheim, Esq. HONIGMAN LLP 321 N. Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 701-9300 Appellant AARON BOLTON is represented by: Randall P. Ewing, Jr., Esq. 408 N.E. Eighth Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (312) 219-0177 ATRIUM MANAGEMENT: Scheduling Order Entered in Wagner ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADAM WAGNER, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. ATRIUM MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00768-RCY (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Young entered a Rule 16(B) Scheduling Order as follows: -- All non-expert-related discovery, including the required time period for response to any discovery demand(s), must be concluded not later than Aug. 20, 2026, except by order of the Court. -- All expert-related discovery, including the required time period for response to any discovery demand(s), must be concluded not later than Nov. 20, 2026, except by order of the Court. -- Not later than Jan. 25, 2027, the Plaintiffs shall file their Rule 23 Class Certification Motion. Response(s) in opposition shall be due Feb. 25, 2027, with any reply due March 18, 2027. The Court will hold a hearing on the Class Certification Motion on April 27, 2027, at 10:00 A.M. -- All dispositive motions shall be filed not later than Jan. 25, 2027. -- The Court will hold a Status Conference on July 27, 2027, at 10:00 A.M. to schedule a Final Pretrial Conference and Trial. Atrium is an independent management company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ha1qto at no extra charge.[CC] AUTODESK INC: Canadian Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- CANADIAN ELEVATOR INDUSTRY PENSION TRUST FUND, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Canadian Elevator Industry Pension Trust Fund, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Autodesk, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-02431-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 violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On July 18, 2025, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend. On Aug. 8, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Aug. 29, 2025. On Jan. 26, 2026, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The appellate case is styled as Canadian Elevator Industry Pension Trust Fund, et al. v. Autodesk, Inc., et al., Case No. 26-1569, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 16, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on March 23, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on April 27, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on May 27, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants CANADIAN ELEVATOR INDUSTRY PENSION TRUST FUND, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Spencer A. Burkholz, Esq. Steven Francis Hubachek, Esq. Jason C. Davis, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 - and - Shawn Anthony Williams, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP 200 31st Avenue North Nashville, TN 37203 - and - Elizabeth A. Shonson, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP 225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Defendants-Appellees AUTODESK, INC., et al. are represented by: Caz Hashemi, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 - and - Jessica Leigh Snorgrass, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90067 AVALON GLASS & MIRROR: Clavel Sues Over Unprovided Meal Periods --------------------------------------------------------------- Carla Duran Clavel, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AVALON GLASS & MIRROR COMPANY, a California corporation; GLASSWERKS LA, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26SSTCV03736 (Cal. Sauper Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 2, 2026), is brought against the Defendants' failure to provide required meal periods, failure to provide required rest breaks, failure to provide recovery periods, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay timely wages, failure to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees, failure to furnish accurate itemized statements, failure to maintain required records, failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures incurred in discharge of duties and unfair And Unlawful Business Practices. The Defendants have implemented common policies and practices that have resulted in systemic violations of California's wage and hour laws. The Defendants maximize profits by cutting labor costs, grossly understaffing their manufacturing facilities and warehouse, denying meal, rest, and recovery breaks, systematically requiring off-the clock work, and cheating their employees out of minimum and overtime wages and premium payments. The Defendants have implemented unlawful written policies with respect to meal, rest, and recovery periods. Defendants also require their non-exempt employees, who are informed that the needs of the businesses take top priority, to work through meal, rest, and recovery periods, to take untimely meal periods and to remain on call during such breaks. As a result, Plaintiff and other non-exempt hourly employees have been denied the ability to take the meal, rest, and recovery periods that they were and are legally entitled to take, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants at their manufacturing and distribution facilities. The Defendants are custom glass fabrication experts and produce a wide range of custom and architectural glass products for customers in California, Nevada and Hawaii.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Ernest Wheeler, Esq. Justin A. Wheeler, Esq. THE WHEELER LAW FIRM, APC 250 West First Street, Suite 216 Claremont, CA 91711 Phone: (909) 621-4988 Facsimile: (909) 621-4622 Email: sew@scottwheelerlawoffice.com jaw@scottwheelerlawoffice.com BANK OF AMERICA: Lascelles Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bank of America, National Association. The case is styled as Cynthia Lascelles, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Bank of America, National Association, Case No. 2026CUOE061542 (Cal. Super. Ct., Ventura Cty., Feb. 17, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Bank of America, N.A. -- https://www.bankofamerica.com/ -- is the second-largest banking institution in the United States and the second-largest bank in the world by market capitalization.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com BERNSTEIN MANAGEMENT: Wynter Suit Removed to D. Columbia -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Grace Wynter, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Equifax Information Services, LLC., LoanCare LLC, Case No. 2022-CAB-008114 was removed from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Feb. 6, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00354-AHA to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Bernstein Management Corporation (BMC) -- https://www.bmcproperties.com/ -- has been a regional leader in real estate management for more than 70 years.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elisabeth Vanessa Assae-Bille, I, Esq. BILLE PLLC 1601 Connecticut Ave. NW, Ste. 800 Washington, DC 20009 Phone: 202-810-1270 Email: vanessa@billelaw.com - and - Randolph T. Chen, Esq. Jason Samuel Rathod, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H St NE Suite 302 Washington D.C., DC 20002 Phone: (202) 470-3520 Email: rchen@classlawdc.com jrathod@classlawdc.com nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com The Defendants are represented by: Benjamin E. Horowitz, Esq. VENABLE LLP 600 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 Phone: (202) 344-4494 Fax: (202) 344-8300 Email: behorowitz@venable.com BISHOP REHABILITATION: Anderson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Brittany Anderson, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by Bishop Rehabilitation & Nursing Center, and/or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by Bishop Rehabilitation & Nursing Center v. BISHOP REHABILITATION & NURSING CENTER, and any related entities, Case No. 5:26-cv-00376-FJS-CBF (N.D.N.Y., March 10, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (hereinafter referred to as "FLSA"), New York Labor Law; 12 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (hereinafter referred to as "NYCRR") to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation as well as related damages owed to the Plaintiff. The Defendant has engaged in a policy and practice of depriving its employees of the applicable straight time wages and overtime wages for work they performed as mandated by federal and state law. The Defendant has engaged in a policy and practice of having its employees regularly work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing overtime compensation as required by the applicable federal and state laws. The Defendant also failed to provide appropriate wage notices and pay statements to the Plaintiff and those similarly situated as required under NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Bishop as a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) from October 2024 to December 2025. Bishop operates a nursing home and rehabilitation center, referred to as Bishop and Rehabilitation Center.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank Gattuso, Esq. GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC The White House 7030 E. Genesee Street Fayetteville, New York 13066 Phone: 315-314-8000 Fax: 315-446-7521 Email: fgattuso@gclawoffice.com BLUE SKY CASINO: Ramirez Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue Sky Casino, LLC. The case is styled as Rosemarie Ramirez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Blue Sky Casino, LLC doing business as French Lick Resort, Case No. 1:26-cv-01388 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 6, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Blue Sky Casino, LLC doing business as French Lick Resort -- https://www.frenchlick.com/ -- is a resort complex in the Midwestern United States, located in West Baden Springs and French Lick in Indiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601-2726 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Sean Murphy, Esq. Nadia Minor, Esq. TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER 111 E. Wacker Dr., Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 836-4145 Email: amurphy@taftlaw.com nminor@taftlaw.com BOEING CO: Federal Judge Certifies Shareholder Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel of Reuters reports that a federal judge certified a shareholder class action accusing Boeing (BA.N) of concealing safety deficiencies in its 737 MAX planes before two crashes that killed 346 people in 2018 and 2019. In a decision on Monday, March 16, U.S. District Judge Franklin Valderrama in Chicago said shareholders who owned Boeing stock between November 7, 2018 and October 18, 2019 may sue as a group because they demonstrated a common means to measure damages. The class period ended two months ⁠earlier than shareholders wanted. Class actions can allow greater recoveries at lower cost than individual lawsuits. The shareholders are led by a group of pension funds and private investors. Boeing faces a separate class action in the Alexandria, Virginia federal court, claiming it overstated its commitment to safe aircraft prior to the January 2024 mid-air cabin panel blowout on an Alaska Airlines 737 MAX 9. Neither Boeing nor its lawyers immediately responded to requests for comment. Salvatore Graziano, a lawyer for the shareholders, declined to comment. Shareholders accused Boeing of rushing development of the 737 MAX, ignoring safety warnings from employees, ⁠and misleading the Federal Aviation Administration about the plane's safety because it feared losing market share to Airbus (AIR.PA), whose A320 series is the 737's main competitor. They sued the Arlington, Virginia-based company following the deaths of 189 people in a Lion Air crash in October 2018, and 157 people in an Ethiopian Airlines crash ⁠in March 2019. Shareholders wanted the class period to end on December 16, 2019, saying Boeing's temporary suspension of MAX production that day exposed the company's "unrealistic" timeline to resume flights. Boeing objected, saying it was already known ⁠the plane would be out of service until 2020. The class period ends on a day the market learned that the MAX's chief technical pilot Mark Forkner expressed concern in 2016 that ⁠an automated system on the plane was "running rampant." In January 2021, Boeing agreed to pay more than $2.5 billion to resolve a U.S. Department of Justice criminal charge it conspired to defraud the FAA about the MAX's safety. [GN] BYTEDANCE INC: Tsering Sues Over Sale of Confidential Data ---------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Tsering, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BYTEDANCE, INC., TIKTOK, INC., and TIKTOK USDS JOINT VENTURE LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-01536-JD (N.D. Cal., Feb. 20, 2026), is brought to enforce her 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. This class action lawsuit sets forth how TikTok surveils of millions of Americans, including millions of people who do not have TikTok accounts, through their activity on the Internet and mobile applications. TikTok, 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. TikTok collects this information to identify users of the TikTok 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 TikTok also collects and stores the information of millions of people who do not have TikTok accounts. This unlawfully collected information is worth billions of dollars to Defendants because it fuels the advertising machine on TikTok, at the expense of Americans' privacy, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Tsering visited numerous websites where TikTok's tracking technology was present and had her activity on those websites and subsequent activity on other websites tracked by Defendants. ByteDance, Inc., together with the other defendants and a series of Chinese parent entities, owns and operates the TikTok Pixel and the TikTok social media platform, including its advertising service.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Phonr: (914) 874-0710 Fax: (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 CAREMARKPCS HEALTH: Faces Racketeering Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (BLB&G) announces the filing of a class action against leading pharmacy benefits manager CaremarkPCS Health, LLC along with its corporate parent, CVS Health Corporation. Plaintiff Roofers' Union Welfare Trust, which provides healthcare benefits for members of Local 11 Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers, brought this action to hold CaremarkPCS and CVS accountable for defrauding PBM customers. This class action on behalf of CaremarkPCS PBM customers challenges defendants' use of Zinc Health Services -- a CVS subsidiary -- as a vehicle to extract billions of dollars in kickbacks from drug manufacturers. CaremarkPCS demanded those payments in exchange for providing the drug companies access to CaremarkPCS' drug formulary -- the vital, curated list of medications available to its PBM customers. The suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. A copy of the filing can be found here. Gary Menzel, Chairman of the Roofers' Unions Welfare Trust Fund and President of Roofers Local 11, stated that "Caremark promised to prioritize healthcare cost savings for our members but instead Caremark and CVS took billions of dollars in kickbacks to line their pockets. It's a sad day in the American healthcare system. Those dollars should have gone to our participants and other customers to reduce health care costs." The action alleges that CaremarkPCS and CVS falsely promised Roofers' Union Welfare Trust and its other PBM customers that they would help lower healthcare expenses when, in fact, the defendants' misconduct dramatically inflated the costs incurred by those customers. CVS's promises to its customers were highlighted by Chairman and CEO David Joyner, who has stated that "our objective and our goal is to reduce the total cost of drugs, and that's really what we're trying to accomplish as a business and as a company. And customers, health plans, employers depend on us to do that." Indeed, the President of CaremarkPCS promised, "We don't pass kickbacks back to our company. We do actually pass through 98 plus percent of our rebates to our customers, retaining a little bit more than 1 percent." CaremarkPCS breached its promises by demanding kickbacks from drug companies in exchange for access to the CaremarkPCS drug formulary, and the exclusion of lower cost competing drugs. Because the formulary dictates which drugs are available to PBM customers, selling access to the formulary means selling access to tens of millions of patients who relied on CaremarkCVS to build that formulary based on "clinical efficacy" and "driving low net cost for our customers," as CaremarkPCS promised. CaremarkPCS and CVS falsely described Zinc as a "group purchasing organization," and delegated to Zinc the responsibility for negotiating terms with drug companies – the primary role for which customers hired CaremarkPCS. Instead of negotiating on behalf of PBM customers, the defendants allegedly disguised billions of dollars in payments by drug companies to Zinc by falsely describing the payments as various "fees." In truth, according to a former CaremarkPCS executive cited in the class action complaint, "It was all on paper and it was all transactional money flowing through contracts . . . it was access to the formularies." Peter Russell, Counsel at BLB&G, said "The major PBMs, including CaremarkPCS, followed the same playbook to defraud their customers, using their massive leverage to extract kickbacks for themselves instead of negotiating for rebates to lower their customers' drug costs. And they will continue to take advantage of their customers and inflate the cost of healthcare until they are held accountable." BLB&G filed a similar lawsuit on February 17 against Express Scripts, the nation's largest PBM, and its parent companies Cigna and Evernorth, on behalf of the Welfare Fund for Plumbers Local 130. Both the CaremarkPCS case and the Express Scripts case accuse defendants of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and breaching their contractual obligations to PBM customers. ABOUT BLB&G Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP prosecutes class and private actions on behalf of individual and institutional clients worldwide. Since its founding in 1983, the firm has recovered more than $40 billion in cases ranging from securities fraud to healthcare fraud to racial discrimination. BLB&G is widely recognized as a preeminent litigation firm with a deep commitment to holding corporations responsible for their misconduct. Contacts Avi Josefson, Esq. Peter Russell, Esq. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP avi@blbglaw.com peter.russell@blbglaw.com [GN] CARGURUS INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Kendrick Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ SAMUEL KENDRICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARGURUS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-11018-MJJ (D. Mass., Feb. 27, 2026) is a an action arising from the Defendant's failure to safeguard certain Personally Identifying Information of its current and former customers, resulting in Defendant's network systems being unauthorizedly accessed by known cybercriminal group, "ShinyHunters," on or before February 18, 2026. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its customers on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's Private Information. In short, the Defendant's failures placed the Class's Private Information in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals. CarGurus, Inc. retails automobiles and accessories. The Company offers new and used passenger cars, sports utility vehicles, hatchbacks, convertibles, vans, and pickup trucks. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (771) 772-3086 Email: cturner@milberg.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. 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 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Nava Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy --------------------------------------------------------------- MELINA NAVA, individually and on behalf of others, Plaintiff vs. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC. dba CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS (CCI), INC. dba SPECTRUM, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01606-GPC-AHG (S.D. Cal., March 13, 2026) is a class action for damages and injunctive relief against the Defendant and its present, former, or future direct and indirect parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, related entities for unauthorized recordings of conversations with Plaintiff and Class Members without any notification or warning, in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The complaint relates that in 2025, Defendant agreed to acquire Cox in a transaction valued at $34.5 billion. The deal has been approved by the Federal Communications Commission and appears to be near completion. In an effort to increase revenue in its new service area from Cox, Defendant initiated a telemarketing campaign and started calling residents of the City of San Diego, including Plaintiff. On March 2, 2026, Defendant called Plaintiff on her cell phone while she was at work. Plaintiff did not recognize the number, but she has a young son and decided to answer the call in case it was related to him. The Plaintiff never inquired about Defendant's services because she is satisfied with her current cable. Plaintiff informed Defendant's agent that she was not interested, but the agent persisted and kept offering various promotions. The Defendant secretly recorded at least one call placed to Plaintiff. Defendant did not warn Plaintiff at the outset of the call that it was recording the call. As a result, thereof, Plaintiff has been damaged, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages and injunctive relief under the California Penal Code. Plaintiff Melina Nava is a resident of the State of California, County of San Diego. Defendant Charter Communications, Inc. dba Charter Communications (CCI), Inc. dba Spectrum provides cable TV, internet, phone, and mobile services to residential and business customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Swigart, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: 866-219-3343 E-mail: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com - and - Daniel Shay, Esq. SHAY LEGAL, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: 619-222-7429 E-mail: Dan@ShayLegal.com CHOWCHOW CLOUD: Faces Securities Class Action Suit in S.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against ChowChow Cloud International Holdings Limited ("CHOW" or the "Company") (NYSE:CHOW) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired CHOW securities between September 16, 2025, and December 10, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until May 12, 2026 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. Allegation Details: The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) CHOW was the subject of a market manipulation and fraudulent promotion scheme involving social-media based misinformation and impersonators posing as financial professionals; (2) CHOW's public statements and risk disclosures omitted any mention of the realized risk of fraudulent trading or market manipulation used to drive the Company's stock price; (3) that, as a result, CHOW securities were at unique risk of a sustained suspension in trading by NYSE American and severe volatility-induced decline; (4) that the sole underwriter on the IPO, Tiger Securities, had been fined and censured by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") in April 2025 for failing to have a reasonable system in place to identify potentially suspicious deposits of low-priced securities; and (5) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. Next Steps: If you purchased or otherwise acquired CHOW shares and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, South Carolina, and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in securities, derivative, and commercial litigation as well as individuals in consumer protection and data privacy litigation. The firm has a nationwide practice and routinely handles cases in both federal and state courts. