260326.mbx

260326.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, March 26, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 61 Headlines AINS LLC: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Dees Alleges ASTON CARTER: Duenas Seeks to Recover Proper Wages for CSRs BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Troike Sues Over Alleged Drop in Share Price COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Patterson Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ELECTROLUX CONSUMER: Frost Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ELLIS HOSPITAL: Class Cert Filing in Davella Extended to April 14 ENVISION NWK: Faces Rios Suit Over Labor Code Breaches FARMINGTON FARM: Cole Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FEDERAL EXPRESS: Deburro Sues Over Unlawful Tariff Fee Collection FEDEX CORP: Rosado Sues Over Unlawful Tariff-Related Charges FOUNTAIN PEN: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Bennett Suit Says FRONTIER CREDIT: Removes Tucker Suit to D. Idaho GRANT KING: Nalamada Sues Over EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program HALF MOON: Faces Guzman Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. HARTFORD, CT: Wright Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Settlement Deal in Derivative Suit Gets Final OK KDB DELIVERY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Steiner Alleges L J WINGS INC: Crouse Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages LASERSHIP INC: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Benardo Alleges LEE HEALTH: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Specht Suit Claims LUKS HOLDINGS: Morris Suit Seeks to Certify Classes MAIDEN HOLDINGS: Filing for Class Cert. Bids Due April 29 MASSACHUSETTS: Residents Sue Over Illegal Communication Recordings MATHESON TRI-GAS: Darby Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. MEJURI US: Faces Dalton Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MILLER FOODS: Figueroa Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind MISS AMARA: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Anderson Says MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Roundup "Defective," Cora Suit Says MONSANTO COMPANY: Weaver Sues Over Negligent Distribution & Sale MOORE MANUFACTURING: Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind NATIONAL ENDOWMENT: Authors Seek to Certify Class, Subclasses NATIONAL PRESTO: Parties Must File Class Cert Briefing Schedule NEW YORK: Berdynaj Sues for Breach of Rehabilitation Act OUTOKUMPU STAINLESS: Osborne Wins Conditional Cert Bid PEPSICO INC: Conspires w/ Walmart to Fix Pepsi Prices, Eaton Says PERVINE FOODS: Mueller Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind PETMED EXPRESS: Cobbs Seeks Extension of Class Cert Deadlines PIZZA HUT: Gavidia Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Messages PLAN PROFESSIONALS: Chavez Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty PREMIUM MERCHANT: Pretrial Management Order Entered RECYCLINE INC: Morris Suit Seeks to Certify Classes RELX INC: Class Settlement in Trama Suit Gets Final Nod RF INDUSTRIES: Settlement in California Wage Suit for Prelim OK RICOH USA: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Ballungay Continued ROSE INTERNATIONAL: Daniel Sues Over Wage and Hour Law Violations SIMPLIFIED DRIVER: Underpays Company Employees, Jackson Says SMARTER TRAVEL: Website Uses Tracking Tools, Cordova Alleges SOLGAARD DESIGN: Morris Suit Seeks to Certify Classes SPARC GROUP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Preppars Extended to April 6 STRYKER CORPORATION: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Dodge Alleges TACKETT MINING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rowe Alleges TAIER NEW YORK: Underpays Company Employees, Castro Alleges TIGHT LINES: Orcel Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind TOYOTA MOTOR: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Mixon Due Jan. 28, 2027 TYRONE OLIVER: Lamb Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Inmates UNITED GROUND: Bid to Certify Class Referred to Magistrate Judge UNITED STATES: Los Angeles Press Seeks to Certify Class Action UNITED STATES: Seeks More Time to Address Sealed Docs in Bourque UNIVERSAL ACCOUNTING: Parties Seek OK of Conditional Cert Bid UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to April 6 VENEZUELA: Cavara Seeks to Certify Separate Bond Holder Classes VENEZUELA: Fact Discovery in Zahn Class Suit Due May 1 VENEZUELA: Parties Seek Extension of Fact Discovery Deadline VEON LTD: Settlement in Consolidated Securities Suit for Court OK VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Gorlamari Wins Class Certification Bid VERTEX INC: Faces Crum Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info WALT DISNEY: Biddle Seeks Prelim Approval of $50MM Settlement WATCH CONNECTION: Morris Suit Seeks to Certify Classes WEST VIRGINIA: Statute Violates First Amendment, Suit Says ZOA ENERGY: Gershzon Seeks Final OK of Settlement [^] 10th Class Action Money & Ethics Conference -- 2026 Sponsors ********* AINS LLC: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Dees Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- BOBBY DEES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AINS, LLC D/B/A OPEXUS A/K/A CASEPOINT, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-924 (D.D.C., March 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for breaching its duties by failing to exercise reasonable care in safeguarding Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII"). The complaint relates that the Plaintiff submitted information to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") in connection with an employment-related matter and, in doing so, provided sensitive personal information, including PII, to the EEOC for official government purposes. The EEOC is a federal agency headquartered in Washington, District of Columbia. It utilizes third-party contractors to store, process, and manage case files, correspondence, and electronic records associated with charges of discrimination and related enforcement activities, including information submitted by charging parties such as Plaintiff. In February 2025, Defendant enabled two (federally convicted) employees to use privileged access to Defendant's information systems to exfiltrate files and delete dozens of databases containing government records, including records related to federal agencies' Freedom of Information Act requests, audits, and investigations. These actions caused widespread loss, disruption, and unauthorized access to sensitive materials belonging to government agencies and potentially individuals whose data was embedded within those records. Defendant's insufficient background checks, inadequate access controls, and systemic security failures permitted persons with known histories of cyber offenses to access, copy, retain, and delete sensitive information. Defendant's conduct was negligent, breached its contractual and common-law duties, and violated applicable data protection standards and consumer protection laws, including those of Alabama, asserts the complaint. As a direct and proximate result of these security failures, Plaintiff and the Class and Subclass members have sustained and continue to face: (a) increased risk of identity theft, fraud, and misuse of their PII; (b) ascertainable losses attributable to efforts to mitigate and remediate harms; (c) deprivation of the benefit of the bargain for cybersecurity protections promised by Defendant; and (d) privacy invasions that the law protects, says the suit. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action to obtain compensatory damages, statutory damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and other appropriate remedies on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. Plaintiff, Bobby Dees is a resident of the State of Alabama. Defendant formerly known as AINS, LLC d/b/a Opexus and Casepoint ("Opexus") is a government technology contractor that provides case-management, records-management, and compliance software solutions to federal agencies, including platforms used to process investigations, enforcement actions, audits, and Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") requests.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan M. Peak, Esq. BRACKER & MARCUS LLC 3355 Lenox Rd NE, Ste. 660 Atlanta, GA 30326 Telephone: 770-988-5035 Facsimile: 678-648-5544 E-mail: Nathan@fcacounsel.com - and - D. Anthony Mastando, Esq. Eric J. Artrip, Esq. MASTANDO & ARTRIP, LLC 301 Holmes Ave., NE, Ste. 100 Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 532-2222 Facsimile: (256) 513-7489 E-mail: tony@mastandoartrip.com artrip@mastandoartrip.com ASTON CARTER: Duenas Seeks to Recover Proper Wages for CSRs ----------------------------------------------------------- Francisco Duenas, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Aston Carter, Inc. and Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02464 (C.D. Cal., March 6, 2026) seeks to recover for Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code, and the California Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant placed Plaintiff to work as a Customer Service Representative (CSR) for Defendant Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Inc. in California from May 2023 to July 2024. Regardless of whether Defendants scheduled Plaintiff to work a workweek totaling under 40 hours, a workweek totaling 40 hours, or a workweek totaling in excess of 40 hours, the Plaintiff regularly worked a substantial amount of time off-the-clock as part of his job duties as a CSR. However, the Defendants never compensated Plaintiff for this necessary time worked off-the-clock, says the suit. Headquartered in Maryland, Aston Carter, Inc. is a staffing agency that recruits and places individuals with jobs nationwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP 31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805) 270-7100 Facsimile: (805) 270-7589 E-mail: kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Troike Sues Over Alleged Drop in Share Price --------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN RUDOLPH TROIKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION; MICHAEL F. MAHONEY; JONATHAN R. MONSON; KENNETH M. STEIN; JOSEPH M. FITZGERALD; and NICHOLAS SPADEAANELLO, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-40075 (D. Mass., March 5, 2026) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Boston Scientific common stock July 23, 2025, to February 3, 2026, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws. According to the complaint, on February 4, 2026, Boston Scientific published a press release announcing fourth quarter and full year 2025 results, including a pertinent disappointment in U.S. EP sales, and issued guidance for fiscal 2026 that fell well below expectations. The Company attributed its results and dismal guidance on a combination of slower than expected market growth alongside increased competition, despite management's previous claims of a "growing" EP business and assertions they "have a very good understanding of what competition we will face and in what time frame." Investors and analysts reacted immediately to Boston Scientific's revelation. The price of Boston Scientific's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $91.62 per share on February 3, 2026, Boston Scientific's stock price fell to $75.50 per share on February 4, 2026, a decline of about 17.6% in the span of just a single day, says the suit. Boston Scientific Corporation develops, manufactures, and markets minimally invasive medical devices. The Company's products are used in interventional cardiology, cardiac rhythm management, peripheral interventions, electrophysiology, neurovascular intervention, endoscopy, urology, gynecology, and neuromodulation. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1111 Summer Street, Suite 403 Stamford, CT 06905 Telephone: (203) 992-4523 Facsimile: (212) 363-7500 Email: shopkins@zlk.com - and - Adam M. Apton, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: aapton@zlk.com COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Patterson Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- ANNABELLE PATTERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORP., and TRIZETTO PROVIDER SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02570-MCA-AME (D.N.J., March 12, 2026) alleges that the Defendants solicited, collected, digitized, aggregated, stored, and failed to protect Plaintiff's and Class members' sensitive personally identifiable information and personal health information from foreseeable and preventable threats of cyberattack. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to comply with regulatory, legal, ethical, and industry standards for cybersecurity and confidentiality of patient records, failed to take reasonable security measures, such as training employees to identify phishing emails, employing biometric or multi-factor authentication requirements for authorized users, and monitoring for unusual activity, and failed to prevent, detect, and adequately respond to a foreseeable data breach carried out by cyber criminals. As a result, criminals gained unauthorized access to, copied, and stole Plaintiff's and Class members' private information. The data breach impacted patients' name, address, date of birth, social security number, health insurance numbers, health insurer name, primary insured or dependent information, and other demographic, health, and health insurance information––nearly every piece of information regarding Plaintiff's and Class members' health and treatment. The Plaintiff brings this class action against Defendants for Defendants' negligence, negligence per se, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, declaratory relief, monetary damages, and all other relief as authorized in equity or by law. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp. is a company that specializes in information technology, consulting, and business process services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Javier Merino, Esq. DANNLAW 825 Georges Road, 2nd Floor North Brunswick, NJ 08902 - and - Marc E. Dann, Esq. Brian D. Flick, Esq. DANNLAW 15000 Madison Avenue Lakewood, OH 44107 Telephone: (216) 373-0539 Facsimile: (216) 373-0536 E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com - and - Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440-0020 Facsimile: (312) 440-4180 E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com ELECTROLUX CONSUMER: Frost Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Electrolux Consumer Products, Inc. d/b/a Frigidaire, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-01847-KMM-LIB (D. Minn., March 12, 2026) arises because Defendant's website, www.frigidaire.com is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiffs found Defendant's website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like them full and equal access to important website content -- content Defendant makes available to its sighted website users. The Plaintiffs and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the suit. In addition to the claim under the ADA, the Plaintiffs also assert a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota. The Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities. Electrolux Consumer Products, Inc., d/b/a Frigidaire, operates the website that offers appliances and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, refrigerators, freezers, dishwashers, ranges, ovens, microwaves, air conditioners, washers, dryers, small appliances, accessories, and more.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndselaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com ELLIS HOSPITAL: Class Cert Filing in Davella Extended to April 14 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Davella v. Ellis Hospital, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00726 (N.D.N.Y., Filed June 30, 2020), the Hon. Judge Mae A. D'Agostino entered an order granting the letter request for an extension of time. All depositions and written discovery are now due by March 17, 2026. The Plaintiff's Motion for Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Class Certification is now due on or before April 14, 2026. The parties are now directed to propose a complete briefing schedule for Defendant's response to Plaintiff's Motion for Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Class Certification and for Defendant's Motion for FLSA Decertification by March 17, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Ellis Hospital provides emergency, inpatient medical/surgical and psychiatric care.