260327.mbx

260327.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, March 27, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 62 Headlines 7-ELEVEN INC: Verdugo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. A.O. SMITH: Yeung Sues Over Sale of Defective Water Heaters ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Heilman Files Suit in N.D. California ADMAR INTERNATIONAL: Senior Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website AERSALE INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to March 27 AETNA LIFE: Class Cert Filing in Gordon Amended to Feb. 9, 2027 AFNI INC: Miller Sues Over Family and Medical Leave Act Breach AGENUS INC: Consolidated Derivative Suit Stayed AGENUS INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Mass. ALIGHT INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 15 AMERICAN AIRLINES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Tencza Alleges AMERICAN HONDA: Morales Bid for Class Certification Tossed AMETROS FINANCIAL: Class Cert Hearing Continued ANDREW KENNEDY: Grindling Suit Seeks Class Certification ANTERO RESOURCES: Kirkbride Loses Bid for Class Certification ARVELLA FRAGRANCE: Rushefsky Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ASSOCIATED COURIERS: Smith, Williams Allegations Stricken AVALARA INC: Sohovich Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action BANNER CAPITAL: Fails to Secure Sensitive Personal Info, Brown Says BARKBOX INC: Steuer Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Messages BELKIN INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit Over Discontinued Wemo Devices BUZZERY LLC: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Manion Due Nov. 10 CAPITAL ONE: Seeks Interim Sealing of Class Cert Opposition CHILDREN'S COUNCIL: Adams Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CINEPLEX ENTERTAINMENT: Online Fees Class Action Goes to Trial CLIPPER REALTY: Sanchez Wins Class Certification Bid COAST ALUMINUM: Discovery and Case Management Deadlines Stayed COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Settlement in Rabinowitz Gets Initial Nod COSTCO WHOLESALE: Stockov Seeks Refund of Unlawful IEEPA Tariffs CREE LIGHTING: Ex-Employees File Suits Over Layoffs Without Notice DANIEL KALER: Condon Seeks to Consolidate Related Cases DAUPHIN COUNTY, PA: Little Must Amend Pleadings by April 10 DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Lowbruck Class Suit in Texas DELTA AIR: Wins Summary Judgment v. Goodyear DELTA DENTAL: Aids 3rd Party to Access Personal Info, Schaefer Says DILLION COS: Dehart Seeks to Appoint FDAzar as Lead Class Counsel DOLLAR TREE: Class Certification Discovery Continued to June 8 EGGLAND'S BEST: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss Class Action Lawsuit ELITE NURSES: Class Settlement in Mathews Suit Gets Initial Nod ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Seeks to Seal Notice Opposition in Copeland ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Seeks to Seal Opposition in Portable ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Seeks to Seal Opposition in Schuman ENNOBLE CARE: Pagan Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info EP WEALTH ADVISORS: Bosley Files Suit in S.D. California EPIC SYSTEMS: AADJ Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ERICSSON INC: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Taylor Suit Alleges ERNEST RIEGLER III: 388 Nautical Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ESSEN MEDICAL: Agrees to Settle 2023 Cyberattack Class Suit for $4M EXCELSIOR ORTHOPAEDICS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $2.4M EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Class Cert. Filing in Osterhaus Due April 21 EYE PHYSICIANS: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Class Lawsuit FABLETICS INC: Singh Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FEDERAL CARRIER: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Romero Suit Says FINGER LAKES: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Brandon Suit Due Dec. 31 FULL STEAM STAFFING: Moore Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GEICO: Bid to Seal Information Partly OK'd GILBANE INC: Faces Knaggs Suit Over Mismanagement of 401(k) Plan GLOXOSMITHKLINE PLC: BOOSTRIX Settlement Final OK Heard on July 2 GNC HOLDINGS: Class Cert as to Store Manager Claim Tossed GOEASY LTD: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit GOOGLE LLC: Class Certification Bid Filing Due March 1, 2027 GOOGLE LLC: Class Settlement in Taylor Gets Preliminary Approval GREAT AMERICAN: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Carvajal Says GREEN ARROW: Wood Sues Over Illegal Rent-A-Tribe Lending Scheme GUETTLER INSURANCE AGENCY: Murch Files TCPA Suit in D. Oregon HAMPTON REGIONAL: Tant Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info HANDS OF HOPE: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Zhang Claims HCSG WEST: Faces Romero Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. HEALTH GORILLA: Lott Sues Over Failure to Protect Patient Records HEATHER HILL: Time to File Class Cert Response Extended HEMATOPATHOLOGY ASSOCIATES: Underpays Employees, Burroughs Says HERTZ CORP: Maharaj Loses Bid for Class Certification HICKAM COMMUNITIES: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due June 26 HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY: Serra Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. HOLLEY INC: Discovery in Tomlinson Securities Class Suit Ongoing HOME DEPOT: Court Stays Deadlines Pending Mediation HUMANA INC: Cassady Sues Over Illegal Tobacco Surcharge HUMANA INC: Toor Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky HYATT CORP: Seybold Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. I.C. SYSTEM INC: Jurkiewicz TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ILLINOIS: Terrell Suit Seeks to Certify Detainee Class IMPERIAL BEACH COMMUNITY: Pena Suit Removed to S.D. California IPACESETTERS LLC: Parker Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Breach of Contract JAY JONES: Lucinda Seeks to Certify Class of Rental Property Owners JAY JONES: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Responses JEFF TINDALL: Must Release Carmona-Torres from Unlawful Detention JOHN DERIAN: Trippett Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website JONATHAN ADLER: Class Cert Bid Filing in Isbell Due Sept. 15 JOSEPH BIDEN: Court Narrows Claims in HBA Suit KEHE DISTRIBUTORS: Smith Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. KRISPY KREME: Class Settlement Wins Initial Nod LASERSHIP INC: Menken Designated as Lead Counsel in West Lawsuit LEWIS DRUGS: Schmidt Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info LEWIS DRUGS: Senske Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Clients' Info LIBERTY MUTUAL: Bid to Dismiss Summerset Class Action Tossed LYNN FITCH: Jackson Federation Seeks Class Certification LYONS & DOUGHTY: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Bid Issues MANITOU EQUIPMENT: Settlement Class in Ernster Gets Certification MAZDA MOTOR: Burnell Files Suit Over Brake and Steering Defects MERCY HEALTH: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply in Peck Suit META PLATFORMS: More Time to File Class Cert Bid Sought META PLATFORMS: Tittl Sues Over Data Privacy Violations MEXI MAIDS: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Thomas Suit Alleges MICHAEL JACKSON CO: Civil Standing Order Entered in Cascio MID AMERICA: Class Cert. Bid Filing Amended to Sept. 1 MONSANTO COMPANY: Archer Sues Over Negligent Advertising & Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Barber Sues Over Negligent Advertising & Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Braunstien Sues Over Negligent Advertising & Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Briscoe Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Distribution MONSANTO COMPANY: Castillo Sues Over Negligent Advertising & Sale MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces Milligan Suit Over Side Effects of Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces White Suit Over Side Effects of Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Roundup Herbicide "Defective," Schelli Alleges MONSANTO COMPANY: Sheffield Sues Over Defective Roundup Herbicide MONSANTO COMPANY: Striebel Sues Over Defective Roundup Herbicide MONSANTO COMPANY: Weigel Seeks Damages From Roundup's Side Effects MONSANTO COMPANY: Willis Sues Over Roundup's Impact to Human Health MONSANTO COMPANY: Zwart Sues Over Roundup's Impact to Human Health MOSAIC COMPANY: Conspires to Raise Fertilizers' Prices, Union Says NATIONAL RURAL: Mullins Wins Bid for Class Certification NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Schramke Sues Over Drop in Share Price NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS: Stevens Sues Over Fertilizers Monopoly OSHKOSH CORP: Conspires to Raise Fire Trucks' Prices, Suit Claims PARK VISTA: Spoor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Caregivers PARTNERS PERSONNEL: Class Cert Hearing in Esperon Due July 27 PATTERN BRANDS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Booker Says POWER SOLUTIONS: Faces Suit in N.D. Ill. Over False Material Info PROGUARD SECURITY: Gordon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ROOF PRO: Fails to Properly Pay Roofers, Sanabria Suit Alleges SERENITY HOME: Townes Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Caregivers SHERWOOD MANAGEMENT: Marquez Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California SHUCK IT: Zoldi Sues Over Unlawful Tip Pooling Practice SIMPSON STRONG-TIE: Mosavi Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SOUTH CENTRAL: Soto Seeks Leave to File Reply to Opposition SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Huntsman Seeks Reimbursement of Expenses SPARC GROUP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Peppars Continued to April 6 SPORTIME CLUBS: Faces Redlich Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. STOCKTON MORTGAGE: Robertson Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania STUDENT TRANSPORTATION: Holder Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages SUN ENERGY: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Bitz Says SUNRISE CREDIT: Viel-Medeiros Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Lucero Files Suit in D. New Mexico SYNGENTA CROP: Bullock Sues Over Negligent Advertising and Sale SYNGENTA CROP: Coleman Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Distribution SYNGENTA CROP: Faces Velasquez Suit Over Paraquat's Side Effects SYNGENTA CROP: Grant Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide SYNGENTA CROP: Hess Sues Over Wrongful Distribution of Herbicide SYNGENTA CROP: Kiser Sues Over Negligent Advertising and Sale SYNGENTA CROP: Kyle Sues Over Paraquat Herbicide's Health Risks SYNGENTA CROP: Larreau Sues Over Fraudulent Misrepresentation TOYOTA MOTOR: Allowed to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal TRIZETTO PROVIDER: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Whiteside Says TROPICANA ATLANTIC: Oshea Files FLSA Suit in D. New Jersey UNIFI SECURITY PACIFIC: Jordan Smith Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. UNISON AGREEMENT: Coffin Sues Over Illegal Mortgage Loans UNITED INVESTMENT: Faces Brito Suit Over Property's Access Barriers UNITED PARCEL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Saechao Amended to July 20 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Dr. Kallas Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota VALSOFT AMERICA: Faces Togetherwork Suit Over Breach of Contract VANDERBILT UNIV: Bogenschild Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty VERACITY RESEARCH CO: Wood Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. VERNON LIGGINS: DNN Wins Renewed Bid for Class Certification VETERANS GUARDIAN: Amended Bid to Seal Info & Exhibits Tossed VSI INC: Rangel Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California WASHINGTON COUNTY, OR: Settles Suits Over "Surplus Funds" for $1.5M WEBER-STEPHEN PRODUCTS: Hose Files Suit in N.D. Illinois WESTERN DENTAL: Fuentes Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California WICKED TACO: Bid to Certify Class Referred to Magistrate Judge WORK TRUCK SOLUTIONS: Redick Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California WSAF INC: Faces Rodriguez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Faces Product Liability Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vanderbilt Minerals Files Ch. 11 Over Talc Suits ********* 7-ELEVEN INC: Verdugo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 7-Eleven, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Claudia Verdugo, Jessica Alves, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 7-Eleven, Inc., Does 1 through 10 inclusive, Case No. 26STCV07855 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 10, 2026). 7-Eleven, Inc. -- https://www.7-eleven.com/ -- is an American convenience store chain, headquartered in Irving, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. MOON LAW GROUP, PC 725 S Figueroa St., Ste. 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5404 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com A.O. SMITH: Yeung Sues Over Sale of Defective Water Heaters ----------------------------------------------------------- VINCENT YEUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A.O. SMITH CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00422-JPS (E.D. Wis., March 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act, and Wisconsin Statute, fraudulent concealment, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged deceptive and misleading practices in connection with the design, manufacturing, marketing, and sale of its residential tank-style water heaters. According to the complaint, the Defendant equips many of its residential water heaters with plastic, glass–filled nylon drain valves instead of more durable brass valves. Because of the material make–up of the plastic drain valve, the valves degrade, warp, crack, and lose their internal seal under normal operating conditions, leading to sudden failures and leaks. The Defendant knew, or reasonably should have known, that the plastic drain valves in its water heaters were defective, yet it failed or refused to inform consumers, issue a recall, redesign the valve using an industry–standard brass components, or provide purchasers with a non-defective replacement valve, suit says. As a result, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered damages. A.O. Smith Corporation is a water heater manufacturer, headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James B. Barton, Esq. Michael J. Cerjak, Esq. BARTON CERJAK SC 313 North Plankinton Ave., Ste. 207 Milwaukee, WI 53203 Telephone: (414) 877–0690 Facsimile: (414) 877–3039 Email: jbb@bartoncerjak.com mjc@bartoncerjak.com - and - Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq. Joseph B. Kenney, Esq. SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC 1109 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (610) 200–0581 Facsimile: (610) 421–1326 Email: mds@sstriallawyers.com jbk@sstriallawyers.com ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Heilman Files Suit in N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Abercrombie & Fitch Co. The case is styled as Naomi Heilman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., Case No. 3:26-cv-02224-SK (N.D. Cal., March 13, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. -- https://corporate.abercrombie.com/ -- is a leading, global, omnichannel specialty retailer of apparel and accessories for men, women and kids.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq. BURSOR FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Fax: (925) 407-2700 Email: sbogdanovich@bursor.com ADMAR INTERNATIONAL: Senior Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- MILAGROS SENIOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADMAR INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01979 (S.D.N.Y., March 11, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.drtalbots.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Admar International, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal AERSALE INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to March 27 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILL CRUZ, for himself and others similarly situated, v. AERSALE, INC. Case No. 2:22-cv-00857-GJF-KRS (D.N.M.), the Hon. Judge Sweazea entered an order granting the joint motion to extend class certification deadline and remaining deadlines. The deadlines are extended as follows: Motion for class/collective certification: From Feb. 27, 2026 to March 27, 2026 Discovery: From May 18, 2026 to June 17, 2026 Motions Relating to Discovery: From June 1, 2026 to July 1, 2026 All Other Motions: From June 12, 2026 to July 13, 2026. Aersale develops and supplies aircraft, engines, and components. A copy of the Court's order dated March 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Zk7487 at no extra charge.[CC] AETNA LIFE: Class Cert Filing in Gordon Amended to Feb. 9, 2027 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gordon, et al., v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, Case No. 3:24-cv-01447 (D. Conn., Filed Sept. 10, 2024), the Hon. Judge Victor A. Bolden entered an order amending the scheduling order as follows: -- Joint status report on the progress of discovery due April 10, 2026 -- Document production will be completed by May 1, 2026 -- Discovery-related motion practice due May 15, 2026 -- Joint status report on the progress of discovery due July 10, 2026 -- Fact depositions will be completed by August 17, 2026 -- Parties will designate all trial experts and provide opposing counsel with reports from retained experts on any issues on which they bear the burden of proof by August 24, 2026. -- Depositions of any such experts will be completed by October 5, 2026 -- Joint status report on the progress of discovery due September 11, 2026 -- Parties will designate all trial experts and provide opposing counsel with reports from retained experts on any issues on which they do not bear the burden of proof by November 10, 2026 -- Depositions of such experts will be completed by December 14, 2026 -- Joint status report on the progress of discovery due November 20, 2026 -- All discovery will be completed by December 14, 2026 -- Parties' joint request for a settlement conference due December 21, 2026 -- Motion for class certification due February 9, 2027 The nature of suit states Civil Rights. Aetna provides insurance products.[CC] AFNI INC: Miller Sues Over Family and Medical Leave Act Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Miller and Jessica Vasquez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. AFNI, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-01098-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill., March 12, 2026), is brought under the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") and allege Defendant engaged in a pattern or practice of FMLA interference and FMLA retaliation, including terminating employees and/or failing to restore employees to the same or an equivalent position upon return from protected leave. The Plaintiffs were long-tenured employees who were approved for FMLA leave. The Plaintiffs were terminated within after returning to work. The Defendant acted with malice and reckless disregard for Plaintiffs' federal and state protected rights. At all times material, Plaintiffs were qualified to perform their job duties within Defendant's legitimate expectations. The Plaintiffs have been required to retain the undersigned counsel to represent them in this action and are obligated to pay a reasonable fee for their services. The Plaintiffs seek all available relief for themselves and the FMLA Class, including lost wages and benefits, front pay, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and costs. For their non-FMLA claims, Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, equitable relief, punitive damages, and attorney's fees and costs, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant. Afni, Inc. is a business process outsourcing provider with locations in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, North Carolina and South Carolina and Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: George G. Triantis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: 813-577-4761 Fax: 813-559-4870 Email: Gtriantis@forthepeople.com Medelman@forthepeople.com AGENUS INC: Consolidated Derivative Suit Stayed ----------------------------------------------- Agenus Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2026, that the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts stayed the consolidated derivative suit pending future developments in the securities class action. The Company has been served with four derivative actions filed in the Court between November 2024 and January 2025 by purported stockholders. The actions name certain of the Companys executives and directors and allege that defendants made false or misleading statements and omissions of material fact related to the efficacy and commercial prospects of botensilimab and balstilimab. Plaintiffs seek an award of damages and an order directing the Company to reform and improve its corporate governance and internal procedures. On May 2, 2025, the Court consolidated the four actions in Case No. 1:24-cv-12823 and stayed all deadlines pending future developments in the securities class action. The Company is unable to estimate a range of loss, if any, that could result were there to be an adverse decision in this action. Agenus Inc is a biotechnology company focused on the discovery and development of immuno-oncology products, including checkpoint antibodies and cancer vaccines, designed to improve outcomes for patients with cancer. AGENUS INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Mass. -------------------------------------------------------------- Agenus Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal period ending Dec. 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. In September 2024, a putative securities class action lawsuit captioned In re Agenus Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 1:24-cv-12299, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the Court) against the Company and certain of its executives and directors. The Court appointed a lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, and the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Feb. 7, 2025. The amended complaint alleges that Agenus, three of its current officers, and one member of its advisory board violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact related to the efficacy and commercial prospects of botensilimab and balstilimab. The lead plaintiff seeks to represent all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Agenus securities between Jan. 23, 2023, and July 17, 2024, and seeks damages and interest, and an award of costs, including attorneys fees. On April 8, 2025, the Company moved to dismiss the securities class action. On June 6, 2025, plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss, and on July 7, 2025, the Company filed its reply brief. Oral argument on the motion to dismiss was held on March 3, 2026. As of the date of this filing, the Company’s motion to dismiss is pending before the Court. The Company have not recorded any accrual for a contingent liability associated with these legal proceedings. The Company is unable to estimate a range of loss, if any, that could result were there to be an adverse decision in this action. Agenus Inc is a biotechnology company focused on the discovery and development of immuno-oncology products, including checkpoint antibodies and cancer vaccines, designed to improve outcomes for patients with cancer. ALIGHT INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 15 ---------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP reminds stockholders that a class action was filed on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Alight, Inc. (NYSE: ALIT) common stock between November 12, 2024 and February 18, 2026. Alight is predominantly an employee benefits solutions company that provides technology-enabled services to employees through the Alight Worklife cloud engagement platform. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that Alight, Inc. (ALIT) Misled Investors Regarding its Potential Growth and Financial Stability According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants provided investors with material information concerning Alight's prospects under its new CEO, defendant Guilmette, the Company's "commitment to a consistent return of capital," its projected capability to moderate the decline of Alight's project revenue growth rate, and the Company's overall ability to meet projected revenue and margin targets. Plaintiff alleges that defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of Alight's growth potential and financial stability; notably, that the Company was not truly equipped to execute on its claimed potential and could not maintain its promised dividend as a result. Rather, Alight would require significantly higher compensation and incentive expenses to achieve the projections put forth by management. Throughout the class period, defendants announced disappointing results, reduced projections, and multiple goodwill impairments all while remaining confident in their ability to execute, drive growth, and continue to provide a dividend to their shareholders. Such statements, absent these material facts caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase Alight's securities at artificially inflated prices. The complaint continues that on February 19, 2026, Alight announced a significant earnings shortfall against its prior guidance, alongside further shortfalls for bookings and project revenue growth. Alight's new management noted the Company failed to "meet our internal financial targets and new bookings and renewals did not meet our expectations, leading us to miss our forecast to the market." They pointed the blame significantly on the Individual Defendants' execution and highlighted the new administration would bring "a change in the execution of the company" in order to "driv[e] operational excellence." The new management further cancelled the dividend, noting there are "more efficient capital allocation activities," and triggered an earnings shortfall due to "an increase in compensation expense" in order to "promot[e] service quality," and overall improve sales execution. On this news, the price of Alight's common stock declined from a closing market price of $1.31 per share on February 18, 2026, to $0.81 per share on February 19, 2026, a decline of nearly 38% in the span of one day. Notably, the stock had now fallen approximately $6.85, or nearly 90% over the course of the class period. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against Alight, Inc. Shareholders who wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the class must submit their papers to the court by May 15, 2026. The lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. For more information, visit https://robbinsllp.com/alight-inc/ All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. To be notified if a class action against Alight, Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up @ https://robbinsllp.com/stock-watch/ Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact: Aaron Dumas, Jr., Esq. Robbins LLP 5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92122 (800) 350-6003 adumas@robbinsllp.com www.robbinsllp.com [GN] AMERICAN AIRLINES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Tencza Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ DONNA TENCZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00253-Y (N.D. Tex., March 6, 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 Tencza was employed by the Defendant as a customer service agent. American Airlines, Inc. offers airline services. The Company provides scheduled air transportation services for passengers and cargo. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. Maureen Villarreal, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com Maureen@a2xlaw.com AMERICAN HONDA: Morales Bid for Class Certification Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE ELIAS MORALES AGUIRRE, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CORPORATION, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-06909-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood Gilliam, Jr. entered an order denying the motion for class certification. The Court further sets a case management conference on March 31, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. The hearing will be held by Public Zoom Webinar. All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/hsg. All attorneys and pro se litigants appearing for the case management conference are required to join at least 15 minutes before the hearing to check in with the courtroom deputy and test internet, video, and audio capabilities. The Court directs the parties to meet and confer and file a joint case management statement by March 24, 2026. Under Rule 23, it is the Plaintiff's burden, not the Court's obligation, to explain how Article III standing is susceptible to class-wide proof and back up that theory with evidence. The Plaintiff has not met that burden here. The Plaintiff brings this putative class action against the Defendant on behalf of a multistate and California class of PZEV owners and lessees. He argues that the Defendant violated California Business and Professions Code ("UCL"), by failing to identify the head gasket as an emissions-related part. Plaintiff Jose Elias Morales Aguirre owned a Honda Partial Zero Emissions Vehicle ("PZEV"), which began malfunctioning two years after purchase at a mileage of 127,530 miles. Technicians at a Honda repair facility determined that the head gasket was blown, and the Plaintiff paid a total of $3,267 for the necessary diagnosis and repairs. American Honda is the North American subsidiary of Japanese Honda Motor Company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O4e8BV at no extra charge.[CC] AMETROS FINANCIAL: Class Cert Hearing Continued ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOUISIANA PAIN SPECIALISTS, LLC, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, V. AMETROS FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Case No. 3:25-cv-00391-BAJ-SDJ (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Jackson entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motion to continue deadline for the Plaintiffs to supplement motion for class certification and to continue hearing of motion for class certification for a date to be determined at upcoming scheduling conference. The Court further entered an ordered that the Class Certification Hearing currently set for March 19, 2026, is continued. A new date for the Class Certification Hearing will be set after the Court rules on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The Defendant provides medicare set-aside post-settlement administration services. A copy of the Court's order dated March 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dTdFJN at no extra charge.