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Information: Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] CHRISTIAN DIOR: Agrees to Settle 2025 Data Breach Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that Christian Dior agreed to a class action settlement to resolve claims surrounding a 2025 data breach that compromised customer information. The Dior class action settlement benefits individuals who received a notice from Christian Dior informing them that their personal information may have been compromised in a data breach in January 2025. The class action lawsuit claimed Christian Dior failed to protect consumer information from a data breach in January 2025. As a result, hackers allegedly gained access to sensitive consumer information, such as names, addresses, contact information, dates of birth, government identification numbers and even Social Security numbers. Christian Dior is a luxury fashion brand that sells clothing, accessories and cosmetics. Dior has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to resolve the data breach class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Dior settlement, class members can receive up to $1,500 for documented losses resulting from the data breach. This includes identity theft, fraud and fees for credit reports. Class members must provide documentation of these expenses to receive reimbursement. Class members whose Social Security numbers were compromised in the data breach can receive an additional one-time payment of $100. No documentation is required to claim this payment. All class members, regardless of whether they experienced losses as a result of the data breach, can receive two years of free credit monitoring through the settlement. The deadline for exclusion and objection is May 25, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Dior class action settlement is scheduled for June 22, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by May 25, 2026. Who's Eligible U.S. individuals who received notice from Christian Dior that their personal information may have been impacted in the January 2025 data breach may be eligible to benefit from a class action settlement. Potential Award The class action settlement provides up to $1,500 for documented losses and $100 for individuals whose Social Security numbers were compromised. Proof of Purchase Claimants must provide documentation of their losses, such as bank statements, credit reports, receipts, invoices and bills. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 05/25/2026 Case Name Toikach, et al. v. Christian Dior Inc., Case No. CACE-25-18776, in the Circuit Court for the Broward County, Florida Final Hearing 06/22/2026 Settlement Website CDDataSettlement.com Claims Administrator Dior Data Incident Settlement c/o Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 25226 Santa Ana, CA 92799-9958 info@cddatasettlement.com (888) 836-1708 Class Counsel Jeff Ostrow KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. Mariya Weekes MILBERG PLLC Defense Counsel Wesley Sze GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP [GN] CLIPPER REALTY: Appeals Class Cert. and Summary Judgment Order -------------------------------------------------------------- Clipper Realty, Inc., d/b/a Clipper Realty, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and motion for partial summary judgment on liability in the lawsuit entitled Rodney Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Clipper Realty, Inc., d/b/a Clipper Realty, et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-08502, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. On Apr. 9, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class and a motion for partial summary judgment, which Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted on Feb. 23, 2026. The Court finds that a class action is superior because "potential class members are aggrieved by the same common policies," and "the damages suffered are small in relation to the expense and burden of individual litigation," thus rendering it unlikely that individual class members will bring actions of their own. The Court determines that the Plaintiffs are entitled to a single set of liquidated damages for the Defendants' conduct. The appellate case is styled as Rodney Sanchez v. Clipper Realty, Inc., d/b/a Clipper Realty, et al., Case No. 26-550, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on March 9, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent RODNEY SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: CK. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 Defendants-Petitioners CLIPPER REALTY, INC., D/B/A CLIPPER REALTY, et al., are represented by: Paul A. Bartels, Esq. BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC 116 Jackson Avenue Syosset, NY 11791 Telephone: (516) 280-3008 Email: paul@be111g.com COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Protect Private Info, Madoff Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- RAY MADOFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, TRIZETTO PROVIDER SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 26-CV-2634 (D.N.J., March 13 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to protect Plaintiff and the Class members' Private Information and provide adequate data security. The complaint states that Cognizant and TriZetto handle vast amounts of confidential and sensitive information. This includes both "personally identifying information" ("PII") such as name, birthday, and billing information, as well as "protected health information" ("PHI", together with PII, "Private Information") such as health histories, provider information, and health insurance information. Defendants are trusted by their provider clients and the patients to handle this information with due care and preserve its security. Unfortunately, Defendants did not properly guard this Private Information. On October 2, 2025, TriZetto discovered suspicious activity in its system. Specifically, an unauthorized actor began accessing patient Private Information as far back as November 2024. TriZetto determined that the intruders accessed patient records that included both PHI (including health information, provider information, and health insurance information) and PII (including name, birth date, and social security numbers). TriZetto disclosed that more than 3.4 million individuals were affected by the Breach. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and the Class of other affected patients have been harmed by this disclosure. First and foremost, few things are more sensitive and personal than information about one's health, and courts recognize the special regard for personal health information under the law. Additionally, Plaintiff and the Class have suffered injuries that include lost time and effort spent to investigate the potential disclosure of their Private Information, potential charges and fees associated with the disclosure of the Private Information in the Breach, potential expenses related to dealing with mitigating the consequences of the Breach, and the continued heightened risk of fraud as a result of the Breach. Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated in the alleged Class to seek relief from the consequences of Defendants' failure to secure her Private Information. Plaintiff Ray Madoff is a resident and citizen of Massachusetts and is a Data Breach victim. Defendant Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation owns and operates several companies that provide software solutions to stakeholders in the health care industry, such as health care providers, health insurers, and others. It is an information technology consulting and outsourcing company. Defendant TriZetto Provider Solutions, LLC is a healthcare technology company that provides software solutions to healthcare providers, insurance companies, and other entities within the healthcare industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam T. Savett, Esq. Matthew Insley-Pruitt, Esq. Justyn J. Millamena, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 570 Lexington Ave., 19th Floor New York, NY 10023 Telephone: (212) 759-4600 E-mail: ASavett@wolfpopper.com MInsley-Pruitt@wolfpopper.com JMillamena@wolfpopper.com COLLINS FOODS: $29 Mil. Settlement in Rest Breaks Suit Reached -------------------------------------------------------------- Jerome Doraisamy of Momentum Media reports that current and former KFC employees who alleged that they weren't provided with rest breaks during their shifts are set to share in a $28.8 million settlement, agreed to by the fast-food giant and its franchisees. In October 2023, Gordon Legal commenced a class action, supported by the fast-food and hospitality industry, the SDA, against KFC and its franchisees, seeking compensation for employees who did not receive 10-minute rest breaks in the past six years. Now, a settlement of $28.8 million has been reached with KFC and over 80 franchise operators across the country. Approximately 90,000 current and former KFC team members will be eligible for compensation, if the settlement is approved by the Federal Court. The settlement was unveiled in court, following an agreement reached between the applicants and KFC over several months. At a further hearing next month, the court will be asked to order a "registration period" during which affected workers must register their interest to receive compensation. Gordon Legal senior associate Guy Tiffany said the settlement outcome was an example of what collective action can achieve. "This is a large settlement which will compensate many thousands of workers, and one which we think will send a powerful message to the fast-food giants and other employers of inexperienced workers. Regardless of your size and brand power, compliance cannot depend on convenience," he said. "We are pleased that KFC and franchisees have taken a sensible approach to this case, which will result in a fair outcome for thousands of young workers." SDA national secretary Gerard Dwyer added that the settlement will enable payments to thousands of existing and former KFC employees across the country. "The SDA urges McDonald's, which is in a similar position, to settle with the SDA on behalf of their current and former employees who did not receive the paid rest breaks to which they are entitled," he said. Lead applicant Roshanpal Singh said the settlement justifies the decision to stand up to KFC about this longstanding issue. "Like a lot of young people, this was one of my first real jobs. You don't question things; you just show up and do what you're told. But looking back, those rest breaks weren't a luxury; they were something we were legally owed," he said. "This settlement matters, not just for the money, but because it shows that big companies can't just ignore their obligations. I'm glad we stood up and did something about it, and I hope other young workers see this and know that they have rights worth fighting for." [GN] COMMUNITY HEALTH: Appeals Remand Order in Frankfurter Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion to remand in the lawsuit entitled David Frankfurter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Community Health Center, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-344, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit, which was removed from the Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Middlesex at Middletown, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, is brought against the Defendant for alleged failure to protect the personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals following a data breach. On Apr. 9, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand to state court, which Judge Michael P. Shea granted on Feb. 9, 2026. The Court finds that at least two-thirds of the putative class members are citizens of Connecticut, thus the case must be remanded under the Class Action Fairness Act's (CAFA) home state exception. The appellate case is styled as Frankfurter v. Community Health Center, Inc., Case No. 26-575, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on March 11, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee DAVID FRANKFURTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Chloe Mangan, Esq. DISERIO MARTIN O'CONNOR & CASTIGLIONI LLP 1010 Washington Boulevard Stamford, CT 06901 Defendant-Appellant COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, INC. is represented by: Philip Bieler, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10111 COMMUNITY HEALTH: Appeals Remand Order in Rodriguez Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion to remand in the lawsuit entitled Roberto Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Community Health Center, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-358, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit, which was removed from the Connecticut Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, is brought against the Defendant for alleged failure to protect the personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals following a data breach. On Apr. 10, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand to state court, which Judge Michael P. Shea granted on Feb. 9, 2026. The Court finds that at least two-thirds of the putative class members are citizens of Connecticut, thus the case must be remanded under the Class Action Fairness Act's (CAFA) home state exception. The appellate case is styled as Rodriguez v. Community Health Center, Inc., Case No. 26-573, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on March 11, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Ian Wise Sloss, Esq. SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP One Landmark Square, 15th Floor Stamford, CT 06901 Defendant-Appellant COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, INC. is represented by: Philip Bieler, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10111 CP SKIN: Blind Users Face Barriers to Website Access, Cazares Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ AMELIA CAZARES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CP Skin Health Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00413 (E.D. Wis., March 13, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, https://eltamd.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Cazares and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Cazares' rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint relates that on October 16, 2025, Amelia Cazares intended to purchase skincare products to maintain and improve her skin health. She began searching online for dermatologist-recommended skincare products that offered high-quality ingredients and were suitable for sensitive skin. Among the top search results was EltaMD, a company widely recognized for its dermatologist-recommended sun care and professional skincare products, including cleansers, moisturizers, serums, and broad-spectrum SPF formulas designed for daily use. Relying on this representation, Cazares visited Defendant's website eltamd.com to review the available products and to purchase EltaMD UV Sheer Broad-Spectrum SPF 50+. However, when attempting to navigate the website using her screen reader, Cazares encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from accessing the content and completing her intended purchase independently. The Website contains access barriers that deny full and equal access to Cazares. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Cazares and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of the Website, says the suit. Cazares seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff Amelia Cazares is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant CP Skin Health Group, Inc. provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a variety of sunscreens, facial moisturizers, cleansers, skin recovery products, post-procedure treatments, and broad-spectrum SPF formulas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 718-554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law CRUNCH HOLDINGS: Gao Files Suit in N.D. California -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crunch Holdings, LLC. The case is styled as Meng Gao, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Crunch Holdings, LLC, Case No. 5:26-cv-01170-NC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 6, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Crunch Fitness -- https://www.crunch.com/ -- is a US-based brand of over 500 franchised and corporate owned fitness clubs located in the United States, Puerto Rico, Canada, Spain, Portugal, Costa Rica, and Australia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Ellersick, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 6420 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1080 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Phone: (877) 500-8780 Email: ryan.ellersick@zimmreed.com DANAHER CORP: Faces Class Action Suit Over DEI Hiring Program ------------------------------------------------------------- Tez Romero, writing for HRD, reports that a class action lawsuit accuses Danaher Corporation of turning its DEI hiring program into an unlawful quota system targeting white male applicants. The suit, filed on March 16 in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Nadeau et al. v. Danaher Corporation et al., Case 1:26-cv-00923), names the Fortune 200 life sciences company along with four subsidiaries -- Pall Corporation, Beckman Coulter, Cytiva, and Sciex -- and seeks class certification on behalf of what could be thousands of job applicants. At the heart of the case is a question HR leaders across every industry are now contending with: where does a structured diversity hiring program end and unlawful discrimination begin? The three plaintiffs -- Michael Nadeau, Wayne Gagne, and Patrick Farrell -- allege that Danaher's centralized Talent Acquisition team controlled who made it to the interview stage across the company's subsidiaries. According to the filing, all candidates were first screened through a common applicant-tracking system and had to clear standardized stages before a hiring manager could ever meet them. The suit alleges that process came with a hard target: 50% of interview slates were to come from "underrepresented" groups, which the company defined as women and People of Color. If a slate didn't hit that mark, the plaintiffs claim, requisitions could be delayed or escalated until it did. The allegations go further. The plaintiffs claim Danaher modified job descriptions to "open the aperture" for diverse applicants, effectively applying different qualification standards based on race and sex. They also allege the company maintained a shortlist system available only to diverse candidates, with no equivalent pathway for anyone else. Perhaps most striking for HR leaders is what the suit says about performance management. According to the filing, 15 to 25 percent of a manager's review fell under a "People & Culture" category that allegedly included directives to "Strengthen DEI and female . . . from X to Y." Managers who fell short of those targets, the plaintiffs claim, faced lower evaluations, fewer advancement opportunities, and reduced discretionary pay. The suit points to Danaher's own 2024 Sustainability Report as evidence, noting the company reported that 68% of its 2023 U.S. new hires were women and/or People of Color. The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief, monetary and punitive damages, and an order requiring Danaher to adopt hiring practices that provide equal employment opportunities regardless of race or sex. Claims are brought under Title VII, Section 1981, and state-level anti-discrimination laws in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Texas. Danaher has not responded, and no determination has been made on the merits. But the case has already surfaced the kind of operational detail -- dashboard tracking, slate compliance checks, recruiter playbooks -- that could push a wider conversation about how large employers build out their diversity hiring programs. For HR teams watching closely, the takeaway is straightforward: it is not just the goals that matter -- it is the mechanics. [GN] DEPOP INC: Dinh Files Suit in N.D. California --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Depop, Inc. The case is styled as Linsey Dinh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Depop, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-01173-VC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 6, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Depop, Inc. -- https://www.depop.com/ -- is a leading peer-to-peer social e-commerce marketplace specializing in secondhand, vintage, and unique fashion, popular among a younger demographic.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Celina Demos Reynes, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER - WALNUT CREEK 1990 North California Blvd., Ste. 