[CC] ENVISION NWK: Faces Rios Suit Over Labor Code Breaches ------------------------------------------------------ PABLO ANTONIO RIOS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENVISION NWK TOY AUTO, LLC, d/b/a ENVISION TOYOTA OF NORWALK, a Delaware limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV07401 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 6, 2026) alleges violations of the California Labor Code and the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a sales representative from approximately August 1, 2025, until his date of termination on October 1, 2025. The Defendant did not properly record, nor compensate Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees' the overtime they are owed based on the total overtime hours they worked. In addition, Defendant has also failed to provide accurate wage statements, says the suit. Envision NWK Toy Auto, LLC. is a car dealership in Norwalk, CA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq. Maya Hussein, Esq. Theodore H. Chase, Esq. Brandon J. Sweeney, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP 31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805) 270-7100 (805) 270-7589 E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com mhussein@bradleygrombacher.com tchase@bradleygrombacher.com bsweeney@bradleygrombacher.com FARMINGTON FARM: Cole Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- MORGAN COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Farmington Farm and Garden, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-04066-SLD-RLH (C.D. Ill., March 8, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Defendant has chosen to rely on an exclusively visual interface that provides no meaningful accommodations for screen reader software users, including Plaintiff. As a result, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Headquartered in Victor, NY, Farmington Farm and Garden, Inc. owns and operates the website, Countrymax.com, which offers home, outdoor, and rural living products for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 (718) 554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law FEDERAL EXPRESS: Deburro Sues Over Unlawful Tariff Fee Collection ----------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID R. DEBURRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, and FEDEX LOGISTICS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02240 (W.D. Tenn., March 6, 2026) seeks restitution, damages, and equitable relief arising from Defendants unlawfully charging and collecting tariff-related fees from Plaintiff and thousands of similarly situated consumers and businesses throughout the United States. For almost a year, the federal government charged tariffs on certain products imported into the United States, under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. However, on February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States held that those tariffs were not authorized by IEEPA and were thus invalid. Despite lacking lawful authority, the Defendants charged, collected, and retained tariff-related fees from Plaintiff and Class Members. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendants for breaching their contracts with Plaintiff and Class members and violating the fundamental obligation of good faith and fair dealing inherent in those agreements. Headquartered in Memphis, TN, Federal Express Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary of FedEx Corporation, a Delaware holding company, and operates FedEx's express transportation and international shipping services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - Matthew E. Lee, Esq. Jeremy R. Williams, Esq. Patrick M. Wallace, Esq. LEE SEGUI PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27601 Telephone: (919) 451-6311 E-mail: mlee@leesegui.com jwilliams@leesegui.com pwallace@leesegui.com FEDEX CORP: Rosado Sues Over Unlawful Tariff-Related Charges ------------------------------------------------------------ NATALIA CRESPO ROSADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FEDEX CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01861 (S.D.N.Y., March 6, 2026) arises from Defendant's unlawful tariff-related charges. On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States held that International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Despite lacking lawful authority, Defendant still charged, collected, and retained tariff-related fees from Plaintiff and Class members. Moreover, Defendant's conduct breached their contracts with Plaintiff and Class members and violated the fundamental obligation of good faith and fair dealing inherent in those agreements. In addition, the Defendant was unjustly enriched by collecting and retaining money to which it was not legally entitled. Headquartered in New York, NY, FedEx Corporation provides transportation, logistics, e-commerce, and business services to customers throughout the United States and worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY| ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com FOUNTAIN PEN: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Bennett Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ LIVINGSTON BENNETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fountain Pen Revolution LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02523 (N.D. Ill., March 6, 2026) arises from its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://fprevolutionusa.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Bennett and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Defendant's website contains significant access barriers that make it difficult for blind and visually-impaired customers to complete a transaction on the website. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Headquartered in Plano, TX, Fountain Pen Revolution LLC owns and operates the website which offers fountain pens, inks, nibs, feeds, and writing accessories for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law FRONTIER CREDIT: Removes Tucker Suit to D. Idaho ------------------------------------------------ The Defendant in the case of ERIN TUCKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRONTIER CREDIT UNION, Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Seventh Judicial District Court of the State of Idaho, County of Bonneville (Case No. CV10-25-2960) to the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho on March 5, 2026. The clerk of court for the District of Idaho assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00120-DKG. The case is assigned to Debora K. Grasham. Frontier Credit Union offers the best personal or business financial accounts and loans. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Meredith L. Thielbahr, Esq. Mark Bieter, Esq. GORDON & REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 999 W. Main Street, #100 Boise, ID 83702 Telephone: (208) 472-5837 Email: mthielbahr@grsm.com mbieter@grsm.com GRANT KING: Nalamada Sues Over EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program -------------------------------------------------------------- RAGHAVA REDDY NALAMADA; and ABILASH KUCHUKULLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRANT KING; HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL REGIONAL CENTER, LLC; HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL REGIONAL CENTER TOMMIE LLC; 6516 TOMMIE LP; 6516 TOMMIE HOTEL LLC; 6516 TOMMIE HOTEL HOLDINGS LLC; RELEVANT GROUP, LP; and COLONY CAPITAL, LP, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02305 (C.D. Cal., March 4, 2026) seeks rescission and damages under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were told that their capital would be deployed "at risk" to finance the Project's development and construction, to be returned after immigration milestones or within a specified period, and that the Project would create jobs with a buffer above the count needed for all investors. However, updates regarding construction progress, budget, financing, valuation, job creation, and the use of investor funds, were materially false and misleading when made and omitted material facts necessary to make them not misleading. In violation of the federal securities laws, the Defendants also concealed their motive to secure EB‑5 capital as the linchpin for senior debt while masking the absence of internal controls, cost discipline, and project governance required for a development of this scope, says the suit. Hollywood International Regional Center, LLC specializes in facilitating investment opportunities for foreign investors seeking U.S. residency through the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hadjar Anahita Ohadi, Esq. Arthur McDonough, Esq. Yilei Huang, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT V. CORNISH, JR., P.C. 9800 Wilshire Blvd Telephone: (213) 871-7788 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Email: aohadi@rcornishlaw.com amcdonough@rcornishlaw.com yhuang@rcornishlaw.com HALF MOON: Faces Guzman Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------ YORBANIA CABRERA GUZMAN, ANA M. CRUZ BRUNO, FRIDA ZARZUELA and JOHANNA C. TAPIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HALF MOON RESTAURANT LLC D/B/A SWEETS OF NY, and MARCO R. TEMPESTA, as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01449 (E.D.N.Y., March 12, 2026) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices and policies in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, unlawful deductions, failure to pay wages for all hours worked, failure to provide with a written wage notice, and failure to furnish with wage statements upon each payment of wages. The Plaintiffs were previously employed by the Defendants as dancers and waitresses. Half Moon Restaurant LLC, d/b/a SWEETS OF NY, is a New York domestic limited liability company organized under the laws of the state.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 HARTFORD, CT: Wright Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM WRIGHT, JOHNESHA HARRISON, and JUDITH TIRADO TORRES on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. The HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF HARTFORD, and ANNETTE SANDERSON, in her official capacity as Executive Director of the HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF HARTFORD, Case No. 3:23-cv-01285-SRU (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. Pursuant to Section V(1) of the proposed Settlement Agreement, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Giovanna Shay accompanying Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law, Plaintiffs, on behalf of the proposed settlement class, move this Court to: 1. Issue preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement as fair, adequate and reasonable pending delivery of the Settlement Class Notice and a Final Approval Hearing; 2. Provisionally certify the proposed Settlement Class, including each subclass, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2)-(3) and (e); 3. Appoint Greater Hartford Legal Aid and Day Pitney LLP as Class Counsel; 4. Designate the Plaintiffs William Wright, Johnesha Harrison, and Judith Tirado Torres as class representatives; 5. Approve the retention of Angeion Group as Settlement Administrator; 6. Stay this action and any claims related to this action or otherwise adjourn litigation deadlines pending Final Approval of the Settlement; and 7. Stay and/or enjoin, pending Final Approval of the Settlement, any actions brought by Settlement Class Members concerning the released claims; and 8. Schedule a final approval hearing no later than 90 days following issuance of the preliminary approval. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ona0oT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Erick M. Sandler, Esq. Emily M. Ferriter Russo, Esq. Caitlin M. Barrett, Esq. Lauren M. Pipenbacher, Esq. DAY PITNEY LLP Goodwin Square 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103-1212 Telephone: (860) 275-0138 Facsimile: (860) 881-2459 E-mail: emsandler@daypitney.com eferriterrusso@daypitney.com cbarrett@daypitney.com lpipenbacher@daypitney.com - and - Giovanna Shay, Esq. Kelsey Bannon, Esq. GREATER HARTFORD LEGAL AID 999 Asylum Ave., 3rd Fl. Hartford, CT 06105-2465 Telephone: (860) 541-5061 Facsimile: (860) 541-5050 E-mail: gshay@ghla.org kbannone@ghla.org HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Settlement Deal in Derivative Suit Gets Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 final approval of the shareholder derivative suit settlement. The Derivative Settlement Agreement provides for a complete resolution of the claims asserted in the shareholder derivative actions (the Derivative Actions) in exchange for a payment of $100 million, to be made on behalf of the individual defendants by the Company's insurers, and the settlement of the Derivative Actions is conditioned upon, among other things, approval by the boards of directors of the Company and Hawaiian Electric (including their independent, non-defendant directors) of the Derivative Settlement Agreement, final court approval of the Derivative Settlement Agreement, and entry of final judgment and orders of dismissal in the Derivative Actions, with plaintiffs' counsel intending to request court approval for attorneys' fees equal to 25% of the settlement proceeds plus expenses not to exceed $475,000, no admission of liability in connection with the settlement of the Derivative Actions, and the defendants and related persons receiving a customary full release of all claims. 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. KDB DELIVERY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Steiner Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN STEINER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KDB DELIVERY, LLC; and ONEPOINT PATIENT CARE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-01552-DWL (D. Ariz., March 5, 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 Steiner was employed by the Defendants as a delivery personnel. KDB Delivery, LLC is an Arizona-based delivery company that performs pharmaceutical deliveries for OnePoint in Washington, Arizona, Oregon, and Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel L. Bonnett, Esq. MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C. 4647 N. 32nd Street, Suite 185 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Telephone: (602) 240-6900 Email: dbonnett@martinbonnett.com - and - Harold L. Lichten, Esq. Matthew Thomson, Esq. Jack Bartholet, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com mthomson@llrlaw.com jbartholet@llrlaw.com L J WINGS INC: Crouse Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------- ARICA CROUSE, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. L J WINGS, INC. D/B/A WILD WING CAFÉ and DAVID L. MCFARLAND, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS AN EMPLOYEE/AGENT OF WILD WING CAFÉ, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00070 (W.D.N.C., March 6, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act stemming from Defendants' tip theft and failure to pay wages due. The Plaintiff was employed by Wild Wing Cafe from November 2023 until January 2025. During some or all of the relevant time period, the Defendants allegedly forced Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to share tips with other employees, such as managers, who are not eligible to share in a tip pool. Among other things, the Defendants unlawfully took tips from the tip pool to cover restaurant expenses, says the suit. Headquartered in Asheville, NC, L J Wings, Inc. owns and operates the Wild Wing Cafe restaurant brand. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott C. Harris, Esq. S. Michael Dunn, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DeMAY, PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 E-mail: sharris@brysonpllc.com mdunn@brysonpllc.com LASERSHIP INC: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Benardo Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- ELINTON BORGES BENARDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LASERSHIP, INC. d/b/a ONTRAC FINAL MILE, MVN SHIPPING LLC, and HECTOR PEREZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-11298 (D. Mass., March 16, 2026) is a class action seeking compensatory and punitive damages, counsel fees and costs, and other equitable relief arising out of violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act; the Massachusetts Payment of Wages Act; the Massachusetts misclassification laws; and the Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wages Act. The complaint relates that throughout Plaintiff's employment, Defendant Perez possessed and exercised operational control over MVN, including: personally determining wages and compensation rates for Plaintiff and all other similarly situated drivers; establishing work schedules and route assignments; maintaining (or failing to maintain) employment records; exercising authority to hire and fire drivers; directly communicating work requirements and disciplinary matters to drivers; and making decisions regarding business policies and practices. Defendant Perez had actual knowledge of the hours Plaintiff and other drivers worked, the compensation structure, and the failure to pay minimum wage and overtime, yet failed to ensure compliance with federal and state wage and hour laws, asserts the complaint. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff and all other employees to work without providing the proper minimum wage or overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations. Yet, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked at the correct rate of pay. The Defendants' conduct extended beyond Plaintiff to all other similarly situated employees, says the suit. The Plaintiff now brings this action on behalf of himself, and other similarly situated individuals, for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act; and for violations of the Massachusetts Payment of Wages Act as class actions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure with respect to his Massachusetts wage law claims, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff seeks certification of this action as a collective action on behalf of himself, individually, and all other similarly situated employees and former employees of Defendants; and a certification as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure with respect to his Massachusetts wage law claims. Plaintiff Elinton Borges Benardo was employed by Defendants in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts from December 2022 through July 2024. Defendant Lasership Inc., d/b/a OnTrac Final Mile is a foreign corporation organized under Delaware law that maintains an office at 401 West Cummings Park, Suite 1150, in Woburn, MA 01801. Its registered agent is Corporation Service Company located at 84 State Street, Boston, MA 02109. Defendant MVN Shipping LLC is a domestic corporation organized under Massachusetts law that maintains an office at 67 Lincoln Street at Seekonk, MA 02771. Its registered agent is Maria E. Gutierrez located at the same address. Defendant Hector Perez is the owner, officer, and/or agent of the delivery business operating under the name MVN Shipping LLC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maria Cedeno Cassinelli, Esq. Olayiwola O. Oduyingbo, Esq. 888 Reservoir Avenue, Floor 2 Cranston, RI 02910 Telephone: (401) 209-2029 Facsimile: (401) 217-2299 E-mail: mcedeno@odulawfirm.com Odu@odulawfirm.com LEE HEALTH: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Specht Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER SPECHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEE HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. d/b/a LEE HEALTH d/b/a LEE HEALTH MEDICAL EQUIPMENT SOLUTIONS; and ACCESS MEDICAL SOUTH, L.C. d/b/a LEE HEALTH MEDICAL EQUIPMENT SOLUTIONS, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00635-JES-DNF (M.D. Fla., March 5, 2026) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Lee Health System, Inc. offers comprehensive services including urgent care, emergency care, and specialty institutes. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq. Michael J. Pascucci, Esq. EGGNATZ PASCUCCI P.A. 7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230 Davie, FL 33314 Telephone: (954) 889-3359 Email: jeggnatz@justiceearned.com mpascucci@justiceearned.com - and - Christopher Gold, Esq. GOLD LAW, PA 350 Lincoln Rd., 2nd Floor Miami Beach, FL 33139 Telephone: (305) 900-4653 Email: chris@chrisgoldlaw.com - and - Garrett Berg, Esq. GARRETT BERG LAW, P.A. 555 NE 15th St., PH A Miami, FL 33132 Email: garrett@gberglegal.com LUKS HOLDINGS: Morris Suit Seeks to Certify Classes --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zachary Morris, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Luks Holdings, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00351-SCD (E.D. Wis.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the proposed classes, appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Stein Saks PLLC as Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiff further requests that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that the Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative’s individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests of the putative class. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gqFNsW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620, Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com MAIDEN HOLDINGS: Filing for Class Cert. Bids Due April 29 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WIGGLESWORTH v. MAIDEN HOLDINGS, LTD. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-05296 (D.N.J., Filed Feb. 11, 2019), the Hon. Judge Christine P. O'Hearn entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Opposition to class certification motions shall be filed no later than April 29, 2026 -- Replies shall be filed by June 30, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act. Maiden provides specialized property and casualty reinsurance products.[CC] MASSACHUSETTS: Residents Sue Over Illegal Communication Recordings ------------------------------------------------------------------ JASON COURTEMANCHE, BRETT FORESMAN, JUAN RIOS, and DENNIS WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, acting by and through the MASSACHUSETTS STATE POLICE, Defendant, Case No. 2684CV00775 (Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Mass., March 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for utilizing applications and electronic intercepting devices capable of secretly recording oral communications. All Plaintiffs are residents of Massachusetts. They bring this action for violations of the Massachusetts Wiretap Statute, for unauthorized use of their names and likenesses, and for negligence pursuant to the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act. The complaint relates that since 2017, members of the Massachusetts State Police ("MSP") engaged in the secret interception, recording, storage, and use of oral communications of persons within the Commonwealth without consent and frequently without judicial authorization. MSP licensed these secret recordings to Motorola Solutions, Inc. The license allowed Motorola to utilize these persons' voices and images without consent. These recordings were made using electronic intercepting devices and were created for evidentiary purposes in criminal investigations. In numerous cases, including those involving Plaintiffs, MSP failed to obtain warrants as required by the Massachusetts Wiretap Statute. MSP further failed to disclose the existence of these recordings to prosecuting authorities and criminal defendants. Plaintiffs first learned of the existence of these secret recordings on March 17, 2023. The Plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer monetary loss, reputational harm, emotional distress, and loss of liberty because of MSP's conduct, adds the complaint. Defendant Commonwealth of Massachusetts, acting by and through the Massachusetts State Police, is a public employer within the meaning of the Massachusetts Wiretap Statute.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher R. Batinsey, Esq. BATINSEY LEGAL P.C. 344 Main St Suite 14 Fitchburg, MA 01420 Telephone: (617) 682-0254 E-mail: cbatinsey@batinseylegal.com - and - James O'Connor, Jr., Esq. NICKLESS, PHILLIPS AND O'CONNOR, P.C. 780 Main St PO Box 2101 Fitchburg, MA 01420 Telephone: (978) 342-4590 E-mail: joconnor@npolegal.com - and - Christopher J. Walton, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. WALTON 56 Elm St Fitchburg, MA 01420 Telephone: (978) 342-9100 E-mail: attycjw@aol.com MATHESON TRI-GAS: Darby Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as DERWIN DARBY, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MATHESON TRI-GAS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CU26-00455, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Solano, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on March 12, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-at-01411 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff premises his claims on alleged violations of the California Labor Code. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that Matheson violated the Labor Code by failing to pay for off-the-clock work; failing to pay overtime; failing to provide Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees working in California with compliant meal periods and rest breaks; failing to reimburse necessary business expenditures; failing to pay all wages at separation; failing to furnish accurate itemized statements. The Plaintiff also alleges these purported violations also violated the California Business and Professional Code. Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc. is a U.S. based company that produces industrial, medical, and specialty gases, and associated gas handling equipment, in North America.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Lindsay Hutner, Esq. Nathan Norimoto, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 101 Second Street, Suite 2200 San Francisco, CA 94105-3668 Telephone: (415) 655-1300 Facsimile: (415) 707-2010 E-mail: Lindsay.Hutner@gtlaw.com Nathan.Norimoto@gtlaw.com MEJURI US: Faces Dalton Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mejuri (US), Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-01849 (D. Minn., March 12, 2026) arises because Defendant's website, www.mejuri.com, is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found Defendant's website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like her full and equal access to important website content -- content Defendant makes available to its sighted website users. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and others who are similarly situated, seeks relief including an injunction requiring Defendant to make its website accessible to her and the putative class; and requiring Defendant to adopt sufficient policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that the website remains accessible in the future. In addition to her claim under the ADA, the Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota Mejuri (US), Inc. operates the website that offers jewelry and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, earrings, necklaces, bracelets, charms, pendants, rings, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com MILLER FOODS: Figueroa Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------------- GEOVANNI BAHENA FIGUEROA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MILLER FOODS, INC., D/B/A OMA'S PRIDE, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02416 (N.D. Ill., March 4, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.omaspride.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Miller Foods, Inc. is a Connecticut-based, family-owned food distributor and USDA-inspected meat processor established in 1952. Located in Avon, it serves the foodservice industry with products ranging from meat and seafood to dairy and produce. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com MISS AMARA: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Anderson Says -------------------------------------------------------------- LISA ANDERSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Miss Amara, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-2949 (N.D. Ill., March 16, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://missamara.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Anderson and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. On November 3, 2025, during her online search, the Plaintiff located Defendant's website, Missamara.com, which offers stylish, durable, and modern rugs. To learn more about the company, she reviewed positive customer feedback on google, highlighting the store's wide product selection, quality materials and easy-to-clean feature. Encouraged by these favorable reviews, she decided to explore the site further with the intention of making a purchase. However, while navigating the website using screen reader software, Anderson encountered multiple accessibility barriers. Missamara.com contains access barriers that denied the Plaintiff full and equal access. As such, the Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Anderson 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. Anderson seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Miss Amara's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff Lisa Anderson is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. Defendant Miss Amara, Inc. provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a wide range of s rugs, in different colours, sizes and styles, including modern designs, traditional and washable options, and outdoor styles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 929-442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Roundup "Defective," Cora Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- TERRY CORA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 4:26-cv-00362-SRC (DelE.D. Mo., March 12, 2026) is a class action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Despite Defendants' knowledge that Roundup was associated with an elevated risk of developing cancer, the Defendant's promotional campaigns focused on Roundup's purported "safety profile." The development of Plaintiff's Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma was proximately and actually caused by exposure to Defendant's Roundup products. As a result of the injury, the Plaintiff has incurred significant economic and non-economic damages, says the suit. Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany Webber Carpenter, Esq. CORY WATSON, PC 254 Court Avenue, Suite 511 Memphis, TN 38103 E-mail: tcarpenter@corywatson.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Weaver Sues Over Negligent Distribution & Sale ---------------------------------------------------------------- Thyrecia Weaver, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-03-220 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 MOORE MANUFACTURING: Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH LAMPERIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOORE MANUFACTURING SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02407 (N.D. Ill., Mar. 4, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.dodocase.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Moore Manufacturing Solutions, LLC manufactures bookbound cases and sewn sleeves for the iPad, iPad mini, iPhone, MacBook Air, Kindle, and Nexus. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com NATIONAL ENDOWMENT: Authors Seek to Certify Class, Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THE AUTHORS GUILD, WILLIAM GOLDSTEIN, ELIZABETH KADETSKY, VALERIE ORLANDO, KATALIN BALOG, BENJAMIN HOLTZMAN, LEE JASPERSE, and NICOLE JENKINS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-03923-CM (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the following class: "All National Endowment for the Humanities grant recipients whose grants were awarded on or after Jan. 20, 2021 and terminated as part of the Mass Termination." For purposes of the class definition, "Mass Termination" refers to the actions described in Part IV.C of Plaintiffs' second amended complaint, which were implemented through termination notices sent on April 1st through April 5th, 2025. Excluded from the class are American Council of Learned Societies and its members; American Historical Association and its members; and Modern Language Association and its members. The Plaintiffs further will move the Court pursuant to Rules 23(a), (b)(2), and (c)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for an order certifying the following subclasses: DEI Subclass: "All class members whose grants were marked by the Defendants for termination as "DEI."" Biden-Era Subclass: "All class members whose grants were terminated without being marked as "DEI."" National is an independent federal agency of the US government. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2efnri at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jamie Crooks, Esq. Michael Lieberman, Esq. Amanda Vaughn, Esq. Yinka Onayemi, Esq. FAIRMARK PARTNERS, LLP 400 7th Street NW, Suite 304 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (619) 507-4182 E-mail: jamie@fairmarklaw.com michael@fairmarklaw.com amanda@fairmarklaw.com yinka@fairmarklaw.com NATIONAL PRESTO: Parties Must File Class Cert Briefing Schedule --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as McCabe v. National Presto Industries, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-06552 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Sept. 18, 2024), the Hon. Judge Ann M. Donnelly entered an order directing the parties to file a letter with a proposed briefing schedule on the Plaintiff's anticipated motion for class certification once the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint is resolved. The parties should also advise the Court whether they consent to Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy's jurisdiction to resolve the motion for class certification. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Personal Property Damage. National Presto manufactures defense products, housewares and small appliances.[CC] NEW YORK: Berdynaj Sues for Breach of Rehabilitation Act -------------------------------------------------------- DRILON BERDYNAJ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-2126 (S.D.N.Y., March 16, 2026) is a class action challenging the City's Department of Citywide Administrative Services' ("DCAS") use of categorical durational limits on disability accommodations, repeated demands for unnecessary additional medical documentation, and retaliation following remote-work disability accommodation requests. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff suffered from chronic respiratory illness and multiple pulmonary conditions. His disability substantially limits major life activities and is exacerbated by exertion and exposure to dust, allergens, and other environmental irritants common in public transportation and office environments. His medically necessary treatment regimen includes repeated home-based respiratory therapy and specialized equipment maintained at his residence, and his treating physicians have consistently documented that Plaintiff requires full-time remote work accommodation to maintain his health while performing his job duties. The core and essential functions of Plaintiff's position as Administrative Project Manager centered on digital collaboration, written communication, and project coordination, all of which could be performed remotely without requiring physical presence in a DCAS office. Despite Plaintiff's chronic condition, he has been able to, and continues to be able to, fulfill the essential functions of his position with the reasonable accommodation of remote work. However, DCAS has repeatedly insisted that Plaintiff return to work in-person within New York City despite his need for an accommodation, relates the complaint. The Defendant violated the Rehabilitation Act's medical examination and inquiry provisions by demanding medical information from Plaintiff beyond what was necessary to evaluate his ability to perform the essential functions of his position or to evaluate his accommodation request. The Defendant further violated the Rehabilitation Act by re-requesting duplicative medical records and by insisting on unnecessary documentation formalities, including a medical note "on an official letterhead" bearing the treating physician's signature and medical stamp or license number. Defendant also violated the Rehabilitation Act by requiring Plaintiff to submit to a compulsory fitness-for-duty/independent medical examination, commonly referred to by Defendant as a "Section 72" examination, even though Defendant lacked objective evidence sufficient to establish that Plaintiff could not perform the essential functions of his position, with or without reasonable accommodation, or that Plaintiff posed a direct threat. The Defendant violated the Rehabilitation Act's confidentiality requirements by disclosing and disseminating Plaintiff's confidential medical information and/or accommodation-related medical materials to individuals who lacked a legitimate need to know such information, and by failing to maintain Plaintiff's medical information as confidential. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's unlawful medical inquiries, compulsory medical examination, and improper disclosures, the Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer actual damages, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of: -- all current DCAS employees of Defendant, who made a request for a disability accommodation, other than for an accommodation of leave, and submitted a Reasonable Accommodation Request Form, and whose disability-based accommodation request was denied (or not approved) in writing, in whole or in part, within the applicable class period, because of the permanent, indefinite, and/or no end date nature of the disability, and/or the permanent, indefinite, and/or no end date nature of the requested accommodation (the "Permanent Disability Denial Class"). -- all current DCAS employees who requested a disability-based remote work accommodation and submitted a Reasonable Accommodation Request Form, and within the applicable class period, received a demotion, denial of an interim accommodation pending their appeal, absent without official leave designation ("AWOL"), forced leave usage, and/or a Section 72 medical exam within seventy-five days after the request, renewal, supplement, or appeal of their disability-based remote work accommodation request (the "Remote Work Request Retaliation Class"). -- all current DCAS employees who made a disability accommodation request and submitted a Reasonable Accommodation Request Form, who had a permanent and/or long-term disability, who were initially approved for a disability accommodation, and then were, within the applicable class period, asked by Defendant for additional medical documentation concerning the existence, diagnosis, severity, and/or continuing validity of the disability as a condition of continuing the accommodation (the "Medical Inquiry Class"). The Plaintiff also brings claims on an individual basis against Defendant for: (1) disability discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodations, ineffective partial accommodations, disparate treatment based on disability, retaliation, and interference with protected rights, in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Rehabilitation Act"); and (2) interference with rights in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"). Plaintiff seeks individual monetary and equitable relief on his own behalf, including back pay, front pay, nominal damages, liquidated damages, restoration of leave and benefits, declaratory and injunctive relief (including an order requiring the grant of a remote accommodation in his role), attorneys' fees and costs, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff Drilon Berdynaj was employed by Defendant and performed work for Defendant from September 2018 through the present. Defendant City of New York is a municipal entity created and authorized under the laws of the State of New York. Defendant's DCAS serves as the City's central administrative services agency responsible for citywide personnel services, facilities management, procurement, and administrative support services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cyrus E. Dugger, Esq. THE DUGGER LAW FIRM, PLLC 28-07 Jackson Ave., 5th Fl. Long Island City, New York 11101 Telephone: (646) 560-3208 Facsimile: (646) 390-4524 E-mail: cd@theduggerlawfirm.com OUTOKUMPU STAINLESS: Osborne Wins Conditional Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KINGSTON OSBORNE and DAVID SMITH, individually and as representatives of class of plaintiffs described herein, v. OUTOKUMPU STAINLESS USA, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00439-JB-N (S.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge Beaverstock entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification and Court facilitated notice dated April 7, 2025. The parties shall commence the procedures upon the entry of this Order, and that the Plaintiffs shall use the Notice and Consent forms. For purposes solely of considering the propriety of conditional certification, the Plaintiffs' submissions satisfy the Court that all current and former manufacturing employees at the Defendant's Calvert location, who were paid on an hourly basis, and who received payment after Nov. 26, 2021, for work performed for the Defendant are similarly situated. The alleged pay provisions are formulas applied to all hourly non-exempt manufacturing employees and, therefore, the requirements of any employee's job do not change that they are similarly situated. The allegations of the Complaint, and now the First Amended Complaint, encompass alleged violations about what the Defendant did through the present and, therefore, there is no reason the people who should receive notice does not include those employed after September 2023. The Defendant manufactures a variety of stainless steel products. A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2u9X3e at no extra charge.[CC] PEPSICO INC: Conspires w/ Walmart to Fix Pepsi Prices, Eaton Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES EATON and IRMA JEANETTE LOPEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PEPSICO, INC.; and WALMART INC., Defendants, Case No. 7:26-cv-02026 (S.D.N.Y., March 12, 2026) seeks injunctive relief under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and pursues treble damages under applicable federal and state antitrust and consumer protection statutes. The case alleges a pricing pact between one of the largest beverage and packaged food companies in the world, Pepsi, and the largest retailer globally, Walmart. Since at least 2018, the two companies have acted in concert to restrain competition for Pepsi soft drinks at both the wholesale and retail tiers. Their coordinated conduct allowed each to impose prices that exceeded competitive benchmarks and ensured that wholesale and retail prices for Pepsi bottled soft drinks remained above levels that would exist in a competitive market, notes the complaint. Taken together, the Pact consisted of reciprocal commitments: Pepsi would raise and protect retail price levels across non-Walmart outlets, and Walmart would accept higher wholesale pricing from Pepsi. Those combined commitments form the basis of the unlawful conduct alleged in this case, the complaint relates. The Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of an indirect purchaser class comprised of all persons and entities residing in Kansas and Alabama, and in all other states that have repealed the Illinois Brick bar, who purchased Pepsi soft drinks during the period beginning January 1, 2018 and continuing through at least the date of the filing of this complaint. PepsiCo, Inc. is a multinational producer of beverages and packaged food products with its principal place of business in Harrison, New York. It ranks among the dominant firms in the global food and beverage industry.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Arvind Khurana, Esq. KHURANA LAW FIRM, P.C. 16 Madison Square West, 11th Floor New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 847-0145 E-mail: akhurana@khuranapc.com - and - Eric D. Barton, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave. Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 E-mail: ebarton@wcllp.com PERVINE FOODS: Mueller Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------------- TARA NICOLE MUELLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PERVINE FOODS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00426-RLY-TAB (S.D. Ind., March 4, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://fitcrunch.com/, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Pervine Foods, LLC produces nutritional food products. The Company provides protein baked bars, brownie, powder, and other related products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason B. Marshall, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 Email: jmarshall@ealg.law PETMED EXPRESS: Cobbs Seeks Extension of Class Cert Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTIN COBBS and LYNNE KAWAMINAMI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PETMED EXPRESS, INC., Case No. 9:25-cv-80458-AMC (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of pretrial deadlines related to class certification and subsequent merits-based deadlines. The Plaintiffs seek just a twenty-eight extension of the class certification motion deadline along with an agreed briefing schedule. The Plaintiffs also seek a three-month extension of merits deadlines to ensure that those deadlines do not overlap with class certification and to also ensure that there is sufficient time to address merits deadlines following the time-consuming class certification process. Description Proposed Deadline Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file motion April 7, 2026 for class certification: Deadline for the Defendant to oppose the May 5, 2026 motion for class certification: Deadline for the Plaintiffs to reply to the May 19, 2026 motion for class certification: The parties to exchange expert witness June 23, 2026 summaries or reports: Deadline to complete discovery: Aug. 17, 2026 Deadline to file pre-trial stipulation, Dec. 9, 2026 exhibit lists, trial plan, proposed jury instructions, and motions in limine: This is an agreed motion seeking a reasonable and brief modification of the schedule based on: 1) the parties' ongoing and diligent prosecution of the case; 2) recent discovery orders; and 3) adjustments in the scheduling of depositions related to class certification. The background of this case shows that the parties have diligently prosecuted this class action, which asserts claims for data privacy violations. The Defendant is an online pet pharmacy. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Wa2k5x at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. Pineiro, Esq. Christopher R. Reilly, Esq. MARCUS RASHBAUM PINEIRO & MEYER LLP One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 2530 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 400-4260 E-mail: mpineiro@mrpfirm.com creilly@mrpfirm.com PIZZA HUT: Gavidia Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Messages ------------------------------------------------------------ STEVEN ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ GAVIDIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PIZZA HUT HOLDINGS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01552-RSH-JLB (S.D. Cal., March 12, 2026) is a putative class action brought against the Defendant pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. To promote its goods, services, and/or properties, the Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging and continues to text message consumers after they have opted out of Defendant's solicitations. The Defendant also engages in telemarketing without the required policies and procedures, and training of its personnel engaged in telemarketing, says the suit. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the intrusion upon seclusion, invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of Plaintiff and members of the Class. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Pizza Hut Holdings LLC is a limited liability company with its headquarters located in Delaware.