[CC] ANDREW KENNEDY: Grindling Suit Seeks Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chris Grindling v. Andrew Kennedy et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-00059-LEK-WRP (D. Haw.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wHY6vX at no extra charge. The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC] ANTERO RESOURCES: Kirkbride Loses Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TREVA KIRKBRIDE, v. ANTERO RESOURCES CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-03212-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In sum, the Court concludes that, based on the record presented, individualized factual determinations about whether Antero breached its contract(s) with a putative class member depends upon the language of the specific lease with that member is the likely "driver" of this litigation. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has failed to establish commonality under Rule 23(a) or predominance of common questions under Rule 23(b). The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class defined as: "All persons to whom Antero has paid royalties at any time since Sept. 29, 2019, under oil and gas lease agreements or overriding royalty agreements covering lands located in the State of Ohio, under which Antero owns, or has owned, the lessee's interest under leases which contain a "Cost Free Royalty" provision, which generally requires: all royalties for oil, gas, or other production accruing to the Lessor under this Lease shall be paid without deduction, directly or indirectly, for the costs or expenses of Lessee relating to producing, gathering, storing, separating, treating, dehydrating, compressing, processing, transporting, and marketing the oil, gas, and other products produced ("Class Leases")." Excluded from the Class are: (1) agencies of the United States of America; and (2) Antero, its current officers and employees. On Sept. 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed this case as a putative class action, asserting a single breach of contract claim against Antero. On Nov. 19, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint ("SAC"). The SAC alleges that Antero systematically underpaid royalties owed to the Plaintiff and other putative class members. According to the Plaintiff, each putative class member receives royalties from Antero's natural gas production pursuant to an oil and gas lease containing a Cost Free Royalty provision. Antero is an American company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C0XHaj at no extra charge.[CC] ARVELLA FRAGRANCE: Rushefsky Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- GLEN RUSHEFSKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARVELLA FRAGRANCE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02125 (S.D.N.Y., March 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.arvellafragrance.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Arvella Fragrance LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com ASSOCIATED COURIERS: Smith, Williams Allegations Stricken --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH L. SMITH, RAUSHANAH SMITH, AND ERICK WILLIAMS individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ASSOCIATED COURIERS, LLC and MATTHEW SILVERBERG, Case No. 4:25-cv-01224-AGF (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Fleissig entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiffs' collective allegations. The Court will strike the collective allegations asserted by Plaintiffs' Joseph L. Smith and Erick Williams. In summary, Joseph L. Smith and Erick Williams entered into valid and enforceable class and collective action waivers with Defendants, and the terms of the waivers are not unconscionable. Thus, the Court will strike the collective allegations as to Plaintiffs Joseph L. Smith and Erick Williams permitting them to proceed solely in their individual capacity. In their Complaint, the Plaintiffs describe the putative collective as including: "All individuals who, within the three years preceding the filing of this action, performed delivery services for Defendants as medical couriers, were classified as independent contractors, and were not paid overtime compensation for hours worked over forty (40) in a work week." The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the putative collective, assert a cause of action for unpaid wages and damages under Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Associated Couriers provides reliable delivery solutions. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated March 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=elBEYS at no extra charge.[CC] AVALARA INC: Sohovich Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN SOHOVICH, Individually and on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, v. AVALARA, INC., SCOTT MCFARLANE, BRUCE CRAWFORD, MARION FOOTE, EDWARD GILHULY, WILLIAM INGRAM, MARCELA MARTIN, TAMI RELLER, BRIAN SHARPLES, RAJEEV SINGH, SRINIVAS TALLAPRAGADA, and KATHY ZWICKERT, Case No. 2:22-cv-01580-TMC (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- Certifying a class action, -- Certifying the Classes, -- Appointing the Plaintiffs as the Class Representatives, and -- Appointing the Plaintiffs' choice of counsel, Pomerantz LLP, as Class Counsel. The Plaintiff seeks certification of the following Class for claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, which satisfies the Rule 23 certification requirements: "All persons and entities who held shares of Avalara, Inc. ("Avalara") common stock on the Sept. 8, 2022 record date, who were entitled to vote on the Merger at the Company's Special Meeting of Shareholders on Oct. 14, 2022, and whose shares were acquired by Vista for $93.50 per share on Oct. 19, 2022." Excluded are: (a) the Defendants; (b) any current or former officers or directors of Avalara; (c) the immediate family members of any Defendant or any current or former officer or director of Avalara; and (d) any entity that any Defendant owns or controls, or owned or controlled during the Class Period. On Feb. 3, 2023, the District Court appointed Martin Sohovich as Lead Plaintiff and appointed Pomerantz LLP as Lead Counsel. On March 6, 2023, the Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint ("FAC"). On April 20, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the FAC, which the Court granted on Oct. 6, 2023, and further granted the Plaintiff leave to amend. Avalara provides cloud-based tax compliance software. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=13aiJF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Duncan C. Turner, Esq. BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC 19929 Ballinger Way NE, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98155 Telephone: (206) 621-6566 E-mail: dturner@badgleymullins.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Tamar A. Weinrib, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com taweinrib@pomlaw.com BANNER CAPITAL: Fails to Secure Sensitive Personal Info, Brown Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- JASON BROWN Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. BANNER CAPITAL BANK, Defendant, Case No. 7:26-cv-05008 (D. Neb., March 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and the failure to protect the sensitive personal information ("SPI") of Plaintiff and Class members. The complaint relates that in the ordinary course of doing business, Defendant collect SPI such as: (a)Contact information, such as names, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, and household members; (b) Authentication and security information such as government identification, Social Security number, driver's license number; and (c) Demographic information, such as age, gender, and date of birth. The Defendant also issues sensitive information, specifically bank account numbers. Often, in order to conduct unauthorized withdrawals, fraudsters need little more than a bank account number and a bank's routing number. On March 6, 2026, Defendant announced publicly that in August or September of 2025, it was the recipient of a hack and exfiltration of SPI involving an undisclosed number of individuals. As a result, Plaintiff's and class members' SPI was in the hands of hackers for more than six months before Defendant began notifying them of the Data Breach. Plaintiff and members of the Class now face years of constant surveillance of their financial and personal records, monitoring, and loss of rights. The Class is incurring and will continue to incur such damages in addition to any fraudulent use of their SPI, says the suit. Plaintiff Jason Brown is a citizen of Wyoming, residing in Niobara County, Wyoming. On March 14, 2026, Plaintiff was informed via letter dated March 6, 2026, that he had been a victim of the Data Breach. Defendant Banner Capital Bank is a bank with branches in Nebraska and Wyoming that services individual customers, farms, ranches, and local businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 984-0000 Facsimile: (212) 686-0114 E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com BARKBOX INC: Steuer Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Messages ------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM STEUER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BARKBOX, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02038 (S.D.N.Y., March 12, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending unwanted telemarketing text messages to the cellular telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers in an attempt to promote its products or services without obtaining prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's action, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages including invasion of privacy, an intrusion into daily life, and a private nuisance. Barkbox, Inc. is a monthly subscription business providing dog products, services, and experiences, headquartered in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, PC 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com BELKIN INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit Over Discontinued Wemo Devices --------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Belkin International faces a proposed class action lawsuit after allegedly abruptly cancelling support for more than two dozen of its Wemo smart home devices while apparently refusing to issue refunds to many consumers stuck with less valuable, "non-smart" products. The 20-page lawsuit contends that Belkin, in late January 2026, wrongfully discontinued support and cloud services for 27 Wemo smart home products, including motion sensors, cameras, light switches, smart plugs, coffee makers and other appliances. The suit charges that Belkin effectively rendered the Wemo devices at issue "dumb" overnight, given that it removed all web and cloud-based features without offering any operational alternatives. Belkin, which had been in the smart home technology market since 2011, launched its Wemo suite of products with the promise that the devices, once connected to the internet, could be operated remotely via smartphone, the case says. However, on July 11, 2025, Belkin announced that it would be discontinuing cloud-based support for 27 Wemo smart home products on January 31, 2026. According to the complaint, this massive change impacted the entirety of the "smart" services offered by the Wemo devices, including any remote operation, voice assistant integration with Google Home and Amazon Alexa, or internet connection. "By discontinuing cloud services and app support for the Products, Defendant rendered them obsolete overnight," the case summarizes. "They no longer function as 'smart' technology." According to Belkin's website, consumers whose Wemo devices were still under warranty on or after January 31, 2026 may be eligible for a refund after submitting a refund request with proof of purchase. For consumers whose devices were not under warranty but who still paid "premium prices" for what they believed would be an investment in smart home devices, the company has failed to offer any reimbursement, the class action lawsuit claims. One plaintiff, an Indiana resident, purchased approximately 18 Wemo products between 2020 and April 2022, and spent about $595 in total, the filing says. The second plaintiff, a California resident, purchased a variety of Wemo products between 2017 and 2021 and spent approximately $400 on his purchases, the case states. Neither of the plaintiffs' Wemo devices was under warranty after they were shut down by Belkin on February 1, 2026, the complaint shares, and both consumers have sent Belkin pre-suit demand letters outlining the defendant's alleged legal violations and providing an opportunity to correct its business practices. "[Belkin]'s interference directly and proximately caused Plaintiffs and Class members' injuries by rendering the Products obsolete," the suit reads. "The elimination of the smart technology capabilities diminished the Products' quality and value and deprives Plaintiffs and the Class the full use of their personal property." The Wemo class action lawsuit looks to represent all individuals in the United States who purchased any of the following Wemo products: -- Wemo Link; -- Wemo Humidifier; -- Wemo Crockpot; -- Wemo Heater B; -- Wemo Air Purifier; -- Wemo Heater A; -- Wemo Coffee Maker (Mr. Coffee); -- Wemo Wifi Baby Monitor; -- Wemo LED Lighting Bundle; -- Wemo Motion Sensor; -- Wemo Switch + Motion Sensor; -- Wemo Maker Module; -- Wemo Zigbee Bulb E27; -- Wemo Insight v2; -- Wemo Switch; -- Wemo Light Switch v2; -- Wemo Insight; -- Wemo Smart Light Switch 3-Way; -- Wemo Mini Smart Plug; -- Wemo Wi-Fi Smart Light Switch W/ Dimmer; -- Wemo Smart Light Switch; -- Wemo HomeKit; -- Wemo Dimmer Light Switch; -- Wemo Mini Plugin Switch; -- Wemo Light Switch; -- Wemo Outdoor Plug; and -- Wemo Mini Smart Plug. [GN] BUZZERY LLC: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Manion Due Nov. 10 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Manion, v. Buzzery, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-09949-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thompson entered a case management and scheduling order as follows: Trial date: Oct. 25, 2027 Final pretrial conference: Sept. 9, 2027 Expert discovery cut-off: Apr. 20, 2027 Fact discovery cut-off: Feb. 2, 2027 7. Last day to hear motion for Jan. 12, 2027 class certification: Class certification reply due: Dec. 15, 2026 Class certification opposition Dec. 8, 2026 due: Class certification motion due: Nov. 10, 2026 The Defendant is a privately-held media company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nKNiP7 at no extra charge.[CC] CAPITAL ONE: Seeks Interim Sealing of Class Cert Opposition ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shah et al., v. Capital One Financial Corporation, Case No. 3:24-cv-05985-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its interim sealing motion in connection with Capital One's opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Consistent with the Stipulation and Order Regarding Omnibus Sealing Procedures, attached to this Interim Sealing Motion are unredacted versions of Capital One’s Opposition, the Declaration of Andrew Soukup and the exhibits attached to same, the Declaration of Danielle Ager and the exhibits attached to same, the Declaration of Nate Morawetz and the exhibits attached to same, the Declaration of Fiorella Trowbridge and the exhibits attached to same, and the Declaration of Melissa Wing and the exhibits attached to same, which have been filed on the ECF docket provisionally under seal. Capital One will notify any affected third parties and, by April 10, 2026, the Parties will file an omnibus sealing motion identifying the material requested to be sealed. The omnibus sealing motion also will include any declarations or other material supporting the request to seal in compliance with Local Rule 79-5(c), as well as a proposed order with a chart listing all documents requested to be sealed and which identifies the title of the document, the docket number of the redacted version of the document, the party requesting the document to be sealed, and the basis for sealing. The Defendant is a major American bank holding company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hbLuuP at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Andrew Soukup, Esq. Nicholas Evoy, Esq. Marianne Spencer, Esq. Jeffrey Huberman, Esq. Kathryn E. Cahoy, Esq. Matthew Q. Verdin, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 850 Tenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001-4956 Telephone: (202) 662-5066 E-mail: asoukup@cov.com evoy@cov.com mspencer@cov.com jhuberman@cov.com kcahoy@cov.com mverdin@cov.com CHILDREN'S COUNCIL: Adams Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Children's Council of San Francisco, et al. The case is styled as Nikkia Adams, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. hildren S Council of San Francisco, DOES 1 THROUGH 100,INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC26634679 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., March 10, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Children's Council of San Francisco -- https://www.childrenscouncil.org/ -- is a child care agency in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM 468 N. Camden Dr., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (213) 474-3800 Fax: (213) 471-4160 Email: daniel@slfla.com CINEPLEX ENTERTAINMENT: Online Fees Class Action Goes to Trial -------------------------------------------------------------- Rob London, writing for Collider, reports that a class action lawsuit against Canada's largest movie theater chain will proceed, thanks to the Supreme Court of Quebec. Today, the province's highest court ruled that a class action lawsuit regarding the theater giant's online ticketing fee will go to trial, barring a settlement. The suit has been filed against Cineplex Entertainment; the corporation controls 75% of the Canadian box office, and operates over 150 theaters across the country. The lawsuit stems from a $1.50 CDN fee the company applied to all tickets purchased through its website and online app. The class action suit will include all persons who purchased a ticket in that manner in the province of Quebec. Another lawsuit, filed in British Columbia, is still pending. The company was previously fined $39 million CDN by Canada’s Competition Tribunal for deceptive marketing in the form of "drip pricing," which is outlawed by the Competition Act; the chain appealed the decision, but the Federal Court of Appeal upheld the fine earlier this year. It is also barred from continuing to engage in deceptive marketing practices. What Is Cineplex? Cineplex was founded in 1979 by Garth Drabinsky, an infamous Canadian film and theatrical impresario who would later go to prison for fraud and forgery, and Nat Taylor, an inventor who produced the first Canadian horror film, The Mask. Their first Cineplex theater was an 18-screen multipex in the Toronto Eaton Centre; at the time, it held a Guinness World Record for the world's largest movie theater. In addition to theaters, the company also produced a number of Canadian films, including the heist thriller The Silent Partner and the haunted house chiller The Changeling. Cineplex proved to be rapacious; in 1984, it acquired competitor Odeon, becoming Cineplex Odeon, before merging with American theater giant Loews. Eventually, the merged company's Canadian operations were spun off to become Cineplex, which absorbed several competing Canadian theater chains, including Galaxy and Famous Players. It was almost acquired itself by the British theater giant Cineworld in 2020, but the COVID-19 pandemic scuttled the deal. The chain operates the popular Scene+ rewards program, which it launched in 2007. Cineplex is the 7th largest movie chain in the world. #1 is the United States' AMC Theaters, which operates 940 movie theaters worldwide. A class action lawsuit against Cineplex will proceed, as per a ruling by the Supreme Court of Quebec. Stay tuned to Collider for future updates. [GN] CLIPPER REALTY: Sanchez Wins Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sanchez v. Clipper Realty, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-08502-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katherine Polk Failla entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and partial summary judgment. The parties have agreed to pursue class-wide mediation with Martin Scheinman. The parties anticipate the mediation to be scheduled the week of April 13, 2026, and will update the Court by March 6, 2026, with the confirmed date. Accordingly, the parties request to stay the case and all interim deadlines, including the deadline to request reconsideration of the February 23, 2026, Decision and Order, and for discovery related to damages, until 30 days following mediation. The Court stays the case and all interim deadlines. The parties are directed to provide a status update on the mediation on or before April 24, 2026, or within a week of the scheduled mediation, whichever is earlier. Clipper is in the business of buying, selling, developing, and managing residential and commercial properties in the New York area. A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4xHbr4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1180 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com COAST ALUMINUM: Discovery and Case Management Deadlines Stayed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Smith v. Coast Aluminum, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-02129 (D. Or., Filed Dec. 20, 2024), the Hon. Judge Adrienne Nelson entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion to stay discovery and case management deadlines. Accordingly, all case management deadlines are vacated, and all other pending motions are denied without prejudice to refiling, if still appropriate, once the stay is lifted. The parties shall file a joint status report within fourteen days of concluding private mediation, but no later than Dec. 3, 2026, to propose revised deadlines for fact and expert discovery and briefing FLSA conditional certification, class certification, and dispositive motions. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Coast Aluminum supplies stainless steel, carbon steel, red metals, copper, brass, and specialty metals.[CC] COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Settlement in Rabinowitz Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANA RABINOWITZ, SHANA DENNY, and YOLANDA PITRE, v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY and TOM'S OF MAINE, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-06996-JMW (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Wicks entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement The Court orders as follows: (i) The Court finds on a preliminary basis that the settlement memorialized in the Agreement and filed with the Court falls within the range of reasonableness and meets the requirements for preliminary class settlement approval; (ii) The Court conditionally certifies, for settlement purposes only, the following Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 Class ("Class") described in the Agreement: "All purchasers within the United States that, between Nov. 21, 2020 through the Preliminary Approval Date, purchased for use and not for resale or distribution purposes, one or more of Tom's of Maine's toothpaste products"; (iii) The Court appoints named Plaintiffs, Jana Rabinowitz, Shana Denny, and Yolanda Pitre, as Class Representatives; (iv) The Court appoints Denlea & Carton LLP, The Wright Law Office, and Wilshire Law Firm, for settlement purposes only, as Class Counsel; and (v) The Court will conduct an in-person final approval hearing on Sept. 10, 2026, at 11:00 AM. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants' packaging and labelling of Tom's of Maine toothpaste misled reasonable consumers who would not have purchased those products had they known about the conditions described in a Nov. 5, 2024 letter that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") issued to the Defendants which raised concerns that certain conditions at the Tom's of Maine facility, like the water quality, were not in compliance with the FDA's manufacturing practices. The total settlement fund amount is $2,900,000. The Defendants manufacture and distribute over-the-counter oral care and personal care products nationwide. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated March 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ObL6Ag at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey I. Carton, Esq. DENLEA & CARTON LLP 2 Westchester Park Drive, Suite 410 White Plains, NY 10604 - and - Will Wright, Esq. THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A. 515 N. Flagler Drive Suite 350 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 - and - Thiago Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 660 S. Figueroa St., Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 The Defendants are represented by: Craig Thomas McAllister, Esq. Hannah Y Shay Chanoine, Esq. Nexus Uzoma Sea, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10019-6022 COSTCO WHOLESALE: Stockov Seeks Refund of Unlawful IEEPA Tariffs ---------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW STOCKOV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02734 (N.D. Ill., March 11, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of State Consumer Fraud Statutes, quasi contract/unjust enrichment, and money had and received. The case arises from Costco's retention of windfall profits generated by the unlawful tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. According to the complaint, the windfall is a direct result of Costco systematically passing on the costs of IEEPA tariffs to its own customers. The Plaintiff seeks a judgment that Costco is obligated to return to him and proposed Class members all IEEPA duties passed on to customers in the form of higher prices on products, with interest. Costco Wholesale Corporation is an American multinational corporation based in Issaquah, Washington. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: George A. Zelcs, Esq. Ryan Z. Cortazar, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY LLC 205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1950 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 641-9750 Email: gzelcs@koreintillery.com rcortazar@koreintillery.com CREE LIGHTING: Ex-Employees File Suits Over Layoffs Without Notice ------------------------------------------------------------------ Inside Lighting LLC reports that on March 12, Cree Lighting told employees their jobs were ending. By March 19, employees were telling a federal court that the ending had actually happened months earlier. That gap, just seven days in real time but six months in legal argument, now defines one of the most consequential employment disputes the lighting industry has seen. Two class action lawsuits allege that Cree Lighting's long furlough was not a pause, but a strategy. And that when layoffs finally came, they arrived with a second, sharper edge: no 60-day warning. At stake is more than back pay. It is a test of whether companies can stretch the definition of "temporary furlough" long enough to reshape their legal obligations. Two Lawsuits: Similar Claims, Different Details We reported last week that Cree Lighting eliminated 172 positions and shut down manufacturing in Racine, with separations beginning immediately on March 13. The company cited the "faltering company" exception under the WARN Act, allowing it to bypass the typical 60-day notice requirement while it pursued financing. That explanation may now become central evidence. One of the newly filed lawsuits focuses squarely on that March moment. It alleges that at least 172 employees were terminated with effectively one day's notice, despite federal and Wisconsin laws requiring advance warning for mass layoffs. The complaint goes further, arguing the violation was willful and lacked reasonable justification. The second lawsuit widens the lens. It claims the real trigger date was October 1, 2025, when roughly 92% of the workforce, representing about 580 affected employees, was furloughed without a defined return date. What followed, according to the filing, was not a temporary disruption but a six-month employment loss in slow motion. Two lawsuits. Two timelines. One underlying question: when did these jobs actually end? The Theory Beneath the Claims The legal arguments mirror a tension Inside Lighting identified months ago, when employees had already gone weeks without pay and the workforce was quietly thinning. Those questions now sit at the heart of the litigation, even if the lawsuits phrase it more cautiously. Plaintiffs argue, in effect, that the furlough reduced the workforce before WARN thresholds could fully apply, limiting financial exposure. Then came the second mechanism. When layoffs were finally announced on March 12, they were immediate. Cree Lighting invoked a narrow WARN exception tied to companies actively seeking capital. The result was the same for workers: no 60-day buffer, no transition period, no gradual landing. If the first phase was about attrition, the second was about timing. The Company's Position Cree Lighting disputes the premise that the furlough was used to manage headcount ahead of layoffs. In a March 17 statement to Inside Lighting, a spokesperson said the extended furlough reflected operational realities, not legal strategy: Q. Was the furlough period designed to allow employee attrition to reduce the number of employees counted toward WARN thresholds when layoffs were eventually implemented? A. "No. We identified manufacturing inefficiencies that created significant financial pressure and uncertainty. Addressing these challenges required thorough analysis and decisive action, which contributed to the extended furlough period. Our objective, then and now, has always been to ensure we can reliably deliver the high-quality, technology-driven products our customers expect over the long term. In fact, we were pleased that there was very little net attrition during the furlough." The company's earlier messaging reinforces that stance. Even as layoffs were announced and manufacturing shut down, Cree emphasized continued operations, customer confidence, and a substantial backlog. That optimism now collides with the legal record. Plaintiffs describe a workforce left unpaid, unrecalled, and ultimately terminated without notice. The company describes a business navigating manufacturing inefficiencies while preserving long-term viability. Those two versions of events don't quite line up. Pressure Beyond the Payroll The employee lawsuits are not the only legal pressure building around Cree Lighting. In recent months, suppliers have filed claims totaling more than $1.7 million in alleged unpaid balances, tied to components already delivered and inventory built to Cree's forecasts. Some vendors are still waiting. Others have decided not to. The difference is now showing up in court. For those watching closely, the pattern is familiar. When payroll falters, payables are often not far behind. What stands out here is not the sequence, but how visible it has become. What's Next? This case may ultimately turn on definitions that sound deceptively simple. What is a furlough? When does it end? And can a company compress the legal consequences of a six-month workforce reduction into a single day's notice? The answers will not just determine damages. They may shape how future restructurings are designed. For now, the facts are fixed. October 2025, a furlough begins. March 12, 2026, layoffs are announced and executed immediately. March 19, lawsuits are filed. Everything in between is now up for interpretation. [GN] DANIEL KALER: Condon Seeks to Consolidate Related Cases ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Steve Condon, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Daniel L Kaler, DDS, PC, Case No. 5:26-cv-04013-KEM (N.D. Iowa), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to consolidate related cases and appoint interim class counsel. The Plaintiffs in each of the Related Actions request that the Court enter an order: 1) Consolidating the Related Actions in the first-filed case under the master case caption In re: Daniel L Kaler, DDS, PC Data Security Litigation, Case No. 5:26-cv-04013-KEM; 2) Striking all pending deadlines in each of the Related Actions; 3) Consolidating any future case that arises out of the same subject matter as the Related Actions; 4) Appointing as interim class counsel John Nelson of Milberg, PLLC and Jessica A. Wilkes of Federman & Sherwood; 5) Setting a deadline of 45 days following the entry of the order on the Plaintiffs' motion for the Plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint; and 6) Setting a deadline of 30 days following the filing of the Plaintiffs' consolidated complaint for the Defendant's response to the consolidated complaint. Each of these three related actions currently is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa before Chief Magistrate Judge Kelly K.E. Mahoney, and each arises from the same operative facts: a cyberattack and data breach of the Defendant's computer systems announced on Feb. 17, 2026. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v8aEPE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian O. Marty, Esq. J. Barton Golperud, Esq. SHINDLER ANDERSON GOPLERUD & WEESE PC 5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100 West Des Moines, IA 50265 Telephone: (515) 223-4567 E-mail: marty@sagwlaw.com golperud@sagwlaw.com - and - John Nelson, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 280 South Beverly Drive Suite Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com - and - Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: jaw@federmanlaw.com DAUPHIN COUNTY, PA: Little Must Amend Pleadings by April 10 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kani Little et al., v. Dauphin County, et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-02169-KM-LAL (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Latella entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' consent motion to extend deadlines to amend/join Parties and move for class certification. The deadline for the Plaintiffs to amend the pleadings and/or join parties is extended until Apr. 10, 2026, and the deadline for the Plaintiffs to move for class certification is extended until May 11, 2026. Dauphin County is located in south-central Pennsylvania. A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AR2p2v at no extra charge.[CC] DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Lowbruck Class Suit in Texas ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dell Technologies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending January 30, 2026 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Lowbruck class suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. On Jan. 28, 2026, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in a putative class action captioned Lowbruck et al. v. Dell Technologies Inc., et al., against the Company, the Company's Board of Directors, and the Dell Benefits Administration Committee alleging a breach of fiduciary duties under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). In the complaint, the plaintiffs seek a judicial declaration that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to remove imprudent investments from the Dell 401(k) (the Plan) in a reasonable time, engaging in transactions allegedly prohibited under ERISA, and failing to monitor the fiduciaries responsible for the Plan's administration. The plaintiffs also seek, among other remedies, an award of damages, fees, and costs in an unspecified amount. The Company intends to vigorously defend this action. Dell Technologies Inc. is a global technology company that designs, develops, manufactures, markets, sells, and supports a wide range of information technology hardware, software, and services for consumers, businesses, and institutional customers worldwide. DELTA AIR: Wins Summary Judgment v. Goodyear -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUKAS GOODYEAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-05712-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Thomas Thrash, Jr. entered an order: -- granting Delta's motion for summary judgment, and -- denying as moot Goodyear's motion to exclude and motion to certify class. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of the Defendant, and to close the case. Considering that Delta believed the change would actually bring the Crew Tracking department in line with the HOW, Delta's decision to leave the written policy in place made sense from the company's perspective. The Court grants Delta's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count I. Delta modified the terms of Goodyear's employment, and Goodyear accepted those terms when he continued his employment with Delta. Therefore, there can be no breach of contract. The Court agrees with Delta that Goodyear's cited cases are inapposite. Delta did not unjustly enrich itself merely because it paid overtime only once Goodyear worked his originally scheduled hours. Therefore, the Court grants summary judgment on Goodyear's unjust enrichment claim. The case arises from an overtime wage dispute. The Plaintiff Lukas Goodyear was employed by the Defendant Delta Air Lines, Inc. from 1999 to 2023. He alleges that Delta breached a contract that provides for overtime pay. The Defendant offers plane tickets and vacation packages. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HAX1Bo at no extra charge.[CC] DELTA DENTAL: Aids 3rd Party to Access Personal Info, Schaefer Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH SCHAEFER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DELTA DENTAL OF NEW YORK, INC. and DELTA DENTAL OF CALIFORNIA, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-01549 (E.D.N.Y., March 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of contract, breach of confidence, and violations of the New York Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the New York General Business Law, and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. According to the complaint, Delta Dental aids third parties to intercept members' communications on its website without prior consent. Delta Dental installed tracking technologies on its website which serve to track and disclose its members' activity, in real time, including their protected health information (PHI) and personally identifiable information (PII), suit says. In doing so, Delta Dental undermined the importance of safeguarding the identities and personal information of individuals seeking medical insurance services and breached its members' trust, violating state and federal law. Delta Dental of New York, Inc. is a medical insurance provider based in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. Delta Dental of California is a nonprofit, mutual benefit corporation based in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric S. Dwoskin, Esq. DWOSKIN WASDIN LLP 433 Plaza Real, Suite 275 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 849-8060 Email: edwoskin@dwowas.com DILLION COS: Dehart Seeks to Appoint FDAzar as Lead Class Counsel ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDSEY DEHART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DILLION COMPANIES, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-00330-KAS (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order consolidating the Related Actions and appointing Franklin D. Azar and Meghan W. Martinez as Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel. The Court should appoint of Franklin D. Azar of FDAzar, and Meghan W. Martinez of MLGPC, Plaintiffs' counsel in the Aitwal Class Action, as Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel because Mr. Azar, along with the members of his class action practice group in his law firm FDAzar, and Ms. Martinez and her firm MLGPC, bring together a diverse team of skilled attorneys with a wealth of experience litigating complex litigation and class actions, including those involving violations of the CCPA, negligence, breach of contract and strict liability. The Plaintiffs allege claims for violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act ("CCPA"), negligence, strict liability for product defect, and breach of the warranty of merchantability. The Plaintiffs seek damages and declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent future violations of the CCPA. Dillons is a regional grocery supermarket chain. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TbS3gz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Franklin D. Azar, Esq. Michael D. Murphy, Esq. Paul R. Wood, Esq. FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 14426 East Evans Avenue Aurora, CO 80014 Telephone: (303) 757-3300 Facsimile: (720) 213-5131 E-mail: azarf@fdazar.com murphym@fdazar.com woodp@fdazar.com - and - Meghan W. Martinez, Esq. MARTINEZ LAW GROUP, P.C. 720 South Colorado Boulevard South Tower, Suite 1020 Denver, CO 80246 Telephone: (303) 597-4000 Facsimile: (303) 597-4001 E-mail: martinez@mlgrouppc.com DOLLAR TREE: Class Certification Discovery Continued to June 8 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Godines v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-01743 (E.D. Cal., Filed June 20, 2025), the Hon. Judge Troy L. Nunley entered an order granting the Plaintiff's administrative motion to modify the scheduling order. The deadline to conduct class certification discovery is continued from March 10, 2026, to June 8, 2026. The nature of suit states Labor Litigation. Dollar Tree is an American multi-price-point chain of discount variety stores.[CC] EGGLAND'S BEST: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kristin Bakker, writing for Feedstuffs, reports that a lawsuit against Eggland's Best for false labeling of eggs can proceed to trial after a federal judge denied in part the company's motion to dismiss the complaint. The class action, Janecyk v. Eggland's Best, was brought in July 2024 by a group of consumers who allege the labels on Eggland's "cage-free" eggs sold in stores are false and misleading under several state consumer protection laws because the labels give the impression that the company's hens were provided access to the outdoors. Eggland's produces and sells conventional, organic, cage-free, pasture-raised and free-range eggs. Statements on Eggland's packaging say the hens producing the cage-free eggs are "free to roam in a pleasant, natural environment." The plaintiffs interpret this to mean the hens are raised in outdoor conditions and say they and many other consumers are willing to pay a premium for these eggs. The hens are not, however, given access to the outdoors but are kept inside at all times, which a supplier for the company said is for biosecurity reasons, according to the complaint. The plaintiffs allege Eggland's label statement, therefore, is not true and is "misleading based on what it omitted." The complaint explains eggs from hens provided outdoor access are often labeled as "free range" or "pasture raised." It alleges Eggland's putting "free to roam" and "natural" on the label is intentionally misleading to "attract consumers who are specifically seeking eggs from hens living in 'free-range' or 'pasture-raised' environments, even though hens producing cage free eggs do not live in such environments. As a result, defendants are able to sell cage-free eggs at an unearned premium." In addition, the complaint claims companies' cost reduction efforts "have led to numerous scandals," including undercover video footage from an animal rights group in 2016 showing "sickening animal abuse at several Eggland's Best suppliers." Judge Franklin Valderrama in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, in a memorandum opinion and order dated Feb. 27, noted the plaintiffs' concerns have to do with animal welfare and the living conditions of the company's hens. "As it turns out, Eggland's hens have no access to the outdoors and are instead packed into windowless compounds made of concrete, metal and dirt," the judge wrote. However, Valderrama ruled, "Whether Eggland's facilities still operate in the way portrayed in the videos is a question of fact that is not appropriate at this stage." Under many state consumer protection laws, it is unlawful to use deceptive, false and misleading information on labels. "These statutes all require plaintiffs to prove that the relevant labels are likely to deceive reasonable consumers," the motion notes. Eggland's motion to dismiss challenged the sufficiency of the complaint: "Eggland argues that a reasonable consumer would not be misled by the statement because (1) the eggs are clearly labeled 'cage free,' and plaintiffs do not allege that the eggs are not, in fact, 'cage free' under the relevant state regulations; (2) the statement does not suggest that the eggs are 'free range' or 'pasture raised'; (3) the statement is, in fact, true and not misleading when viewed in context; and (4) in the alternative, the statement is mere puffery." The court disagreed, finding that "a reasonable person would be misled by this statement" because they would take "free to roam in a pleasant, natural environment" along with the cage-free claim to imply that the hens have some outdoor access. Also, in regard to plaintiffs' rejoinder that "the living conditions of hens are verifiable facts, not unactionable puffery," the court agreed the statement that hens are "free to roam in a pleasant, natural environment" is not exaggerated language but "makes a verifiable promise to the consumer about the living conditions of the hens." On those points, the court denied Eggland's motion to dismiss. Eggland also asserted plaintiffs are not entitled to injunctive relief because they "have not alleged an imminent injury" – that is, they "are now aware of the deceptive conduct, and they have not made any allegation suggesting an intent to purchase Eggland's cage-free eggs in the future." The court agreed, ruling "plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged a real and immediate threat of suffering future harm from Eggland," and granted the company's motion to dismiss on this point. [GN] ELITE NURSES: Class Settlement in Mathews Suit Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KASONDRA MATHEWS, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ELITE NURSES MANAGEMENT LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01518-PAB-KAS (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Brimmer entered an order: -- granting the joint motion for preliminary approval of collective and class action settlement; and -- granting the unopposed motion for attorney fee. The collective members are defined as follows: "All Elite Nurses Management LLC employees employed in Colorado who were classified as 1099 contractors from July 31, 2020 through Dec. 31, 2023 and who were not paid proper overtime wages." The class, defined as follows, shall be preliminarily certified pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23: "All Elite Nurses Management LLC employees employed in Colorado who were classified as 1099 contractors from July 31, 2020 through Dec. 31, 2023 and who were not paid proper overtime wages. Kasondra Mathews is appointed as Class and Collective Representative. Brandt Milstein is appointed as Class and Collective Counsel. The Defendant is a nurse staffing agency. A copy of the Court's order dated March 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xLZHsf at no extra charge.[CC] ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Seeks to Seal Notice Opposition in Copeland --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DON COPELAND, et al., v. ENERGIZER HOLDINGS, INC.; AND WAL-MART, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-02087-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their interim administrative motion to seal and to consider whether another Party's material should be sealed. Accordingly, the Defendants' interim administrative motion for sealing procedures is in connection with the Defendants' opposition to: (1) Copeland Plaintiffs' notice of motion for class certification and memorandum of points and authorities (Case No. 5:23-cv 02087) (2) Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' notice of motion and motion for class certification and memorandum of points and authorities in support (Case no. 5:23-cv-02091 and Case No. 5:23-cv- 02093) The Defendants move the Court to provisionally seal the Defendants' opposition to Copeland Plaintiffs' notice of motion for class certification and memorandum of points and authorities, and Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' notice of motion and motion for class certification and memorandum of points and authorities in support, as well as the Declaration of Belinda S Lee in Support of the Opposition and attached exhibits. Energizer manufactures dry cell batteries and flashlights. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mDGxWx at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher D. Dusseault, Esq. Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq. Samuel G. Liversidge, Esq. Sarah M. Kushner, Esq. Courtney L. Spears, Esq. Rachel S. Brass, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com cdusseault@gibsondunn.com sliversidge@gibsondunn.com smkushner@gibsondunn.com cspears@gibsondunn.com rbrass@gibsondunn.com - and - Christopher S. Yates, Esq. Belinda S Lee, Esq. Brendan A. McShane, Esq. Alicia R. Jovais, Esq. Lawrence E. Buterman, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 E-mail: chris.yates@lw.com belinda.lee@lw.com brendan.mcshane@lw.com alicia.jovais@lw.com lawrence.buterman@lw.com ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Seeks to Seal Opposition in Portable -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PORTABLE POWER, INC., AND GLOBAL EXPORTS U.S.A., INC., dba MICROPOWER BATTERY, CO., on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. ENERGIZER HOLDINGS, INC.; AND WAL-MART, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-02091-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their interim administrative motion to seal and to consider whether another Party's material should be sealed. Accordingly, the Defendants' interim administrative motion for sealing procedures is in connection with the Defendants' opposition to: (1) Copeland Plaintiffs' notice of motion for class certification and memorandum of points and authorities (Case No. 5:23-cv 02087) (2) Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' notice of motion and motion for class certification and memorandum of points and authorities in support (Case no. 5:23-cv-02091 and Case No. 5:23-cv- 02093) The Defendants move the Court to provisionally seal the Defendants' opposition to Copeland Plaintiffs' notice of motion for class certification and memorandum of points and authorities, and Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' notice of motion and motion for class certification and memorandum of points and authorities in support, as well as the Declaration of Belinda S Lee in Support of the Opposition and attached exhibits. Energizer manufactures dry cell batteries and flashlights. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8PumI9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher D. Dusseault, Esq. Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq. Samuel G. Liversidge, Esq. Sarah M. Kushner, Esq. Courtney L. Spears, Esq. Rachel S. Brass, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com cdusseault@gibsondunn.com sliversidge@gibsondunn.com smkushner@gibsondunn.com cspears@gibsondunn.com rbrass@gibsondunn.com - and - Christopher S. Yates, Esq. Belinda S Lee, Esq. Brendan A. McShane, Esq. Alicia R. Jovais, Esq. Lawrence E. Buterman, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 E-mail: chris.yates@lw.com belinda.lee@lw.com brendan.mcshane@lw.com alicia.jovais@lw.com lawrence.buterman@lw.com ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Seeks to Seal Opposition in Schuman ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY SCHUMAN, et al., v. ENERGIZER HOLDINGS, INC.; AND WAL-MART, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-02093-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their interim administrative motion to seal and to consider whether another Party's material should be sealed. Accordingly, the Defendants' interim administrative motion for sealing procedures is in connection with the Defendants' opposition to: (1) Copeland Plaintiffs' notice of motion for class certification and memorandum of points and authorities (Case No. 5:23-cv 02087) (2) Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' notice of motion and motion for class certification and memorandum of points and authorities in support (Case no. 5:23-cv-02091 and Case No. 5:23-cv- 02093) The Defendants move the Court to provisionally seal the Defendants' opposition to Copeland Plaintiffs' notice of motion for class certification and memorandum of points and authorities, and Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' notice of motion and motion for class certification and memorandum of points and authorities in support, as well as the Declaration of Belinda S Lee in Support of the Opposition and attached exhibits. Energizer manufactures dry cell batteries and flashlights. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VIMHxr at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher D. Dusseault, Esq. Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq. Samuel G. Liversidge, Esq. Sarah M. Kushner, Esq. Courtney L. Spears, Esq. Rachel S. Brass, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com cdusseault@gibsondunn.com sliversidge@gibsondunn.com smkushner@gibsondunn.com cspears@gibsondunn.com rbrass@gibsondunn.com - and - Christopher S. Yates, Esq. Belinda S Lee, Esq. Brendan A. McShane, Esq. Alicia R. Jovais, Esq. Lawrence E. Buterman, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 E-mail: chris.yates@lw.com belinda.lee@lw.com brendan.mcshane@lw.com alicia.jovais@lw.com lawrence.buterman@lw.com ENNOBLE CARE: Pagan Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------- RAY PAGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENNOBLE CARE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02591 (D.N.J., March 13, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and injunctive/declaratory relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach discovered on or about April 17, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Ennoble Care LLC is a personalized healthcare service provider doing business in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA 65 Overhill Rd Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: grunfeld@kolawyers.com EP WEALTH ADVISORS: Bosley Files Suit in S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against EP Wealth Advisors, LLC. The case is styled as Bradford Bosley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EP Wealth Advisors, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-01579-JES-DEB (S.D. Cal., March 12, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract. EP Wealth Advisors -- https://www.epwealth.com/ -- is an investment management, financial planning and wealth advisory firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM 468 N. Camden Dr., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (213) 474-3800 Fax: (213) 471-4160 Email: daniel@slfla.com EPIC SYSTEMS: AADJ Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as The American Association for Disability Justice ("AADJ"), on behalf of its members and all others similarly situated; Larry Miller on behalf of the Estate of John Miller; and John Hodges; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Epic Systems Corporation, and their affiliates, subsidiaries, and parent companies, Case No. 1:26-cv-00564-RP (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Certifying the proposed Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, 2. Appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives, and 3. Appointing the Plaintiffs' Counsel as Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following class: "All disabled individuals in the United States, and their parents, guardians, caregivers, or estates, who from Oct. 6, 2022 (mandated full compliance with 21st Century Cures Act), to the present, who had electronic health information stored by, maintained by or connected to Epic, and who experienced delay, denial, incomplete production, excessive barriers, or other interference with access to such records." Excluded from the Class are the Defendant Epic Systems Corporation, its affiliates, officers, directors, employees, and agents, as well as the Court and its staff. The case concerns systemic barriers to accessing electronic health information caused by Epic Systems Corporation's technological architecture and interoperability policies. Epic develops and operates electronic health record systems used by hundreds of hospitals and health systems throughout the United States. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SLy0qH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Maren Miller Bam, Esq. SALUS LAW, PLLC 723 The Parkway Richland, WA 99352 Telephone: (206) 485-4066 Facsimile: (206) 260-9136 E-mail: maren@salusdisability.com ERICSSON INC: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Taylor Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- DIANE TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ERICSSON, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00164-DPJ-ASH (S.D. Miss., March 12, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach between April 17 and April 22, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Ericsson Inc. is a telecommunications company, headquartered in Stockholm, Sweden. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andre R. Belanger, Esq. POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street, Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 Email: andre.belanger@poulinwilley.com ERNEST RIEGLER III: 388 Nautical Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ernest A Riegler III, et al. The case is styled as 388 Nautical Mile LLC, Individually and on behalf of itself as member of 388 WOODCLEFT REALTY CO. LLC and on behalf of all other members of said company similarly situated v. Ernest A Riegler III, 388 WOODCLEFT REALTY CO. LLC, Case No. 605311/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., March 10, 2026). The nature of suit stated as Commercial - Business Entity.