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Fax: (925) 407-2700 Email: ndeckant@bursor.com creynes@bursor.com DICK'S DRIVE-IN: Faces Class Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Missed Breaks ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jake Johns, writing for king5.com, reports that a popular western Washington burger chain is facing a class-action lawsuit alleging the company failed to pay overtime to employees working more than 40 hours, did not provide rest and meal breaks in accordance with Washington state law and failed to pay due wages. In a Feb. 18, 2026, filing in King County Superior Court, plaintiff Madison Masterson alleges Dick's Drive-In required employees to miss 10-minute rest breaks and failed to provide a 30-minute meal break when employees worked five hours or more, both of which are required under state law. The complaint alleges Dick's Drive-In failed to compensate employees for the additional breaks when they were not provided. A labor law expert with Seattle University School of Law said violations of this nature in the restaurant industry are common. "I have a group of students who are learning about Labor Employment Law by providing free legal consultations to low wage workers," said Elizabeth Ford, assistant professor at Seattle U. "And so we see all the time, restaurant workers who are on their feet for six, seven, eight solid hours without having a break for rest or for meals." The former employee also claims the chain failed to pay overtime for hours worked beyond 40 in a week, minimum wage and "all the wages to which they are entitled." The plaintiff also alleges employees were not paid all wages due when they were terminated or left the company. In addition to wages and rest breaks, the plaintiff alleges the company failed to provide accrued sick leave to employees and did not allow use of that time for qualifying absences. In a statement to KING 5, Dick's Drive-In President and CEO Jasmine Donovan said the company cannot comment on active litigation but is reviewing the claims. "As a family-owned business that has served the Seattle community for decades, we value our employees and are committed to operating with integrity and in compliance with all applicable laws," Donovan said. "While we cannot comment on the specifics of the allegations at this time, we are reviewing the claims thoroughly and will respond appropriately through the legal process." The law firm representing the plaintiff could not be immediately reached for comment. "One of the very first things that happens in that litigation is that the plaintiff says it's not just us. There's a large enough group that you, judge, should certify this as a class," explained Ford, the Seattle law professor. Dick's Drive-In is considered a staple in the Puget Sound, operating 10 restaurants across the region. In January, the chain celebrated 72 years of business. [GN] DOMTAR PAPER: Class Suit Claims Horrible Noxious Odor Emissions --------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Domtar Paper Company's failure to properly control noxious odor emissions from its Kingsport Mill recycled paper and packaging facility has caused property damage and diminished the quality of life for nearby residents. The 18-page environmental lawsuit contends that Domtar has failed to take sufficient action to combat the "unreasonable" rotten-egg-like smell emanating from a 23-acre wastewater lagoon, which is being used as an effluent disposal, at the Kingsport Mill in Kingsport, Tennessee. According to the complaint, Kingsport residents say the noxious hydrogen sulfide odors from the facility have significantly impacted their quality of life, especially for any outdoor activities. "On frequent, recurrent, and intermittent occasions too numerous to list individually, Plaintiffs' property, including Plaintiffs' neighborhood, residence, and outdoor spaces, have been and continue to be physically invaded by noxious odors," the filing states. "The noxious odors that entered Plaintiffs' property originated from, and were caused by, Defendant's Facility." According to the complaint, Domtar's main operation involves using hundreds of thousands of tons of recycled containerboard to make linerboard for corrugated boxes. The facility operations include recycling millions of tons of packaging, having accepted roughly 31.8 million tons of empty boxes throughout 2020 alone, and receiving and sorting cardboard and mixed paper, which are formed into large bales for delivery to Kingsport Mill, the filing says. Per the case, the bales of cardboard and paper are pulped by vats and removed of plastics and large contaminants, which are later burned to make energy for the facility. The pulp is separated by long and short fibers and prepared for the containerboard machine, which converts the pulp into huge reels that may be used later in the production of boxes or packaging material, the suit explains. Crucially, the facility has a 23-acre wastewater lagoon on site that is used for the disposal of discarded materials and byproducts from the recycling processes, the suit relays. Between 2021 and 2023, the complaint says, the facility was temporarily shut down during its conversion from a freesheet paper mill to a recycled containerboard mill, during which time the lagoon was completely drained. However, as a result of the drainage, the defendant has experienced "significant operational issues" with the renewed use of the Kingsport facility's wastewater lagoon, which has become a known source of the noxious odors at issue, the class action lawsuit says. "Defendant's emission control processes are inadequate, improperly maintained and operated, and fail to prevent noxious offsite odors from invading the private property of Plaintiffs and the Class," the lawsuit argues. The plaintiffs, two Kingsport residents, claim that their community of 10,800 residential households has been "physically invaded" by the noxious odors, limiting their ability to spend time outside, open windows or fully enjoy their neighborhoods. Their experiences align with those of many other community members, who have filed complaints with the City of Kingsport and against the mill, the complaint shares. "The noxious odors invading the Plaintiffs' and Class's properties are indecent and offensive to people with ordinary health and sensibilities, and they obstruct the free use of their properties so as to substantially and unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life and property," the complaint reads. Similarly, the lawsuit mentions the numerous penalties and fines that Domtar has been forced to pay in connection with its facility, including thousands in civil penalties and damages since the renewed operation. But, despite these warnings, the lawsuit contends, Domtar has continued to emit noxious odors and has not made any meaningful changes to its facilities. The Domtar Paper Company class action lawsuit looks to represent all owner-occupants and renters of residential property within two miles of the facility at any point within the applicable statute of limitations period. On March 9, 2026, the day before the complaint was filed, attorneys who represent the plaintiffs filed a separate complaint against a South Carolina-based landfill over accusations that the facility has also failed to control noxious odor emissions. [GN] EDWARD-ELMHURST HEALTHCARE: Appeals Order in Miller Suit to 7th Cir ------------------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD-ELMHURST HEALTHCARE is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Diane Miller, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Edward-Elmhurst Healthcare, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-14515, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The suit, which was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, is brought against the Defendant for insurance contract violation. The appellate case is captioned as Edward-Elmhurst Healthcare v. Diane Miller, et al., Case No. 26-8004, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on March 13, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents DIANE MILLER, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: David S. Almeida, Esq. BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP 71 S. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 212-4949 Defendant-Petitioner EDWARD-ELMHURST HEALTHCARE is represented by: David A. Carney, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 127 Public Square, Key Tower Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 621-0200 - and - Bonnie Keane DelGobbo, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP One N. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 416-6200 ELIOR INC: Duran-Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Elior, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Ezra Duran-Garcia, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Elior, Inc., Does 1- 50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC26633525 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Feb. 2, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Elior Group -- https://www.eliorgroup.com/ -- is a multinational company that specializes in catering and food service.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Danny Yadidsion, Esq. LABOR LAW PC 100 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 700 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: 310-494-6082 Email: danny@laborlawpc.com ENERGY CAPITAL: Celestine Files Suit in S.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Energy Capital Credit Union. The case is styled as Jeanne Celestine, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Energy Capital Credit Union, Case No. 4:26-cv-00794 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 2, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Energy Capital Credit Union -- https://www.eccu.net/ -- offers checking and savings accounts, home equity loans, auto loans and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (954) 647-1866 Email: mweekes@milberg.com EQUIFAX WORKFORCE: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid to 3rd Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- EQUIFAX WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings and granting the Plaintiffs' motion to enjoin enforcement of their arbitration clause in the lawsuit entitled Greystone Mortgage, Inc., et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Equifax Workforce Solutions LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-2260-JFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged willful acquisition and maintenance of monopoly power in the market for electronic verification of income and/or employment in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. On July 25, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. On Aug. 25, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to enjoin enforcement of the Defendants' arbitration clause and limit the Defendants' communications with class members as to this litigation. On Feb. 17, 2026, Judge John F. Murphy entered an Order denying the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings and granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to enjoin enforcement of the Defendants' arbitration clause and limit the Defendants' communications with class members as to this litigation. The appellate case is styled as Greystone Mortgage, Inc., et al. v. Equifax Workforce Solutions LLC, et al., Case No. 26-1501, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on March 10, 2026. [BN] Defendants-Appellants EQUIFAX WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS LLC, et al. are represented by: Edward J. Bennett, Esq. Jonathan B. Pitt, Esq. Elise Baumgarten, Esq. Sean Douglass, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 680 Maine Avenue SW Washington, DC 20024 Telephone: (202) 434-5000 Email: ebennett@wc.com jpitt@wc.com ebaumgarten@wc.com sdouglass@wc.com - and - Christopher H. Casey, Esq. Joseph Welsh, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 30 South 17th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 979-1000 Email: chcasey@duanemorris.com jrwelsh@duanemorris.com ERIC ROKOSKY: Reano Files Suit in D. New Jersey ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sergio Albarran, et al. The case is styled as Juan Santiago Reano, and those similarly situated, Petitioner v. Eric Rokosky, Todd Lyons, Kristi Noem, Pam Bondi; Respondent, Case No. 2:26-cv-01745-JXN (D.N.J., Feb. 20, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal). Eric Rokosky was named Warden at the Eloy Detention Center in January 2026.[BN] The Petitioner is represented by: Martin W. Chow, Esq. MARTIN C. LIU & ASSOCIATES PLLC 135 Bowery, 4TH FLOOR New York, NY 10002 Phone: (917) 968-2559 Fax: (212) 226-0036 Email: mchow7@hotmail.com The Respondents are represented by: David Inkeles, Esq. U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 970 Broad Street, Suite 700 Newark, NJ 07102 Phone: (973) 645-2813 Email: david.inkeles@usdoj.gov - and - John Francis Basiak, Esq. U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 402 E. State Street, Room 430 Trenton, NJ 08608 Phone: (609) 858-0309 Email: john.basiak@usdoj.gov EVENTS GROUP: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Moinian Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTOPHER MOINIAN, Plaintiff v. EVENTS GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC. d/b/a EVENTIQUE, AND AMELIA FRIENDMAN, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02080 (S.D.N.Y., March 13, 2026) is a class action seeking to recover damages from Defendants for the following: (1) unpaid overtime, (2) liquidated damages, (3) statutory penalties for failing to provide wage notices, and (4) statutory penalties for failing to provide wage statements, in compliance with New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). The complaint relates that during the course of his employment, Moinian routinely worked over 40 hours per week and was deprived of overtime payment, in addition to other Fair Labor Standards and NYLL violations, pursuant to a common policy that similarly affected him and other similarly situated employees. Moinian repeatedly made requests to Defendants to provide the full compensation he earned, in compliance with the FLSA and NYLL. Defendants bluntly refused. Furthermore, Defendants failed to provide adequate wage statements, depriving Moinian the ability to adequately contest his pay. Moinian's complaints about his pay resulted in his retaliatory termination by the Defendants in violation of the FLSA and NYLL's anti-retaliation provisions. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks recovery under the FLSA for these egregious and continuous violations on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs. Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages from Defendants based on the following: (1) unpaid overtime, (2) liquidated damages, and (3) attorney's fees and costs. Plaintiff Christopher Moinian is a former employee of Defendants. Defendant Events Group International INC. d/b/a Eventique, an incorporated New York business, is an event production and creative agency headquartered in New York City. The company specializes in producing live, virtual, and hybrid experiences, including large-scale corporate conferences, product launches, non-profit galas, and social gatherings. Defendant Amelia Friendman is a manager at EGI and was Moinian's supervisor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taimur Alamgir, Esq. Matthew Daidola, Esq. TA LEGAL GROUP PLLC 205 E Main Street, Ste. 3-2 Huntington, NY 11743 Telephone: (914) 552-2669 E-mail: tim@talegalgroup.com matthew@talegalgroup.com EVER PRETTY: Corbett Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- KATHERINE CORBETT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Ever Pretty Garment Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00211 (W.D. Wis., March 13, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, http://www.ever-pretty.comto be fully accessible to and independently usable by Corbett and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Corbett's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint relates that Corbett attempted to complete a purchase on the Website. On August 28, 2025, Katherine Corbett searched online for formal dresses for an upcoming event and discovered Defendant's Website, Ever-Pretty.com, which appeared among the top search results. After reviewing positive customer feedback praising the affordability, elegant designs, and wide range of sizing options offered by the Website, she decided to explore the Website's dress collection with the intent to make a purchase. However, while navigating the Website using a keyboard and screen reader, Corbett encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from independently completing the transaction. The Website contains access barriers that deny full and equal access to Corbett. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Corbett and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of the Website, says the suit. Corbett seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff Katherine Corbet is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Ever Pretty Garment Inc. provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a selection of women's dresses designed for evening events, bridesmaids, wedding guests, and other special occasions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 718-554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law FIDELITY NATIONAL: Agrees to Settle Securities Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP regarding notice of a proposed class action settlement. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION IN RE FIDELITY NATIONAL INFORMATION SERVICES, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Case No. 3:23-cv-252-TJC-PDB Honorable Timothy J. Corrigan Honorable Patricia D. Barksdale SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES To: All persons and entities who or which, during the period from May 7, 2020 through February 10, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"), purchased the publicly traded common stock of Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. ("FIS"), and were allegedly damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class"). YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, that Lead Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all members of the proposed Settlement Class, and FIS and the other defendants (collectively, "Defendants"), have reached a proposed settlement of the claims, and related claims, in the above-referenced class action (the "Action") in the amount of $210,000,000 (the "Settlement"). A hearing will be held before the Honorable Timothy J. Corrigan on July 9, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. at the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Bryan Simpson United States Courthouse, 300 North Hogan Street, Courtroom 10D, Jacksonville, FL 32202 (the "Settlement Hearing") to determine whether the Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated December 17, 2025; (iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the proceeds of the Settlement (the "Net Settlement Fund") to Settlement Class Members; and (iv) approve Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing, or hold it remotely, without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing in order to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a Postcard Notice, you may obtain copies of the Postcard Notice, long-form Notice, and Claim Form by visiting www.FISSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: FIS Securities Settlement c/o Verita Global, LLC P.O. Box 301170 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1170 info@FISSecuritiesSettlement.com (877) 398-3015 Inquiries, other than requests for copies of notices or about the status of a claim, may also be made to Lead Counsel: Michael P. Canty, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 www.labaton.com settlementquestions@labaton.com (888) 219-6877 If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than May 28, 2026. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions in the long-form Notice, available at www.FISSecuritiesSettlement.com and www.labaton.com, and such request must be received no later than May 28, 2026. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, but you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be filed with the Court, either by mail or in person, and be mailed to counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the long-form Notice, available at www.FISSecuritiesSettlement.com and www.labaton.com, such that they are received no later than May 28, 2026. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: March 16, 2026 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA [GN] G6 HOSPITALITY: Doe Sues Over Child Abuse and Trafficking --------------------------------------------------------- Jane Doe 1 (A.E.). Jane Doe 2 (C.M.), and Jane Doe 3 (J.L.C.), individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. G6 HOSPITALITY LLC.; G6 HOSPITALITY, IP, LLC; G6 HOSPITALITY PROPERTY, LLC; G6 HOSPITALITY PURCHASING, LLC,; MOTEL 6 OPERATING, LP,; G6 HOSPITALITY FRANCHISING, LLC.; and XYZ CORPORATIONS 1-100, Case No. 2:26-cv-00216-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, Feb. 21, 2026), is brought pursuant to the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act ("TVPRA") and the Child Abuse Victims' Rights Act ("CAVRA"). The Defendants derived financial benefit from facilitating sex trafficking by providing venues where traffickers could exploit victims, including victims like the Plaintiffs and class of plaintiffs in this case, with minimal risk of detection or interruption. The Defendants, each enabled, harbored, held, facilitated, and financially benefited from a venture that violated the TVPRA in which Plaintiffs were trafficked for the purposes of commercial sex and sexual exploitation in violation of CAVRA The Defendants' failure to implement policies that would detect obvious signs of sex trafficking at a hotel may include: an excess of condoms in rooms, individuals carrying or flashing large amounts of cash, excessive amounts of cash stored in the room, renting 2 rooms next door to each other, declining room service for several consecutive days, significant foot traffic in and out of room(s), men traveling with multiple women who appear unrelated, women known to be staying in rooms without leaving, women displaying physical injuries or signs of fear and anxiety, guests checking in with little or no luggage, hotel guests who prevent another individual from speaking for themselves, or a guest controlling another's identification documents, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs harbored and forced to engage in commercial sex acts for the benefit of her traffickers and the Defendants. G6 Hospitality LLC is a privately held hospitality company that owns, controls, franchises, and operates the Motel 6 and Studio 6 brands throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Syreeta Poindexter, Esq. Jennifer A. Bogan, Esq. BABIN LAW, LLC 10 West Broad Street, Suite 900 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: 614-761-8800 Fax: 614-706-1775 Email: Syreeta.Poindexter@babinlaws.com Jenn.Bogan@babinlaws.com GAP INC: Bazabal Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping ----------------------------------------------- Juan Bazabal, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. THE GAP, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 26CU009708C (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., Feb. 20, 2026), is brought against the Defendants unlawful wiretapping under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA") and Section 631 of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"). When users visit the Website, Defendant causes numerous trackers and cookies developed and operated by Meta, Google, FullStory, Inc., Medallia, Inc., Akamai Bot Manager, ThreatMetrix, Tealium Tag Manager, Amazon, Microsoft, Pinterest, TikTok and Snapchat (the "Trackers") to be installed on Website visitors' internet browsers. Defendant then uses these Trackers to collect Website visitors' identifying information, as well as dozens of other data points that reveal the users' behavior and activity on the Website, subjecting the user to unwanted and intrusive communications by would-be advertisers trying to sell the same or similar product to the user over and over and over again. Because the Trackers intercept information about the Website visitors' interactions with the Website, the Trackers constitute the ECPA and the CIPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was in California when he visited the Website. The Gap, Inc., a Delaware Corporation owns and operates a website https://www.gap.com/ (the "Website" or "Gap").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Potter, Esq. James M. Treglio, Esq. Isabel Rose Masanque, Esq. POTTER HANDY, LLP 100 Pine Street, Ste. 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (858) 375-7385 Fax: (888) 422-5191 Email: classactions@potterhandy.com GARTNER INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit in D. Conn. -------------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Gartner, Inc. ("Gartner" or the "Company") (NYSE: IT) securities between February 4, 2025 and February 2, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements concerning the true state of Gartner's growth rates; notably, that it was not truly equipped to handle ongoing challenges in its industry to either meet consulting revenue targets or to increase or even maintain its expected contract value ("CV") growth rate. Gartner's repeated claims of being able to achieve 12-16% CV growth rates in a "normal" macroeconomic environment proved to be unrealistic. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Gartner should contact the Firm prior to the May 18, 2026 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. [GN] GEMINI SPACE: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------- Reflector reports that a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Gemini Space Station, Inc. ("Gemini" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: GEMI). The lawsuit alleges that the Company's Offering Documents contained, and Defendants throughout the Class Period made, false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts regarding Gemini's business, operations, and prospects, including allegations that: (i) Gemini had overstated the viability of its core business as a crypto platform; (ii) Gemini had overstated its commitment to and/or the viability of growing its business through expanding its international operations; (iii) accordingly, Gemini's post-IPO financial and business prospects were overstated; and (iv) all of the foregoing raised a non-speculative risk that Gemini was poised for an expensive and disruptive restructuring. If you purchased Gemini's shares between September 12, 2025 and February 17, 2026, and experienced a significant loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832, or by visiting the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/gemini-space-station/ for more information. [GN] HARBOR FREIGHT: Botto Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages --------------------------------------------------------- BRIDGET BOTTO, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02708-SRM-AYP (C.D. Cal., March 13, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for making unsolicited text messages to telephone numbers registered on the National Do Not Call Registry. The complaint relates that to promote its goods, services, and/or properties, Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging and continues to text message consumers after they have opted out of Defendant's solicitations. Defendant also engages in telemarketing without the required policies and procedures, and training of its personnel engaged in telemarketing. Further, to promote its goods, services, and/or properties, Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging to consumers that have registered their telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry. On June 27, 2025, Plaintiff received an unsolicited text message and subsequently requested to opt-out of Defendant's text messages by replying with a stop instruction. The purpose of Defendant's text messages was to solicit the sale of consumer goods, services, and/or properties. Defendant sent Plaintiff more than one marketing text messages that were initiated by Defendant after Plaintiff's opt-out request. The Defendant's text messages caused Plaintiff and the Class members harm, including statutory damages, inconvenience, invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, and violation of their statutory privacy rights, says the suit. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the intrusion upon seclusion, invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of Plaintiff and members of the Classes. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Classes, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Plaintiff BRIDGET BOTTO is a citizen and resident of Los Angeles County, California. Defendant HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA, INC. is a Delaware Corporation with its headquarters located in Calabasas, 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 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Settlement in Bhangal Suit Wins Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- Hawaiian Electric Industries Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted preliminary approval of the Bhangal securities class suit settlement. Shareholders filed a securities class action on Aug. 24, 2023 against Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. (HEI) and certain individuals in Bhangal v. Hawaiian Electric Indus., Inc., et al., No. 3 23-cv-04332 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2023), premised on claims that defendants made materially misleading statements regarding valuation that violated the federal securities laws, that as disclosed in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on Feb. 27, 2026 (the FY2025 10-K), $47.75 million of an anticipated $100 million payment will be used to fund the settlement of this securities class action pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, that the court issued an order preliminarily approving the securities class action settlement on March 3, 2026 and set a hearing on Aug. 13, 2026 to consider final approval of that settlement, and that under a Stipulation of Settlement dated Dec. 31, 2025, in connection with a related settlement, HEI will receive a cash payment in the amount of $100 million, which is to be used in part for the settlement or defense of the pending securities class action, including a provision that within the later of ten days of the funding of the escrow account or ten days after the court preliminarily approves the Bhangal securities class action settlement, the parties will issue a disbursement notice providing that $1,000,000 shall be released to HEI so that it can satisfy its obligation to fund an initial installment of the settlement amount agreed upon in the Securities Action. Hawaiian Electric Industries Inc. is a holding company that, through its subsidiaries, provides electric utility services to customers across Hawaii and offers a range of banking and financial services. HEIGHTS FINANCE: Alexander Suit Dismissed with Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AUSTIN ALEXANDER, v. HEIGHTS FINANCE CORPORATION, Case No. 3:23-cv-00449-DJH-CHL (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Hale entered an order as follows: (1) The Plaintiff's motion to certify class is denied as moot. (2) The 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 is a consumer finance company that provides installment loans, along with related insurance and financial products. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=y3Cqu1 at no extra charge.[CC] HIGH 5 ENTERTAINMENT: Goodwin Sues Over Illegal Online Gambling --------------------------------------------------------------- BRUCE GOODWIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HIGH 5 ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00132-TSL-RPM (S.D. Miss., Feb. 27, 2026) alleges violation of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant owns and operates a popular, internet-based casino website called www.Highcasino.com, and is not registered or licensed to operate in Mississippi. On its website, users can play "over 1700+ (sic.) games", including "slots," and live virtual table games such as roulette and blackjack (the "Chance Games"). The Chance Games are games of chance that have been declared unlawful in Mississippi, including slot machines, poker, roulette, and other casino table games. High 5 Entertainment, LLC operates an online social casino. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronnie Musgrove, Esq. David S. Humphreys, Esq. MUSGROVE, WHITWELL & HUMPHREYS, PLLC 265 N. Lamar Blvd., Suite C Oxford, MS 38655 Telephone: (662) 273-8424 Email: musgrove@mwhlawoffice.com david@mwhlawoffice.com HOME DEPOT: Misleads Customers Over Product Prices, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Hazel Cabanlit filed a class action lawsuit against Home Depot Inc. Why: Cabanlit claims Home Depot misleads customers by charging them more at checkout than they were led to believe they would pay. Where: The Home Depot class action lawsuit was filed in Illinois federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses Home Depot of misleading customers by charging higher prices at checkout than those advertised on store shelves. Plaintiff Hazel Cabanlit filed the class action complaint against Home Depot on Feb. 27 in Illinois federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the class action lawsuit, Home Depot has engaged in unfair and deceptive business practices by placing false and misleading price advertisements on shelf signs and price displays throughout its stores in Illinois and nationwide. Cabanlit claims Home Depot uses shelf pricing to advertise prices for merchandise to enable consumers to calculate pricing differences among brands, identify bargains and induce consumers to purchase the advertised merchandise. "Consumers reasonably rely on shelf pricing to make informed purchasing decisions and reasonably expect to pay the advertised shelf price when they reach the checkout," she says. However, the lawsuit claims the shelf prices frequently differ from the amounts charged at the register, causing customers to unknowingly pay more than the advertised price. Cabanlit alleges this practice amounts to a "bait and switch" that results in consumers overpaying for merchandise. Home Depot aware of deceptive pricing, class action alleges The class action lawsuit alleges the misleading shelf pricing affects a wide range of merchandise throughout Home Depot stores, with some items ringing up at prices roughly 10% to 40% higher than those advertised. Cabanlit claims Home Depot is aware of the alleged pricing discrepancies, noting the retailer has previously been fined for similar practices and entered into stipulated judgments with multiple California district attorneys. The fines have not dissuaded Home Depot from continuing its unfair and deceptive practices, the lawsuit alleges. "The fines ($2 million in total) are diminutive for the multi-million-dollar retailer and dwarf the millions of dollars Home Depot profits each year from selling overcharged goods," she says. "So, because doing so is profitable, Home Depot paid the fines but has continued its misleading, unfair and deceptive pricing practices." Cabanlit seeks to represent anyone who bought merchandise from a Home Depot store in the United States, within the applicable statute of limitations, and paid higher prices for merchandise than the advertised shelf prices. She is suing under state and federal consumer laws and seeks certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. Last year, Home Depot faced a class action lawsuit alleging it forced customers to pay "optional" damage protection fees when renting tools. The plaintiff is represented by Scott H. Gingold of Gingold Legal and Stanley D. Bernstein, Michael S. Bigin, Stephanie M. Beige and Robert S. Rowley of Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The Home Depot class action lawsuit is Cabanlit v. Home Depot Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-02241, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. [GN] HOMELAND INSURANCE: Wilson Sues Over Unlawful Marketing Call ------------------------------------------------------------ Chet Michael Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HOMELAND INSURANCE LLC, Case No. 6:26-cv-00345-MTK (D. Ore., Feb. 22, 2026), is brought against Homeland Insurance LLC ("Defendant") under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") as a result of the Defendants' unlawful marketing call or text message. The Defendant routinely violates the TCPA by delivering, or causing to be delivered, more than one advertisement or marketing call or text message to residential or cellular telephone numbers registered with the National Do-Not-Call Registry ("DNC Registry") without prior express invitation or permission required by the TCPA. The Plaintiff did not give Defendant prior express consent or permission to deliver or cause to be delivered, advertisement or marketing text messages. Plaintiff did not request information or promotional materials from Defendant. The Plaintiff suffered actual harm as a result of the subject text messages in that he suffered an invasion of privacy, an intrusion into his life, and a private nuisance, says the complaint. The Plaintiff received text messages from the Defendant. The Defendant is a limited liability company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 2657 Mount Carmel Avenue Glenside, PA 19038 Phone: 215-225-5529 Email: a@perronglaw.com HORDERLY LLC: Feldman Sues Over Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------- Molly Feldman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. HORDERLY LLC, FILLIP HORD, and JAMIE HORD, Case No. 2:26-cv-01021-ARL (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 20, 2026), is brought seeking unpaid wages and damages for a class of professional organizers who were subject to a written corporate policy explicitly mandating "unpaid" work. The Defendant maintained an Employee Handbook that unlawfully required organizers to perform "up to 1.5 hours of unpaid follow-up work per client session." When Plaintiff Molly Feldman complained about this wage theft, disclosed her disability, and subsequently took leave to manage her disability, Defendants issued a formal reprimand and then terminated her employment. The Plaintiff regularly worked these unpaid hours throughout 2023, 2024, and 2025, accumulating approximately 90 minutes of off-the-clock work per shift. This uncompensated time frequently caused Plaintiff's total weekly hours to exceed 40, yet Defendants failed to pay her the required overtime premium, says the complaint. The Plaintiff commenced her employment with Defendants on September 11, 2023. Horderly LLC is a limited liability company organized under the laws of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex Rissmiller, Esq. Jazly Liriano, Esq. RISSMILLER PLLC 5 Pennsylvania Plaza, 19th Floor New York, NY 10001 Phone: (646) 664-1412 Email: arissmiller@rissmiller.com jliriano@rissmiller.com HUMANA INC: Faces Class Action Over Tobacco Surcharges in W.D Ky. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Casolo of Becker's Payer Issues reports that a former Humana employee filed a class-action lawsuit March 17 alleging the insurer improperly deducted a tobacco surcharge as part of its medical coverage, according to a court filing in the U.S. District Court for Western Kentucky. The complaint said Humana employees who were tobacco users faced $40 deductions per paycheck, adding up to $80 per month and $960 per year. Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, health-contingent wellness programs can exist only if there is a reasonable alternative for employees encountering higher charges due to a specific health factor, this standard is clearly communicated and employees can access the same financial benefit for the plan year if they complete said alternative. In this case, the lawsuit said Humana may have allowed tobacco users to complete a smoking cessation program. However, Humana never disclosed the ability to obtain a refund of the surcharges in its summary plan description or other plan materials. "Defendants cannot take advantage of the statutory safe harbor and, therefore, the surcharge functions as a penalty rather than a compliant wellness incentive," the complaint said. The filing also alleged Humana used the surcharges to offset its own contributions to the health plan, which the company may have accrued interest on. Along with other forms of relief, the lawsuit requests reimbursement and removal of the plan's fiduciaries. The civil cover sheet outlines a demand for $5 million. According to the lawsuit, Humana's employee health plan included more than 60,000 members as of the end of 2024. The class action is open to U.S.-based individuals who paid the surcharge for the health plan at some point since 2014. These surcharges -- and surrounding scrutiny -- are not new. In 2023, Virginia passed legislation banning surcharges for tobacco users under ACA plans. In 2024, monthly premiums dropped between $25 and $123 for tobacco users, but premiums overall increased $3.80 per member per month to compensate. Becker's contacted Humana and will update this story if more information becomes available. [GN] ICONTAINERS USA: Briefing on Bid to Certify Class Stayed -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SX Holdings, LLC v. ICONTAINERS USA, INC. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-20824 (S.D. Fla., Filed March 18, 2022), the Hon. Judge Darrin P. Gayles entered an order granting motion to stay briefing on motion to certify class. Given the resources required for a proper response to the Motion to Certify Class, as well as the relatively short delay that will be required before disposition of the motion to dismiss that was recently referred for disposition, the Court finds good cause to grant the motion to stay briefing pending further Order of the Court. The Court will set a new response deadline for the motion if necessary. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. iContainers provides online freight forwarding services.[CC] INSPIRE RESTAURANT: Griffin Sues Over Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------- Delisa Griffin, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. INSPIRE RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC and MARIO JOHNSON, Case No. 1:26-cv-01337-TRJ (N.D. Ga., March 10, 2026), is brought for unpaid wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants willfully violated the FLSA by failing to pay her and others similarly situated ("the tipped employees") for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 per week at the required overtime premium by refusing to pay the tipped employees for the complete duration of their shifts, which includes unpaid overtime wages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Inspire as a bartender and server. Inspire is a restaurant group that owns and operates several restaurants including The Beverly Atlanta, Georgia, Grant Park Social, and Lokee Atlanta.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Y. Coffman, Esq. James D. Dean, Esq. PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C. 1355 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2000 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404-873-8000 Email: acoffman@pcwlawfirm.com jdean@pcwlawfirm.com INVIDA FINANCIAL NETWORK: Bland Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against InVida Financial Network LLC, et al. The case is styled as Kelly Bland, an individual, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. InVida Financial Network LLC, Brylorence Investments LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-00259-X (N.D. Tex., Feb. 2, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. InVida Financial Network -- https://www.invidafn.com/ -- specializes in providing tailored insurance solutions to meet the unique needs of its clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ethan Mark Preston, Esq. PRESTON LAW OFFICES 4054 McKinney Avenue, Suite 310 Dallas, TX 75204 Phone: (972) 564-8340 Fax: (866) 509-1197 Email: ep@eplaw.us IRON ARCH: Jones Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IRON ARCH MANAGEMENT LLC, a limited liability company, Case No. 3:26-cv-50095 (N.D. Ill., March 10, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, Defendant failed to properly calculate Plaintiff's shift differential pay and other remuneration in the regular rate for proper overtime calculation. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, he and Defendant's Hourly Employees earned shift differential pay and other remuneration. As non-exempt employees, Defendant's Hourly Employees were entitled to full compensation for all overtime hours worked at a rate of 1.5 times their "regular rate" of pay. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, Defendant failed to properly calculate Plaintiff's shift differential pay and other non-discretionary remuneration into the regular rate for proper overtime calculation, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt Hourly Employee with the job title of Hourly Manager. The Defendant is headquartered in Rockford, Illinois, and employs hundreds (if not thousands) of Hourly Employees in numerous locations throughout the State of Wisconsin and the State of Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Phone: (269) 250-7500 Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com JOHN TSOUKARIS: Lemus-Cisneros Files Suit in D. New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sergio Albarran, et al. The case is styled as Edin Orlando Morales Godoy, and those similarly situated, Petitioner v. JOHN TSOUKARIS, Enforcement & Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; TODD LYONS, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; PAM BONDI, Attorney General of the United States; LUIS SOTO, Warden, Delaney Hall, Newark, NJ; Respondent, Case No. 2:26-cv-01033-MCA (D.N.J., Feb. 2, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal).[BN] The Petitioner is represented by: Peter Kapitonov, Esq. VALLEY IMMIGRATION LAW GROUP, INC. 55-21 69TH STREET Maspeth, NY 11378 Phone: (718) 803-1000 Email: peter.kapitonov@gmail.com The Respondents are represented by: Frances C. Bajada, Esq. OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY 970 Broad Street Newark, NJ 07102 Phone: (973) 297-2038 Email: frances.bajada@usdoj.gov - and - Harry Pattridge Morgenthau, Esq. DOJ-USAO 970 Broad Street Newark, NJ 07102 Phone: (973) 645-2884 Email: harry.morgenthau@usdoj.gov - and - John Francis Basiak, Esq. U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 402 E. STATE STREET, ROOM 430 Trenton, NJ 08608 Phone: (609) 858-0309 Email: john.basiak@usdoj.gov KIND LLC: Dark Chocolate Clusters Contain Lead, Class Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Jade Burnett filed a class action lawsuit against KIND LLC and KIND Foods LLC. Why: Burnett claims the companies misled consumers by failing to disclose that its KIND Healthy Grains Dark Chocolate Clusters contain a substantial amount of lead. Where: The KIND granola class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges KIND misled consumers by failing to disclose that its KIND Healthy Grains Dark Chocolate Clusters contain a substantial amount of lead. Plaintiff Jade Burnett claims KIND misled consumers with representations that its granola clusters were made with healthy, premium ingredients. According to independent scientific testing commissioned by plaintiff's counsel, KIND's granola clusters contain more than four times the California Proposition 65 Maximum Allowable Dose Level for reproductive toxicity of 0.5 micrograms of lead per day. "Consumers, including the plaintiff, do not want to purchase and/or do not want to pay a premium to purchase defendants' products if they contain lead, particularly at the amounts set forth herein," the KIND class action lawsuit says. Burnett wants to represent a California class of consumers who purchased KIND Healthy Grains Dark Chocolate Clusters within the past four years. KIND granola clusters advertised as being made with 'super grains' Burnett argues that KIND advertised its granola clusters as being made with "super grains" and "healthy grains" that were "kind for your body" without disclosing that the product contained lead. "The representations are misleading based on the lead contained in the products, which is not disclosed anywhere on the labels," the KIND granola class action lawsuit says. Burnett claims KIND is guilty of unfair and unlawful business acts and practices, deceptive advertising practices, breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment and also violates California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiff demands a jury trial and requests injunctive and declaratory relief and an award of compensatory and monetary damages for herself and all class members. Last year, Garden of Life LLC was sued over similar false advertising claims alleging its Organic Plant-Based Protein products contained unsafe levels of lead despite being marketed as safe. The plaintiff is represented by Naomi Spector of KamberLaw LLP. The KIND granola class action lawsuit is Burnett v. KIND LLC, et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-00440, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] KROGER CO: Morgan Appeals Labor Suit Dismissal to 10th Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- VALARIE MORGAN is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her lawsuit entitled Valarie Morgan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Kroger Co., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-CV-00837-GPG-CYC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit, which was removed from the Denver County District Court of Colorado to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, is brought against the Defendants for alleged labor violations. On Apr. 3, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which Judge Gordon P. Gallagher granted on Feb. 6, 2026. Final judgment is entered in favor of the Defendants. The appellate case is styled as Morgan v. The Kroger Co., et al., Case No. 26-1070, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on March 10, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant VALARIE MORGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Nicole Cabanez, Esq. Yaman Salahi, Esq. SALAHI 505 Montgomery Street, 11th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 236-2352 - and - David Hollis Seligman, Esq. Juno Turner, Esq. TOWARDS JUSTICE 1580 North Logan Street, Suite 660 PMB 44465 Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (720) 248-8426 (720) 441-2236 Defendant-Appellee THE KROGER CO. is represented by: Luna Ngan Barrington, Esq. WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES 767 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3301 New York, NY 10153 Telephone: (212) 310-8000 - and - Randall H. Miller, Esq. Lucas Adam Westerman, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER 1144 Fifteenth Street, Suite 3100 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 863-1000 - and - Sonia K. Pfaffenroth, Esq. Matthew McManus Wolf, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER 601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 942-5000 - and - Luke M. Sullivan, Esq. WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES 2001 M. Street NW #600 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 682-7133 LADY PRIMROSE'S: Brownlee Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping -------------------------------------------------------- Gayle Brownlee, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. LADY PRIMROSE'S PRODUCTS, LLC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 100, inclusive, Case No. 26CV172142 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., Feb. 20, 2026), is brought against the Defendants unlawful wiretapping under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA") and Section 631 of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"). When users visit the Website, Defendant causes numerous trackers and cookies developed and operated by Meta, Google and Pinterest (the "Trackers") to be installed on Website visitors' internet browsers. Defendant then uses these Trackers to collect Website visitors' identifying information, as well as dozens of other data points that reveal the users' behavior and activity on the Website, subjecting the user to unwanted and intrusive communications by would-be advertisers trying to sell the same or similar product to the user over and over and over again. Because the Trackers intercept information about the Website visitors' interactions with the Website, the Trackers constitute the ECPA and the CIPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was in California when they visited the Website. Lady Primrose's Products, LLC., a Delaware Corporation owns and operates a website https://ladyprimrose.com/ (the "Website" or "Lady Primrose").