[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 PLAN PROFESSIONALS: Chavez Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty ------------------------------------------------------------ JOSE CHAVEZ, SARA FAZIO, and PIERCE LANNUE, Individually and on behalf of BUILDWISE, and on behalf of all the similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the plan, Plaintiffs v. PLAN PROFESSIONALS, LLC.; John and Jane Does 1-30 in their capacities as fiduciaries, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-02692 (D.N.J., March 16, 2026) is a class action seeking to remedy Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The complaint relates that during the Class Period, Plaintiffs were invested in the American Century One Choice target date fund series. As a result of the Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan and violations of ERISA, and in particular Defendants' inclusion of the American Century One Choice target date fund series, Plaintiffs were subject to underperformance and suffered financial losses. As fiduciaries to the Plan, the Defendants were obligated to act (1) prudently and (2) for the exclusive benefit of participants and beneficiaries. The Defendants violated their fiduciary duties by both (1) initially selecting; and (2) consistently retaining the American Century Target Date Fund through present day, even when it glaringly underperformed under all investment metrics and, consequently, in terms of returns. This lower-performing investment option reduced Plan participants' retirement funds by millions of dollars as compared to if Defendants did not breach their fiduciary duties, adds the complaint. The Plaintiffs bring this action to obtain the relief provided under the ERISA, for losses suffered by the Plan resulting from the Defendants' fiduciary breaches, and for other appropriate equitable and injunctive relief under the ERISA. Plaintiffs Jose Chavez and Plaintiff Sara Fazio are former employees of Formerra, LLC, a participating employer in the pooled employer plan sponsored by the Company. Plaintiff Pierce Lannue is a former employee of Heartland Business Systems LLC, a participating employer in the pooled employer plan sponsored by the Company. Defendant Plan Professionals, LLC serves as the plan sponsor to the Buildwise multiple employer retirement plan which includes among its participating employers, Formerra LLC and Heartland Business Systems, LLC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. Kevin G. Cooper, Esq. Jason Alperstein, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: 973-994-1700 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com kcooper@carellabyrne.com jalperstein@carellabyrne.com - and - Alexandr Rudenco, Esq. Arlene Boruchowitz, Esq. John Hughes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 800 S. Gay St., Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 E-mail: arudenco@milberg.com aboruchowitz@milberg.com jhughes@milberg.com PREMIUM MERCHANT: Pretrial Management Order Entered --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN ROACH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PREMIUM MERCHANT FUNDING LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-01139-DEH-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management: All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. Parties and counsel are cautioned: If and when a discovery schedule is issued, all discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court proceeding (including a telephonic court conference), or to extend a deadline, must be made in writing and in compliance with § 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Telephone requests for adjournments or extensions will not be entertained. Counsel for the plaintiff must serve a copy of this Order on any defendant previously served with the summons and complaint, must serve this Order along with the summons and complaint on all defendants served hereafter, and must file proof of such service with the Court. The Defendant offers small business loans, credit card processing & cash advances. A copy of the Court's order dated March 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jKu6Hv at no extra charge.[CC] RECYCLINE INC: Morris Suit Seeks to Certify Classes --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zachary Morris, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. RECYCLINE, INC, D/B/A PRESERVE, Case No. 2:26-cv-00353-LA (E.D. Wis.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the proposed classes, appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Stein Saks PLLC as Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiff further requests that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that the Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative’s individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests of the putative class. Recycline is engaged in the wholesale distribution of industrial machinery and equipment. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Kf2kPe at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620, Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com RELX INC: Class Settlement in Trama Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEGAN TRAMA, MATTHEW HARTZ, and RAFAEL ROBLES on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. RELX INC, Case No. 2:24-cv-03174-DSF-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fischer entered an order granting motion for final approval of class action settlement. After the Court entered this order, the Parties' counsel engaged in arms’ length settlement negotiations and reached the agreement that the Court has preliminarily approved. The agreement provides injunctive relief to the "Settlement Class," which is defined as follows: "All natural persons whose PII was searched for, reviewed, and/or accessible in any free trial of Nexis Diligence and/or Nexis Diligence+, and who resided in Illinois at any time their personally identifiable information was accessible." For injunctive relief, the Parties agreed that "RELX will not display, make accessible, or otherwise use the PII of any Settlement Class Member on or in connection with any Lexis Free Trials." RELX is required to maintain these changes (a) "in perpetuity or (b) until a United States Court of Appeals, the United States Supreme Court, the Appellate Court of Illinois, or the Illinois Supreme Court rules as a matter of law that displaying a person's PII as part of a free trial offered to market the product being trialed does not violate the Illinois Right of Publicity Act (765 ILCS 1075)." Finally, the settlement agreement provides that counsel for Plaintiffs Hartz and Robles may move for (i) an award of attorneys' fees and costs not to exceed $492,500 and (ii) incentive awards not to exceed $2,500 per named Plaintiffs Hartz and Robles. The Court confirms the appointment of Plaintiffs Matthew Hartz and Rafael Robles as class representatives for the Settlement Class. The Court confirms the appointment of Shawn J. Rabin, Krysta K. Pachman, and Alejandra Salinas of Susman Godfrey, L.L.P., and Don Bivens of Don Bivens, PLLC, as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant violated the Illinois and California Right of Publicity Acts, by using their personally identifiable information ("PII") without their consent in free trials for Nexis Diligence and Nexis Diligence+, subscription-based platforms through which subscribers can access background-check-style reports on individuals. The Defendant is a provider of information-based analytics for professional and business customers across industries. A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GLCR5R at no extra charge.[CC] RF INDUSTRIES: Settlement in California Wage Suit for Prelim OK --------------------------------------------------------------- R F Industries Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending January 31, 2026, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2026, that the parties in the California wage class suit reached an agreement, which will be subject to court approval, and the Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement is scheduled to be heard in court on August 7, 2026. On July 24, 2024, a former employee (Plaintiff) filed a class action lawsuit against the Company and its subsidiary C Enterprises, Inc. in San Diego County Superior Court before the Honorable Gregory W. Pollack, asserting allegations of California state law violations pertaining to straight time wages, overtime wages, meal periods, rest periods, business expense reimbursement, timely payment of wages at termination, provision of accurate itemized wage statements, and California's unfair competition law, and seeking damages on behalf of a putative class of non-exempt employees who worked for the Company in California at any time from July 24, 2020, through the present. In addition, on July 23, 2024, Plaintiff provided notice of the alleged violations of law described above to Californias Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). On or about Oct. 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint (FAC), which amended her class complaint to include a cause of action under PAGA, whereby Plaintiff seeks penalties on behalf of the State of California and other similarly situated employees for the period of Aug. 14, 2023, through the present. On Oct. 30, 2025, the Company executed a memorandum of understanding, pursuant to which the Company agrees to pay, on an all-in and non-reversionary basis, a total settlement amount of $855,000, which has been accrued as of Oct. 31, 2025. As of March 16, 2026, no class certification deadline or trial date has been set. The parties attended private mediation on Aug. 7, 2025, and thereafter reached a settlement agreement, which will be subject to court approval, and the Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement is scheduled to be heard in court on Aug. 7, 2026. R F Industries Ltd is a designer and manufacturer of interconnect products and systems for data communication and telecom applications. RICOH USA: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Ballungay Continued ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARANAY "SONNY" BALLUNGAY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated as a representative for the State of California, v. RICOH USA, INC., and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-10785-JLS-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Staton entered an order granting continuance of deadline to file motion for class certification. The Court issued a Scheduling Order which gave the plaintiff nearly a year in which to file a motion for class certification. It does not appear that the parties placed any discovery issues before the Magistrate Judge until last month. As stated in this Court's Scheduling Order, "failure to conduct discovery diligently or a desire to engage in settlement discussions will not constitute good cause" to continue the deadline set forth in the Scheduling Order. Ricoh offers workplace solutions and digital transformation services. A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bpFlLA at no extra charge.[CC] ROSE INTERNATIONAL: Daniel Sues Over Wage and Hour Law Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- SEANDRA DANIEL, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. ROSE INTERNATIONAL, INC.; VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-00332 (E.D. Mo., March 6, 2026) seeks to recover for Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Missouri Minimum Wage and Hour Law, and other appropriate rules, regulations, statutes, and ordinances. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a customer service representative (CSR) from June 2024 to August 2024. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff regularly worked a substantial amount of time off-the-clock as part of her job duties as a CSR. However, the Defendants never compensated Plaintiff for this necessary time worked off-the-clock, says the suit. Headquartered in Missouri, Rose International is a recruiting and consulting firm which provides staffing, customer service, and talent services to corporate clients. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trent B. Miracle, Esq. FLINT COOPER COHN THOMPSON & MIRACLE 222 E. Park Street, Suite 500 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 288-4777 Facsimile: (618) 288-2864 E-mail: tmiracle@flintcooper.com - and - Alyson Steele Beridon, Esq. HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL, LENISKI & WALL, PLLC 600 Vine St., Ste 2720 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 381-2224 Facsimile: (615) 994-8625 E-mail: alyson@hsglawgroup.com - and - Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com SIMPLIFIED DRIVER: Underpays Company Employees, Jackson Says ------------------------------------------------------------ BROCK JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SIMPLIFIED DRIVER STAFFING, LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV08496 (Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Cal., March 16, 2026) is a class action seeking civil penalties against Defendants for violations of Labor Code and the Code of California Civil Procedure. The complaint relates that the Defendants employed Plaintiff and other California residents as non-exempt employees throughout California. Through this action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in a systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare11 Commission ("IWC") Wage Orders, all of which contribute to Defendants' deliberate unfair competition. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have increased their profits by violating state wage and hour laws by, among other things: (a) failing to pay all wages (including minimum wages and overtime wages); (b) failing to provide lawful meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; (c) failing to authorize or permit lawful rest breaks or provide compensation in lieu thereof; (d) failing to reimburse necessary business-related costs; (e) failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (f) failing to pay wages timely during employment; and (g) failing to pay all wages due upon separation of employment. Therefore, the Plaintiff brings this lawsuit seeking civil penalties, attorneys' fees, and costs. Plaintiff Brock Jackson worked for Defendants during the relevant time periods. Defendant Simplified Driver Staffing, LLC provides services or goods throughout California. DOES 1 through 20 are the fictitiously named defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel A. Wong, Esq. Kashif Haque, Esq. Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 379-6250 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 E-mail: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com SMARTER TRAVEL: Website Uses Tracking Tools, Cordova Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ YASMINE CORDOVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SMARTER TRAVEL MEDIA LLC, a Massachusetts limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-at-01467 (E.D. Cal., March 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for installing and using Tracking Beacons without the consent and/or court order required by California Invasion of Privacy Act, in violation of the California Penal Code. The complaint relates that in order to obtain services, consumers disclose personal travel-related information, including the places they intend to travel, the timing of their trips, and the types of fares they can afford--details that can reveal a person's anticipated movements, private plans, and personal financial constraints. A reasonable consumer expects that these confidential communications with the Website will be used solely to provide airfare search results and price alerts. Instead, Defendant secretly configured the Website to function as a surveillance tool. Without consumers' knowledge or consent, Defendant embedded sophisticated third-party tracking technologies that intercept and record visitors' communications with the Website in real time, enabling Defendant and its third-party partners to monitor consumers' private travel planning, identify individual consumers, and extract detailed behavioral and commercial intelligence from those interactions. The third parties receiving this data include the data brokerage firms Criteo, LiveRamp, Lotame, MediaMath, NextRoll, and PubMatic. Data brokers operate by aggregating and analyzing consumer information collected from numerous sources and contexts, compiling detailed profiles that are then sold, licensed, or otherwise used for commercial advantage, often without consumers' knowledge or meaningful control over how their information is collected or used. During Plaintiff's visit to the Website on November 30, 2025, Defendant caused the Tracking Beacons to run on Plaintiff's device and to capture and transmit Plaintiff's identifying routing, addressing, and signaling information to the Data Brokers in real time. Defendant did not obtain informed, express consent for this practice and did not obtain a court order authorizing it. The Plaintiff and members of the Class suffered injury because Defendant captured and transmitted their identifying routing, addressing, and signaling information without consent, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff and the Class seek statutory damages and such other relief as the Court deems proper for Defendant's installation and use of a trap and trace device or process without the consent and/or court order required by law. Plaintiff also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief appropriate on a classwide basis under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure to prohibit Defendant's continued deployment and use of the Tracking Beacons and to require appropriate remedial measures, including deletion and cessation of retention of information captured or received through the Tracking Beacons and commercially reasonable steps to direct Defendant's service providers to do the same to the extent practicable. Plaintiff Yasmine Cordova is a citizen, and resident of California. Defendant Smarter Travel Media LLC operates a commercial website, www.airfarewatchdog.com which purports to help consumers find, compare, and receive alerts for low-cost airline tickets. Does 1 through 25 are the fictitiously named defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jaymie Parkkinen, Esq. Kiran Sekhon, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: jparkkinen@taulersmith.com ksekhon@taulersmith.com SOLGAARD DESIGN: Morris Suit Seeks to Certify Classes ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zachary Morris, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Solgaard Design, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-00352-WED (E.D. Wis.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the proposed classes, appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Stein Saks PLLC as Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiff further requests that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that the Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative’s individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests of the putative class. Solgaard offers a range of sustainable travel gear, including backpacks and smart suitcases. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xWWi2g at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620, Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com SPARC GROUP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Preppars Extended to April 6 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER PEPPARS, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SPARC GROUP LLC, a Delaware limited liability company doing business as AEROPOSTALE; MICHELLE RONAN, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 4:25-cv-03618-HSG (C.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting joint stipulation to continue motion for class certification filing deadline and related deadlines: (1) The Plaintiff's deadline to file and serve a motion for class certification is extended by 30 days to April 6, 2026; and (2) All other deadlines set forth in the Court's Scheduling Order dated Aug. 7, 2025, including the Defendant's deadline to file an opposition to the motion for class certification, are extended by an equal amount of time. On Feb. 20, 2026, the Plaintiff filed an ex parte application, seeking an extension of the deadline to file a motion for class certification and related deadlines, to which the Defendant filed an Opposition on Feb. 24, 2026. On Feb. 27, 2026, the Court issued a minute order setting a Case Management Conference for March 3, 2026. SPARC designs, sources, manufactures, distributes, and markets women's, men's, and kids apparel and accessories. A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0IZdOS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Molly DeSario, Esq. Calyn V. Hadlock, Esq. Henry G. Glitz, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Blvd. Los Angeles, CA, 90024 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 Facsimile: (310) 300-1705 E-mail: mdesario@tomorrowlaw.com henry@tomorrowlaw.com calyn@tomorrowlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Jon D. Meer, Esq. Michael Afar, Esq. Romtin Parvaresh, Esq. Mackenzie Mullin, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 E-mail: jmeer@seyfarth.com mafar@seyfarth.com rparvaresh@seyfarth.com mmullin@seyfarth.com STRYKER CORPORATION: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Dodge Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- DAX DODGE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STRYKER CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00857 (W.D. Mich., March 16, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. The complaint relates that as part of its business, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") about its current and former employees. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. On March 11, 2026, Defendant was hacked and the following types of PII were compromised: (a) Name; (b) Social Security number; (c) Financial account information; (d) Health Insurance Information; and (e) Driver's license information. Currently, the precise number of persons injured is unclear but the size of the putative class can be ascertained from information in Defendant's custody and control. And upon information and belief, the putative class is over one hundred members--as it includes its current and former employees. And yet, Defendant has not begun notifying the class about the Data Breach. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff suffered imminent and impending injury arising from the substantially increased risk of fraud, misuse, and identity theft. Plaintiff anticipates spending considerable amounts of time and money to try and mitigate his injuries. In addition to injunctive relief, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the other Class Members, also seeks compensatory damages for Defendant's invasion of privacy, which includes the value of the privacy interest invaded by Defendant, the costs of future monitoring of their credit history for identity theft and fraud, plus prejudgment interest and costs. Plaintiff Dax Dodge is a current employee of Defendant and is a Data Breach victim. Defendant Stryker Corporation is a global leader in medical technologies and offers innovative products and services in MedSurg, Neurotechnology and Orthopaedics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David H. Fink, Esq. Nathan J. Fink, Esq. FINK BRESSACK 38500 Woodward Ave., Suite 350 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (248) 971-2500 E-mail: dfink@finkbressack.com nfink@finkbressack.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com TACKETT MINING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rowe Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- CAMERON ROWE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TACKETT MINING, INC.; LIGHTHOUSE ENERGY, LLC; LIGHTHOUSE INVESTMENTS, LLC; EAST KY FUELS, LLC; COVENANT COAL CORPORATION, INC.; RESURRECTION COAL INC.; WHITE WOLF TRANSPORTATION, LLC; DIAMOND T TRUCKING, LLC; CALVARY COAL CORPORATION; JODY TACKETT; JIMMY TACKETT; JERRY TODD TACKETT; and THE ESTATE OF JERRY TACKETT, Defendants, Case No. 6:26-cv-00104-GFVT (E.D. Ky., March 5, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Rowe was employed by the Defendants as a coal miner. Tackett Mining, Inc. is a mining company specializing in the extraction of natural resources from the earth. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Morris, Esq. Sharon K. Morris, Esq. Tyler J. Morris, Sr., Esq. MORRIS & MORRIS, P.S.C. 416 Third Street Paintsville, KY 41240 Telephone: (606) 264-4011 TAIER NEW YORK: Underpays Company Employees, Castro Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- JASHUA CASTRO, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. TAIER NEW YORK INC., and WEIYE LI a/k/a GUO XIANG LI, individually, and HANSON WONG a/k/a YUDI WANG, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01532 (E.D.N.Y., March 16, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendants for damages and other redress based upon Defendants' willful violations of: (i) the tip pooling and tip retention provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); (ii) the tip pooling and tip retention provisions of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"); N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. ("NYCRR"); (iii) New York common law, based on Defendants' conversion of Plaintiffs' gratuities; (iv) the minimum wage provisions of the NYLL; (v) the NYLL's requirement that employers pay their employees an additional one hour's pay at the minimum wage rate for those days when their employees' spread of hours exceeds ten in a workday and/or includes a split shift; (vi) the NYLL's requirement that employers furnish employees a wage notice containing specific categories of accurate information at hire; (vii) the NYLL's requirement that employers furnish employees with a wage statement containing specific categories of accurate information on each payday; and (viii) any other claim(s) that can be inferred from the facts set forth herein. The complaint relates that throughout his employment, Defendants willfully failed to pay him his proper share of tips, in violation of the FLSA, the NYLL, and the NYCRR, which also constitutes conversion under New York common law. Specifically, Defendants required Plaintiff to participate in an unlawful tip sharing arrangement in which Defendants kept portions of tips intended for Plaintiff, and thus Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff the full amount of tips owed to Plaintiff each workweek. Moreover, based on that impermissible tip sharing arrangement, and further due to Defendants' failure to provide Plaintiff with written notice of their intention to do so at the time of his hire, Defendants were not permitted to claim a tip credit against Plaintiff's wages. Yet Defendants did so anyway, and as a result, Defendants paid Plaintiff at what they believed to be the tipped minimum wage rate, which was obviously below the non-tipped minimum wage rate that New York law requires for all hours that Plaintiff worked. Throughout his employment, for those days when Plaintiff's shift exceeded 10 hours from beginning to end and/or included a split shift, Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff with an additional one hour's pay at the minimum wage rate, in violation of the spread-of-hours provisions of the NYLL and the NYCRR. Finally, Defendants violated the NYLL by failing to furnish Plaintiff with any wage notice at the time of his hire, let alone an accurate notice, or with an accurate wage statement on each payday. The Defendants paid and treated all of their non-managerial front-of-the-house employees in this same manner, says the suit. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against Defendants pursuant to the collective action provisions of the FLSA on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all other persons similarly-situated during the applicable FLSA limitations period who suffered damages as a result of Defendants' violations of the FLSA. Plaintiff brings his claims under the NYLL, the NYCRR, and New York common law on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of any FLSA Plaintiff. Plaintiff JASHUA CASTRO worked for Defendant as a non-managerial front-of-the-house employee from May 7, 2025, until August 20, 2025. Defendant TAIER NEW YORK INC. a New York corporation that operates a Szechuan restaurant in Queens, New York, and its day-to-day overseers. Defendant WEIYE LI a/k/a GUO XIANG LI is the chief executive officer of Defendant Taier. Defendant HANSON WONG a/k/a YUDI WANG is the general manager of Defendant Taier.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205 Garden City, New York 11530 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 TIGHT LINES: Orcel Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN ORCEL, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TIGHT LINES FLY FISHING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02245-SDW-LDW (D.N.J., March 4, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.tightlinesflyfishing.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Tight Lines Fly Fishing offers a comprehensive range of fly fishing products, including rods, reels, lines, and accessories, as well as fly tying materials and tools. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com TOYOTA MOTOR: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Mixon Due Jan. 28, 2027 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEM MIXON, TERRENCE LOGAN, RONALD SMITH, PAUL FLICK, MELISSA SINDONI, DOMINICK CLEMENTE, WHITNEY SEXTON, CLINTON MAYBERRY, CARL FOSTER, KEITH WOODALL, ROBERT REDMOND, ANDREW HALPNER, ANTHONY DE LOSADA, PATRICK TWYMAN, JAMES VEREEKE, STEPHEN DISCHINO, STEVE SNOWDEN, NATHAN DONCHEZ, AND TOM HARMON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., AND TOYOTA MOTOR ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-01018-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Mazzant entered an order granting joint motion to modify scheduling order. Deadline Event April 30, 2027 Mediation Deadline. Aug. 14, 2026 Close of Fact Discovery. Dec. 4, 2026 Close of Expert Discovery. Jan. 7, 2027 Deadline for motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgment, or other dispositive motions. Jan. 28, 2027 Date by which the Plaintiffs must file motion for class certification. Feb. 25, 2027 Date by which the Defendants must file response in opposition to motion for class certification. March 11, 2027 Reply in further support of motion for class certification. March 25, 2027 Sur-Reply in further support of opposition to motion for class certification April 8, 2027 Hearing on Class Certification 9:00 a.m. Toyota is a Japanese multinational automotive manufacturer. A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IhrRCI at no extra charge.[CC] TYRONE OLIVER: Lamb Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Inmates ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gregory M. Lamb, et al., v. Tyrone Oliver, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-01072-JPB (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to certify class of: "Over 55,000 inmates incarcerated within the Georgia Prison System." The Plaintiff also ask the Court to appoint class counsel. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WVti4U at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff appears pro se. UNITED GROUND: Bid to Certify Class Referred to Magistrate Judge ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tene, et al., v. United Ground Express, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01078 (D. Colo., Filed April 19, 2024), the Hon. Judge Daniel D. Domenico entered an order referring unopposed motion to certify class to Mag. Judge Susan Prose. The nature of suit states Labor Litigation. United Ground provides a variety of airport services.[CC] UNITED STATES: Los Angeles Press Seeks to Certify Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOS ANGELES PRESS CLUB, NEWSGUILD - COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, ABIGAIL OLMEDA, individually; and SEAN BECKNER-CARMITCHEL, RYANNE MENA, LEXIS-OLIVIER RAY, CHARLES XU, BENJAMIN ADAM CLIMER, and MARIA ALEJANDRA-PAZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-05563-HDV-E (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on April 30, 2026 at 10:00 a.m., will move the Court for an order certifying that the Plaintiffs' claims against the Defendants may be pursued as a class action, and specifying the following: 1. The Class shall consist of "All people who do or will, without using force or threat of force, record DHS immigration enforcement and removal operations or protests of those operations in this District since June 6, 2025." 