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Barnes, Esq. BARNES & BARNES, P.C. 445 Broadhollow Rd Suite #226 Melville, NY 11747 ESSEN MEDICAL: Agrees to Settle 2023 Cyberattack Class Suit for $4M ------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Alder of The HIPAA Journal reports that Essen Medical Associates has agreed to pay $4,000,000 to resolve class action litigation over a March 2023 cyberattack and data breach that affected 904,672 current and former patients. Essen Medical, a New York-based healthcare provider, experienced a cyberattack that saw hackers access its network between March 14, 2023, and March 22, 2023. Data exposed in the incident included personally identifiable information and protected health information such as names, driver's license numbers/state identification numbers, U.S. alien registration numbers, non-U.S. identification numbers, passport numbers, financial account information, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, medical treatment information, and health insurance information. The data breach sparked several class action lawsuits, which were consolidated – Rivera, et al. v. Essen Medical Associates, P.C – in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Bronx. The consolidated lawsuit alleged that the cyberattack was preventable and was the result of the defendant's failure to implement adequate and appropriate cybersecurity procedures and protocols. The lawsuit claimed that the defendants recklessly maintained data on systems vulnerable to cyberattacks. The lawsuit asserted claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and violation of the New York Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Essen Medical denies all charges of wrongdoing or liability, and all claims or contentions alleged against it. All parties agreed that a settlement was the best outcome, and class counsel and the six class representatives believe that the settlement is fair. The settlement has recently received preliminary approval from the court and awaits final approval. Under the terms of the settlement, Essen Medical will establish a $4,000,000 settlement fund to cover attorneys' fees and expenses, service awards for the class representatives, and all costs related to the settlement. The attorneys' fees will be no more than 33.33% of the settlement fund, and the service awards will be no more than $3,000 per class representative. The remainder of the fund will be used to pay for class member benefits. Class members may submit a claim for documented, unreimbursed losses due to the data breach up to a maximum of $5,000 per class member. In addition, a claim may be submitted for a cash payment of up to $100 per class member. The deadline for objecting to the settlement and exclusion is May 4, 2026. Claims must be submitted by June 1, 2026, and the final fairness hearing has been scheduled for July 7, 2026. [GN] EXCELSIOR ORTHOPAEDICS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $2.4M ------------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Excelsior Orthopaedics and the Buffalo Surgery Center have agreed to a $2,400,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the healthcare providers failed to protect sensitive patient information from a data breach discovered in June 2024. The $2.4 million Excelsior Orthopaedics class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on February 10, 2026 and covers all living natural United States residents whose personal information was potentially accessible as a result of the data breach discovered in June 2024, including all who received notice from the company of the incident. The settlement agreement estimates that information belonging to approximately 389,000 current and former patients was potentially accessed during the breach. The court-approved website for the Excelsior Orthopaedics data breach settlement can be found at ExcelsiorDataSettlement.com. According to the website, Excelsior settlement class members are automatically eligible to receive two free years of three-bureau credit monitoring and identity theft insurance with no action required. The settlement agreement states that class members were sent an enrollment code for the credit monitoring service on their copy of the settlement notice, and activation instructions will be provided on the settlement site after the court grants final approval to the deal. In addition to credit monitoring, class members who file a valid, timely claim form have two options for monetary settlement benefits. Class members who submit with their claim form proof of documented losses stemming from the data breach are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of up to $5,000 in compensation. The settlement agreement outlines that class members must provide reasonable documentation, such as telephone records or receipts, to receive reimbursement for out-of-pocket losses related to bank fees, phone and data charges, postage, gasoline, credit report fees and the cost of any credit monitoring or identity theft protection services. In lieu of a documented-loss payment, Excelsior settlement class members may instead file a claim form to receive a one-time, pro-rated cash payment with no proof required. The agreement states that the final amount of this payment will depend on the total number of valid claims filed and what is left in the net settlement fund after administrative expenses, attorneys’ fees, lead plaintiff service awards and all other settlement benefits have been paid. If the aggregate amount of all documented-loss payments exceeds the amount remaining in the net settlement fund after a pro rata (equal share) reduction, the cash fund payment may not be distributed to class members, settlement documents state. Class members may receive their cash payouts via check or electronic payment, the agreement adds, and all checks must be cashed within 90 days of issuance before expiration. To file an Excelsior Orthopaedics data breach claim form online, class members can head to this page and log in using the unique ID and PIN found on their received copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members may download a PDF of the claim form to print, fill out and return by mail to the address of the settlement administrator found on the first page. All Excelsior Orthopaedics settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by June 11, 2026. Finally, as part of the settlement, Excelsior has agreed to implement certain changes and enhancements to its security practices to better protect the sensitive information stored on its systems. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Excelsior Orthopaedics data breach settlement following a hearing on July 8, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals are resolved. The Excelsior Orthopaedics class action lawsuit alleged that the New York-based chain of orthopedic care practices, including Buffalo Surgery Center, failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to protect the sensitive information of its current and former patients and affiliates, which led to a data breach discovered by the company on or around June 24, 2024. Per court documents, private information that may have been compromised during the breach includes names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, driver’s license and state identification numbers, passport numbers, biometric information, diagnoses, financial information, health insurance information, medical information and prescription information. [GN] EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Class Cert. Filing in Osterhaus Due April 21 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OSTERHAUS PHARMACY, INC., CAMMACK'S PHARMACIES INC., DBA JIM'S PHARMACY AND HOME HEALTH, HARBOR DRUG CO., INC., VALU DRUGS INC., SMITH'S PHARMACY II, INC., DBA SMITH’S PHARMACY, REDNER'S MARKETS, INC., and OLD BALTIMORE PIKE APOTHECARY, INC., T/A SOUTHERN CHESTER COUNTY PHARMACY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00039-RAJ-MLP (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Peterson entered an order extending all remaining deadlines in the operative Scheduling Order by 90 days as follows: EVENT DATE Fact discovery deadline: Nov. 4, 2026 Deadline for Parties to serve expert Dec. 16, 2026 reports on all issues on which they have the burden of proof (class and merits): Deadline for opposition expert reports: Jan. 27, 2027 Deadline for reply/rebuttal expert reports: March 3, 2027 Deadline to file class certification and April 21, 2027 Daubert motions: Deadline to file opposition to class May 19, 2027 certification and Daubert motions: Deadline to file replies in support of June 9, 2027 Daubert motions and class certification: Express Scripts is an American pharmacy benefit management (PBM) organization. A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uZ4ZXQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Beth E. Terrell, Esq. Amanda M. Steiner, Esq. Blythe H. Chandler, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 N. 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103-8869 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com asteiner@terrellmarshall.com bchandler@terrellmarshall.com - and - Joseph M. Vanek, Esq. Paul E. Slater, Esq. Phil Cramer, Esq. Trevor K. Scheetz, Esq. Kathryn M. DeLong, Esq. Kathryn B. Allen, Esq. SPERLING KENNY NACHWALTER, LLC 55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3200 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 641-3200 E-mail: jvanek@sperlingkenny.com pes@sperlingkenny.com pcramer@sperlingkenny.com tscheetz@sperlingkenny.com kdelong@sperlingkenny.com kallen@sperlingkenny.com - and - Steve D. Shadowen, Esq. Nicholas W. Shadowen, Esq. HILLIARD SHADOWEN LLP 1717 W. Sixth Street, Suite 370 Austin, TX 78703 Telephone: (855) 344-3298 E-mail: steve@hilliardshadowenlaw.com nshadowen@hilliardshadowenlaw.com - and - Mark R. Cuker, Esq. CUKER LAW FIRM 575 Pinetown Rd Ft. Washington, PA 19034 Telephone: (215) 531-8522 E-mail: mark@cukerlaw.com - and - Joshua P. Davis, Esq. Julie A. Pollock, Esq. Jordan T. Hollinger, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone (415) 906-0684 E-mail: jdavis@bm.net jpollock@bm.net thollinger@bm.net - and - Michael L. Roberts, Esq. Erich P. Schork, Esq. Kelly Rinehart, Esq. Karen Sharp Halbert, Esq. Sarah E. DeLoach, Esq. Stephanie Smith, Esq. Christopher B. Sanchez, Esq. ROBERTS LAW FIRM US, PC 1920 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (501) 821-5575 E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us erichschork@robertslawfirm.us kellyrinehart@robertslawfirm.us karenhalbert@robertslawfirm.us sarahdeloach@robertslawfirm.us stephaniesmith@robertslawfirm.us chrissanchez@robertslawfirm.us - and - Gary I. Smith, Jr., Esq. Timothy S. Kearns, Esq. Gisela Rosa, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 580 California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone (415) 633-1908 E-mail: gsmith@hausfeld.com tkearns@hausfeld.com zrosa@hausfeld.com - and - Joshua H. Grabar, Esq. GRABAR LAW OFFICE 1650 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 507-6085 E-mail: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com - and - Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C. 2001 Market Street, Suite 3420 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 E-mail: jcorrigan@srkattorneys.com - and - Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq. REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD 222 South 9th Street, Suite 1600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (651) 287-2100 E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Alicia Cobb, Esq. Matthew S. Hosen, Esq. Michael Lyle, Esq. Jonathan G. Cooper, Esq. Michael D. Bonanno, Esq. Ryan T. Andrews, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 1109 First Avenue, Suite 210 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 905 7000 E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com matthosen@quinnemanuel.com mikelyle@quinnemanuel.com jonathancooper@quinnemanuel.com mikebonanno@quinnemanuel.com ryanandrews@quinnemanuel.com EYE PHYSICIANS: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Class Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Eye Physicians of Central Florida has agreed to a settlement to end a class action lawsuit over a November 2023 data breach in which an unauthorized third party allegedly gained access to confidential information. The Eye Physicians of Central Florida class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on February 23, 2026 and covers all United States residents who were notified by Eye Physicians that their private information was potentially accessible during the data breach and/or known to be compromised by the breach discovered on or about November 5, 2023, including employees who entered into an arbitration agreement with Eye Physicians. Court documents state that Eye Physicians will waive enforcement of employees' arbitration agreements only for the limited purpose of claims arising out of or in connection with the data breach. The court-approved website for the Eye Physicians of Central Florida settlement can be found at EyePhysiciansCentralFLSettlement.com. According to court documents, Eye Physicians settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form are eligible for multiple benefits. The agreement says that class members who submit a claim form with documented proof of ordinary losses incurred because of the breach are eligible to receive up to $2,000 in reimbursement. All claims for ordinary losses must be accompanied by third-party documentation, such as invoices or receipts, and the agreement states that this category covers expenses such as bank fees, data use charges, travel and fees for credit reports, credit monitoring or identity theft insurance purchased between November 5, 2023 and May 15, 2026. As part of the ordinary expense category, class members may also submit a claim to receive reimbursement for up to three hours of lost time spent responding to the breach, at a rate of $25 per hour, for a maximum payout of $75. The agreement adds that claims for lost time must include a brief written attestation that the time was spent responding to problems created by the data breach. Class members who submit a claim form with documented proof of extraordinary losses incurred because of the breach are eligible to receive up to $7,500 in reimbursement. To claim an extraordinary loss payment, the agreement says that class members must provide documentation showing that they sustained actual monetary losses due to fraud or identity theft likely caused by the data breach, occurred between November 5, 2023 and May 15, 2026, and that are not covered by any other settlement benefits. In addition to any monetary settlement benefits, the agreement relays, all class members are eligible to receive two free years of CyEx Identity Defense Complete, which includes identity theft insurance and access to victim assistance. To submit an Eye Physicians settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the unique ID and PIN also found on their received copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members may download a PDF claim form to print, complete, and return by mail to the settlement administrator listed on the second page. All Eye Physicians of Central Florida settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by May 15, 2026. Finally, as part of the settlement, Eye Physicians of Central Florida has agreed to undertake reasonable steps to further secure its systems and better protect the private information it stores. The court will determine whether to grant the Eye Physicians settlement final approval following a hearing to be scheduled for a later date. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Eye Physicians of Central Florida class action lawsuit alleged that the ophthalmology practice failed to protect confidential information stored on its systems from a data breach on or around November 5, 2023. Per court documents, the personal information that may have been compromised in the breach includes names, addresses, dates of birth, medical diagnoses, treatment information, health insurance information and financial information. [GN] FABLETICS INC: Singh Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fabletics, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Barik Singh, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public v. Fabletics, Inc., Case No. 26CV175119 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., March 10, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unjust Enrichment." Fabletics -- https://www.fabletics.com/ -- offers affordable, high quality and stylish activewear for women & men.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trevor M. Flynn, Esq. FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN PC 2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200 San Diego, California 92110 Phone: (619) 215-1741 Email: tflynn@fmfpc.com FEDERAL CARRIER: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Romero Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTOPHER SILVA ROMERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FEDERAL CARRIER COMPLIANCE REGISTRATION LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01515-JO-BLM (S.D. Cal., March 11, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending unwanted telemarketing text messages to the cellular telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers in an attempt to promote its products or services without obtaining prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's action, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages including intrusion upon seclusion, invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of their daily life, says the suit. Federal Carrier Compliance Registration LLC is a compliance consulting services provider, headquartered in Idaho. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com FINGER LAKES: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Brandon Suit Due Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dominick Brandon v. Finger Lakes Traffic Control, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-01669-ECC-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lovric entered an uniform pretrial scheduling order. -- Any motion to join any person as a party to this action shall be made on or before July 3, 2026. -- Any motion to amend any pleading in this action shall be made on or before July 3, 2026. -- All discovery in this matter is to be completed on or before July 9, 2027. -- Collective Certification Motions are to be filed on or before March 9, 2026. -- Class Certification Motions are to be filed on or before Dec. 31, 2026. Finger Lakes is a provider of certified, professional flaggers, traffic control design/supervision, and escort/pilot car services. A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=q0uKmh at no extra charge.[CC] FULL STEAM STAFFING: Moore Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Full Steam Staffing, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Michael Moore, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Full Steam Staffing, LLC, Metrie El & El, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0001967 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., March 13, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Full Steam Staffing LLC -- https://www.fullsteamstaffing.com/ -- is a privately owned national leader in providing recruitment, staffing, and human resources solutions.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Natalie Rose Haritoonian, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Blvd. Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (818) 962-6465 Fax: (818) 962-6469 Email: n.haritoonian@d.law GEICO: Bid to Seal Information Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Marcelletti v. GEICO General Insurance Company, Case No. 6:23-cv-06211 (W.D.N.Y., Filed April 17, 2023), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford entered an order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's motion to seal information as part of the briefing on Plaintiff's amended motion for class certification. Pursuant to the Third Amended Scheduling Order, within seven days of the Court's resolution of all motions to seal filed in connection with the briefing on Plaintiff's amended motion for class certification and the parties' motions to limit or exclude witnesses in connection with class certification, the parties are to submit their motion papers to the Court for the Court to docket the papers consistent with its resolution of the motions to seal. The Defendant's motion to seal was the only motion to seal filed in connection with the briefing on these matters. On March 3, 2026, Defendant submitted a letter to the Court stating that it intends to file objections to the February 26th Decision and Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). The Defendant requests that the Court stay the submission of the parties' motion papers pending the District Judge's resolution of Defendant's anticipated objections. The Plaintiff opposes Defendant's request for a stay and proposes that the Court "maintain" the parties' motion papers conditionally under seal until Defendant's objections are resolved. Having considered the parties' respective positions, the Court agrees with Defendant that requiring the parties to submit their motion papers for docketing at this time would undermine the administrative efficiencies contemplated by the bundling procedure set forth in the Third Amended Scheduling Order and could impair Defendant's ability to seek review of the February 26th Decision and Order pursuant to Rule 72(a). Accordingly, the Court finds that there is good cause to stay the submission of the parties' motion papers. Paragraph 6 of the Third Amended Scheduling Order is amended to the extent that the parties shall send via email to the Court, at wolford@nywd.uscourts.gov, PDF versions of their motion papers within seven days of the Court's resolution of Defendant's anticipated objections to the February 26th Decision and Order. All other requirements and provisions therein remain in effect. The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract. Geico operates as an insurance company.[CC] GILBANE INC: Faces Knaggs Suit Over Mismanagement of 401(k) Plan ---------------------------------------------------------------- RYAN KNAGGS, individually and on behalf of the Gilbane 401(k) and Retirement Plan, and on behalf of all the similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the plan, Plaintiff v. GILBANE, INC.; John and Jane Does 1-30, in their capacities as fiduciaries, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00153 (D.R.I., March 12, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty of prudence and failure to adequately monitor other fiduciaries pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendants for violations of their fiduciary duties by both (1) initially selecting; and (2) consistently retaining the American Century Target Date Fund for years, even when it glaringly underperformed under all investment metrics and, consequently, in terms of returns. As a result of the Defendants' mismanagement of the Gilbane 401(k) and Retirement Plan, the Plaintiff and similarly situated participants and beneficiaries suffered financial losses. Gilbane, Inc. is a national construction and real estate development firm, headquartered in Rhode Island. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina M. Behm, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 40 Westminster Street, 5th Floor Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 457-7746 Facsimile: (401) 457-7708 Email: cbehm@motleyrice.com - and - Alexandr Rudenco, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 800 S. Gay St., Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Email: arudenco@milberg.com GLOXOSMITHKLINE PLC: BOOSTRIX Settlement Final OK Heard on July 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that GloxoSmithKline plc, now known as GSK plc, has agreed to a class action settlement to end a lawsuit that alleged the biopharma company ran an advertising campaign that overstated the BOOSTRIX vaccine's efficacy in preventing transmission of pertussis to others. The BOOSTRIX class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on February 16, 2026 and covers all adults who viewed the "Big Bad Cough" advertising campaign, and either lived in New York at the time or were vaccinated with BOOSTRIX in New York, and were vaccinated with BOOSTRIX from May 20, 2016 through May 20, 2020 to protect one or more other individuals from pertussis, also known as whooping cough. Court documents state that the "Big Bad Cough" multimedia advertising campaign ran from 2015 to 2020 and can be easily identified. Each ad featured one or more anthropomorphic wolves and allegedly overstated the efficacy of FDA-approved BOOSTRIX, a tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine, with regard to preventing the transmission of pertussis to others. The court-approved website for the BOOSTRIX settlement can be found at BigBadCoughSettlement.com. According to the agreement, BOOSTRIX settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form with a sworn attestation of vaccination are eligible for one of two cash benefits, depending on whether they can provide qualifying proof of vaccination. Class members who provide qualifying proof of vaccination with BOOSTRIX during the class period are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of $50. Class members who submit a claim form and attestation of vaccination without qualifying proof of vaccination with BOOSTRIX are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of $10. Per the settlement website, qualifying proof of vaccination includes documentary records created by a healthcare provider or pharmacy that administered the Tdap vaccination to the settlement class member that reflects vaccination with BOOSTRIX during the class period, documents prepared by the insurer covering the class member with regard to the subject vaccination that reflect the vaccination with BOOSTRIX, or any other satisfactory medical documentation of the vaccination with BOOSTRIX created before February 10, 2025 by a third party that recorded the date and type of vaccination administered to the class member. To submit a BOOSTRIX settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the notice ID and confirmation code as found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, fill out, and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All BOOSTRIX settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked no later than June 8, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the BOOSTRIX class action settlement following a hearing on July 2, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The BOOSTRIX class action lawsuit centered on the "Big Bad Cough" advertising campaign that claimed GSK's Tdap vaccine reduced the likelihood of being infected with and transmitting pertussis bacteria. Per the suit, the ads implied that the vaccine would be particularly useful to avoid transmission of whooping cough to babies, who may experience serious complications after contracting the virus. However, the lawsuit said that BOOSTRIX's claims were false, as the vaccine did not hinder the transmission of pertussis, and in fact increased the likelihood that an individual may experience an asymptomatic infection and pass it to small children or babies. The BOOSTRIX class action settlement website notes that the vaccine has been and remains approved by the FDA for immunization against pertussis, tetanus and diphtheria, and that the plaintiff, in their lawsuit, did not challenge the safety or efficacy of BOOSTRIX for protecting vaccine recipients themselves. [GN] GNC HOLDINGS: Class Cert as to Store Manager Claim Tossed --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEA MOQUETE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GNC HOLDINGS, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-05393-BHS (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Settle entered an order that Moquete does not meet Rule 23's typicality requirement for her claim that GNC failed to comply with the EPOA in its store manager job posting. However, she might have a certifiable class for her claim corresponding to the part-time sales associate position. GNC's motion to deny class certification is granted in part as to the store manager claim and denied in part without prejudice as to the sales associate claim. The Plaintiff alleges that GNC violated Washington's Equal Pay and Opportunities Act (EPOA), RCW 49.58.110, by failing to include wage scale and benefits information in two job postings for its Tacoma Mall store. She seeks to represent a class of: "Individuals who applied for part-time sales associate and store manager positions at GNC's Tacoma Mall store from 2023 to the present." GNC preemptively seeks an order denying class certification, alleging the class is not certifiable under Rule 23. GNC is a retailer and manufacturer of health and wellness products, including vitamins, supplements, protein, and herbs. A copy of the Court's order dated March 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qWrX9m at no extra charge.[CC] GOEASY LTD: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------- Berger Montague (Canada) PC, a Toronto-based law firm that focuses on representing investors in cross-border and international shareholder disputes, represents investors in a shareholder class action against Goeasy Ltd. (TSX: GSY) and (USOTC: EHMEF), "Goeasy"; CUSIP: 380355, ISIN: CA3803551074); Dodds v. Goeasy Ltd., et al., CV-26-0005488-00CP. On March 10, 2026, Goeasy announced a charge off in Q4 2025 of approximately $178M relating to its Lendcare business against gross consumer loans receivable of $5.5B as at December 31, 2025, and a related write down of approximately $55M for loan interest and fees. Goeasy also reported that total net charge offs in the quarter were expected to be approximately $331M, and that it expects a net increase in allowance for credit losses on gross consumer loans receivable in the quarter of approximately $86M compared to the amount reported as at September 30, 2025. Accordingly, Goeasy advised that it would be withdrawing its previously issued Q4 2025 outlook and three-year forecast. Moreover, Goeasy announced that it would need to correct the historical reporting practices of its LendCare business going back to 2024 because certain customer payments were being recorded as received while they were in fact in the process of being settled at month end – some of which were ultimately not collected – impacting Goeasy's reported delinquencies. The market's impact was harsh and immediate, sending Goeasy's share price from $115.55 down to $49.72. Goeasy's credit rating was also downgraded. [GN] GOOGLE LLC: Class Certification Bid Filing Due March 1, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHEYNE ANDERSON, JESUS CASTELLANO, TINA LIU, EVAN MCELHENY, HANNAH MIRZA, KATHLEEN O'BEIRNE, ZACHARY SIEGEL, ERIC SPISHAK-THOMAS, ALEC STORY, SETH TAYLOR, WILLIAM VAN DER LAAR, MARK WESLEY DUDLEY, RACHEL WESTRICK, JIAJUN XU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-03268-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Freeman entered an order granting stipulated case schedule as follows: Event Deadline Fact discovery cutoff: Feb. 1, 2027 Last day to file motion for class certification: March 1, 2027 Expert disclosure deadline: April 5, 2027 Rebuttal expert disclosure deadline: May 4, 2027 Expert discovery cutoff: June 1, 2027 Last day to file motion dispositive July 1, 2027 motions, including motions for summary judgment: All dates remaining in the Court's Feb. 19, 2026, Case Management Order remain in effect. Google is a major American multinational technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MRyzmg at no extra charge.[CC] GOOGLE LLC: Class Settlement in Taylor Gets Preliminary Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH TAYLOR, et al., v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-07956-VKD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge DeMarchi entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of their class action settlement as follows: 1. The Court conditionally certifies, for purposes of implementing the settlement, the following settlement class: "All natural persons in the United States, who have used mobile devices running the Android operating system to access the internet through cellular data networks operated by mobile carriers from Nov. 12, 2017, to the date of the Final Order, excluding persons who are class members in Csupo et al v. Google LLC, Santa Clara Superior Court Case No. 19CV352557." 2. The Court appoints Joseph Taylor, Mick Cleary, and Jennifer Nelson as representatives of the settlement class. 3. The Court appoints Glen E. Summers of Bartlit Beck LLP and Marc A. Wallenstein of Korein Tillery LLC as settlement class counsel. 4. The Court approves the selection of Angeion Group, LLC as the settlement administrator. 5. The deadline for the plaintiffs to file a motion for attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and service awards is April 24, 2026. 6. The final approval hearing will be held on June 23, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. Google is a provider of search and advertising services on the internet. A copy of the Court's order dated March 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w66li0 at no extra charge.