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Potter, Esq. James M. Treglio, Esq. Isabel Rose Masanque, Esq. POTTER HANDY, LLP 100 Pine Street, Ste. 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (858) 375-7385 Fax: (888) 422-5191 Email: classactions@potterhandy.com LANCASTER COUNTY, PA : Kling Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Spencer Kling, Heather Moser, Jason Snyder, Justin Widmark, and Emma Kreider, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. COUNTY OF LANCASTER, Case No. 5:26-cv-01528 (E.D. Pa., March 10, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs. The Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees routinely work more than 40 hours in individual workweeks; however, the County maintains and enforces an illegal policy and practice of refusing to pay overtime premiums when an employee works more than 40 hours in a given workweek if the employee does not exceed 80 hours over a two-week pay period. The County improperly averages employees' hours over a two-week pay period to avoid paying overtime premiums owed for individual workweeks exceeding 40 hours. This practice violates the FLSA, which requires overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek, absent a lawful exemption. As a result of the County's unlawful policies and practices, Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees have suffered damages in the form of unpaid overtime compensation, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are currently employed by the County. The County is a public employer located at 150 North Queen Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony T Bowser, Esq. KREVSKY BOWSER LLC 20 Erford Road | Suite 300A Lemoyne, Pa 17043 Phone: 717.731.8600 Email: abowser@krevskybowser.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: Settles Underinsured Motorist Suit for $6.5MM ------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Liberty Mutual and Safeco agreed to a $6.5 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that they failed to properly advise New Mexico policyholders that any amounts payable on an underinsured motorist claim are required by law to be reduced by amounts the insured received from the insurer of the driver at fault in the accident. The Liberty Mutual settlement benefits Safeco policyholders and insureds who purchased or otherwise paid a premium for a New Mexico insurance policy that included uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage and/or who made a claim for UIM benefits under a New Mexico insurance policy that did not include the disclosure and exclusion required by Crutcher and had benefits reduced or denied due to a Schmick offset between Oct. 1, 2010, and March 31, 2022. The settlement also benefits an offset subclass of class members who submitted a claim for underinsured motorist coverage benefits for a motor vehicle accident occurring between Oct. 10, 2010, and March 31, 2022, whose underinsured motorist benefits were offset by amounts paid by the insurer of the person liable for the motor vehicle accident. Liberty Mutual and Safeco are insurance companies that offer a variety of insurance products, including auto insurance. Safeco is a Liberty Mutual company. According to a class action lawsuit against Liberty Mutual and Safeco, the companies failed to properly advise New Mexico policyholders that any amounts payable on an underinsured motorist claim are required by law to be reduced by amounts the insured received from the insurer of the driver at fault in the accident. Plaintiffs in the case say that the companies' actions violate New Mexico's Unfair Trade Practices Act and breach their auto insurance policy contracts. Liberty Mutual and Safeco have not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $6.5 million class action settlement to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the Liberty Mutual settlement, class members can receive either a direct premium refund or an offset subclass payment. Class members who purchased UM/UIM motorist coverage between Oct. 1, 2010, and March 31, 2022, will receive a direct premium refund payment. No claim form is required to receive this benefit. Class members who had an underinsured motorist claim reduced or offset by the amount paid by the at-fault driver in an accident between Oct. 1, 2010, and March 31, 2022, can receive an offset subclass payment of up to $25,000. A claim form is required to receive this benefit. The deadline for exclusion and objection is April 15, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Liberty Mutual car insurance settlement is scheduled for June 2, 2026. The deadline to submit a claim form is April 30, 2026. Who's Eligible All Safeco policyholders and insureds between Oct. 1, 2010, and March 31, 2022, who purchased or paid premiums for a New Mexico insurance policy with UM/UIM coverage or who made a UIM claim after Oct. 1, 2010, under a policy that lacked the disclosure and exclusion required by Crutcher and had benefits reduced or denied due to a Schmick offset. For the offset subclass, members who submitted UIM claims for motor vehicle accidents occurring between Oct. 10, 2010, and March 31, 2022, whose benefits were reduced by amounts paid by the liable driver's insurer. Potential Award Up to $25,000 Proof of Purchase Insurance claim form Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 04/30/2026 Case Name Crutcher v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., et al., Case No. 18-cv-00412 JCH-LF, in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico Final Hearing 06/02/2026 Settlement Website CrutcherUIMSettlement.com Claims Administrator Crutcher v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, et al. Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 5338 Portland, OR 97228-5338 info@CrutcherUIMSettlement.com (877) 684-5777 Class Counsel Kedar Bhasker KEDAR BHASKER Geoffrey Romero ROMERO HARADA & WINTERS Corbin Hildebrandt CORBIN HILDEBRANDT P.C. Defense Counsel Rodger L. Eckelberry Kevin P. Zimmerman BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Meena H. Allen ALLEN LAW FIRM LLC [GN] LIGHTHOUSE LICENSED: Vonczerniewicz Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lighthouse Licensed Behavior Analysts PLLC. The case is styled as Lisa Vonczerniewicz, Mirit Jakov, on behalf of themselves, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. Lighthouse Licensed Behavior Analysts PLLC, Case No. 605098/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., March 9, 2026). The nature of suit stated as Other Commercial (Employment). Lighthouse Licensed Behavior Analysts PLLC -- https://www.thelighthousech.com/ -- provides aba therapy in Flushing, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Jeffrey Shenker, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 58 South Service Road, Suite 250 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631-247-4671 Fax: 631-247-0417 Email: Brian.Shenker@jacksonlewis.com - and - Michael John Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 1133 Westchester Ave, White Plains, NY 10604 Phone: (914) 825-8620 LOS ANGELES, CA: Bradshaw Seeks Initial Approval Of Attys' Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Plaintiff, on Monday, April 6, 2026 at 8:30 a.m., will move the Court for preliminary approval of attorneys' fees, expenses, and service awards under Rule 23(h). The Plaintiff moves for the Court's preliminary approval of an award of $650,000 in attorneys' fees and up to $40,000 in reasonable expenses to Class Counsel, and an award of $2,500 to Plaintiff as service award for their contributions in this case. Los Angeles is a sprawling Southern California city and the center of the nation's film and television industry. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 3, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ukOpbD 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 MASIMO CORP: M&A Investigates Sale to Danaher Corporation --------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a law firm headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Masimo Corporation (NASDAQ: MASI) related to its sale to Danaher Corporation. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Masimo shareholders will receive $180.00 per share in cash. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/masimo-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Mission Produce, Inc. (NASDAQ: AVO) related to its merger with Calavo Growers, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Calavo shareholders are expected to receive 0.9790 shares of Mission Produce common stock and $14.85 in cash for each share of Calavo common stock. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for April 28, 2026. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/mission-produce-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Calavo Growers, Inc. (NASDAQ: CVGW) related to its merger with Mission Produce, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Calavo shareholders are expected to receive 0.9790 shares of Mission Produce common stock and $14.85 in cash for each share of Calavo common stock. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for April 28, 2026. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/calavo-growers-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Tri Pointe Homes, Inc. (NYSE: TPH) related to its sale to Sumitomo Forestry Co., Ltd. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Tri Pointe shareholders will receive $47.00 per share in cash. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for April 16, 2026. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/tri-pointe-homes-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] META PLATFORMS: Stearns Sues for Invasion of Privacy ---------------------------------------------------- AIMEE STEARNS and ERIC YEPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. META PLATFORMS, INC., SAMASOURCE IMPACT SOURCING INC., AND LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-02237 (N.D. Cal., March 13, 2026) is a class action concerning the collection, use, and disclosure of consumers' videos, audio, and other private data by one of the largest advertising companies in the world. The complaint relates that Meta Smart Glasses look like typical sunglasses or reading glasses, but have cameras built-in so that consumers can capture video, audio, and other content without needing to use a traditional camera or a smartphone. Meta and Luxottica have sold over seven million Meta Smart Glasses and continue to misrepresent, and fail to disclose, the true nature and purpose of these glasses: to obtain private video and audio content Meta would not otherwise have access to, including to train and profit from its AI models. Indeed, they continue to tout that the Meta Smart Glasses are "designed for privacy" and "controlled" by the consumer. The Defendants' interception, use, and disclosure of this information without consumers' consent--at a minimum--constitutes an extreme invasion of Plaintiffs' and Class Members' privacy. The complaint alleges that the Defendants' conduct violated the privacy of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Class Members, including Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs and Class Members have been damaged as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' privacy invasions and are entitled to just compensation, including monetary damages. The Plaintiffs and Class Members seek all appropriate relief for that injury, including but not limited to damages and all other relief that may be just or proper. The Plaintiffs and Class Members are also entitled to punitive damages resulting from the malicious, willful, and intentional nature of Defendants' actions, directed at injuring Plaintiffs and Class Members in conscious disregard of their rights. Such damages are needed to deter Defendants from engaging in such conduct in the future, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff Aimee Stearns is a resident of Fresno County, California. She purchased first-generation Ray-Ban Stories in approximately 2021, second-generation Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses in approximately 2024, and Oakley Vanguard Meta Smart Glasses in January 2026. Plaintiff Eric Yepez is a resident of Fresno County, California. He purchased Meta Smart Glasses on January 6, 2026. Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc. is the creator and developer of Meta AI and the Meta Smart Glasses. Defendant Luxottica of America, Inc. is an Ohio corporation which partnered with Meta to offer each and every version of the Meta Smart Glasses. Defendant Samasource Impact Sourcing Inc. is a Delaware corporation which provides facilities and contractors to perform data annotation, including manually reviewing video and voice recordings, and labeling this video and audio content.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert C. Schubert, Esq. Willem F. Jonckheer, Esq. Amber L. Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 E-mail: rschubert@sjk.law wjonckheer@sjk.law aschubert@sjk.law - and - Christian Levis, Esq. Amanda Fiorilla, Esq. Rachel Kesten, Esq. Katherine Boyd, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: clevis@lowey.com afiorilla@lowey.com rkesten@lowey.com kboyd@lowey.com MID AMERICA: Sussman Appeals Class Settlement Order to 2nd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL SUSSMAN, non-party objector, is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees and their motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled James Filardi, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Mid America Pet Food LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:23-cv-11170, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought to remedy the deceptive and misleading business practices of the Defendant with respect to the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of its pet food products throughout the state of New York. On Dec. 16, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for attorney fees, expense reimbursement, and service awards. On Jan. 26, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class. On Feb. 6, 2026, Judge Nelson Stephen Roman entered an Order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees and their motion to certify class. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court determines that the following Settlement Class be certified: "All persons and entities residing in the United States who purchased one or more of the Mid America Pet Food Products. Specifically excluded are the following: (a) persons or entities whose claims are solely based upon the purchase of Mid America Pet Food Products for resale; (b) corporate officers, members of the board of directors, and senior management of Defendant; (iii) persons or entities who otherwise meet the definition of Settlement Class Members, but who previously contacted the Defendant prior to and during the pendency of this litigation, signed a release and in exchange received financial compensation from the Defendant; (d) any and all judges and justices assigned to hear or adjudicate any aspect of this action; (v) any members of the Settlement Class that opt out prior to the opt out deadline; (f) any entity in which the Defendant has a controlling interest, and their legal representatives, officers, directors, assigns and successors; and (g) Class Counsel. The proposed Settlement creates a $5,500,000 Settlement Fund from which Settlement Class Members may submit Pet Injury Claims and/or Food Purchase Claims. The appellate case is styled as Filardi v. Mid America Pet Food LLC, Case No. 26-617, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on March 13, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees JAMES FILARDI, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Defendant-Appellee MID AMERICA PET FOOD LLC is represented by: Jordan David Weiss, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTOR, LLP The New York Times Building 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 Non-Party Objector-Appellant MICHAEL SUSSMAN appears pro se. MODERNIST PANTRY: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Corbett Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- KATHERINE CORBETT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Modernist Pantry LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00209 (W.D. Wis., March 13, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, https://modernistpantry.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Corbett and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Corbett's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint relates that Corbett has made an attempt to complete a purchase on the Website. On November 4, 2025, while searching online for kitchen tools and specialty ingredients, she discovered Defendant's Website, Modernistpantry.com which offers ready-to-use kits and tools for advanced cooking methods, including molecular gastronomy techniques. While exploring the website's offerings, Corbett decided to purchase The Smoking Gun Pro and the Bubble Liquid - Refill 2 Pack, interested in their ability to create smoke-infused aromas and edible cocktail bubbles that enhance both the flavor and presentation of drinks and dishes. However, while browsing the Website, she encountered multiple accessibility issues. The access barriers denied full and equal access to Corbett. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Corbett and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of the Website, says the suit. Corbett seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff Katherine Corbett is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Modernist Pantry LLC provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a variety of cooking gadgets, kits, and gift sets, including products for baking, fermentation, spherification, sous-vide cooking, specialty cooking ingredients, kitchen tools, and ready-to-use culinary kits.