2. The Plaintiffs' counsel of record, ACLU Foundation of Southern California, BraunHagey & Borden LLP, the Law Office of Carol Sobel, and the Law Office of Peter Bibring shall be appointed as counsel for the Class. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is made on the grounds that this case satisfies the requirements for class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Defendants include TODD LYONS, in his official capacity as Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; GREGORY BOVINO, in his official capacity as Chief Patrol Agent for the El Centro Sector of the U.S. Border Patrol; JAIME RIOS, in his official capacity as Acting Field Office Director for the Los Angeles Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; EDDY WANG, in his official capacity as Special Agent in Charge for the Los Angeles Field Office of Homeland Security Investigations; MARIO CANTON, in his official capacity as Regional Director for Region 9 of the Federal Protective Service; and KEVIN GREEN, in his official capacity as Commander of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Field Operations, Special Response Team. DHS is the US federal executive department responsible for public security. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=15IQxB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew Borden, Esq. J. Noah Hagey, Esq. Kory J. DeClark, Esq. Greg Washington, Esq. Lily (Haeun) Kim, Esq. BRAUNHAGEY & BORDEN LLP 747 Front Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 599-0210 E-mail: borden@braunhagey.com hagey@braunhagey.com declark@braunhagey.com gwashington@braunhagey.com kim@braunhagey.com - and - Peter J. Eliasberg, Esq. Jonathan Markovitz, Esq. Adrienna Wong, Esq. Meredith Gallen, Esq. Summer Lacey, Esq. Mohammad Tajsar, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Los Angeles, CA 90081 Telephone: (213) 977-9500 E-mail: peliasberg@aclusocal.org jmarkovitz@aclusocal.org awong@aclusocal.org mgallen@aclusocal.org slacey@aclusocal.org mtajsar@aclusocal.org - and - Peter Bibring, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER BIBRING 2210 W Sunset Blvd # 203 Los Angeles, CA 90026 Telephone: (213) 471-2022 E-mail: peter@bibringlaw.com - and - Carol A. Sobel, Esq. Weston Rowland, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL 2632 Wilshire Boulevard, #552 Santa Monica, CA 90403 Telephone: (310) 393-3055 E-mail: carolsobellaw@gmail.com rowland.weston@gmail.com - and - Paul Hoffman, Esq. Michael Seplow, Esq. John Washington, Esq. SCHONBRUN, SEPLOW, HARRIS, HOFFMAN & ZELDES LLP 200 Pier Avenue #226 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Telephone: (310) 396-0731 E-mail: hoffpaul@aol.com mseplow@sshhzlaw.com jwashington@sshhzlaw.com UNITED STATES: Seeks More Time to Address Sealed Docs in Bourque ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHASE BOURQUE et al., v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Case No. 3:24-cv-06994-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending the Defendants' deadline to address the sealed materials pursuant to Local Civil Rule 79-5(f)(3) up to and including March 26, 2026. DOS has undertaken a preliminary review of the sealed materials in an effort to determine if there are reasonable alternatives to filing the documents under seal. DOS anticipates that it can identify limited redactions rather than seeking to maintain the material fully under seal. The Defendants also plan to confer with Plaintiffs regarding DOS's proposed redactions in an effort to reach agreement prior to addressing the issue further with the Court. However, the parties do not anticipate that this process will be completed by tomorrow's deadline. In addition to the time required for DOS's further review, the parties also submitted another filing (a joint letter brief) on March 2, 2026. In addition, pursuant to the Court's current schedule for proceedings in this case, the Defendants' response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is due March 26, 2026, and the Defendants are focused on preparing that response. On Feb. 26, 2026, in conjunction with their motion for class certification, the Plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to consider whether another Party's materials should be sealed. USA is a country primarily located in North America. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nKlXMg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Geoffrey Graber, Esq. Madelyn Petersen, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC  1100 New York Ave. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005  Telephone: (202) 408-4600  Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: ggraber@cohenmilstein.com  mpetersen@cohenmilstein.com  - and - Charles Reichmann, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES REICHMANN  16 Yale Circle  Kensington, CA 94708-1015  Telephone: (415) 373-8849  E-mail: charles.reichmann@gmail.com  - and - Mariel LaSasso, Esq. LASASSO LAW GROUP PLLC 30 Wall St., Eighth Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 421-6000 E-mail: mariel@lasassolaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Jessica Lundberg, Esq. Kathryn Wyer, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1100 L Street NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 305-1865 Facsimile: (202) 514-8640 E-mail: jessica.a.lundberg@usdoj.gov UNIVERSAL ACCOUNTING: Parties Seek OK of Conditional Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH KING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNIVERSAL ACCOUNTING CENTER, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-01009-TC-JCB (D. Utah), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for conditional collective certification of the following collective pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): "All National Enrollment Directors employed by Universal Accounting Center, Inc. in the United States who were paid on a salary basis, at any point from Nov. 6, 2022, to the present." The Parties agree that, by the Defendant's consent to collective certification, the Defendants do not waive their right to argue any defenses that they may have to the substantive claims in this lawsuit. Likewise, the Parties agree that, by the Defendant's consent to collective certification, the Defendant does not waive any argument that the collectives should not be finally certified or should be decertified. The Defendant offers a wide range of financial education and training programs. A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xRBZSu at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET LAW PC 2 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 999-5200 E-mail: matt@parmet.law - and - Seth A. Nichamoff, Esq. NICHAMOFF LAW, P.C. 10 West 100 South, Ste. 700 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Telephone: (713) 775-9141 E-mail: seth@nichamofflaw.com - and - Andrew G. Deiss, Esq. DEISS LAW PC 10 West 100 South, Ste. 700 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Telephone: (689) 433-0226 E-mail: deiss@deisslaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Spencer D. Phillips, Esq. EMPLOYER-LAWYER PLLC 12764 Pony Express Rd., Suite 300 Draper, UT 84020 Telephone: (801) 874-4964 E-mail: spencer@employer-lawyer.com UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to April 6 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYLER BAKER, individually and on behalf of The University of Vermont Medical Center 403(b) Plan, V. THE UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00087-gwc (D. Vt.), the Hon. Judge Crawford entered an order granting consent motion to extend deadlines in stipulated discovery schedule/order as follows: -- Motion for class certification: April 6, 2026 -- Defendant opposition to Motion May 11, 2026 for class certification: -- Summary Judgment and Daubert motions: Nov. 16, 2026 University of Vermont Medical Center is a five-campus academic medical facility under the corporate umbrella of the University of Vermont Health Network that is anchored by a 562-bed hospital in Burlington, Vermont. A copy of the Court's order dated March 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JWFmrR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell Bar, Esq. BARR LAW GROUP 125 Mountain Road Stowe, VT 05672 Telephone: (802) 253-6272 E-mail: russ@barrlaw.com - and - Eric Lechtzin, Esq. Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State St., Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com medelson@edelson-law.com - and - Michael C. McKay, Esq. McKAY LAW, LLC 5635 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 170 Scottsdale, AZ 85258 Telephone: (480) 681-7000 E-mail: mmckay@mckaylaw.us The Defendant is represented by: Tristram J. Coffin, Esq. DOWNS RACHLIN MARTIN PLLC 199 Main Street Burlington, VT 05402-0190 Telephone: (802)-863-2375 E-mail: tcoffin@drm.com tdoherty@drm.com - and - Ian C. Taylor, Esq. Jennifer K. Squillario Adam Adcock Charles M. Dyke NIXON PEABODY LLP 799 9th St. NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20001-5327 Telephone: (202) 585-8077 Facsimile: (833) 755-2952 E-mail: itaylor@nixonpeabody.com jsquillario@nixonpeabody.com aadcock@nixonpeabody.com cdyke@nixonpeabody.com VENEZUELA: Cavara Seeks to Certify Separate Bond Holder Classes --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCO CAVARA, JOSEF JOHANN SCHNEIDER, MARIA SCHNEIDER, JOERG ZAHN, SABINE ZAHN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA, Case No. 1:25-cv-00165-RA-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) certifying separate plaintiff Classes of all holders of each bond at issue in this matter: 7.75% Bonds under ISIN No. USP97475AN08, 6.00% Bonds under ISIN No. USP97475AG56, 12.75% Amortizing Bonds under ISIN No. USP17625AC16, 9.00% Bonds under ISIN No. USP 17625AA59, 8.25% Bonds under ISIN No. USP97475AP55, 7.65% Bonds under ISIN No. XS0217249126, 11.75% Bonds under ISIN No. USP17625AE71, 9.25% Bonds under ISIN No. US922646AS37, 9.25% Bonds under ISIN No. USP17625AB33, 11.95% Amortizing Bonds under ISIN No. USP17625AD98, and 7.00% Bonds under ISIN No. USP97475AJ95, on Jan. 7, 2025 and who continue to hold thereafter; (2) appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives for the Classes; and (3) appointing Duane Morris LLP as Class counsel, as well as for such other relief as this Court deems just and proper. Venezuela is a country on the northern coast of South America, consisting of a continental landmass and many islands and islets in the Caribbean Sea. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8dyBPI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony J. Costantini, Esq. Rudolph J. Di Massa, Esq. Arti Fotedar, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 22 Vanderbilt 335 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 692-1000 E-mail: ajcostantini@duanemorris.com dimassa@duanemorris.com afotedar@duanemorris.com VENEZUELA: Fact Discovery in Zahn Class Suit Due May 1 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SABINE ZAHN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA, Case No. 1:24-cv-09271-JPC-HJR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ricardo entered an order granting the Parties' letter motion, requesting to extend deadlines in the Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order. The Parties shall adhere to the following deadlines: Fact discovery will close on May 1, 2026; The Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiff's class certification motion is due by May 7, 2026; and The Plaintiff's reply brief is due by June 8, 2026. Venezuela is a country on the northern coast of South America, consisting of a continental landmass and many islands and islets in the Caribbean Sea. A copy of the Court's order dated March 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=q6HK9X at no extra charge.[CC] VENEZUELA: Parties Seek Extension of Fact Discovery Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zahn v. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Case No. 1:24-cv-09271-JPC-HJR (S.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting extensions of two of the deadlines in the Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order pursuant to Rule I.F. of Your Honor's Individual Rules and Practices for Civil Cases. The parties request an extension of the: (i) March 27, 2026 fact discovery deadline through May 1, 2026; and (ii) class certification briefing schedule, such that the Defendant's current March 12, 2026 deadline to oppose the Plaintiff's class certification motion is extended to May 7, 2026, and the Plaintiff's current April 13, 2026 deadline to file a reply brief is extended to June 8, 2026. The parties make this request because in the course of coordinating the deposition of the Plaintiff, who resides in Germany, the parties agreed that it would be an efficient use of their resources to schedule it on the same day and location as the Plaintiff's deposition in a similar proposed class action in which she is a plaintiff and in which the parties are represented by the same undersigned counsel, namely Cavara et al. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 25-cv-00165 (RA) (VF). Venezuela is a country on the northern coast of South America. A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=z0GKht at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Costantini, Esq. Rudolph J. DiMassa, Esq. Arti Fotedar, Esq. Stephanie Lamerce, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 22 Vanderbilt 335 Madison Avenue, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10017-4669 Telephone: (212) 692-1032 Facsimile: (212) 692-1020 E-mail: ajcostantini@duanemorris.com dimassa@duanemorris.com afotedar@duanemorris.com slamerce@duanemorris.com The Defendant is represented by: Marisa F. Antonelli, Esq. Camilo Cardozo, Esq. Dora Georgescu, Esq. VINSON & ELKINS LLP The Grace Building 1114 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 237-0000 E-mail: mantonelli@velaw.com ccardozo@velaw.com dgeorgescu@velaw.com VEON LTD: Settlement in Consolidated Securities Suit for Court OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- VEON Ltd. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2026, that the consolidated securities class suit settlement is awaiting the final approval of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. on November 4, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States against VEON and certain of its then current and former officers by Charles Kux-Kardos, on behalf of himself and other investors in the Company, alleging certain violations of the U.S. federal securities laws in connection with the Company's public disclosures relating to its operations in Uzbekistan. On December 4, 2015, a second complaint was filed by Westway Alliance Corp. that essentially asserted the same claims in connection with the same disclosures. On April 27, 2016, the Court in the Southern District of New York (the Court) consolidated the two actions and appointed Westway as lead plaintiff. On December 9, 2016, Westway filed its first amended complaint (FAC). On September 19, 2017, the Court granted VEON's motion to dismiss the FAC in part. On February 9, 2018, VEON filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the remaining allegations of the FAC, and all the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss the claim. In addition, the Company reports that on April 13, 2018, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims against one of the individual defendants and, on August 30, 2018, the Court dismissed the claims against all of the remaining individual defendants. On May 17, 2019, VEON filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Westway lacked standing as a result of the September 19, 2017 order because Westway had not purchased any securities on or after the date of the earliest alleged misstatement. On May 21, 2019, the Rosen Law Firm submitted a letter to the Court on behalf of Boris Lvov seeking leave to file a motion to intervene and substitute Lvov as lead plaintiff. On June 17, 2019, Westway filed its opposition to VEON's motion, and on March 31, 2020, VEON's motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied without prejudice. On April 14, 2020, Westway filed its second amended complaint, and on May 15, 2020, VEON moved to dismiss that complaint. The Court granted VEON's motion on March 11, 2021, holding that VEON had no duty to disclose information concerning its internal controls as of the start date of the alleged class period, and that Westway therefore lacked standing to bring any claims against VEON as lead plaintiff or otherwise. The Court reopened the lead plaintiff selection process and, on April 29, 2022, appointed Lvov as lead plaintiff and granted him leave to file an amended complaint. Lvov filed the third amended complaint on February 22, 2023. On May 10, 2023, the Court denied Lvov's motion for discovery and granted VEON leave to file a motion to dismiss portions of the third amended complaint. On September 30, 2024, the Court granted VEON's motion to dismiss in part, dismissing with prejudice the newly alleged false statements as time-barred under the statute of repose and requesting additional briefing with respect to the newly alleged corrective disclosures. On January 10, 2025, the Court further narrowed the case, removing three of the six disclosures at issue so that the plaintiff could no longer seek any damages based on those disclosures. The parties conducted a one-day mediation on February 25, 2025, which did not result in a settlement, but discussions continued and VEON filed its answer to the third amended complaint on March 21, 2025. On September 25, 2025, the parties signed a memorandum of understanding to settle the proceedings for payment by VEON of US$20. On December 23, 2025, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement, which was filed with the Court as part of a motion seeking preliminary approval of the settlement. Preliminary approval was granted on January 22, 2026, and payment of US$20 into escrow was made on February 12, 2026, with a final approval hearing to follow. VEON is a global provider of connectivity and internet services, offering mobile and fixed-line telecommunications, data, and digital services across emerging markets. VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Gorlamari Wins Class Certification Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRANTHI GORLAMARI, v. VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02226-KNS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Scott entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is granted. 2. The action is certified to proceed as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b )(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the following Class: "All persons and entities that purchased the publicly-traded common stock of Verrica between May 19, 2021 and May 24, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period")." Excluded from the Class are: (a)(i) the Defendants; (ii) any person who served as an officer and/or director of Verrica during the Class Period, and members of their immediate families; (iii) any entity in which any excluded person or entity has or had a controlling interest; (iv) any trust of which a defendant is the settlor or which is for the benefit of a defendant and/or member(s) of their immediate families; and (v) the legal representatives, heirs, successors, predecessors, and assigns of any person or entity excluded under provisions (i) through (iv) hereof. 3. Kranthi Gorlamari is appointed Class Representative. 4. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP is appointed as Class Counsel. Verrica is a clinical-stage medical dermatology company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DPbQix at no extra charge.[CC] VERTEX INC: Faces Crum Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info ---------------------------------------------------------- JOEL CRUM, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. VERTEX INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01594-PD (E.D. Pa., March 12, 2026) is a class action lawsuit against the Defendant for its failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and the Class' highly sensitive personally identifiable information. As part of its business, and in order to gain profits, the Defendant obtained and stored the personal information of individuals, including the personal information of Plaintiff and Class members. On March 9, 2026, the Defendant experienced a data breach. Since the data breach occurred, the notorious ransomware gang "Shinyhunters" has claimed responsibility for the data breach. According to the complaint, the Defendant breached its duty and betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and Class members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their personal information, thus enabling cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, steal, misuse, and/or view it. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of the Class, seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, nominal damages, restitution, and injunctive and declaratory relief, reasonable attorney fees and costs, and all other remedies this Court deems proper. Vertex Inc. is a provider of comprehensive, integrated tax technology solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randi Kassan, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 408 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 741-5600 E-mail: rkassan@milberg.com WALT DISNEY: Biddle Seeks Prelim Approval of $50MM Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HEATHER BIDDLE, et al., v. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, Case No. 5:22-cv-07317-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on March 19, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., will move the Court for an order granting the Settling Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Settling Plaintiffs propose that the Settlement Classes be defined as follows: YouTube TV Settlement Class "All persons who purchased a YouTube TV subscription from the period beginning April 1, 2019, through the date of preliminary approval of the settlement by U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California." DirecTV Stream Settlement Class "All persons who purchased a DirecTV streaming live pay TV subscription (branded at various times as, at least, DirecTV Stream, DirecTV Now, and AT&T TV Now) from the period beginning April 1, 2019, through the date of preliminary approval of the settlement by U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California." Excluded from the Settlement Classes are Disney, its employees, officers, directors, legal representatives, heirs, successors, and wholly or partly owned subsidiaries or affiliates; counsel for the Parties and their employees; and the judicial officers and immediate family members and associated Court staff assigned to this case. Settling Plaintiffs seek entry of an order: (1) preliminarily certifying the proposed classes for settlement purposes, (2) provisionally appointing Settling Plaintiffs as class representatives, (3) appointing Bathaee Dunne LLP as interim lead counsel for the Settlement Classes, (4) preliminarily approving the Settlement, (5) preliminarily approving the proposed distribution plan, (6) approving the proposed notice plan and directing notice to the Settlement Classes, (7) appointing Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc., as the settlement administrator, and (8) setting a fairness hearing for final approval of the Settlement (including service awards) and distribution plan and to consider the motion for an award of attorney's fees and costs. Under the Settlement, Disney will provide a $50 million non-reversionary fund to compensate class members for alleged overcharges for YouTube TV and DirecTV Stream SLPTV subscriptions during the class period, and has agreed to injunctive relief designed to redress the alleged harm to competition in the SLPTV market. Settling Plaintiffs allege that Disney entered into anticompetitive agreements with SLPTV providers, including YouTube and DirecTV, with the purpose and effect of increasing prices for SLPTV plans in the United States. The Defendant operates as an entertainment company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qwN7iF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Yavar Bathaee, Esq. Andrew C. Wolinsky, Esq. Priscilla Ghita, Esq. Allison Watson, Esq. Brian J. Dunne, Esq. Edward M. Grauman, Esq. Kaki J. Johnson, Esq. Bryce Talbot, Esq. Allison Watson, Esq. BATHAEE DUNNE LLP 445 Park Avenue, 9th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (332) 322-8835 E-mail: yavar@bathaeedunne.com awolinsky@bathaeedunne.com pghita@bathaeedunne.com awatson@bathaeedunne.com bdunne@bathaeedunne.com egrauman@bathaeedunne.com kjohnson@bathaeedunne.com btalbot@bathaeedunne.com awatson@bathaeedunne.com WATCH CONNECTION: Morris Suit Seeks to Certify Classes ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zachary Morris, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. THE WATCH CONNECTION, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-00354-WED (E.D. Wis.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the proposed classes, appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Stein Saks PLLC as Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiff further requests that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that the Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative’s individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests of the putative class. Watch Connection is an authorized retailer specializing in authentic luxury Swiss-made and branded timepieces. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZAKOvO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620, Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com WEST VIRGINIA: Statute Violates First Amendment, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- JOHN DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2, JOHN DOE 3, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JAMES L MITCHELL, in his official capacity as Superintendent of West Virginia State Police, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00194 (S.D. W.Va., March 13, 2026) is a civil rights class action challenging the constitutionality of the provision of West Virginia Code which requires individuals listed on West Virginia's Sex Offense Registry to disclose and provide to law enforcement information relating to any Internet accounts the registrant has and the screen names, user names, or aliases the registrant uses on the Internet. The Plaintiffs are required to register under the West Virginia Sex Offender Registration Act. They have been registered for years, and their required registration duration is lifetime. The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all other so situated citizens of West Virginia, allege that the statutory requirement violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution by chilling speech and not allowing anonymous free-speech rights. The Plaintiffs further allege that the statute is unconstitutionally vague and does not specify what all Internet accounts includes. The Plaintiff and other registrants are unclear as to what accounts are reportable. Law enforcement officers collect different information according to their own understanding of "all Internet accounts." The Plaintiffs, therefore, seek injunctive and declaratory relief to redress the violation of their established constitutional rights. Colonel James L. Mitchell, the Superintendent of the West Virginia State Police, is sued in his official capacity and leads the state agency responsible for enforcement of West Virginia Sex Offender Registration Act and the statute in question.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Larwence King, Esq. NARSOL P.O. Box 25423 Raleigh, NC 27611 Telephone: (919) 480-2551, Ext. 702 E-mail: attorney@narsol.org - and - Lonnie C. Simmons, Esq. DIPIERO SIMMONS MCGINLEY & BASTRESS, PLLC 604 Virginia Street East Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 342-4605 E-mail: Lonnie.Simmons@dbdlawfirm.com ZOA ENERGY: Gershzon Seeks Final OK of Settlement ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKHAIL GERSHZON on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ZOA ENERGY, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-05444-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on March 26, 2026 at 11:00 AM, will move the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, for entry of an Order: (1) Finally certifying the Settlement Class; (2) Finally approving the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class; (3) Directing the parties to undertake the obligations set forth in the Settlement Agreement that arise out of the Court's final approval; (4) Entering Judgment; and (5) Maintaining jurisdiction over this action for the purpose of enforcing the Judgment. The Settlement provides a $3 million common fund for a nationwide Class of consumers, along with injunctive relief assuring the alleged false and misleading labeling will no longer be used. The estimated class size is approximately 4.26 million. The Defendant provides energy-crafted drinks. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5v4lxl at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael D. Braun, Esq. KUZYK LAW, LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 800 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (213) 401-4100 Facsimile: (213) 401-0311 E-mail: mdb@kuzykclassactions.com - and - Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK 1307 Chalkstone Avenue Providence, RI 02908 Telephone: (401) 831-7730 Facsimile: (401) 861-6064 E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com [^] 10th Class Action Money & Ethics Conference -- 2026 Sponsors ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mark your calendar for the 10th Annual Class Action Money & Ethics Conference, presented by Beard Group, Inc. #CAME2026 will be held May 20-21, 2026, at The Harmonie Club, in New York City. This year's gathering is being sponsored by: * Class Action Money & Ethics 2026 Co-Chairs: Esquire Bank Succeed Boldly https://esquirebank.com/ EisnerAmper Smarter Safeguards. Stronger Outcomes. https://www.eisneramper.com/ * Major Sponsors: Labaton Keller Sucharow History of expertise. Reputation for excellence. https://www.labaton.com/ Covalynt The Bond Between Complex Litigation and Data Science. https://covalynt.com/ * Patron Sponsors: Duane Morris https://www.duanemorris.com/ Darrow Legal Intelligence that Drives Better Outcomes. https://www.darrow.ai/ Tremendous Send gift cards and money instantly https://www.tremendous.com/ Federated Hermes https://www.federatedhermes.com/ * Supporting Sponsors: Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein https://www.lieffcabraser.com/ AB Data https://www.abdataclassaction.com/ Contingency Capital Global asset management business focused on credit oriented legal assets https://www.contingencycapital.com/ Morgan Stanley Navigate Volatility. Unlock Opportunity. Active Fixed Income https://www.morganstanley.com/im/en-pe/institutional-investor.html ATTICUS Administration Smart | Accountable | Better https://www.atticusadmin.com/ This exclusive in-person gathering brings together the industry's top professionals to explore the latest trends, challenges, and opportunities in class action litigation. #CAME2026 features: Insightful keynote presentations from leading experts Dynamic live panel discussions tackling cutting-edge issues Valuable networking opportunities with peers and influencers This year's event kicks off with the Opening Night Cocktail Reception on May 20th from 5:00–7:00 p.m. Whether you're a plaintiff attorney, defense counsel, funder, or industry stakeholder, this is the must-attend event of the year for staying ahead in class action practice. Register today and secure your spot at this value-packed conference! Click here -- https://www.classactionconference.com/2025-video-replays.html -- for the 2025 conference videos, available to purchase and download. For sponsorship and other information, contact Will Etchison at 305-707-7493 or will@beardgroup.com, or visit https://www.classactionconference.com/ CLE accreditation will be submitted upon request -- details available on the website. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2026. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***