[CC] GREAT AMERICAN: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Carvajal Says ------------------------------------------------------------ RICARDO CARVAJAL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff V. THE GREAT AMERICAN POOL LTD. CO., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-2139 (S.D. Tex., March 17, 2026) is a collective action against the Defendant for its failure to pay Plaintiff for all the hours worked. The complaint relates that during Plaintiff's employment, he worked for Defendant at multiple job sites as assigned by Defendant, including at Defendant's construction yard located on Tanner Road in Houston, Texas. The Defendant required the Plaintiff to work more than 40 hours in a work week as a pool installer. Plaintiff's principal job duties included performing manual labor related to the installation of swimming pools, including assisting with excavation, installing pool components and equipment, plumbing connections, and other construction-related tasks. The Defendant misclassified Plaintiff as an independent contractor and as such paid him a flat hourly rate for his substantial regular and overtime hours, asserts the complaint. The Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff for all the hours he worked. Defendant also misclassifies other pool installers and similar employees as independent contractors and likewise denied them their proper overtime compensation. The Defendant's conduct violates the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), which requires non-exempt employees to be compensated for all hours in excess of forty in a workweek at one and one-half times their regular rate, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff and the FLSA Class Members seek to recover their unpaid overtime compensation; an amount equal to all of their unpaid wages as liquidated damages; to recover attorney's fees and costs. Plaintiff Ricardo Carvajal is a former employee of Defendant who performed work related to the installation of swimming pools sold by Defendant. He worked for Defendant from approximately February of 2023 to January of 2026. Defendant The Great American Pool LTD, Co. is a pool service and sales company that installs swimming pools across south Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beatriz-Sosa Morris, Esq. John Neuman, Esq. SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC 4151 Southwest Freeway, Suite 515 Houston, TX 77027 Telephone: (281) 885-8844 Facsimile: (281) 885-8813 E-mail: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com GREEN ARROW: Wood Sues Over Illegal Rent-A-Tribe Lending Scheme --------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM WOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREEN ARROW SOLUTIONS, d/b/a GREEN ARROW LOANS, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00147-GNS (W.D. Ky., March 13, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Kentucky Revised Statutes and the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's engagement in a rent-a-tribe scheme wherein non-tribal payday lenders use a Native American tribe in order to avoid usury laws by invoking sovereign immunity. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks to recover all amounts paid on him and other Class members' loans, as well as their costs and attorneys' fees. Green Arrow Solutions, doing business as Green Arrow Loans, is a company that operates an online lending website in Kentucky. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew T. Lockaby, Esq. Amanda M. Lockaby, Esq. Abigail C. Wearden, Esq. LOCKABY PLLC 476 East High Street, Suite 200 Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: (859) 263-7884 Facsimile: (859) 406-3333 Email: mlockaby@lockabylaw.com alockaby@lockabylaw.com awearden@lockabylaw.com - and - Matthew J. Langley, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (773) 554-9354 Email: matt@almeidalawgroup.com GUETTLER INSURANCE AGENCY: Murch Files TCPA Suit in D. Oregon ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Guettler Insurance Agency LLC. The case is styled as Jessica Murch, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Guettler Insurance Agency LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-00481-AR (D. Ore., March 12, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Guettler Insurance Agency LLC -- https://guettlerinsurance.com/ -- specialize in personal, commercial, life as well as financial & retirement insurance solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 2657 Mt. Carmel Ave. Glenside, PA 19038 Phone: (215) 225-5529 Fax: (888) 329-0305 Email: a@perronglaw.com HAMPTON REGIONAL: Tant Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- GENE TANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HAMPTON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant, Case No. 9:26-cv-01060-RMG (D.S.C., March 12, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of confidence, breach of implied contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach between June 18, 2025 and July 16, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Hampton Regional Medical Center is a general acute care hospital with a principal place of business located in Varnville, South Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street, Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com - and - Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, PC 468 N. Camden Dr., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 Email: daniel@slfla.com HANDS OF HOPE: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Zhang Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANDREW ZHANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HANDS OF HOPE PT, PC, Defendant, Case No. 7:26-cv-02051 (S.D.N.Y., March 12, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://handsofhopeny.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, inaccessible drop-down menus, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Hands of Hope PT, PC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com HCSG WEST: Faces Romero Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------- VIRGINIA ROMERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HCSG WEST LLC, SUNBRIDGE BRASWELL ENTERPRISES, LLC, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV08328 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act including failure to pay all wages, failure to provide lawful meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof, failure to authorize or permit lawful rest breaks or provide compensation in lieu thereof, failure to reimburse necessary business-related costs, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay wages timely during employment, and failure to pay all wages due upon separation of employment. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee. HCSG West LLC is a provider of services or goods throughout California. Sunbridge Braswell Enterprises, LLC is a provider of services or goods throughout California. [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 Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com HEALTH GORILLA: Lott Sues Over Failure to Protect Patient Records ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ricky Lott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HEALTH GORILLA, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-21639-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 12, 2026), is brought to hold Defendant accountable for granting access and failing to prevent multiple fraudulent actors from gaining unfettered access to the patient records of millions of healthcare patients, including Plaintiff, through the networks used by healthcare providers to share information with other healthcare providers for treatment purposes. The Defendant's failures to safeguard and protect patient records of Plaintiff and Class members and to maintain the integrity of the vast interoperability framework on which principles of continuity of care rely constitute moral, ethical, and legal violations of the highest order. The bad actors were not vetted and their activities were consistent with abuse. Despite these red flags, Defendant failed to take reasonable and necessary actions to put a stop to their conduct, as it was required to do. To make it worse, Defendant attempted to conceal their conduct by defending the action of the bad actors and giving pretextual reasons for their suspicious behavior when others raised concerns. As a result of Defendant's failures, Plaintiff's and Class members' patient records were accessed by these bad actors, says the complaint. The Plaintiff received a letter from one of his healthcare providers notifying him of the Data Breach. Health Gorilla, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Coral Gables, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Smith, Jr., Esq. Marc E. Dann, Esq. DANNLAW 15000 Madison Avenue Lakewood, OH 44107 Phone: (216) 373-0539 Fax: (216) 373-0536 Email: notices@dannlaw.com msmith@dannlaw.com - and - Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 440-0020 Facsimile: (312) 440-4180 Email: firm@attorneyzim.com Web: www.attorneyzim.com HEATHER HILL: Time to File Class Cert Response Extended ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLENE HALL, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. HEATHER HILL PROPERTY COMPANY LLC, HEATHER HILL OPERATING COMPANY LLC, and ONEWALL COMMUNITIES LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00238-ABA (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Abelson entered an order granting the stipulation to extend time to file the Defendants' response to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The deadline for the Defendants to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification will be set for 30 days from the current deadline, March 11, 2026. The deadline for the Defendants' opposition will therefore be April 10, 2026. The deadline for the Plaintiff's reply will therefore be April 24, 2026. Heather operates Heather Hill Apartments. A copy of the Court's order dated March 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2ySxgw at no extra charge.[CC] HEMATOPATHOLOGY ASSOCIATES: Underpays Employees, Burroughs Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MARIO BURROUGHS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEMATOPATHOLOGY ASSOCIATES L.L.C., a Florida limited liability company d/b/a BIO-GENETICS LABORATORY, BLOOMDNA, and BIOGX LABORATORY, BIO LAB HOLDINGS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, BRYON WOLF, individually, and GIUSEPPE COSTA, individually, Defendants, Case No. 8:26-cv-00712 (M.D. Fla., March 17, 2026) is a collective action against the Defendant for its failure to properly compensate its call center employees. The complaint relates that the Defendants are joint employers over Plaintiffs and the putative class members, in that Defendants: (a) jointly determined, shared, and allocated the power to direct, control, or supervise Plaintiff, and the putative class, by direct or indirect means; (b) jointly determined, shared, and allocated the power to--directly or indirectly--hire or fire Plaintiff and the putative class, or modify the terms or conditions of Plaintiff and the putative class' employment; (c) shared management or a direct or indirect ownership interest, and interchangeably controlled, or were controlled by, each other; and (d) jointly determined, shared, and allocated responsibility over functions ordinarily carried out by an employer, such as handling payroll, providing workers' compensation insurance, paying payroll taxes, or providing the facilities, equipment, tools, or materials necessary to complete the work. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, were subjected to Defendants' policy and practice of failing to compensate its call center employees for their necessary pre-shift and post-lunch activities, which resulted in the failure to properly compensate them as required under applicable federal laws. Further, Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, worked more than 40 hours per workweek without receiving the proper overtime pay for all their overtime hours worked because Defendants failed to properly calculate the overtime pay rate to include non-discretionary bonuses, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a declaration that his rights, the rights of the putative FLSA Collective Class were violated and seeks to recover an award of unpaid wages and overtime premiums, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, pre and post-judgment interest, and any other remedies to which they may be entitled. Plaintiff MARIO BURROUGHS was employed by Defendants from approximately March 2022 through February 2026 as a Medical Intake Specialist employee in Defendants' Florida call center. Defendant Hematopathology Associates L.L.C. operates a clinical laboratory and genetic testing enterprise. Defendant Bio Lab Holdings LLC conducts business under trade names including Hematopathology Associates L.L.C, Bio-genetics, Laboratory, BloomDNA and BioGX Laboratory. Defendant BRYON WOLF is an owner and principal operator of Defendants' business. Defendant GIUSEPPE COSTA served as a manager and supervisor for Defendants during the last three years.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noah E. Storch, Esq. RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A. 7951 SW 6 th Street, Suite 316 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (866) 344-9243 Facsimile: (954) 337-2771 E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com HERTZ CORP: Maharaj Loses Bid for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZABEENA MAHARAJ, RODOLFO SCHULZ, v. THE HERTZ CORPORATION, Case No. 3:23-cv-04726-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as the Plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing common issues predominate. The Court sets a further case management conference for April 9, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. via Zoom video. An updated joint case management conference statement is due one week in advance. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant misclassified them as exempt from various wage and hour laws, and thus denied them wages, overtime, meal and rest periods, and accurate wage statements, because Plaintiffs spend most of their time performing duties expected of hourly employees. The Plaintiffs move to certify the following class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3): "All persons employed by Hertz in California as exempt-classified Operations Managers ('OMs') at any time from June 30, 2021, through the date of class certification." The Defendant employed the Plaintiffs as Operations Managers (OMs) and Customer Service Managers (CSMs). The Defendant is a car rental company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ijL7ew at no extra charge.[CC] HICKAM COMMUNITIES: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due June 26 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bentley et alKASEY N. BENTLEY; KRISTOFER W. BENTLEY; PHYLLIS A. MINOR; CHRISTIAN BUTLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HICKAM COMMUNITIES, LLC and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Case No. 1:24-cv-00007-LEK-KJM (D. Haw.), the Hon. Judge Mansfield entered an order granting stipulation to continue deadline for class certification motion: In the interest of judicial economy, and not for purposes of any undue delay or unfair advantage, the Parties request that the Court continue the extended March 16, 2026 deadline for Plaintiffs' motion for class certification for a period of 45 days, and reset this deadline for April 30, 2026, to allow the final hearing to occur first. The parties agree the remaining deadlines should be continued as follows: a. Class Fact Discovery Deadline: June 12, 2026 b. Opposition to Motion for Class Certification: June 26, 2026 c. Reply to Opposition: July 17, 2026 A copy of the Court's order dated March 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MV2b2B at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Bruce D. Voss, Esq. Matthew C. Shannon, Esq. Jai W. Keep-Barnes, Esq. LUNG ROSE VOSS & WAGNILD Topa Financial Center 700 Bishop Street, Suite 900 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 523-9000 Facsimile: (808) 533-4184 E-mail: bvoss@legalhawaii.com mshannon@legalhawaii.com jkeep-barnes@legalhawaii.com HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY: Serra Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hofstra University. The case is styled as Dominick Serra, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hofstra University, Case No. 605249/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., March 10, 2026). The nature of suit stated as Other Commercial (Consumer Protection). Hofstra University -- https://www.hofstra.edu/ -- is a private research university in Hempstead, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Hillel Sampson, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Ave., Floor 5 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Fax: (412) 231-0246 HOLLEY INC: Discovery in Tomlinson Securities Class Suit Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Holley Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal period ending Dec. 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2026, that discovery is ongoing for the Tomlinson securities class suit. A putative securities class action was filed on Nov. 6, 2023, against the Company, Tom Tomlinson (the Company's former director, president and chief executive officer), and Dominic Bardos (the Company's former chief financial officer) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky (the Complaint) and is captioned City of Fort Lauderdale General Employees Retirement System v. Holley, Inc., f/k/a Empower LTD., Tom Tomlinson, and Dominic Bardos, Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-148-S. In addition, on Feb. 26, 2024, the court appointed City of Fort Lauderdale General Employees' Retirement System to serve as lead plaintiff to prosecute claims on behalf of a proposed class of stockholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Holley securities between July 21, 2021, and Feb. 6, 2023. On April 26, 2024, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding Vinod Nimmagadda (the Company's executive vice president of corporate development and new ventures) as a defendant. Lead plaintiff alleges that statements made regarding the Company's business, operations and prospects violated Sections 10(b), 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeks class certification, damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other relief. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on June 28, 2024. That motion is pending. On Jan. 7, 2025, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a supplemented amended complaint, which the court granted on March 20, 2025. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the supplemented amended complaint on April 3, 2025, and on Aug. 29, 2025, the court denied the motion to dismiss. The parties are currently conducting discovery. Due to the early stage of this proceeding, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the potential range of loss, if any, and it disputes the allegations and intends to vigorously defend against them. Holley Inc. is a leading designer, marketer and manufacturer of high-performance automotive aftermarket products, serving enthusiasts and racers with a broad portfolio of brands and components for modern and classic vehicles. HOME DEPOT: Court Stays Deadlines Pending Mediation --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUANE SELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HOME DEPOT, INC., a foreign profit corporation; HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a foreign profit corporation; HOME DEPOT STORE SUPPORT, INC., a foreign profit corporation; HOME DEPOT PRODUCT AUTHORITY, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; HOME DEPOT MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; HOME DEPOT INCENTIVES, INC., a foreign profit corporation; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 2:25-cv-01297-LK (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge King entered an order granting stipulated motion to stay deadlines pending mediation as follows: 1. Unless otherwise agreed to in writing, this action, and all related deadlines (except for the Parties' briefing deadlines on the Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery and for a Protective Order as set forth in this Court's Feb. 2, 2026 Order Extending Deadlines), shall be stayed in their current posture to allow the Parties to engage in settlement discussions and mediation, set for April 27, 2026, before Judge Steve Scott; 2. The deposition of Defendants' Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) representative, currently set for March 9, 2026, is taken off calendar; 3. The stay shall continue through the April 27, 2026, mediation and thereafter if the Parties agree to continue engaging in settlement discussions; 4. During this stay, neither party will obtain or attempt to obtain additional written statements from putative class members in connection with the above-titled action until after the Parties' April 27, 2026, mediation session before Judge Steve Scott; 5. No party waives any rights or defenses; and 6. The Parties shall inform the Court immediately in the event of a settlement. The Court finds that the CMAX factors support a stay. Home Depot is an American multinational home improvement retailer. A copy of the Court's order dated March 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=S5BoUu at no extra charge.[CC] HUMANA INC: Cassady Sues Over Illegal Tobacco Surcharge ------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS P. CASSADY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HUMANA, INC. and the HUMANA, INC. MANAGER OF BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-187-RGJ (W.D. Ky., March 17, 2026) is a class action challenging Defendants' unlawful practice of charging a "tobacco surcharge" under the Humana Welfare Benefit Plans (the "Plan") in a manner that violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the implementing regulations. This complaint alleges that Defendants impose a health-based tobacco surcharge without making available a compliant alternative standard to avoid the surcharge. Because Defendants impose an $80 monthly tobacco surcharge and do not make available a compliant alternative standard or provide the required notice in all Plan materials discussing the surcharge, the Plan fails to satisfy the essential regulatory criteria, which "must be satisfied." Defendants do not provide compliant notice in additional participant-facing materials discussing the premium differential, in violation of ERISA's wellness program rules. As a result of these deficiencies, Defendants cannot take advantage of the statutory safe harbor and, therefore, the surcharge functions as a penalty rather than a compliant wellness incentive. Deficient and misleading notice is a fundamental violation of ERISA's core anti-discriminatory purpose: ensuring that participants have a fair and compliant opportunity to be treated the same as non-smokers, adds the complaint. Participants like the Plaintiff are permitted to challenge a surcharge when there is no compliant wellness program made available or when employers provide deficient or misleading information. Once a participant alleges that a surcharge violates ERISA's anti-discrimination provisions along with facts showing the deficiencies in the wellness program, the burden shifts to the employer, Humana, to demonstrate that the wellness program fully satisfies all the statutory and regulatory criteria, including the obligation to make available the "full reward" and to notify participants of the same, relates the complaint. The Plaintiff, therefore, brings this lawsuit individually and on behalf of all similarly situated Plan participants and beneficiaries, to recover these unlawfully charged fees and for Plan-wide equitable relief to prevent Defendants from continuing to profit from their violations. Defendants are fiduciaries of the Plan who have legal obligations to act in the best interests of Plan participants and to comply with federal law. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Plan as a whole, seeks appropriate equitable relief to address Defendants' ongoing violations of ERISA's anti-discrimination provisions. Plaintiff DENNIS P. CASSADY is a former employee of Humana who paid the unlawful tobacco surcharge to maintain health insurance coverage under the Plan for himself and his spouse. This surcharge imposed an additional financial burden on Plaintiff and his family and continues to impose such a burden on those similarly situated. Defendant HUMANA, INC. is a leading health and well-being company and one of the largest providers of health insurance and healthcare services in the United States, operating nationwide through numerous subsidiaries and affiliated entities. Defendant HUMANA, INC. MANAGER OF BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION (MBA) is an unincorporated entity and the named fiduciary and administrator of the Plan within the meaning of ERISA that manages and administers the Plan's daily operations. Upon information and belief, the MBA is situated in Louisville, Kentucky.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leslie Pescia, Esq. Oren Faircloth, Esq. William H. Payne, Esq. James T. Catania, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: lpescia@sirillp.com E-mail: ofaircloth@sirillp.com E-mail: wpayne@sirillp.com E-mail: jcatania@sirillp.com HUMANA INC: Toor Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Humana, Inc. The case is styled as Scott Toor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Humana, Inc., CenterWell Certified Healthcare Corp., Case No. 3:26-cv-00177-DJH (W.D. Ky., March 12, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Humana Inc. -- https://www.humana.com/ -- is an American for-profit health insurance company based in Louisville, Kentucky.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Fax: (954) 525-4300 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - John C Whitfield, Esq. WHITFIELD CROSBY & FLYNN PLLC 19 North Main Street Madisonville, KY 42431 Phone: (270) 821-0656 Fax: (270) 825-1163 Email: JWhitfield@wcfjustice.com HYATT CORP: Seybold Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------- The case CHRISTOPHER SEYBOLD, ALEXA VILLAFRANCA, MAMELLO MALETE, EDUARDO CRUZ, and CHRISTOPHER MATA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HYATT CORPORATION dba CARMEL VALLEY RANCH; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 25CV005318, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Monterey to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on March 11, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 7:26-cv-02103 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this suit against the Defendant for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code. Hyatt Corporation, doing business as Carmel Valley Ranch, is a hospitality company based in California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Brian P. Long, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 270-9600 Facsimile: (213) 270-9601 Email: bplong@seyfarth.com - and - Michael Afar, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 Email: mafar@seyfarth.com - and - Richard B. Mojica, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 Email: rmojica@seyfarth.com I.C. SYSTEM INC: Jurkiewicz TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Keegan Jurkiewicz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. I.C. System, Inc, Case No. 50-02026-CA-001725-XXXA-MB was removed from the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on March 12, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:26-cv-80260-DMM to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. IC System -- https://www.icsystem.com/ -- is a nationally recognized debt recovery agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. Mitchell David Hansen, Esq. Rena Atara Lerner, Esq. Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com mitchell@jibraellaw.com rena@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Dale Thomas Golden, Esq. MARTIN GOLDEN LYONS WATTS & MORGAN, PLLC 410 S. Ware Boulevard, Suite 806 Tampa, FL 33619 Phone: (813) 251-3632 Email: dgolden@mgl.law ILLINOIS: Terrell Suit Seeks to Certify Detainee Class ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Vernon Terrell, individually and on behalf of a class, v. Latoya Hughes, Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC), Case No. 3:24-cv-02434-SPM (S.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class of: "All individuals detained at the Robinson Correctional Center who have been issued a medical permit for a wheelchair by a prison medical provider from Aug. 7, 2022, to the date of entry of judgment." The Plaintiff Terrell is paralyzed, was locked up at Robinson from July 22, 2021, to March 6, 2024, and during this period had an order for a wheelchair by a jail medical provider. He alleges that none of the showers are accessible for wheelchair-users. Because Robinson was constructed after March 7, 1988, and there is no dispute that the IDOC received federal financial assistance, plaintiff contends that the facility was required to comply, at a minimum, with the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards. IDOC operates 18 adult facilities across the state, from minimum to maximum security. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DJhJ8E at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Morrissey, Esq. Thomas G. Morrissey, Esq. THOMAS G. MORRISSEY, LTD. 10257 S. Western Ave. Chicago, IL 60643 Telephone: (773) 233-7901 E-mail: pwm@morrisseylawchicago.com IMPERIAL BEACH COMMUNITY: Pena Suit Removed to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Rasiel Pena, individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Imperial Beach Community Clinic doing business as: IB Clinic, DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on March 13, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-01594-GPC-BJW to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Imperial Beach Clinic -- https://www.ibclinic.org/ -- is a family-friendly health care organization serving San Diego's South Bay since 1971.