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 718-554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law MODOC MEDICAL: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the potential Modoc Medical Center data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who may have had their information exposed in the reported incident, including current and former MMC patients who believe they are affected. Possible Modoc Medical Center Security Incident: What Happened? Emerging reports indicate that Modoc Medical Center (MMC) in Alturas, California, has experienced a data breach. Though MMC has not yet confirmed the data breach, it was reported by Ransomware.Live as having occurred in mid-February 2026 and attributed to the threat actor Worldleaks. On March 18, DataBreach.com published a searchable database indexing 26,091 rows of personal information, claiming it allows individuals to discover whether their data was compromised in the possible MMC data breach. The compromised information reportedly includes Social Security numbers and phone numbers. Modoc Medical Center provides healthcare services in the rural northeastern region of California, near the borders of Oregon and Nevada. It operates an 8-bed critical-access hospital and a 50-bed skilled nursing facility, along with a suite of ancillary practices. What You Can Do After the Reported Modoc Medical Center Data Breach If your information may have been exposed in the possible Modoc Medical Center data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Modoc Medical Center to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. [GN] MONSANTO COMPANY: Bosch Sues Over Negligent Advertising & Sale -------------------------------------------------------------- Nancy Bosch on behalf of the estate of David Bosch, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-03-218 MON (Del. Super. Ct., March 10, 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 Nancy Bosch is a natural person and is the Representative of David Bosch, deceased, who developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Bunch Sues Over Wrongful Advertising of Herbicide ------------------------------------------------------------------- Sara Bunch, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-03-199 MON (Del. Super. Ct., March 10, 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: Naragon Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide --------------------------------------------------------------- Marisha Naragon, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-03-216 MON (Del. Super. Ct., March 10, 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: Phillips Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Sale ------------------------------------------------------------ Gary Phillips, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-03-209 MON (Del. Super. Ct., March 10, 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: Radford Sues Over Negligent Advertising & Sale ---------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Radford, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-03-219 MON (Del. Super. Ct., March 10, 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 MYERS AUTO: Settles 2025 Data Breach Class Action Suit for $15,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Myers Auto Group has agreed to a $15,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the Florida-based car dealership failed to protect the sensitive information stored on its computer system from a May 2025 data breach. The Myers Auto Group class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on February 5, 2026 and covers all individuals whose private information was compromised in the May 2025 data breach. The settlement agreement reports that approximately 4,229 individuals are covered by the deal. The court-approved website for the Myers Auto Group data breach settlement can be found at MyersDataIncident.com. According to the website, Myers Auto settlement class members who file a timely, valid claim form are eligible to receive a one-time, pro-rated cash payment from the settlement fund with no proof required. The agreement explains that the final amount of this payment will be determined by the number of valid claims filed. Class members may receive their payout via check or electronic payment, the agreement adds, and all checks must be cashed within 90 days of issuance before expiration. In addition to any monetary benefits, all settlement class members are automatically eligible to receive one free year of CyEx Financial Shield Complete, which includes one-bureau credit monitoring and data protection, per the agreement. The settlement site reiterates that class members do not need to file a claim for this benefit; all class members were sent an enrollment code for CyEx Financial Shield Complete with their respective copies of the settlement notice. Class members may activate the service by entering the CyEx code on this page after the court grants the settlement final approval and final judgment. If a class member no longer has their CyEx Financial Shield enrollment code, the settlement site recommends that they contact the settlement administrator for further instructions. Importantly, the settlement agreement notes that all attorneys’ fees, administrative costs, lead plaintiff service awards and Financial Shield enrollments will be paid by Myers Auto Group, separate from the $15,000 settlement fund. In other words, the settlement fund will be used only to make pro-rated cash payments to class members and to pay any outstanding taxes owed. To file a Myers Auto Group settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and log in using the unique ID and PIN (distinct from the CyEx enrollment code) found on their received copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members may download a PDF of the claim form from the website to print, fill out and return by mail to the address of the settlement administrator listed on the second page of the document. All Myers Auto Group data breach claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by May 26, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Myers Auto data breach settlement following a hearing on May 8, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals are resolved. The Myers Auto Group class action lawsuit alleged that the Florida-based automobile dealership chain failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity safeguards to protect the sensitive consumer information stored on its systems, leading to a cyberattack in May 2025. Per court documents, the files potentially compromised by the breach contained private and protected health information such as names, contact information, dates of birth, and government identification numbers like Social Security numbers and driver’s license numbers. [GN] NAVIA BENEFIT: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Navia data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Navia data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Navia Security Incident: What Happened? Navia Benefit Solutions disclosed a data breach affecting 2,697,540 individuals, as reported to the Maine Attorney General's Office. A notice on the company's website states that on January 23, 2026, Navia detected unusual activity in its systems and initiated an investigation, discovering that unauthorized access and potential data acquisition occurred between December 22, 2025 and January 15, 2026. The investigation determined the Navia data breach could have compromised names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, phone numbers, email addresses, and health plan details related to participation in COBRA, flexible spending accounts and health reimbursement arrangements, though no claims or financial data was exposed. Navia Benefit Solutions, which serves approximately 10,000 clients and enrolls 1 million participants in its benefits program, is notifying affected individuals by mail. What You Can Do After the Navia Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Navia data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Navia to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. [GN] NEW YORK, NY: Violates Disability-Accommodation Rights, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- On March 16, 2026, Plaintiff Drilon Berdynaj filed a putative class action complaint against the City of New York in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. According to the complaint, although the New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services, or DCAS, has a citywide role in providing equal employment opportunity and reasonable accommodation guidance to city agencies, DCAS allegedly violated disability-accommodation rights in its treatment of its own employees. The complaint alleges that the City, acting through DCAS, maintained a policy, pattern, and/or practice of denying disability-based accommodation requests by DCAS employees where the disability or requested accommodation was characterized as permanent, indefinite, or lacking a fixed end date. The complaint further alleges that the City retaliated against employees who requested disability-based remote-work accommodations and repeatedly required what Plaintiff alleges was unnecessary additional medical documentation from employees with permanent or long-term disabilities who sought continuation of their accommodations. As to Plaintiff individually, the complaint alleges that DCAS initially approved his remote-work accommodation, later determined in writing that his remote-work arrangement "imposed no undue hardship to the agency," and then later denied continued remote work on the ground that extending the accommodation for an "indefinite period of time" would impose an undue burden on agency operations. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff requested a full-time remote-work accommodation in May 2021 based on chronic respiratory and pulmonary conditions requiring home-based treatment throughout the day, and that he remained able to perform the essential functions of his position with that accommodation. The complaint further alleges that, in July 2024, a DCAS official told Plaintiff that "reasonable accommodations are typically not permanent or indefinite" before DCAS denied his request to continue working remotely full-time and asserted that an accommodation for an 'indefinite period of time' would impose an undue burden on agency operations. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's disability is permanent and/or long-term. The complaint also alleges that, after continued accommodation denials and unsuccessful appeals, DCAS retaliated against Plaintiff by requiring him to stop working remotely and take involuntary leave, which allegedly resulted in his being marked AWOL, placed on involuntary FMLA leave, subjected to a Civil Service Law Section 72 fitness-for-duty examination, charged with disciplinary violations. The complaint further alleges that the City demoted Plaintiff on September 15, 2022, one day after he submitted a new reasonable accommodation request and three days after DCAS denied his prior request. The complaint additionally alleges that on March 4, 2026, DCAS told Plaintiff that he could return to work only if a physician stated that he could return "full duty" or "without restrictions". On behalf of the proposed classes, the complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2), including relief requiring lawful, individualized accommodation procedures and cessation of the challenged practices. On Plaintiff's individual claims, the complaint seeks back pay, front pay, restoration of leave and benefits, nominal damages, liquidated damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs, and other appropriate relief. The case is Berdynaj v. The City of New York, No. 1:26-cv-02126, and is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York before U.S. District Court Judge Dale E. Ho. and Magistrate Judge Jennifer Willis. The complaint contains allegations only, and the Court has not made any findings on the merits. [GN] NIDEC CORP: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims -------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Nidec Corporation (OTC: NJDCY) resulting from allegations that Nidec may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Nidec securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=47559 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On September 3, 2025, after market close, CNBC published an article entitled "Nidec shares plunge 22% as China unit probe finds accounting issues tied to management." The article further stated that shares of Nidec fell "after the company announced a probe into allegations of improper accounting in its group. This marks the largest one-day drop in the Japanese electronics components manufacturer's shares." On this news, Nidec's American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") fell 22.7% on September 4, 2025. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] PACIRA BIOSCIENCES: Western Appeals Suit Dismissal to 3rd Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA TEAMSTERS AND EMPLOYERS PENSION FUND is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Western Pennsylvania Teamsters and Employers Pension Fund, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Pacira Biosciences Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00322, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Pacira securities between Aug. 2, 2023, to Aug. 8, 2024, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws. On Sept. 19, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended complaint, Judge Stanley R. Chesler granted on Feb. 6, 2026. After reviewing the amended complaint, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege that the challenged statements were false or misleading when they were made. Because the Plaintiff has failed to plead an actionable misrepresentation or omission with the particularity required by Rule 9(b) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA), the Section 10(b) claim must be dismissed. The Court dismisses the amended complaint with prejudice and without leave to replead. The appellate case is styled as Western Pennsylvania Teamsters and Employers Pension Fund, et al. v. Pacira Biosciences Inc, et al., Case No. 26-1500, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on March 10, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA TEAMSTERS AND EMPLOYERS PENSION FUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq. Gonen Haklay, Esq. ROSEN LAW FIRM 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: (215) 600-2817 - and - Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. ROSEN LAW FIRM 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (973) 313-1887 Plaintiff-Appellee LEANDRO ALVAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Defendants-Appellees PACIRA BIOSCIENCES INC., et al. are represented by: Kevin M. McDonough, Esq. Jooyoung Yeu, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 906-1200 PERION NETWORK: Carr Stockholder Derivative Suit Stayed ------------------------------------------------------- Perion Network Ltd. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2026, that the Carr stockholder derivative suit is stayed pending final resolution of plaintiffs appeal in the SDNY action. On February 13, 2025, purported shareholder John Carr filed a putative derivative action on behalf of the Company in the Southern District of New York against all of the Companys directors and certain of its officers and former directors, principally alleging that the Board breached its duties by allowing the Company to make material misrepresentations and/or omissions in various public disclosures concerning the Companys search advertising business and its partnership with Microsoft Bing; both the Israeli proceeding and the derivative action are stayed pending final resolution of plaintiffs appeal in the SDNY action, and the Company disputes the allegations of wrongdoing and intends to defend against them vigorously. Perion Network Ltd. is a global technology company that delivers online advertising solutions, including search and social media advertising, to brands, agencies and publishers across multiple platforms. QUETTA ACQUISITION: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Smart Kreate ---------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a law firm headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and are investigating: -- Quetta Acquisition Corporation (NASDAQ: QETA) related to its merger with Smart Kreate Group Limited. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/quetta-acquisition-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Non-Invasive Monitoring Systems, Inc. (OTCPK: NIMU) related to its merger with Gravitics, Inc. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, Non-Invasive shareholders are expected to own 4.5% of the combined company. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/non-invasive-monitoring-systems-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Arcellx, Inc. (NASDAQ: ACLX) related to its sale to Gilead Sciences, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Arcellx shareholders are expected to receive $115.00 per share in cash plus one contingent value right of $5.00 per share upon the achievement of certain milestones. ACT NOW. The Tender Offer expires on April 2, 2026. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/arcellx-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- FONAR Corporation (NASDAQ: FONR) related to its sale to affiliates of Chief Executive Officer Timothy Damadian and certain executives and directors of the company. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, FONAR's Class B common stockholders will receive $19.00 per share and FONAR's Class C common stockholders will receive $6.34 per share. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/fonar-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] QUTOUTIAO INC: Korines Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROSEMARY KORINES is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing the lawsuit styled as In re Qutoutiao Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:20-cv-6707, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff Steven Burnham seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Qutoutiao offers a mobile application called "Qutoutiao" that aggregates articles and short videos from professional media and freelancers and presents customized feeds to users. On Sept. 14, 2018, Qutoutiao's IPO sold 13.8 million American Depository Shares (ADS) at a price of $7.00 per share and raised $85.8 million. On Jan. 15, 2021, Plaintiff James Pappas filed an amended class action complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Mar. 16, 2021. On Aug. 3, 2023, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss through an Order entered by Sidney H. Stein. On Feb. 5, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed second amended consolidated class action complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Apr. 7, 2025. On Feb. 5, 2026, Judge Victor Marrero entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs do not have viable claims under Section 11, Section 12, and Section 15 of the Securities Act. The appellate case is styled as In re Qutoutiao Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 26-589, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on March 12, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant ROSEMARY KORINES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Ivy T. Ngo, Esq. FREEDMAN NORMAND FRIEDLAND LLP 1815 Purdy Avenue Miami Beach, FL 33131 Defendants-Appellees QUTOUTIAO INC., et al. are represented by: George S. Wang, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 - and - Jonathan Rosenberg, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 RAGHAV SHARMA: Marigliano Sues Over Unlawful Monthly Charges ------------------------------------------------------------ Liza Marigliano, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Raghav Sharma d/b/a UFC Gym North Brunswick and Kuber Ventures LLC d/b/a UFC Gym North Brunswick, Case No. MID-L-001166-26 (N.J. Super. Ct., Middlesex Cty., Feb. 20, 2026), is brought alleging that the Defendant violated the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) by continuing to charge members' credit cards and bank accounts for recurring monthly membership dues beyond the three-year limit on such charges imposed under the Health Club Services Act (HCSA) as well as the Defendants' standard membership agreement, which provided that automatic monthly membership renewal and dues charges will "in no event exceed three years" from the beginning of the contract. The Plaintiff's credit card continued to be automatically charged for monthly membership dues long after the three-year limitation period for automatic charges had expired, and long after she stopped using the gym. Even after discovering the unlawful charges and directing Defendants to stop debiting her credit card account, Defendants continued to the automatic monthly charges for several months until the Plaintiff caused the credit card company to discontinue processing the charges. The Plaintiff brings this proposed class action seeking treble damages in the amount of the unlawful dues charged and other remedies under the CFA on behalf of herself and other consumers who were similarly subjected to unlawful automatic charges for dues beyond the three-year limitation on such charges imposed under Defendants' membership agreement and New Jersey law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former UFC Gym North Brunswick member. Kuber Ventures LLC is a foreign limited liability company that has owned and operated UFC Gym North Brunswick since 2022, along with Defendant Raghav Sharma.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Henry P. Wolfe, Esq. Javier L. Merino, Esq. Andrew R. Wolf, Esq. THE DANN LAW FIRM PC 1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101 North Brunswick, NJ 08902 Phone: (212) 373-0539 Fax: (216) 373-0536 Email: notices@dannlaw.com ROBERTSON INDUSTRIES: Mata-Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Ivan Mata-Rodriguez and Jonathan Reyes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ROBERTSON INDUSTRIES, INC., an Arizona Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26CV168207 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alemeda Cty., Feb. 2, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid prevailing wages including employee benefits or their value included in per diem wages and prevailing overtime wages, premiums for missed rest periods, and penalties for wage statement violations and unpaid wages at separation, all of which is mandated by California law. The Defendants have failed to pay Plaintiffs prevailing wages at the proper prevailing wage rate applicable to their work performing preparation and installation of various surfaces primarily on public playgrounds, among other construction tasks, despite the explicit contractual and statutory requirements that they do so. In addition, Defendants regularly fail and, throughout the relevant time period, failed to compensate Plaintiffs for all hours worked including travel time, failed to authorize and permit off duty 10-minute rest periods, and to pay premiums for such missed rest periods, failed to pay all wages due and owing at separation, and provide accurate wage statemen, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants. Robertson Industries, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taylor B. Graham, Esq. Brent E. Pelton, Esq. PELTON GRAHAM LLP 220 Montgomery Street, Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415-437-9100 Facsimile: 212-385-0800 Email: graham@peltongraham.com pelton@peltongraham.com RUGGABLE LLC: Faces TCPA Class Suit Over Unlawful Marketing Texts ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Ruggable has sent multiple marketing texts to consumers' cell phones between the hours of 9 p.m. and 8 a.m., in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The 12-page lawsuit contends that Ruggable, a retailer of uniquely machine-washable and stain-resistant rugs, wrongfully sends consumers text messages promoting its products during hours considered "violative" under the TCPA. Specifically, the case says that under the TCPA, companies are forbidden from issuing to consumers any marketing messages before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. local time. This provision came after consumer outrage and frustration over the intrusive manifestation of marketing messages, seen only in telemarketing phone calls at the law's inception in 1991 but now considered more broadly for cell phone communications, the suit notes. "The private right of enforcement of the TCPA is critical to stopping the proliferation of these unwanted telemarketing calls," the complaint emphasizes. Ruggable, however, allegedly fails to abide by these restrictions. The plaintiff, a California resident, claims that Ruggable sent multiple texts between October 2, 2025 and October 12, 2025 during hours prohibited by the TCPA. These texts, the case maintains, were solely for the purpose of advertising and promoting the rugs sold by the retailer. According to the complaint, Ruggable has access to outbound transmission reports to all telephone communications that promote its goods, including the dates, times, cell numbers and context of each message. In this light, the lawsuit claims, Ruggable knew or should have known that its excessive marketing texts could constitute a violation of the TCPA. Should a company send messages during violative hours, the TCPA provides that every consumer is entitled to recover a penalty of up to $500 per call during these hours, and up to $1,500 per call if there is reason to believe the company knowingly violated the TCPA, the case adds. "[Ruggable]'s unlawful conduct resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to Plaintiff and the Class members," the filing says. The Ruggable class action lawsuit seeks to represent all individuals in the United States who, from the four years prior to the filing of this action on March 4, 2026 through the date of class certification, received more than one marketing text message from Ruggable within any 12-month period, where such messages were initiated before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. (local time at the called party's location). [GN] SES AI CORP: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of SES AI Corporation (NYSE: SES) resulting from allegations that Barclays may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased SES AI Corporation securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=56471 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On March 5, 2026, Benzinga published an article entitled “SES AI Stock Plunges 30% After Weak 2026 Revenue Guidance.” The article stated that SES AI stock fell after “the lithium-metal battery developer posted mixed fourth-quarter results and issued a 2026 sales outlook that trailed Wall Street expectations.” On this news, SES AI Corporation stock fell 36.8% on March 5, 2026. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] SOUTHLAND INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kitchen Says ------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT KITCHEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHLAND INDUSTRIES f/k/a BRANDT COMPANIES, LLC; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-00480 (C.D. California, Feb. 27, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Kitchen was employed by the Defendant as a pipefitter. Southland Industries operates as mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) engineering and construction company. The Company provides building system solutions, such as HVAC, fire protection, and energy services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Olivia R. Beale, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 Email: obeale@mybackwages.com ST. FRANCIS HOTEL: Truis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against St. Francis Hotel Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Antonio Truis, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. St. Francis Hotel Corporation, Does 1 Through 25, Inclusive, Case No. CGC26634111 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Feb. 17, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." The Westin St. Francis, formerly known as St. Francis Hotel, is a hotel located on Powell and Geary Streets in San Francisco.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Chuman, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: 310-622-4278 Email: rchuman@blackstonepc.com STAFFMARK INVESTMENT: Stacker Files Suit Over FCRA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ PRASHAWNA STACKER, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STAFFMARK INVESTMENT LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02136 (D. Kan., March 12, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to comply with the mandates of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The complaint relates that when relying on consumer reports to make hiring and subsequent employment-related decisions, the FCRA now requires employers to: (i) disclose to consumers, in writing, that their consumer reports may be obtained for employment purposes; (ii) obtain authorization from consumers prior to procuring their reports; (iii) give notice to consumers before and upon taking adverse actions related to their reports; and (iv) provide consumers with copies of their reports and a reasonable time to address the information contained therein. Despite these and other prohibitions, Defendant violated the FCRA by failing to: (i) comply with the FCRA's authorization requirements in obtaining the permission of Plaintiff and other consumers to procure their consumer reports for employment purposes; (ii) provide copies of consumer reports to Plaintiff and other consumers prior to taking adverse employment action against them based on such reports; and (iii) certify that Defendant complied with the FCRA's mandates prior to obtaining copies of consumer reports referencing Plaintiff and other consumers, says the suit. The Defendant's actions in violation of the FCRA are part of a pattern of practice undertaken with numerous other individuals. As such, Plaintiff, on her own behalf and behalf of all others similarly situated, files this Class Action Complaint seeking statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and all other relief available pursuant to the FCRA. Plaintiff Prashawna Stacker is a resident of Kansas City, Kansas. Plaintiff was the subject of a consumer report procured by Defendant. Defendant Staffmark Investment LLC is engaged in the business of employment staffing in Kansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jayson A. Watkins, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 2300 Main Street Suite 900 - #16946775 Kansas City, MO 64108 Direct: 816-281-7162 E-mail: jwatkins@sirillp.com STRYKER CORPORATION: Mesmer Files Suit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------- TOM MESMER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STRYKER CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00832 (W.D. Mich., March 13, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to secure and safeguard personally identifiable health information ("PHI"), other personally identifiable information ("PII"), and likely other sensitive information that was entrusted to Stryker. The complaint relates that in March 2026, Stryker experienced a cyberattack of its computer network. This cyberattack likely resulted in the breach and/or compromise of certain files containing the sensitive personal data of Plaintiff and potentially millions of other individuals, including but not necessarily limited to names, dates of birth, addresses, Social Security numbers, employment information, and PHI. The Plaintiff provided his Private Information to Defendant prior to the Data Breach as a condition of, and in exchange for, employment. Plaintiff's Private Information was accessed and exfiltrated by cybercriminals in the Data Breach, adds the complaint. As such, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, brings this Action for restitution, actual damages, nominal damages, statutory damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, and all other relief that this Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff Tom Mesmer is a former employee of Defendant; he worked for Defendant as a customer service representative in Tampa from November 2017 to October 2023. Defendant Stryker Corporation, a multinational Fortune 500 company, is one of the largest manufacturers of medical devices for surgery and neurotechnology-based treatments and diagnostics in the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lisa M. Esser, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 746-4015 E-mail: LEsser@sommerspc.com - and - Israel David, Esq. Adam M. Harris, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 60 Broad Street, Suite 2900 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 350-8850 E-mail: israel.david@davidllc.com adam.harris@davidllc.com - and - Mark A. Cianci, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 399 Boylston Street, Floor 6, Suite 23 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 295-7771 E-mail: mark.cianci@davidllc.com TALKSPACE INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Universal Health ----------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a law firm headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Talkspace, Inc. (NASDAQ: TALK) related to its sale to Universal Health Services, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Talkspace shareholders will be entitled to receive $5.25 per share in cash. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/talkspace-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- UniFirst Corporation (NYSE: UNF) related to its sale to Cintas Corporation. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, UniFirst shareholders will be entitled to receive $155.00 in cash and 0.7720 shares of Cintas stock for each UniFirst share. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/unifirst-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Arcellx, Inc. (NASDAQ: ACLX) related to its sale to Gilead Sciences, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Arcellx shareholders are expected to receive $115.00 per share in cash plus one contingent value right of $5.00 per share upon the achievement of certain milestones. ACT NOW. The Tender Offer expires on April 2, 2026. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/arcellx-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- FONAR Corporation (NASDAQ: FONR) related to its sale to affiliates of Chief Executive Officer Timothy Damadian and certain executives and directors of the company. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, FONAR's Class B common stockholders will receive $19.00 per share and FONAR's Class C common stockholders will receive $6.34 per share. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/fonar-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com [GN] TANGOE US: 2022 Data Breach Class Settlement Gets Prelim OK ----------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Tangoe US has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit that alleged the technology expense management platform failed to protect the sensitive information stored on its systems from a November 2022 data breach. The Tangoe class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on February 2, 2026 and covers all individuals, or their respective successors or assigns, residing in the United States whose private information was impacted by the November 2022 data breach. The court-approved website for the Tangoe data breach settlement can be found at TangoeUSDataSettlement.com. According to the website, Tangoe settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form have multiple options for reimbursement. Class members who file a claim form with documented proof of ordinary losses stemming from the data breach are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of up to $750. The settlement agreement states that class members must provide supporting documents to receive compensation for losses related to identity theft or fraud such as professional fees, costs for freezing or unfreezing credit, credit monitoring, bank charges, and miscellaneous expenses such as data or travel. The agreement adds that reimbursable expenses must be actual monetary losses that were incurred between November 2022 and June 3, 2026. The agreement relays that under this reimbursement option, class members may also receive reimbursement for up to four hours of lost time spent responding to the data breach, at a rate of $25 per hour, subject to the $750 ordinary-loss payment cap. The settlement site outlines that covered activities include changing passwords, investigating suspicious account activity and researching the Tangoe data breach. Tangoe class members who file a claim form with documented proof of extraordinary losses stemming from the breach are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of up to $5,000 from the deal. According to the agreement, extraordinary expenses must be actual and unreimbursed, related to identity theft or fraud, and incurred between November 2022 and June 3, 2026. The expenses may not otherwise be covered by an ordinary loss payment, and class members must be able to show they made efforts to avoid or mitigate their losses, court documents state. In lieu of either documented-loss payment, settlement class members may instead file a claim form to receive a one-time alternative cash payment of $50. Tangoe settlement class members may receive their cash payout via check or electronic payment; the agreement reports that all checks must be cashed within 60 days of issuance before expiration. Court documents state that, in addition to any monetary settlement benefits, all class members may file a claim form to receive an activation code for two free years of three-bureau credit monitoring and identity theft insurance. To file a Tangoe data breach settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the unique ID and PIN found on their received copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members may download a PDF of the claim form from the website to print, fill out and return by mail to the address of the settlement administrator listed on the third page of the document. All Tangoe settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by June 3, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Tangoe data breach settlement following a hearing on June 11, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals are resolved. The Tangoe class action lawsuit alleged that the information technology and expense management company failed to implement proper cybersecurity safeguards to protect the sensitive information stored on its systems, which led to a data breach in November 2022. Per court documents, the private information that may have been compromised during the breach includes names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, medical information, health insurance information, medication information, medical billing information and financial account information. [GN] TASTEFUL SELECTIONS: Mireles Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tasteful Selections LLC. The case is styled as Maria Guadalupe Cardenas Mireles, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated Language: Spanish v. Tasteful Selections LLC, Case No. 26CUB00596 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Feb. 17, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Tasteful Selections -- https://www.tastefulselections.com/ -- specializes in hand-selected, bite-sized potatoes known for their flavor, creamy textures, and thin skins.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marco A. Palau, Esq. ADVOCATES FOR WORKER RIGHTS LLP 212 9th Street, Suite 314 Oakland, CA, 94607 THIRDLOVE INC: Faces Class Suit for Alleged Quite Hours Violations ------------------------------------------------------------------ Oliver Shapiro of TCPAWorld reports that another lawsuit involving an alleged violation of 47 C.F.R. Sec. 64.1200(c)(1) (the "Quiet Hours Provision") just got filed in the U.S. Central District of California. As with many others, this one comes from Jibrael Hindi's office, which has filed numerous of quiet hours cases (and the word numerous is an understatement). The plaintiff here is the same one as the one involved with a quiet hours action against the smoothie company Daily Harvest. All of these quiet hour cases seem to be coming fast and furious from Jibrael's office. As a refresher, the "quiet hours" provision under the TCPA prohibits initiating telephone solicitations before 8:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. local time of the called party. The DNC provision provides that, when an individual whose phone number has been registered on the national DNC registry for more than thirty days receives more than one telephone solicitations in a twelve-month period, that individual has a private right of action. See 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(c)(5). Section 227(c)(2), on the other hand, implements additional regulations, including the Quiet Hours Provision, which provides the same private right of action for telephone solicitations made either before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m., in the recipient's local time. See 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(c)(2); C.F.R. Sec. 64.1200(c)(1). In this latest suit, Bianca Johnston v. THIRDLOVE, INC., 5:26-cv-01173-SSS-DTB (C.D. Cal. March 6, 2026), Bianca Johnston, alleges that on or about September 26, 2025 and January 15, 2026, she received text messages from Thirdlove before the hours of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. local time in her location. The screenshot does seem to preliminary support the Plaintiff's allegation. From the above screenshot that was provided in the complaint, only exactly two marketing messages were sent before 7 a.m. (one on September 26, 2025 at 6:36AM and the other on allegedly January 15, 2026 at 7:04AM though the exact date is unclear since the screenshot just says "Today"). There are no other messages shown to be sent during the quiet hours as defined in the TCPA. It is important to remember that there have been rulings to support the fact that a recipient's area code determines the recipient's time zone regardless of when this was sent by the company. See Jubb v. CHW Group Inc., No. 23CV23382 (EP) (MAH), 2025 WL 942961 (D.N.J. Mar. 28, 2025). Similarly to the blogs above that covered the previous cases that Jibrael Hindi's office filed (as mentioned the Plaintiff here is the same one as the one in the Daily Harvest lawsuit), Bianca Johnston is not only seeking damages for herself but she is attempting to certify a nationwide class of people who also received marketing messages from Thirdlove during the quiet hours. The class definition is: All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action through the date of class certification (1) Defendant, or anyone on Defendant's behalf, (2) placed more than one marketing text message within any 12-month period; (3) where such marketing text messages were initiated before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. (local time at the called party's location). As before, TCPA carries statutory violations of $500 per text and up to $1,500 if they were knowing and willful violations. For the two text messages that Bianca received outside the quiet hours, she could recover up to $3,000. However, that number of course could go up exponentially if the class is certified. For example, if even 50 additional people each received one marketing message outside the quiet hours, that would increase the potential liability to $26,00 if simply using the base statutory amount. It will be interesting to see where this case goes from here as the quiet hours provision within the greater TCPA framework is still an evolving area and Jibrael's office has filed numerous of these type of cases as shown above. As more cases get filed, more have the potential for important rulings and we will be sure to stay on top of all developments. Furthermore, we will keep an eye on whether Plaintiff becomes a serial litigator who brings numerous of these quiet hour cases forward especially in the ninth circuit given how the circuit defines text messages to be calls for purposes of TCPA violations. It's also important to note that Jibrael himself has offered attorneys to pay him $20,000 to learn how to become serial litigators through a workshop that he is initiating. Don't believe me? Look at the article below. This is a firm that prides itself on bringing a high-volume amount of these kinds of lawsuits. To make sure you are best prepared to defend these kinds of cases and know what you should do, make sure to attend the Law Conference of Champions this May. Among the many amazing topics that will be covered, Partner Brittany Andres will go over some of the litigation tactics that are used to handle and defeat these class allegations. You do not want to miss this as it can be the difference when it comes to saving you lots of money (and who doesn't want to save money?). I will keep you posted TCPAWorld on any news coming from this case (and the others) and will report back. Talk to you soon! [GN] TRIA INSPIRED: Appeals Court Order in Williams-Wagner Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- TRIA INSPIRED AMERICAN CUISINE, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Stephanie Williams-Wagner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tria Inspired American Cuisine, et al., Defendants, Case No. _______, in the Wayne Circuit Court, Michigan. The appellate case is styled as Stephanie Williams-Wagner vs. Tria Inspired American Cuisine, Case No. 379815, in the Michigan Court of Appeals, filed on March 11, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee STEPHANIE WILLIAMS-WAGNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Darren Legato, Esq. MARKO LAW 220 W. Congress, 4th Floor Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 777-7777 Defendants-Appellants TRIA INSPIRED AMERICAN CUISINE, et al., are represented by: Matthew T. Nicols, Esq. SECREST WARDLE 2600 Troy Center Dr. Troy, MI 48007 Telephone: (248) 539-2834 UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Suit Claims UberX Rides Fail to Arrive on Time ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Uber has misrepresented its pricier UberX ride option, given that the purportedly faster rides often fail to arrive on time as promised and sometimes take as long, or even longer, than the rideshare company's Wait & Save option. The 42-page lawsuit contends that although customers pay more for an UberX ride, advertised as faster and with a precise arrival time, defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. does not offer a refund when the supposedly faster ride fails to arrive at the advertised time. In general, Uber's advertised arrival times, no matter the ride option, are increasingly inaccurate and "inherently unpredictable," the suit says. Consumers who pay extra for an UberX "pay a price premium for nothing," the class action lawsuit summarizes, alleging Uber's misrepresentation of UberX rides is "knowing and reckless." According to the complaint, Uber, rather than calculate arrival times based on driver availability in an area and the time it would likely take to pick up a customer, instead appears to create arrival times -- and the prices it charges for different ride options -- to "extract a price premium from customers." "Uber continues to hold itself out as being able to provide exact, dependable, accurate arrival times to riders -- something it knows it cannot do," the complaint reads. The case charges that Uber utilizes dark patterns to deceive consumers into thinking that UberX rides are guaranteed to be faster. The dark patterns in the Uber app include preselected options, visual prominence and pressured upselling to make consumers believe that the more expensive option inherently has less risk, the suit says. The complaint says that when ordering an Uber, riders are shown upward of four different ride options, with UberX, promoted as having the fastest arrival time, as the default selection for the rider. Notably, riders are shown a specific arrival time, not a range or estimation that is qualified by any disclaimer, the complaint highlights. By comparison, Uber's Wait & Save option, generally considered the most basic or standard ride, is more affordable, but gives a range of drop-off times that are much slower than an UberX, per the suit. Other so-called premium options, including UberXL or pet-friendly rides, might be advertised as more expensive than UberX, but they intrinsically come with their own benefits, like a larger vehicle, that can be guaranteed to riders, the filing adds. Because Uber promotes UberX rides as the fastest option and with a specific arrival time, the rideshare company communicates that it can predict precisely when a driver will arrive and drop off a user, the lawsuit argues. However, Uber frequently fails to live up to its UberX promotions, the suit alleges. "By differentiating its displays in this way, Uber implies that precise arrival times are more accurate or dependable than ranges," the filing asserts. "But all of Uber's advertised arrival times -- range or not -- are ‘estimates' and nothing more." According to the complaint, Uber could offer an arrival time range for its UberX rides, but it knows that wrongfully advertising arrival times down to a precise minute enables the company to charge higher fees. Further, the case maintains that consumers are more willing to pay extra fees for a quicker arrival, based on the "association between price and dependability," on which Uber allegedly capitalizes. "This practice is intentionally misleading, intended to trick customers into paying for a benefit they may not receive and which Uber cannot guarantee," the lawsuit claims. Moreover, the case also takes issue with provisions outlined in Uber's Terms of Use that supposedly exist to delay for months or even years the filing or processing of any arbitration demands, beyond any applicable statute of limitations period. The filing accuses Uber of limiting consumers' legal right to relief, in the absence of any tolling considerations, through its "mass action protocol" that forces consumers into individualized claims that may also be delayed beyond the period to recoup any relief in private arbitration or in court. "In short, Uber has constructed an elaborate process to indefinitely delay consumer claims until they can be extinguished completely," the lawsuit alleges. The Uber class action lawsuit seeks to represent all individuals in the United States who paid for a ride advertised as "faster" or with a specific arrival time, as opposed to a range of times, but were not picked up within the advertised time during the applicable statute of limitations. The lawsuit also seeks to represent an additional class of all individuals in the United States, within the statute of limitations, who have an Uber account and are subject to its US Terms of Use. [GN] UNITED STATES: Appeals Postponement Order in African Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for postponement in the lawsuit entitled African Communities Together, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Kristi Noem, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00150, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On Dec. 22, 2025, a nonprofit called African Communities Together ("ACT") and four South Sudanese TPS holders filed a putative class action complaint against the Defendants for the termination of South Sudan's Temporary Protected Status ("TPS") designation in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") and the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. On Dec. 23, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to postpone the termination of South Sudan's TPS designation, which Judge Patti B. Saris allowed on Feb. 12, 2026. The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their arguments that Secretary Noem violated the APA by arbitrarily adopting a pattern and practice of terminating each and every TPS designation, by giving pretextual reasons for the termination of South Sudan's TPS designation, and by failing to meaningfully consult with appropriate agencies. The Court further determines that the Plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm absent postponement of the termination and that the balance of equities weighs in the Plaintiffs' favor. The appellate case is styled as African Communities Together, et al. v. Noem, et al., Case No. 26-1254, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on March 13, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees AFRICAN COMMUNITIES TOGETHER, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Nargis Aslami, Esq. Golnaz Fakhimi, Esq. Abbey Rose Koenning Rutherford, Esq. MUSLIM ADVOCATES P.O. Box 34440 1032 15th St. NW, #362 Washington, DC 20043 Telephone: (202) 897-1895 (202) 655-2969 (202) 897-2622 - and - Erik Matthew Crew, Esq. 4560 Alvarado Canyon Rd. San Diego, CA 92120 Telephone: (949) 603-7411 - and - Michael E. Cunniff, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 30 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 841-1000 - and - Paul Killebrew, Esq. Ayana Lindsey, Esq. Mark H. Lynch, Esq. Stephen Petkis, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One CityCenter 850 10th St., NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 662-5930 (202) 662-5776 (202) 662-6000 (202) 662-5801 - and - Sarah Leadem, Esq. COMPLEX APPELLATE LITIGATION GROUP LLP 96 Jessie St. San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 591-6021 - and - Collin Poirot, Esq. 1032 15th St., NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 897-2564 Defendants-Appellants KRISTI NOEM, in the official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, et al. are represented by: Michael L. Fitzgerald, Esq. Abraham R. George, Esq. Donald Campbell Lockhart, Esq. U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 1 Courthouse Way, Ste. 9200 Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 748-3266 WALT DISNEY: Settles Livestream Subscriber Class Action for $50MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Carly Nairn of Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge on Thursday, March 19, approved a multimillion-dollar settlement of a class action against The Walt Disney Company by livestream TV subscribers who claim they overpaid for services. DirecTV and YouTube TV subscribers will be able to make claims for a piece of the $50 million settlement, according to plaintiffs' attorney Yavar Bathaee. In 2022, plaintiffs from five different states brought the class action against The Walt Disney Company on behalf of all DirecTV Stream monthly subscribers since April 1, 2019. YouTube TV subscribers joined a consolidated case in October 2023. They sought injunctive relief, treble damages, attorney fees and costs and compensation for overpayment for services. The plaintiffs said Disney and cable providers entered into carriage agreements that restrain competition, and that horizontal agreements between direct competitors functioned as one enterprise. They cited Disney's revenue from ESPN as an example, as it owns an 80% interest share of ESPN and makes billions of dollars per year through affiliate fees from cable television networks in the U.S. Cable companies pay affiliate fees for clearance to broadcast a TV channel as part of a package or bundle. In October 2023, Davila denied Disney's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim that it violated the Sherman Antitrust Act under the rule of reason. Bathaee said as many as 11 and 17 million people, respectively, could claim part of the settlement. "We think this meets all the requirement of approval," said Bathaee. The settlement includes up to $15.11 million in attorney fees and costs. U.S. District Judge Edward Davila agreed, saying the settlement terms are fair, adequate and reasonable but had questions about the process for subscribers to make claims. Specifically, he wondered why the claim rate, which Bathaee said would likely be 3 to 5%, is so low given the size of the settlement. "Is it complacency on the consumer's part?" Davila asked Bathaee, a long-time class action litigator. Bathaee said that often for consumers the "information cost" is too high, and information about products is often ignored. For the Disney class action, claimants will be notified by email and postcards sent to physical addresses. "If you think about it, 1% of 14 million people, that is still a lot of people," he said. Davila wondered if some sort of marketing beyond the settlement notices, could possibly get more people to follow through on the settlement. "There could be some sort of advertising or marketing that says these are real cases and you are offered real relief," the Barack Obama appointee said, adding: "I digress and I apologize." Along with the approval of the settlement terms, Davila also heard arguments on whether two Fubo subscribers should be allowed to continue their case against Disney or be compelled to arbitration. Disney attorney Daniel Petrocelli said Fubo, a sports streaming service that was acquired by Disney in 2025, required its subscribers to agree to its terms of service when signing up for livestream TV. The terms included arbitration of any future lawsuits. Petrocelli said the terms of service included the phrase "future affiliates," which applies to Disney. Two Fubo subscribers say they did not enter into a contract with Disney when they signed up for Fubo's services in 2023 and 2024 and should not be compelled to arbitrate their case. Plaintiffs' attorney Carrie Syme said there wasn't a reasonable expectation that the plaintiffs knew they would ultimately be filing suit against Disney, as its name was not in the terms of service, and during the time of the subscribers' first sign-up, Disney and Fubo were competitors. "This motion will be under submission," Davila said. "I look forward to getting an order out shortly." [GN] WEDBUSH SECURITIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cortez Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL CORTEZ, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved Employees, Plaintiff v. WEDBUSH SECURITIES INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV07354 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 6, 2026), accuses the Defendants of violating the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an analyst on or about July 21, 2021 up until on or about September 19, 2025. The Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of eight, and in excess of 12, hours 24 in a workday and/or 40 hours in a workweek. Throughout his employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiff was not paid overtime and doubletime, and was not provided with lawful rest and meal periods. In addition, the Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with all of the employment documents to which he is entitled, including, but not limited to, copies of all timekeeping records, says the suit. Headquartered in Los Angeles, CA, Wedbush Securities Inc. operates as a financial services firm providing brokerage, investment banking, research, and asset management services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq., Cathy Gonzalez, Esq. Michael Ariavand, Esq. HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC 801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1015 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 696-2306 Facsimile: (818) 696-2307 WOFLOW INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over 2026 Cyberattack ------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Woflow failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to protect the sensitive consumer and employee information in its care from a "foreseeable" March 2026 cyberattack. The 46-page data breach lawsuit contends that Woflow, an AI-powered merchant data platform, has exposed consumers to an "increased risk of fraud and identity theft" due to its failure to maintain proper cybersecurity procedures to safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) in its systems. On or before March 3, 2026, Woflow was targeted by a prolific hacking group known as ShinyHunters, who reportedly disabled the network systems of the AI-empowered business workflow platform and disseminated the stolen information on the dark web, the suit says. According to the complaint, the information involved in the cyberattack included full names, addresses, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, financial account information and credit card account details. The lawsuit charges that Woflow stored the private information in a "reckless manner" and argues that the implementation of industry-standard cybersecurity practices outlined by the Federal Trade Commission and others would have greatly reduced the risk of the platform being targeted and its stored information being extracted. "The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information with which it was entrusted for purchases and employment," the filing claims. The suit further alleges that Woflow was "well-aware" of the risk of being a target for cybercriminals, claiming that the company stored private information on a system it recognized was in a "vulnerable" condition with mechanisms that left private information available for unauthorized access. "As the result of maintaining its computer systems in a manner that required security upgrading, inadequate procedures for handling emails containing ransomware or other malignant computer code, and inadequately trained employees who opened files containing the ransomware virus, Defendant negligently and unlawfully failed to safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information," the lawsuit asserts. The lawsuit points out the defendant's alleged failure to report the incident to affected individuals, as the data breach notices required by law have yet to be sent out. Moreover, Woflow has not offered any kind of credit monitoring or remedial services to impacted individuals, the case notes. Consequently, the complaint contends that the "lack of transparency" has inflicted additional damage to class members, who might not even be aware that their information has been compromised or of the need to take meaningful precautions. As a result of Woflow's conduct, the case maintains, consumers will face an increased risk of fraud and identity theft for years to come. "Despite the prevalence of public announcements of data breach [sic] and data security compromises, and despite its own acknowledgments of data security compromises, and despite its own acknowledgment of its duties to keep PII private and secure, Woflow failed to take appropriate steps to protect the PII of Plaintiff and the proposed Class from being compromised," the suit summarizes. The Woflow class action lawsuit seeks to represent all individuals whose private information was compromised as a result of the data breach experienced by the company in March 2026. [GN] WOFLOW INC: Fails to Protect Private Information, Suhr Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- JENNI SUHR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WOFLOW INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-02161 (N.D. Cal., March 12, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information with which it was entrusted for purchases and employment. The complaint relates that in the ordinary course of providing its platform and services, Woflow integrates with and operates within its customers' and/or third-party systems and applications, which store and process sensitive personal information. As a result, Woflow's services access, process, store, and/or interact with personally identifiable information (PII) belonging to customers and end users whose data is maintained within those systems, including: Name, address, phone number, and email address; Date of birth; Social Security number; Demographic information; Financial Account information; and Driver's license or state or federal identification. The Defendant experienced a cyberattack on its computer systems by threat actor Shinyhunters on March 3, 2026, when it took many of the business' networked systems offline, adversely affecting its platform services. As of the filing of this Complaint, the required State Attorney Generals' notices have not been sent, nor have consumers and employees received direct notice of whether their Private Information was breached and exfiltrated. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. Plaintiff and Class Members must now and for years into the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members have or soon may incur out-of-pocket costs for, e.g., purchasing credit monitoring services, credit freezes, credit reports, or other protective measures to deter and detect identity theft, 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. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant seeking redress for its unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for: (i) negligence, (ii) Invasion of Privacy – Public Disclosure of Private Facts, and California Constitutional Right to Privacy, (iii) violation of California Unfair Competition Law; and (iv) violation of California Consumer Privacy Act. Plaintiff seeks remedies including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief including improvements to Defendant’s data security systems, future annual audits, as well as long-term and adequate credit monitoring services funded by Defendant. Plaintiff Jenni Suhr is a citizen of the State of Colorado. Ms. Suhr receives Woflow services. Defendant Woflow Inc. is a technology company that provides artificial intelligence (“AI”) tools and services designed to support business operations, including software that allows organizations to build, train, and deploy AI-driven agents.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Danielle Perry, Esq. MASON & PERRY LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: dperry@masonllp.com XAI CORP: Uses Photos to Generate Child Exploitation Material ------------------------------------------------------------- Karissa Bell of engadget reports that xAI, which is already facing multiple investigations around the world over widespread reports that Grok repeatedly created sexualized images of children, is now facing a class action lawsuit. Three teenagers, who allege that photos of them were used by Grok to generate child exploitation material, have filed a class action lawsuit against xAI in California. According to the lawsuit, one of the teens was alerted last December that someone was sharing AI-generated images and videos of her and other minors "in settings with which she was familiar, but morphed into sexually explicit poses." The images and videos were allegedly shared on Discord, Telegram and other platforms and used "as a bartering tool" for other CSAM imagery. Law enforcement officials who investigated the images told the girls' parents they were created with xAi's Grok, the lawsuit says. The three teens, all of whom live in Tennessee and are identified as Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2 and Jane Doe 3, have "suffered severe emotional distress," the filing says. "Their lives have been shattered by the devastating loss of privacy, dignity, and personal safety that the production and dissemination of this CSAM have caused," lawyers for the teens write in the complaint, which was provided to Engadget. "xAI's financial gain through the increased use of its image- and video-making product came at their expense and wellbeing. Plaintiffs will have to spend the rest of their lives knowing that their CSAM images and videos may continue to be trafficked and traded online by child sex predators." Though the lawsuit currently names three individuals, the complaint says that it could cover "at least thousands of minors" who have also had their photos manipulated by Grok into sexualized images. The lawsuit claims xAI has violated multiple laws, including laws barring the production and distribution of child abuse material. xAI didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit. The company is also facing multiple investigations in the US and Europe over Grok's alleged generation of nonconsensual nudity. Researchers at the Center for Countering Digital Hate estimated in January that Grok had produced millions of sexualized images, including 23,000 that appeared to show children. xAI CEO Elon Musk, who previously promoted Grok's "spicy" abilities, has claimed that he was "not aware of any naked underage images generated by Grok." xAI announced in January it would stop allowing people to use Grok to edit images of real people into bikinis and limit Grok's image-generation feature to paid subscribers. [GN] YOUNG'S MARKET: Miller Appeals Labor Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ STEVE MILLER is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings in the lawsuit entitled Steve Miller, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Young's Market Company, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-02410-EMC, 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 violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. On Nov. 13, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which Judge Edward M. Chen granted on Feb. 4, 2026. The Court finds that the Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because his third amended complaint (TAC) implicates conduct that was not the basis of his Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) notice. The Court therefore dismisses the case with prejudice. The appellate case is styled as Miller, et al. v. Young's Market Company, LLC, et al., Case No. 26-1423, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 10, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on March 16, 2026; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on March 20, 2026; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on April 20, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on May 29, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on June 29, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant STEVE MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. Allen Victor Feghali, Esq. MOON LAW GROUP, PC 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 - and - S. Phillip Song, Esq. MOON LAW GROUP, PC 1055 W. Seventh Street, Suite 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017 - and - Stanley Park, Esq. MOON LAW GROUP, PC 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Defendants-Appellees YOUNG'S MARKET COMPANY, LLC, et al. are represented by: Kaitlin H. Owen, Esq. James Robert Evans, Jr., Esq. ALSTON & BIRD, LLP 350 S. Grand Avenue, 51st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 [] Litigation Funding Threatens US College Financial Aid Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Scarcella of Reuters reports that an undisclosed litigation funding arrangement is threatening to derail a proposed class action accusing elite U.S. universities of suppressing competition for financial aid and favoring wealthy students in admissions. The controversy over how the case is being financed emerged as U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly in Chicago considers whether to certify the lawsuit as a class action, which could increase pressure on the defendants to settle. Two of the plaintiffs' law firms -- Berger Montague and Freedman Normand Friedland -- apologized, opens new tab to Kennelly in a court filing on Thursday, March 19, for failing to disclose that a third firm has worked with an outside litigation funder in the case. They submitted an amendment to their class certification motion saying they should take the case forward. The third firm, Gilbert Litigators & Counselors, in a separate filing, opens new tab said it should be designated as supporting counsel. The three firms brought the proposed class action on behalf of more than 200,000 current and former students, alleging they were overcharged tuition by top schools including Cornell University, Georgetown University and the University of Pennsylvania. Twelve universities, ⁠including Brown, Yale and Columbia, have already agreed to settlements with the plaintiffs worth nearly $320 million. To grant class certification, Kennelly must determine that the law firms leading the antitrust case are adequately representing the interests of the proposed class. At a hearing on March 11, the judge expressed concern that he may have been misled because the firms did not describe the Gilbert firm's funding agreement. Berger Montague and Freedman Normand Friedland said in their filing that their statements to Kennelly in prior filings may have “unintentionally left the court with an inaccurate impression” about the relative risks faced by the three firms. Unlike the Gilbert firm, they said, neither firm partnered with a litigation funder. Litigation funders provide financing to clients in exchange for a part of a case's proceeds, reducing some of the risk a firm takes in working on a lawsuit that may not guarantee any compensation by the end. Berger Montague chairman Eric Cramer and Freedman Normand's Ted Normand asked Kennelly to appoint ⁠them as representatives of the proposed class and urged the court not to remove them from the litigation. In its filing, the Gilbert firm said it backed the proposal, asserting that removing the plaintiffs' firms would give the schools a "huge, unwarranted benefit." Cramer declined to comment beyond his court filing. Normand and Bob Gilbert did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Penn declined to comment. Cornell and Georgetown did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The schools that settled and the five remaining defendants have all denied, opens new tab participating in a conspiracy to artificially ⁠inflate the cost of enrollment. At the hearing this month, Kennelly said he was not questioning the propriety of litigation funding itself but rather the accuracy of prior statements about risk and compensation. Gilbert apologized in court, saying there was no intent to mislead. Berger Montague and Freedman Normand told the judge that they have handled most of the work so far, logging more ⁠than 68,500 combined hours. They attributed the funding disclosure lapse to using recycled language from earlier cases and said they are adopting new internal policies to improve transparency in court filings about legal fees. The case is Henry v. Brown University, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, No. 1:22-cv-00125. For plaintiffs: Ted Normand of Freedman ⁠Normand Friedland; Bob Gilbert of Gilbert Litigators & Counselors; and Eric Cramer of Berger Montague For Cornell: Norman Armstrong, Emily Chen and Dan Laytin of Kirkland & Ellis For Georgetown: Britt Miller and Dan Fenske of Mayer Brown For Penn: Seth Waxman, David Gringer and Alan Schoenfeld of WilmerHale [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2026. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***