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Michael Treglio, Esq. Mark D. Potter, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (858) 375-7385 Fax: (888) 422-5191 Email: jimt@potterhandy.com mark@potterhandy.com The Defendant is represented by: Dennis N. Lueck, Esq. MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC 3065 Center Green Drive, 2nd Floor Boulder, CO 80301 Phone: (267) 230-3959 Email: dlueck@mullen.law IPACESETTERS LLC: Parker Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Breach of Contract ------------------------------------------------------------------- ROSALYN PARKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IPACESETTERS, LLC, DBA AVANTIVE SOLUTIONS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00146-JFJ (N.D. Okla., March 13, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a customer service representative. IPacesetters, LLC, doing business as Avantive Solutions LLC, is a business process outsourcing company, headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amber L. Hurst, Esq. HAMMONS, HURST & ASSOCIATES 325 Dean A. McGee Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 235-6111 Email: amber@hammonslaw.com - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, PC One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com JAY JONES: Lucinda Seeks to Certify Class of Rental Property Owners ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUCINDA LC and JUNE WHEATLEY, v. JAY JONES, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Virginia, and KEMPER FUNKHOUSER, CAVELLE MOLLINEAUX, JEREMY DALPIAZ, AEKTA CHAWLA, RENE FONSECA, PIERI BURTON, BERNICE TRAVERS, RAJESH PATEL, and KIT HALE, in their official capacities as Members of the Virginia Real Estate Board, and BARRY MOORE, BRIAN REAGAN, MORTON MARKS III, AMANDA BUYALOS, ANGELA WEST, STANLEY REID, SHION FENTY, STUART GILCHRIST, JAY SOM, STEVEN RIVERA, JOHN SCOTT and ANGELO PHILLOS, in their official capacities as Members of the Virginia Fair Housing Board, and ANIKA COLEMAN, in her official capacity as Executive Director of both the Virginia Fair Housing Board (VFHB) and the Virginia Real Estate Board (VREB), Case No. 1:26-cv-00252-MSN-WBP (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel. The Plaintiffs move the Court to certify the putative class defined as: "All current and future Virginia rental property owners, Virginia rental property managers, and Virginia real estate licensees who own, manage, or work with at least five Virginia-based rental units which do not accept Section 8 vouchers." The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to appoint Lucinda and Wheatley as class representatives and the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute ("HLLI) and its senior attorney Adam Schulman as class counsel, as all will adequately represent the interests of the class and have the requisite capabilities, interests, and absence of conflicts to serve in these roles. The Plaintiffs filed this class action against the defendant officials responsible for the enforcement of Virginia's Fair Housing Law (VFHL) and specifically the "source of funds" nondiscrimination provisions at issue in this case The Plaintiffs are model landlords/managers in Virginia but decline to participate in the Section 8 program, for fear of waiving their rights under a HAP agreement and incurring substantial compliance costs. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MNfCt5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jerome P. Friedlander, II, Esq. FRIEDLANDER AND FRIEDLANDER PC 1364 Beverly Road, Suite 101 McClean, VA 22101 Telephone: (703) 893-9600 Facsimile: (703) 893-9650 E-mail: jpfriedlander@friedlanderpc.com - and - Adam E. Schulman, Esq. Naomi King, Esq. HAMILTON LINCOLN LAW INSTITUTE 1629 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (610) 457-0856 E-mail: adam.schulman@hlli.org naomi.king@hlli.org JAY JONES: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Responses ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUCINDA LC and JUNE WHEATLEY, v. JAY JONES, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Virginia, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-00252-MSN-WBP (E.D. Va.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their unopposed motion and extending the deadlines to file their responses to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and motion for preliminary injunction from March 23, 2026, to March 27, 2026. Furthermore, the Defendants also ask the Court to extend the Plaintiffs' deadlines to file reply briefs from March 30, 2026, to April 6, 2026. The Defendants include KEMPER FUNKHOUSER, CAVELLE MOLLINEAUX, JEREMY DALPIAZ, AEKTA CHAWLA, RENE FONSECA, PIERI BURTON, BERNICE TRAVERS, RAJESH PATEL, and KIT HALE, in their official capacities as Members of the Virginia Real Estate Board, and BARRY MOORE, BRIAN REAGAN, MORTON MARKS III, AMANDA BUYALOS, ANGELA WEST, STANLEY REID, SHION FENTY, STUART GILCHRIST, JAY SOM, STEVEN RIVERA, JOHN SCOTT and ANGELO PHILLOS, in their official capacities as Members of the Virginia Fair Housing Board, and ANIKA COLEMAN, in her official capacity as Executive Director of both the Virginia Fair Housing Board (VFHB) and the Virginia Real Estate Board (VREB), A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=geBx1c at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Reed Colfax, Esq. Rebecca Livengood, Esq. Nicholas Abbott, Esq. Michael Allen, Esq. Relman Colfax PLLC 1225 19th Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 728-1888 JEFF TINDALL: Must Release Carmona-Torres from Unlawful Detention ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERNESTO CARMONA-TORRES, v. JEFF TINDALL, et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-00130-RGJ (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Jennings entered an order granting Carmona-Torres's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as follows: The United States is directed to release Petitioner Carmona-Torres immediately because of the unlawful detention in violation of his due process rights. The United States must provide him with a bond hearing before a neutral IJ pursuant to Section 1226. The United States must certify compliance with the Court’s order by a filing on the docket by March 5, 2026. Because Carmona-Torres is being detained pursuant to Section 1226, relevant regulations entitle him to a neutral bond hearing. Therefore, to afford Carmona-Torres with the "full [due] process" under Section 1226, the United States must provide Carmona-Torres with a neutral bond hearing before an IJ. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion and order dated March 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QndSFQ at no extra charge.[CC] JOHN DERIAN: Trippett Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website --------------------------------------------------------------- ALFRED TRIPPETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHN DERIAN COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02113 (S.D.N.Y., March 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law, New York State Civil Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.johnderian.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. John Derian Company, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, PC 1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 Email: Glevy@glpcfirm.com JONATHAN ADLER: Class Cert Bid Filing in Isbell Due Sept. 15 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY ISBELL, v. JONATHAN ADLER ENTERPRISES, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-02596-KKE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Evanson entered a scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline Deadline to join additional parties and July 19, 2027 amend the pleadings: Completion of discovery: Aug. 16, 2027 The Plaintiff's motion for class Sept. 15, 2027 certification: The Defendant's opposition to class Nov. 1, 2027 certification: The Plaintiff's reply in support of Dec. 1, 2027 class certification: Upon resolution of the Plaintiff's class certification motion, the Court will revisit entering the remainder of the case schedule, including a dispositive motions deadline and trial date and, if requested by the parties, potentially an additional period of discovery. The Defendant designs, manufactures, and markets home accessories. A copy of the Court's order dated March 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=E4lFdT at no extra charge.[CC] JOSEPH BIDEN: Court Narrows Claims in HBA Suit ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAITIAN BRIDGE ALLIANCE, et al., v. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-03317-JMC (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Cobb entered an order that the Government's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. Counts one, two, three, four, and eight are dismissed without prejudice in their entirety. Counts five and seven are dismissed without prejudice insofar as they relate to the Government's denial of the opportunity to apply for asylum. Because the Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged an equal protection claim, the Court dismisses count one. The Plaintiffs who have standing have therefore plausibly alleged that they were deprived of their procedural rights to apply for withholding and CAT protection, and these aspects of the procedural due process claim survive the motion to dismiss. Because the Plaintiffs can obtain complete relief via "injunctive relief against subordinate officials," the Court sees no need to take the unusual step of retaining the President as a defendant here. The case involves the interaction between the immigration laws and a provision of the 1944 Public Health Service Act that authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services "to prohibit the introduction of persons" into the United States in the case of an outbreak of "disease in a foreign country." A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated March 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Bp1q38 at no extra charge.[CC] KEHE DISTRIBUTORS: Smith Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case HANNAH SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KEHE DISTRIBUTORS, INC. and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. CIVRS2600377, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on March 11, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-01141 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this suit against the Defendant for violation of California Labor Code and California's Unfair Competition Law. KeHE Distributors, Inc. is a distributor for grocery stores, supermarkets, and online vendors headquartered in Naperville, Illinois. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Todd B. Scherwin, Esq. Landon R. Schwob, Esq. Lirit A. King, Esq. Carol A. Ibrahim, Esq. Madeline Hicks, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 330-4500 Facsimile: (213) 330-4501 Email: tscherwin@fisherphillips.com lschwob@fisherphillips.com lking@fisherphillips.com cibrahim@fisherphillips.com mhicks@fisherphillips.com KRISPY KREME: Class Settlement Wins Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned re: Krispy Kreme Data Security Litigation, Case No. 3:25-cv-00434-MOC-SCR (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Cogburn entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. 1. The Court provisionally certifies the following Settlement Class for settlement purposes only, finding it is likely to finally certify the class at the final approval stage: "All living individuals residing in the United States whose Private Information was impacted by the Data Incident." The Settlement Class specifically excludes: (a) all persons who are directors, officers, and agents of Defendant, or their respective subsidiaries and affiliated companies; (b) governmental entities; (c) the Judge assigned to the Action, that Judge’s immediate family, and Court staff; and (d) those Settlement Class Members who timely and properly opt-out of the Settlement. 2. The Plaintiffs are designated and appointed as the Class Representatives. 3. Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A., Mariya Weekes of Milberg PLLC, Scott Cole of Cole & Van Note, and David Wilkerson of Wilkerson Justus PLLC, are designated as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). 4. A Final Approval Hearing shall take place July 6, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. Class Counsel intends to seek an award of up to one-third of the $1,616,760 Settlement Fund as attorneys’ fees, as well as reimbursement of reasonable litigation costs, as well as Service Awards of up to $1,500 per Class Representative to be paid from the Settlement Fund. Krispy Kreme is an American multinational doughnut company and coffeehouse chain. A copy of the Court's order dated March 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=82GT45 at no extra charge.[CC] LASERSHIP INC: Menken Designated as Lead Counsel in West Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL WEST, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. LASERSHIP, INC., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-05382-LTS-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Cave entered an order: -- Granting Menken's motion and designation of that firm as lead counsel for the Collective as well as the size of the Collective and Menken's track record of capably and efficiently managing the claims of the Collective to date, we do not deem appointment of interim class counsel necessary; and -- Denying Outten's request to appoint interim class counsel. Based on the Court's analysis of the Rule 23(g)(1)(A) factors below, the Court concludes that Menken is the appropriate firm to represent the Collective and defer any analysis of appointing class counsel until any motion for class certification under Rule 23. The Court appropriately factors into our analysis these concerns about efficiency, and given those concerns, conclude that the totality of the factors under Rule 23(g)(1)(A) and (B) weigh in favor of designating Menken as lead counsel for the Collective. This collective and putative class action brought by package delivery drivers seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid overtime and related relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New York Labor Law. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SB5a1J at no extra charge.[CC] LEWIS DRUGS: Schmidt Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info -------------------------------------------------------------- LORENE SCHMIDT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEWIS DRUGS, INC. and LEWIS FAMILY DRUG, LLC d/b/a LEWIS FAMILY DRUG #64, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-04052-ECS (D.S.D., March 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach on or around March 3, 2026. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Lewis Drugs, Inc. is a pharmacy chain operator, with its principal place of business in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Lewis Family Drug, LLC, doing business as Lewis Family Drug #64, is a pharmacy chain operator, with its principal place of business in South Dakota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett Waltner, Esq. MYERS BILLION, LLP 230 S. Phillips Ave., Ste. 300 Sioux Falls, SD 57104 Telephone: (605) 336-3700 Email: bwaltner@myersbillion.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Kennedy M. Brian, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Email: tbean@sirillp.com kbrian@sirillp.com - and - Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Ave. S., Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com LEWIS DRUGS: Senske Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Clients' Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ DONNA SENSKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEWIS DRUGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-04051-CBK (D.S.D., March 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on or around March 3, 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Lewis Drugs, Inc. is a pharmacy chain operator, with its principal place of business in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett Waltner, Esq. MYERS BILLION, LLP 230 S. Phillips Ave., Ste. 300 Sioux Falls, SD 57104 Telephone: (605) 336-3700 Email: bwaltner@myersbillion.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. Danielle L. Perry, Esq. MASON & PERRY LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Ste. 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 Email: gmason@masonllp.com dperry@masonllp.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: Bid to Dismiss Summerset Class Action Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Summerset v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-11121 (D. Mass., Filed April 25, 2025), the Hon. Judge Patti B. Saris entered an order denying Liberty Mutual's motion to dismiss and strike. As discussed in the hearing, the argument regarding Taylor's phone number is moot because Plaintiffs represent that they have provided the phone number and a recording of the phone call. The issue may be raised again at summary judgment. Liberty Mutual's motion to strike the proposed class as an improper "fail-safe class" is denied without prejudice to being raised again at the class certification stage. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Liberty is an American diversified global insurer.[CC] LYNN FITCH: Jackson Federation Seeks Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACKSON FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, ET AL., v. LYNN FITCH, ET AL., Case No. 3:25-cv-00417-HTW-LGI (S.D. Miss.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting the motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs propose two classes for certification, each of which is composed of two subclasses. The first class is composed of: "All educators at postsecondary public educational institutions and K-12 public schools in Mississippi. This first class is subdivided into two subclasses: subclass (a) consists of all educators at state-supported two-year community or junior colleges under the purview of the Mississippi Community College Board, and at state-supported four-year colleges or universities under the purview of the Board of Trustees of the State Institutions of Higher Learning; and subclass (b) consists of all educators at K-12 public schools in Mississippi. The second class is composed of: "all students and parents or guardians of minor students at postsecondary public educational institutions and K-12 public schools in Mississippi." Subclass (a) for this second class consists of all students at state-supported two-year community or junior colleges under the purview of the Mississippi Community College Board, and at state supported four-year colleges or universities under the purview of the Board of Trustees of the State Institutions of Higher Learning; and subclass (b) consists of all parents or guardians of students at K-12 public schools in Mississippi. Lynn Fitch is an American lawyer, politician, and the 40th Mississippi Attorney General. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Y8D66j at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert B. Mcduff, Esq. Paloma Wu, Esq. MISSISSIPPI CENTER FOR JUSTICE 210 E. CAPITOL STREET, STE 1800 JACKSON, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 259-8484 E-mail: rmcduff@mscenterforjustice.org pwu@mscenterforjustice.org - and - Amir Badat, Esq. BADAT LEGAL PLLC Tougaloo, MS 39174 Telephone: (601) 462-9592 E-mail: amir.badat@gmail.com - and - Joshua Tom, Esq. Mckenna Raney, Esq. Ayanna Hill, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSISSIPPI FOUNDATION, INC. Jackson, MS 39225 Telephone: (601) 354-3408 E-mail: jtom@aclu-ms.org mraney@aclu-ms.org ahill1@aclu-ms.org - and - Nicolas Stanojevich, Esq. Richard Rouco, Esq. QUINN, CONNOR, WEAVER, DAVIES & ROUCO LLP 2 20th Street North Suite 930 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 870-9989 E-mail: nstanojevich@qcwdr.com rrouco@qcwdr.com LYONS & DOUGHTY: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Bid Issues ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZEMEL v. LYONS, DOUGHTY & VELDHUIS, P.C., Case No. 2:25-cv-01219 (D.N.J., Filed Feb. 13, 2025), the Hon. Judge Susan D. Wigenton entered an order that by March 25, 2026, the parties shall meet and confer to attempt to narrow or resolve the issues that will be addressed in their respective forthcoming motions for summary judgment and class certification. By March 27, 2026, the parties shall file a joint letter informing the Court whether they were able to narrow/resolve those issues. If not, the parties shall include a proposed briefing schedule in their letter. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act. Lyons, Doughty & Veldhuis is a creditors' rights law firm.[CC] MANITOU EQUIPMENT: Settlement Class in Ernster Gets Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK ERNSTER, RAMSEY HOFIUS, and TREVAR BLACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MANITOU EQUIPMENT AMERICA, LLC, and MANITOU NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00462-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Conley entered an order certifying settlement class of: "All individuals residing in the United States whose Personal Information was compromised in the Security Incident experienced by the Defendants in or around Dec. 2023, including all those individuals who received notice of the breach." Manitou is a heavy equipment manufacturer that makes forklifts, cherry pickers, telehandlers, and other heavy equipment. A copy of the Court's order dated March 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CLTlcU at no extra charge.[CC] MAZDA MOTOR: Burnell Files Suit Over Brake and Steering Defects --------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES R. BURNELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MAZDA MOTOR CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00256 (E.D. Va., March 17, 2026) is a class action brought on behalf of Virginia consumers who purchased or leased certain Mazda CX-90 vehicles that suffer from premature and excessive deterioration of braking system components, accompanied by persistent, abnormal, and intrusive brake squealing, and the Lane-keep Assist system's inappropriate and overly "corrective" steering in opposition to steering input from the driver. The complaint relates that Mazda designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold model year 2024–2026 Mazda CX-90 vehicles equipped with braking components and Lane-keep Assist systems that are prone to premature and excessive deterioration, noisy operation, and unsafe steering behavior. The Defects causes Class Vehicles to exhibit loud, high‑pitched brake squealing and Lane-keep Assist overcorrections that distract drivers, undermine confidence in the vehicle's safety systems, diminish the vehicles' value, and create safety risks when drivers are forced to disable the Lane-keep Assist feature or drive with distracting brake noise. Defendant knew or should have known of the Defects long before Plaintiff's purchase, including through pre‑release testing, engineering analyses, warranty data, internal communications with its dealers, consumer complaints, and other sources of information available only to Mazda. Despite this knowledge, Mazda concealed and failed to disclose the Defect to Plaintiff and Class Members at the time of sale or lease and during subsequent warranty service and repairs. Through uniform marketing, sales materials, and dealer communications, Mazda represented that its CX‑90 vehicles, including those purchased or leased by Plaintiff and the proposed Class, were safe, reliable, and suitable for their intended use, while omitting material facts concerning the Defect and its safety and economic consequences, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of Virginia consumers who purchased or leased affected Mazda CX‑90 vehicles in Virginia and who were injured by Mazda's deceptive and fraudulent conduct. Plaintiff asserts claims under the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, and for common‑law fraud, on behalf of himself and the proposed Class. Plaintiff James R. Burnell is a natural person and a resident of Virginia. At all relevant times, Mr. Burnell purchased and used his Mazda CX-90 for personal, family, and household purposes. Defendant Mazda Motor Corporation is a Japanese multinational company that produces automobiles and engines.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leonard A. Bennett, Esq. Mark C. Leffler, Esq. Adam W. Short, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 - Telephone Facsimile: (757) 930-3662- Fax E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com E-mail: mark@clalegal.com E-mail: adam@clalegal.com - and - Drew D. Sarrett, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 626 E. Broad Street, Suite 300 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 905-9900 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: drew@clalegal.com MERCY HEALTH: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply in Peck Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIELLE PECK, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. MERCY HEALTH, MERCY HEALTH FOUNDATION, and MHM SUPPORT SERVICES, Case No. 4:21-cv-00834-AGF (E.D. Mo.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their consent motion for extension of time, and allowing them additional time, up to and including March 30, 2026, to file their Reply in support of their motion to decertify the conditionally certified Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action. Due to the Plaintiff's extensive brief and voluminous exhibits, the Defendants require an extension of time to prepare their Reply. Prior to filing this Motion, the undersigned counsel confirmed via email with Plaintiff's counsel that the Plaintiff consents to the Defendants' request for a 21-day extension to file their Reply. This motion is not made to delay or unduly prejudice any parties, and said motion will not prejudice any parties. On Nov. 17, 2025, the Defendants filed their Motion to Decertify the Conditionally Certified FLSA Collective Action. Mercy is a Catholic health care system with locations in Ohio and Kentucky. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cUW0gV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony M. Pezzani, Esq. ENGELMEYER & PEZZANI, LLC 13321 N. Outer Forty Road, Suite 300 Chesterfield, MO 63017 Telephone: (636) 532-9933 Facsimile: (314) 863-7793 E-mail: tony@epfirm.com - and - Eric Sands, Esq. Nicholas Conlon, Esq. Jason T. Brown, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: eric.sands@jtblawgroup.com nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com jtb@jtblawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: James M. Paul, Esq. Mallory S. Zoia, Esq. Jeffrey L. Rudd, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 7700 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 650 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 802-3935 Facsimile: (314) 802-3936 E-mail: james.paul@ogletree.com mallory.zoia@ogletree.com jeffrey.rudd@ogletree.com META PLATFORMS: More Time to File Class Cert Bid Sought ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Doe v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (RE META PIXEL HEALTHCARE LITIGATION), Case No. 3:22-cv-03580-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending class certification and sealing deadlines as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs shall file their reply in support of class certification and rebuttal expert reports; any opposition(s) to Meta's Rule 702 Motions; and any affirmative Rule 702 motions provisionally under seal by March 18, 2026, along with a 1-page interim sealing motion that states the reason for sealing will be presented in a forthcoming sealing application; the Plaintiffs will also file a 1-page interim administrative motion to consider whether another party's materials should be sealed on March 18, 2026. 2. The parties' deadline to file sealing applications regarding the Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion for class certification, any opposition(s) to Meta's Rule 702 Motions, and any affirmative Rule 702 motions is April 22, 2026. 3. Meta shall file replies in support of its Rule 702 Motions provisionally under seal by April 21, 2026, along with a 1-page interim sealing motion that states the reason for sealing will be presented in a forthcoming sealing application; Meta will also file a 1-page administrative motion to consider whether another party's materials should be sealed on April 21, 2026. 4. The parties' deadline to file sealing applications regarding Meta's replies in support of its Rule 702 Motions is May 27, 2026. 5. Subject to the Court's calendar and convenience, the parties request that the hearing on the Plaintiffs' Class certification motion and the parties' Rule 702 motions remain on June 10, 2026. The parties have met and conferred and submit that, due to the illness of the Plaintiffs' counsel's family member and corresponding absences from work, good cause exists to adjust the deadlines in the Amended Scheduling Order by one (1) week for Plaintiffs' Omnibus Filing; Meta's Replies in Support of its Rule 702 Motions; and Meta's Oppositions to Plaintiffs’ Rule 702 Motions. Meta is the American multinational technology company, formerly known as Facebook. A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fTZrLX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason 'Jay' Barnes, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC 112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 784-6400 Facsimile: (212) 213-5949 E-mail: jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com - and - Geoffrey Graber, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: ggraber@cohenmilstein.com - and - Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq. KIESEL LAW LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 854-4444 Facsimile: (310) 854-0812 E-mail: koncius@kiesel.law - and - Beth E. Terrell, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com - and - Andre M. Mura, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: amm@classlawgroup.com The Defendant is represented by: Lauren Goldman, Esq. Darcy C. Harris, Esq. Elizabeth K. Mccloskey, Esq. Abigail A. Barrera, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-4000 Facsimile: (212) 351-4035 E-mail: lgoldman@gibsondunn.com dharris@gibsondunn.com emccloskey@gibsondunn.com abarrera@gibsondunn.com - and - Andrew B. Clubok, Esq. Gary S. Feinerman, Esq. Melanie M. Blunschi, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP KRISTIN SHEFFIELD-WHITEHEAD 555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004-1304 Telephone: (202) 637.2200 E-mail: andrew.clubok@lw.com gary.feinerman@lw.com melanie.blunschi@lw.com kristin.whitehead@lw.com META PLATFORMS: Tittl Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ------------------------------------------------------- PETER TITTL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. META PLATFORMS, INC.; and LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-01992 (N.D. Cal., March 8, 2026) alleges violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, the Stored Communications Act, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, and California's Constitutional Right to Privacy. According to the complaint, the Defendants advertise their Meta AI Glasses, sold under popular brands such as Ray-Ban and Oakley, as "designed for privacy, controlled by you" and "built for your privacy." However, the Defendants fail to disclose to American consumers that footage from Meta AI Glasses is viewed and catalogued by overseas workers in a startling invasion of personal privacy. Users never give the Defendants informed consent to track and store the camera footage on their Meta AI Glasses. Nevertheless, the Defendants do just that, using the integrated AI cameras to access and exploit the recordings of users' private lives, including footage taken without their knowledge and consent from inside their homes and of their families. The Defendants' deceptive and outrageous conduct violates its users' reasonable expectations of privacy. The intent and efforts of individuals to safeguard their private information and communications must be respected. The ramifications of unauthorized access to this private video footage can be severe, and individuals accordingly go to great lengths to safeguard the privacy of their homes, and, in the case of parents and guardians, also that of their minor children, says the suit. Meta Platforms, Inc. operates as a social technology company. The Company builds applications and technologies that help people connect, find communities, and grow businesses. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Theodore W. Maya, Esq. Alyssa Brown, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com abrown@ahdootwolfson.com MEXI MAIDS: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Thomas Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- UNIQUE THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEXI MAIDS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01554-WQH-VET (S.D. Cal., March 12, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending unwanted telemarketing text messages to the cellular telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers in an attempt to promote its products or services without obtaining prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's action, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages. Mexi Maids LLC is a cleaning services provider, with its headquarters located in San Diego, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com MICHAEL JACKSON CO: Civil Standing Order Entered in Cascio ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD JOSEPH CASCIO, ET AL, v. THE MICHAEL JACKSON COMPANY, ET AL, Case No. 2:26-cv-02129-HDV-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vera entered a civil standing order: The Plaintiff shall promptly serve the Complaint in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and shall comply with Local Rule 5-3 with respect to all proofs of service. Any answers filed in state court must be refiled in this Court as a supplement to the Notice of Removal. The Court hears status conferences and scheduling conferences on Thursdays at 10:00 a.m. All discovery matters are referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge. Proposed protective orders must also be submitted to the Magistrate Judge. Michael Jackson Company represents the portfolio of companies managing Michael Jackson's music, film, and intellectual property assets. A copy of the Court's order dated March 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3Bg8rO at no extra charge.[CC] MID AMERICA: Class Cert. Bid Filing Amended to Sept. 1 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as F.C., L.H., M.M., KIMBERLY STEAKLE, SUSAN OAKES, ASHLEY BUEHLER, MUKHLISA ISKANDAROVA, CHELSEA ROTH, SARAH FRAUNDORFER and her minor child I.F., TERESA MORE, and JENNETTE HANSEN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MID AMERICA PHYSICIAN SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00685-RK (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Roseann Ketchmark entered an amended scheduling and trial order as follows: The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: Sept. 1, 2026 The Defendant's response to the Plaintiffs' Sept. 30, 2026 motion for class certification and Daubert challenges to the Plaintiffs' class certification experts: The Plaintiffs' reply to the Defendant's Oct. 30, 2026 response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and Daubert challenges to the Defendants' class certification experts: Hearing on class certification motion: Nov. 19, 2026 at 11:30 a.m. Mid America is a healthcare company that provides infertility, gynecology, and hysterectomy treatments. A copy of the Court's order dated March 5, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vh95fG at no extra charge.[CC] MONSANTO COMPANY: Archer Sues Over Negligent Advertising & Sale --------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Archer, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-03-257 MON (Del. Super. Ct., March 11, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Barber Sues Over Negligent Advertising & Sale --------------------------------------------------------------- Vincent Barber, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-03-280 MON (Del. Super. Ct., March 12, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Braunstien Sues Over Negligent Advertising & Sale ------------------------------------------------------------------- Sidney Braunstien, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-03-305 MON (Del. Super. Ct., March 13, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Briscoe Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Distribution ------------------------------------------------------------------- Patricia Briscoe, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-03-259 MON (Del. Super. Ct., March 11, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Castillo Sues Over Negligent Advertising & Sale ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cecilia Castillo, and other similarly situated victims v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Case No. N26C-03-258 MON (Del. Super. Ct., March 11, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine ("POEA"), as well as many, many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and has lacked, at all relevant times, proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup. The Defendants advertise and sell goods, specifically Roundup, throughout the United States, including in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: Tel: (303) 376-6360 Fax: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces Milligan Suit Over Side Effects of Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUSAN MILLIGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-293 MON (Del. Super., March 13, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, strict products liability, breach of implied warranties, and breach of consumer protection, unfair, and/or deceptive trade practices statutes. The case arises from the personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers as a result of their exposure to the Defendants' herbicide Roundup, which contains the active ingredient glyphosate. According to the complaint, Roundup is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff and the Class seek compensatory damages as a result of the actions and inactions of the Defendants. Monsanto Company is an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation with a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Bayer CropScience LP is a manufacturer of crop protection products based in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces White Suit Over Side Effects of Roundup --------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-231 MON (Del. Super., March 11, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, strict products liability, breach of implied warranties, and breach of consumer protection, unfair, and/or deceptive trade practices statutes. The case arises from the personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers as a result of their exposure to the Defendants' herbicide Roundup, which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine, as well as many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. According to the complaint, Roundup is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff and the Class seek compensatory damages as a result of the actions and inactions of the Defendants. Monsanto Company is an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation with a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Bayer CropScience LP is a manufacturer of crop protection products based in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Roundup Herbicide "Defective," Schelli Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- EILEEN SCHELLI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-246 MON (Del. Super., March 11, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, strict products liability, breach of implied warranties, and breach of consumer protection, unfair, and/or deceptive trade practices statutes. The case arises from the personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers as a result of their exposure to the Defendants' herbicide Roundup, which contains the active ingredient glyphosate. According to the complaint, Roundup is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff and the Class seek compensatory damages as a result of the actions and inactions of the Defendants. Monsanto Company is an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation with a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Bayer CropScience LP is a manufacturer of crop protection products based in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Sheffield Sues Over Defective Roundup Herbicide ----------------------------------------------------------------- RAMETRA SHEFFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-292 MON (Del. Super., March 13, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, strict products liability, breach of implied warranties, and breach of consumer protection, unfair, and/or deceptive trade practices statutes. The case arises from the personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers as a result of their exposure to the Defendants' herbicide Roundup, which contains the active ingredient glyphosate. According to the complaint, Roundup is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff and the Class seek compensatory damages as a result of the actions and inactions of the Defendants. Monsanto Company is an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation with a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Bayer CropScience LP is a manufacturer of crop protection products based in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Striebel Sues Over Defective Roundup Herbicide ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALBERT STRIEBEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-237 MON (Del. Super., March 11, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, strict products liability, breach of implied warranties, and breach of consumer protection, unfair, and/or deceptive trade practices statutes. The case arises from the personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers as a result of their exposure to the Defendants' herbicide Roundup, which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine, as well as many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. According to the complaint, Roundup is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff and the Class seek compensatory damages as a result of the actions and inactions of the Defendants. Monsanto Company is an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation with a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Bayer CropScience LP is a manufacturer of crop protection products based in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Weigel Seeks Damages From Roundup's Side Effects ------------------------------------------------------------------ KIM WEIGEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-228 MON (Del. Super., March 11, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, strict products liability, breach of implied warranties, and breach of consumer protection, unfair, and/or deceptive trade practices statutes. The case arises from the personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers as a result of their exposure to the Defendants' herbicide Roundup, which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine, as well as many other proven, probable, and/or suspected carcinogens. According to the complaint, Roundup is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff and the Class seek compensatory damages as a result of the actions and inactions of the Defendants. Monsanto Company is an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation with a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Bayer CropScience LP is a manufacturer of crop protection products based in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Willis Sues Over Roundup's Impact to Human Health ------------------------------------------------------------------- DIETRICK WILLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-00783 (W.D. La., March 12, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence; breach of duty in the manufacture under the Louisiana Products Liability Act; manufacturing and design defect; inadequate warning; non-conformity to express warranty; fraud, misrepresentation, and suppression; and violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. The case arises from the personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers as a result of their exposure to the Defendant's herbicide Roundup, which contains the active ingredient glyphosate. According to the complaint, Roundup is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff and the Class seek compensatory damages as a result of the actions and inactions of the Defendant. Monsanto Company is an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation with a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Enochs, Esq. Betsy Barnes, Esq. MORRIS BART LLC 601 Poydras Street, 24th Floor New Orleans LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 525-8000 Facsimile: (833) 277-4214 Email: jenochs@morrisbart.com bbarnes@morrisbart.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Zwart Sues Over Roundup's Impact to Human Health ------------------------------------------------------------------ ALLAN ZWART, SR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY and BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-247 MON (Del. Super., March 11, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, strict products liability, breach of implied warranties, and breach of consumer protection, unfair, and/or deceptive trade practices statutes. The case arises from the personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers as a result of their exposure to the Defendants' herbicide Roundup, which contains the active ingredient glyphosate. According to the complaint, Roundup is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff and the Class seek compensatory damages as a result of the actions and inactions of the Defendants. Monsanto Company is an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation with a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. Bayer CropScience LP is a manufacturer of crop protection products based in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER & WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 Email: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MOSAIC COMPANY: Conspires to Raise Fertilizers' Prices, Union Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ UNION LINE FARMS, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE MOSAIC COMPANY; NUTRIEN LTD.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES NITROGEN, LLC; KOCH AGRONOMIC SERVICES, LLC; YARA INTERNATIONAL ASA; YARA NORTH AMERICA, INC.; and CANPOTEX LTD, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01043 (D. Colo., March 13, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged conspiracies to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices for nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium fertilizers. According to the complaint, the prices of these fertilizers increased dramatically throughout 2021 and 2022 as a result of the Defendants' conspiracies. Union Line Farms, Inc. is an agricultural company, with its principal place of business in Hopkinton, Iowa. The Mosaic Company is a fertilizer producer, with its principal place of business in Tampa, Florida. Nutrien Ltd. is a fertilizer producer, with its principal place of business in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Nutrien AG Solutions, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Nutrien Ltd., with its principal place of business in Loveland, Colorado. CF Industries Holdings, Inc. is an ammonia producer, with its principal place of business in Northbrook, Illinois. CF Industries, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of CF Industries Holdings, Inc., with its principal place of business in Northbrook, Illinois. CF Industries Nitrogen, LLC is an ammonia producer, with its principal place of business in Northbrook, Illinois. Koch Agronomic Services, LLC is a fertilizer producer, with its principal place of business in Wichita, Kansas. Yara International ASA is a fertilizer producer, with its principal place of business in Oslo, Norway. Yara North America, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Yara International ASA, with its principal place of business in Tampa, Florida. Canpotex Ltd. is a wholly owned company by Mosaic and Nutrien, headquartered in Saskatoon, Canada. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan S. Crevier, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 6645 South Cherry Way Centennial, CO 80121 Telephone: (646) 933-1000 Email: jcrevier@dicellolevitt.com - and - Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq. Theodore Salem-Mackall, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 933-1000 Email: gasciolla@dicellolevitt.com tsalemmackall@dicellolevitt.com - and - Adam J. Levitt, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com - and - Eric Olson, Esq. OLSON GRIMSLEY KAWANABE HINCHCLIFF & MURRAY LLC 700 17th Street, Suite 1600 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 535-9151 Email: eolson@olsongrimsley.com NATIONAL RURAL: Mullins Wins Bid for Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN MULLINS, and THOMAS SUNDERLIN, individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the 401(k) Pension Plan, v. NATIONAL RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00994-MSN-IDD (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Nachmanoff entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Court concludes that Plaintiff's Proposed Class meets the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. Furthermore, the Proposed Class satisfies the criteria of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1)(A) and 23(b)(1)(B). The Court certifies the following class under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1)(A) and 23(b)(1)(B): "All participants and beneficiaries of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association 401(k) Pension Plan who were charged administrative fees from Aug. 1, 2020, through the date of judgment." The Plaintiffs John Mullins and Thomas Sunderlin are appointed as Class Representatives. The Court appoints Baron & Budd, P.C. as Class Counsel. The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Order to counsel of record. NRECA is the national service organization for more than 900 not-for-profit rural electric cooperatives and public power districts. A copy of the Court's order dated March 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KKPu3w at no extra charge.[CC] NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Schramke Sues Over Drop in Share Price ----------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL SCHRAMKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS; HOWARD W. ROBIN; SANDRA GARDINER; and JONATHAN ZALEVSKY, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-01951 (N.D. Cal., March 6, 2026) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Nektar securities between February 26, 2025 and December 15, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) enrollment in the REZOLVE-AA trial had not followed applicable instructions and protocol standards; (ii) the foregoing was likely to have a significant negative impact on the REZOLVE-AA trial's results; (iii) accordingly, the REZOLVE-AA trial's overall integrity and prospects were overstated; and (iv) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On this news, Nektar's stock price fell $4.14 per share, or 7.77%, to close at $49.16 per share on December 16, 2025. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Nektar Therapeutics is a biopharmaceutical company. The Company focuses on investigational drugs in oncology, immunology, and virology. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 405-7190 Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS: Stevens Sues Over Fertilizers Monopoly ------------------------------------------------------------ JAKOB STEVENS and KYLI KNICKERBOCKER STEVENS D/B/A FIRE CREEK FARMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS; CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.; KOCH AGRONOMIC SERVICES, LLC; YARA INTERNATIONAL ASA; THE MOSAIC CO.; AND CANPOTEX LTD., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-02585 (N.D. Ill., March 7, 2026) alleges violation of the Sherman Act. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in unlawful and ongoing agreement to fix the prices for nitrogen, phosphate and potassium (potash) fertilizers (individual and collectively, "NPK Fertilizers") sold and purchased throughout the United States and its territories, from January 1, 2021 to the present day. The Defendants' unlawful agreement caused direct purchasers of NPK Fertilizers in the United States and its territories, including Plaintiff and the Class, to pay supra-competitive prices for NPK Fertilizers sold by Defendants in the United States and its territories, says the suit. Nutrien AG Solutions offers products and services which includes merchandise, fertilizer, wool, livestock, financial, insurance, real estate, and farm services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 1225 Franklin Avenue, Suite 325 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (917) 438-9189 Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com OSHKOSH CORP: Conspires to Raise Fire Trucks' Prices, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF SHAWNEE, OKLAHOMA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OSHKOSH CORPORATION, PIERCE MANUFACTURING, INC., REV GROUP, INC., ROSENBAUER AMERICA LLC, and FIRE APPARATUS MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION, Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-00515-D (W.D. Okla., March 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and the Oklahoma Antitrust Reform Act and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged conspiracy to limit the supply, and to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of fire trucks sold in the United States, including Oklahoma, at supra-competitive levels. As a result of the unlawful conduct of the Defendants, the Plaintiff and Class members paid artificially inflated prices for fire trucks and have suffered antitrust injury to their business or property in violation of the federal antitrust laws. Oshkosh Corporation is a fire truck manufacturer, headquartered in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. is a fire truck manufacturer, headquartered in Appleton, Wisconsin. Rev Group, Inc. is a fire truck manufacturer, headquartered in Brookfield, Wisconsin. Rosenbauer America LLC is a fire truck manufacturer, headquartered in Lyons, South Dakota. Fire Apparatus Manufacturers' Association is a not-for-profit trade association for fire apparatus manufacturers, located in Greenwell Springs, Louisiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Sill, Esq. FULMER SILL, PLLC 14005 N. Eastern Ave Edmond, OK 73013 Telephone: (405) 509-6300 Facsimile: (800) 978-1345 Email: msill@fulmersill.com PARK VISTA: Spoor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Caregivers ----------------------------------------------------------------- MALLORY SPOOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PARK VISTA SENIOR HOUSING MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00408-BBC (E.D. Wis., March 13, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages and failure to pay an agreed-upon wage in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an hourly-paid, nonexempt employee in the position of caregiver from January 2024 until January 16, 2026. Park Vista Senior Housing Management, LLC is an owner and operator of assisted living and senior housing facilities, with a principal office address in Clinton, Iowa. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com PARTNERS PERSONNEL: Class Cert Hearing in Esperon Due July 27 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUIS ESPERON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorney General Act; v. PARTNERS PERSONNEL - MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; PARTNERS PERSONNEL - MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; REMO, INC., a California corporation; EMPLOYBRIDGE, LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-06251-ODW-AJR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright, II entered an order granting in part stipulation to continue the deadline to conduct settlement conference and to hear motion for class certification The Court orders as follows: 1. The deadline to conduct settlement conference is continued from Feb. 3, 2026, to May 11, 2026. 2. The deadline to hear motion for class certification stays on July 27, 2026. Partners Personnel is a nationwide, full-service staffing firm. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 9, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8mFi9t at no extra charge.[CC] PATTERN BRANDS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Booker Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARTRELL DESAMONTA BOOKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Pattern Brands, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-3000 (N.D. Ill., March 17, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, https://onsentowel.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Booker and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The complaint relates that Booker made an attempt to complete a purchase on the Website. Booker was looking for a waffle-weave robe, as this type of robe is known for being lightweight, breathable, and quick-drying, making it suitable for everyday use after showering or bathing. Therefore, he decided to explore the options available online. On January 22, 2026, while searching online for waffle-weave robes, he discovered Defendant's Website, onsentowel.com, which appeared among the top search results. After reviewing the company's positive ratings, where customers praised the brand's towels and robes for their softness, absorbency, and quick-drying fabric, he decided to explore the Website with the intent to make a purchase. During his visit, Booker became interested in the "Antimicrobial Gauze Robe" and attempted to purchase it. However, while browsing the Website, he encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented him from independently completing the transaction. The Website contains access barriers that denied Booker full and equal access. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Booker and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of the Website, asserts the complaint. Booker, hence, seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff Martell Desamonta Booker is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Pattern Brands, LLC provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a selection of bath towels, bath sheets, hand towels, face towels, bath robes, and towel sets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 929-442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law POWER SOLUTIONS: Faces Suit in N.D. Ill. Over False Material Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP ("GPWR"), announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, captioned Dishion v. Power Solutions International, Inc. , et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-03149, on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Power Solutions International, Inc. ("Power Solutions" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PSIX) securities between May 8, 2025 and March 2, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. IF YOU SUFFERED A LOSS ON YOUR POWER SOLUTIONS INVESTMENTS, Visit https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/power-solutions-international-inc-1/ TO INQUIRE ABOUT POTENTIALLY PURSUING CLAIMS TO RECOVER YOUR LOSS UNDER THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS. What Happened? On November 6, 2025, after the market closed, Power Solutions released its third quarter 2025 financial results, revealing that "gross margin in the third quarter of 2025 was 23.9%, a decrease of 5.0%" year over year due in part to "temporary inefficiencies related to our accelerated production ramp-up" for "key data center product lines." Further, the Company revealed it "anticipates . . . sales growth of 45%" for full year 2025, which indicated a sharp deceleration as the Company had reported year-over-year growth of 74% in the second quarter and 65% in the third quarter 2025. On this news, Power Solutions' stock price fell $15.55, or 19.14%, to close at $65.69 per share on November 7, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. On March 2, 2026, after the market closed, Power Solutions issued a press release announcing fourth quarter and full year 2025 financial results, revealing that gross margin declined 8% year-over-year due to "operating inefficiencies related to [the Company's] accelerated production ramp-up for data center product lines." Further, the Company provided its outlook for 2026, including only "moderate margin improvement from the products serving data center markets." The press release also revealed the Company was "executing specific actions to improve supply chain performance and manufacturing cost structures" but only now "beginning to see measurable improvements, which [it] expect to build and support margin expansion over time." Following these disclosures, Power Solutions stock fell $24.84 or 28.97% to close at $60.91 on March 3, 2026, on unusually heavy trading volume. What Is The Lawsuit About? The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) the Company overstated its ability to capture sales demand for its power systems solutions, particularly within the data center market; (2) the Company understated the impact of its enhancements to manufacturing capacity to meet demand within the data center market, including the expected costs and the nature of the related "inefficiencies"; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Power Solutions securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. Contact Us To Participate or Learn More: If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact us: Charles Linehan, Esq. Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Toll-Free: (888) 773-9224 Email: shareholders@glancylaw.com[GN] PROGUARD SECURITY: Gordon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Proguard Security Services Inc., et al. The case is styled as La Quan Gordon, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Sun Hospitality Inc., Case No. CGC26634681 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., March 10, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Proguard Security Services Inc. -- https://www.proguardsecurityservices.com/ -- operates as a security service company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arby Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 Arden Ave., Ste. 20 Glendale, CA 91203-4007 Phone: 818-265-1020 Fax: 818-265-1021 Email: arby@calljustice.com ROOF PRO: Fails to Properly Pay Roofers, Sanabria Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- MANUEL SANABRIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROOF PRO, INC. d/b/a ROOF PRO INC. and ROBERT SCOTT SUMMERS, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-01502 (E.D.N.Y., March 13, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages and failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a roofer and laborer from in or about January 2005 until on or about December 20, 2025. Roof Pro, Inc. is a residential and commercial roof repair and maintenance business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq. Peter A. Romero, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 SERENITY HOME: Townes Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Caregivers ------------------------------------------------------------ KENTAYVIA TOWNES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SERENITY HOME HEALTHCARE, INC. and AYOWALE ALAO, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-02900 (N.D. Ill., March 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages and failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a caregiver from November 18, 2025 until the present. Serenity Home Healthcare, Inc. is a provider of home healthcare services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad W. Eisenback, Esq. Nathan C. Volheim, Esq. Chasidy K. Clark, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: (630) 575-8180 Facsimile: (630) 575-8188 Email: ceisenback@atlaslawcenter.com nvolheim@atlaslawcenter.com cclark@atlaslawcenter.com SHERWOOD MANAGEMENT: Marquez Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sherwood Management Co., Inc. The case is styled as Samuel Marquez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sherwood Management Co., Inc. doing business as: Daniels Jewelers, Case No. 3:26-cv-01597-DMS-BJW (S.D. Cal., March 13, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Sherwood Management Co., Inc. doing business as Daniel's Jewelers, -- https://www.danielsjewelers.com/ -- retails jewelry for men and women.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ashley LaPointe, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (619) 550-4405 Email: ashley@kazlg.com mona@kazlg.com - and - David James McGlothlin, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 3240 East Union Hills Drive, Suite 105 Phoenix, AZ 85050 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Email: david@kazlg.com SHUCK IT: Zoldi Sues Over Unlawful Tip Pooling Practice ------------------------------------------------------- ALLEN ZOLDI and VERONICA BORREGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SHUCK IT, LLC d/b/a THE DRUNKEN OYSTER and FORKING GOOD HOSPITALITY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00056-Z (N.D. Tex., March 12, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for unlawful tip pooling practice under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Zoldi was employed by the Defendants as a server from April/May 2024 until February 15, 2026, while Ms. Borrego was employed as a bartender and server from January 2024 through January of 2025. Shuck It, LLC, doing business as The Drunken Oyster, is a restaurant owner and operator, with its principal place of business in Amarillo, Texas. Forking Good Hospitality, Inc. is a hospitality company, with its principal place of business in Amarillo, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremi K. Young, Esq. YOUNG FIRM, PC 301 S. Polk St., Suite 320 Amarillo, TX 79101 Telephone: (806) 331-1800 Facsimile: (806) 398-9095 Email: jyoung@youngfirm.com SIMPSON STRONG-TIE: Mosavi Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Zahid Mosavi, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Options For Learning, Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, Case No. 26CV175243 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., March 10, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Simpson Strong-Tie -- https://www.strongtie.com/ -- offers a suite of digital solutions designed to streamline design, estimating, and project coordination.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jean Hopkins Power, Esq. Roman Shkodnik, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N Brand Blvd., Ste. 840 Glendale, CA 91203-2920 Phone: 818-962-6465 Email: j.power@d.law r.shkodnik@d.law SOUTH CENTRAL: Soto Seeks Leave to File Reply to Opposition ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FELIPE DE JESUS AVILA-SOTO, et al., v. SOUTH CENTRAL SUGAR CANE GROWERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Case No. 6:24-cv-01392-RRS-CBW (W.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting them leave to file a reply in response to the Defendants' memorandum in opposition, filed in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for Rule 23 class certification. The Plaintiffs wish to respond to several issues raised by the Defendants: (1) whether exceptional circumstances exist to decline supplemental jurisdiction; (2) to address arguments related to the nature of the Plaintiffs' claims; (3) whether the Plaintiffs' claims are typical and common to those of the proposed class; (4) whether Plaintiffs are adequate representatives; and (5) whether the Plaintiffs' proposed definition is appropriate. The Plaintiffs contacted counsel for the Defendants to obtain their consent to file this motion. The Defendants stated that they oppose the Plaintiffs' motion. South Central is an organization involved in agricultural support activities, specifically focusing on sugar crops and machine harvesting services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kijVDF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James M. Knoepp, Esq. Dawson Morton, Esq. DAWSON MORTON, LLC 1612 Crestwood Drive Columbia, SC 29205 Telephone: (828) 379-3169 E-mail: jim@dawsonmorton.com dawson@dawsonmorton.com - and - Daniel Davis, Esq. ESTES DAVIS LAW, LLC 4465 Bluebonnet Blvd, Suite A Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 336-3394 Facsimile: (225) 384-5419 E-mail: dan@estesdavislaw.com SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Huntsman Seeks Reimbursement of Expenses ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAYSON HUNTSMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Case No. 19-cv-00083-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on May 14, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., will move the Court to: (1) awarding 30% of the Cash Settlement Amount as attorneys' Fees to Class Counsel, (2) reimburse litigation expenses of $713,863.17, (3) authorize payment of administration expenses from the Settlement Fund, and (4) approve Service Awards of $25,000 and $10,000 to the Plaintiff Jayson Huntsman and Class Representative David Cash, respectively. The requested fees and costs are warranted in light of the complex nature of the issues Class Counsel challenged, the risks they undertook in bringing the case, the time they expended to oppose Defendant's vigorous opposition during the litigation, and the excellent result they obtained for the Class. The Class Counsel seek to recover fees and costs expended in litigating this action and move the Court for an order: (1) awarding Class Counsel 30% of the Settlement Fund in Attorneys' fees, or $5,550,000; (2) authorizing reimbursement of litigation expenses; (3) authorizing the payment of settlement administration expenses from the Settlement Fund; and (4) approving Service Awards of $25,000 to Plaintiff Jayson Huntsman and $10,000 to Class Representative David Cash. Southwest Airlines is a major airline in the United States. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W2n5Ns at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Scimone, Esq. Michael C. Danna, Esq. Alina Pastor-Chermak, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 E-mail: mscimone@outtengolden.com mdanna@outtengolden.com apastor-chermak@outtengolden.com - and - R. Joseph Barton, Esq. THE BARTON FIRM LLP 1633 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 734-5458 E-mail: jbarton@thebartonfirm.com - and - Thomas G. Jarrard, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS G. JARRARD, PLLC 1020 N. Washington Street, Spokane, WA 99201 Telephone: (425) 239-7290 E-mail: tjarrard@att.net - and - Peter Romer-Friedman, Esq. PETER ROMER-FRIEDMAN LAW 1629 K Street, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 355-6364 E-mail: peter@prf-law.com - and - Matthew Z. Crotty, Esq. RIVERSIDE NW LAW GROUP, PLLC 905 West Riverside Avenue, Suite 208 Spokane, WA 99201 Telephone: (509)850-7011 E-mail: mzc@rnwlg.com SPARC GROUP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Peppars Continued 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 (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood Gilliam, Jr. entered an order continuing deadline for motion for class certification and related deadlines: Event Deadline The Plaintiff’s Deadline to File April 6, 2026 Motion for Class Certification and Disclose Experts The Defendant's Deadline to File June 6, 2026 Opposition to Motion for Class Certification and Disclose Rebuttal Experts: The Plaintiff's Deadline to File Aug. 17, 2026 Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification: Class Certification Hearing: Sept. 3, 2026 at 2:00 p.m. The parties are ordered to collaborate in good faith to facilitate the Plaintiff's FRCP 30(b)(6) deposition. SPARC designs, sources, manufactures, distributes and markets women's, men's and kids apparel and accessories. A copy of the Court's order dated March 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tkxpk2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Molly A. DeSario, Esq. Henry G. Glitz, Esq. Calyn V. Hadlock, 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 SPORTIME CLUBS: Faces Redlich Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ JUSTIN REDLICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPORTIME CLUBS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01504 (E.D.N.Y., March 13, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, and ethnic and religious discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from 2020 at Sportime's Kings Park, New York locations, initially as a tennis coach. In 2023, he was made director of tennis for the Sportime Kings Park facility. Sportime Clubs, LLC is a company that owns, operates, and manages a network of sports facilities in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taimur Alamgir, Esq. Matthew J. Daidola, Esq. TA LEGAL GROUP PLLC 205 E. Main Street, Ste. 3-4 Huntington, NY 11743 Telephone: (914) 552-2669 Facsimile: (631) 942-7399 Email: tim@talegalgroup.com matthew@talegalgroup.com STOCKTON MORTGAGE: Robertson Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stockton Mortgage Corporation. The case is styled as Erin Robertson, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Stockton Mortgage Corporation doing business as: Quillo, Case No. 1:26-cv-00658-JKM (M.D. Pa., March 15, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Stockton Mortgage -- https://stockton.com/ -- provides mortgage services, including purchase, refinance, construction, and renovation loans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 2657 Mt. Carmel Ave. Glenside, PA 19038 Phone: (215) 225-5529 Fax: (888) 329-0305 Email: a@perronglaw.com STUDENT TRANSPORTATION: Holder Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Donald Holder and Andre Robinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STUDENT TRANSPORTATION OF AMERICA, INC., and STA OF NEW YORK, INC. d/b/a MID-CITY TRANSIT, Case No. 7:26-cv-02031 (S.D.N.Y., March 12, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Class pursuant to the applicable provisions of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), to remedy the Defendants' failure to pay all wages due, in addition to injunctive relief. The Defendants denied Plaintiffs and the putative Collective and Class overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA and NYLL. The Plaintiffs were subject to Defendants' unlawful policy and/or practice of failing to pay Plaintiffs' gap time compensation, and/or overtime premiums for all hours worked over 40 in a given workweek, failing to keep accurate records of hours Plaintiffs actually worked, and/or failing to provide Plaintiffs with accurate wage statements reflecting all hours, including overtime and gap time hours worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as Drivers and Monitors. The Defendant STA is a Canadian corporation that provides transit services throughout Northern America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel M. Haskell, Esq. WORKING SOLUTIONS LAW FIRM, PLLC 11 Grand Central East, 16th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: 646-430-7930 Fax: 646-349-2504 SUN ENERGY: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Bitz Says ---------------------------------------------------- ZACHERY BITZ, SHEEN CLINE, JESSE RIPPETOE, JONAH FAULK, RYAN SNYDER, STEPHEN NESTOR, DILLON DAUGHERTY, DANIEL FAULK, COLTON WILLIAMS, ROGER DOTSON JR., AND DARREN MONN, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. SUN ENERGY SERVICES LLC d/b/a DEEP WELL SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00437 (W.D. Pa., March 17, 2026) seeks unpaid wages, including overtime wages, and all other available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act, the Colorado Wage Claim Act and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act as implemented by the Colorado Minimum Wage Order and then the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Orders, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, the West Virginia Minimum Wage and Maximum Hours Law; the West Virginia Payment and Collection Act. The complaint relates that the Plaintiffs often worked over 40 hours in individual workweeks. However, Defendant did not pay them one and one-half times the regular rate for all hours worked over forty in a workweek. For overtime purposes, Defendant did not count the time Plaintiffs spent traveling to and from out-of-town assignments involving overnight stays or attending required pre-shift meetings as hours worked. Defendant did not include the following bonuses in the calculation of the regular rate for overtime purposes: Daily Drive Bonus, Short-Hand Bonus, High-Pressure Bonus, Dirty Water Bonus, H2S Bonus, and Performance Excellence Program Bonus. Because Defendant's violation of the FLSA was willful, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover unpaid overtime wages for a period of up to three years preceding the filing of this Complaint, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiffs are entitled to unpaid overtime, an equal amount as liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, the complaint adds. The Plaintiffs, hence ask the Court to enter judgment in their favor and against Defendant as follows: (1) the payment at one and one-half times the regular rates of pay for all hours worked over forty in any workweek within three years preceding the date of filing this action; (2) liquidated damages; (3) reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses; (4) a reasonable service award to Plaintiffs to compensate them for the time spent attempting to recover wages for FLSA collective members; (5) pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as permitted by law; and (6) such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff Zachery Bitz is a resident of West Virginia and was employed by the Defendant as an hourly non-exempt Roughneck. Plaintiff Sheen Cline is a resident of Pennsylvania and was employed by the Defendant as an hourly non-exempt Leadhand. Plaintiff Jesse Rippetoe is a resident of Oklahoma and was employed by the Defendant as an hourly non-exempt Roughneck and then as an hourly non-exempt Leadhand. Plaintiff Ryan Snyder is an adult resident of Pennsylvania and was employed by the Defendant as an hourly non-exempt Leadhand and then as an hourly non-exempt Operator. Plaintiff Dillon Daugherty is a resident of Ohio and was employed by the Defendant as an hourly non-exempt Roughneck and then as an hourly non-exempt Leadhand. Plaintiff Jonah Faulk is a resident of Pennsylvania and was employed by the Defendant as an hourly non-exempt Roughneck, then as an hourly non-exempt Leadhand, and then as an hourly non-exempt Operator. Plaintiff Stephen Nestor is a resident of Pennsylvania and was employed by the Defendant as an hourly non-exempt Greenhat, then an hourly non-exempt Roughneck, then as an hourly non-exempt Leadhand, and then as an hourly non-exempt Operator. Plaintiff Daniel Faulk is an adult resident of Pennsylvania and was employed by the Defendant as an hourly non-exempt Greenhat, then an hourly non-exempt Roughneck, then as an hourly non-exempt Leadhand. Plaintiff Colton Williams is a resident of Pennsylvania and was employed by the Defendant as a Derrickman. Plaintiff Roger Dotson Jr. is a resident of Ohio and was employed by the Defendant as a Roughneck and a Leadhand. Plaintiff Darren Monn is a resident of Pennsylvania and was employed by the Defendant as a Roughneck and a Leadhand. Defendant Sun Energy Services LLC d/b/a Deep Well Services is a hydraulic completion and workover company that provides high-pressure hydraulic completion services to customers throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Trang Q. Tran, Esq. TRAN LAW FIRM 800 Town and Country Blvd. Suite 500 Houston, TX 77024 Telephone: (713) 223 – 8855 E-mail: trang@tranlf.com service@tranlf.com SUNRISE CREDIT: Viel-Medeiros Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection ---------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS VIEL-MEDEIROS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUNRISE CREDIT SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-11281 (D. Mass., March 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending debt collection communications to consumers, including the Plaintiff, despite requests to cease communications. As a result, the Plaintiff suffered damages. Sunrise Credit Services, Inc. is a debt collector located in Melville, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Campbell, Esq. CHARLESTOWN LAW GROUP The Schrafft's Center Power House 529 Main Street, Suite P200 Charlestown, MA 02129 Telephone: (617) 872-8652 Email: jasonrcampbell@ymail.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO PA 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Lucero Files Suit in D. New Mexico -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Swift Transportation Services, LLC. The case is styled as Joaquin Lucero, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Services, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00748-SCY-LF (D.N.M., March 12, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Other Contract. Swift -- https://www.swifttrans.com/ -- is a trucking company that is accurate and timely when it comes transportation and logistics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hans Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7034 Braucher St NW, Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Phone: (330) 470-4428 Email: hnilges@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Scott Perlmuter, Esq. TITTLE & PERLMUTER 4106 Bridge Ave. Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: (216) 308-1522 Email: scott@tittlelawfirm.com SYNGENTA CROP: Bullock Sues Over Negligent Advertising and Sale --------------------------------------------------------------- Gary Bullock, and other similarly situated victims v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. N26C-03-317 PQT (Del. Super. Ct., March 15, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Paraquat which is defective and is dangerous to human health. 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 Paraquat, which causes Parkinson's disease in humans. The Plaintiff maintains that Defendants' Paraquat products are defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. the Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Parkinson's disease, Parkinsonism, Parkinson's precursor ailments, and/or symptoms consistent with Parkinson's disease as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Paraquat. The Defendants advertise and sell goods in the State of Delaware and throughout the United States.[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 SYNGENTA CROP: Coleman Sues Over Wrongful Herbicide Distribution ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cathy Coleman, and other similarly situated victims v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. N26C-03-316 PQT (Del. Super. Ct., March 15, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Paraquat which is defective and is dangerous to human health. 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 Paraquat, which causes Parkinson's disease in humans. The Plaintiff maintains that Defendants' Paraquat products are defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. the Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Parkinson's disease, Parkinsonism, Parkinson's precursor ailments, and/or symptoms consistent with Parkinson's disease as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Paraquat. The Defendants advertise and sell goods in the State of Delaware and throughout the United States.[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 SYNGENTA CROP: Faces Velasquez Suit Over Paraquat's Side Effects ---------------------------------------------------------------- ARMANDO VELASQUEZ, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-270 PQT (Del. Super., March 12, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for strict product liability, negligence, breach of express warranties and implied warranty of merchantability, and fraudulent misrepresentation. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of products containing the herbicide Paraquat. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to adequately warn consumers of the risk of severe neurological injury caused by chronic, low-dose exposure to Paraquat. As a result of being exposed to Paraquat, the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals developed Parkinson's disease, suit says. Syngenta Crop Protection LLC is a manufacturer of crop protection products, doing business in Delaware. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. is a subsidiary of the global energy company, Chevron Corporation, headquartered in Houston, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mary S. Thomas, Esq. THOMAS LAW LLC 1521 Concord Pike, Suite 301 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 647-1203 Email: mthomas@marythomaslaw.com - and - Mark A. DiCello, Esq. Mark M. Abramowitz, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 485 Lexington Ave, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (440) 953-8888 Email: madicello@dicellolevitt.com mabramowitz@dicellolevitt.com SYNGENTA CROP: Grant Sues Over Negligent Sale of Herbicide ---------------------------------------------------------- Deborah Grant, and other similarly situated victims v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. N26C-03-318 PQT (Del. Super. Ct., March 15, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Paraquat which is defective and is dangerous to human health. 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 Paraquat, which causes Parkinson's disease in humans. The Plaintiff maintains that Defendants' Paraquat products are defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. the Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Parkinson's disease, Parkinsonism, Parkinson's precursor ailments, and/or symptoms consistent with Parkinson's disease as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Paraquat. The Defendants advertise and sell goods in the State of Delaware and throughout the United States.[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 SYNGENTA CROP: Hess Sues Over Wrongful Distribution of Herbicide ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kerry Hess, and other similarly situated victims v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. N26C-03-314 PQT (Del. Super. Ct., March 15, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Paraquat which is defective and is dangerous to human health. 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 Paraquat, which causes Parkinson's disease in humans. The Plaintiff maintains that Defendants' Paraquat products are defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. the Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Parkinson's disease, Parkinsonism, Parkinson's precursor ailments, and/or symptoms consistent with Parkinson's disease as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Paraquat. The Defendants advertise and sell goods in the State of Delaware and throughout the United States.[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 SYNGENTA CROP: Kiser Sues Over Negligent Advertising and Sale ------------------------------------------------------------- Samuel Kiser, and other similarly situated victims v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. N26C-03-315 PQT (Del. Super. Ct., March 15, 2026), is brought for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Paraquat which is defective and is dangerous to human health. 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 Paraquat, which causes Parkinson's disease in humans. The Plaintiff maintains that Defendants' Paraquat products are defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. the Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable, says the complaint. The Plaintiff developed Parkinson's disease, Parkinsonism, Parkinson's precursor ailments, and/or symptoms consistent with Parkinson's disease as a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Paraquat. The Defendants advertise and sell goods in the State of Delaware and throughout the United States.[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 SYNGENTA CROP: Kyle Sues Over Paraquat Herbicide's Health Risks --------------------------------------------------------------- KATHLEEN KYLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-267 PQT (Del. Super., March 12, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for strict product liability, negligence, breach of express warranties, and fraudulent misrepresentation. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of products containing the herbicide Paraquat. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to adequately warn consumers of the risk of severe neurological injury caused by chronic, low-dose exposure to Paraquat. As a result of being exposed to Paraquat, the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals developed Parkinson's disease, suit says. Syngenta Crop Protection LLC is a manufacturer of crop protection products, doing business in Delaware. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. is a subsidiary of the global energy company, Chevron Corporation, headquartered in Houston, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mary S. Thomas, Esq. THOMAS LAW LLC 1521 Concord Pike, Suite 301 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 647-1203 Email: mthomas@marythomaslaw.com - and - Mark A. DiCello, Esq. Mark M. Abramowitz, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 485 Lexington Ave, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (440) 953-8888 Email: madicello@dicellolevitt.com mabramowitz@dicellolevitt.com SYNGENTA CROP: Larreau Sues Over Fraudulent Misrepresentation ------------------------------------------------------------- Virginia Larreau, and other similarly situated victims v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. N26C-03-281 PQT (Del. Super. Ct., March 12, 2026), is brought to recover from Defendant, under the following theories of liability: compensation for injuries and damages caused by the exposure of Plaintiff to Paraquat from Defendant's Paraquat products, plus costs of suit; strict product liability--design defect; strict product liability--failure to warn; breach of express warranties; and fraudulent misrepresentation. The manufacturers and sellers of Paraquat deliberately concealed the dangers of Paraquat for at least four decades, hid evidence of its dangers from government safety agencies, and knowingly unleashed on the public a product that they knew caused Parkinson's disease. The Plaintiff maintains that Defendant's Paraquat products are defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with their use. the Plaintiff used Defendant's Paraquat products regularly and frequently over a period of many years. As a result of Plaintiff's many years of regular, frequent, and prolonged exposure to Defendant's Paraquat products, Plaintiff contracted Parkinson's disease. The Plaintiff's injuries, like the injuries of thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable, says the complaint. The Plaintiff used Paraquat products which caused or contributed to causing Plaintiff's development of Parkinson's disease. The Defendant engaged in the business of designing, developing, manufacturing, testing, packaging, marketing, distributing, labeling, and/or selling Paraquat.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark A. DiCello, Esq. Mark M. Abramowitz, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 485 Lexington Ave, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (440) 953-8888 Email: madicello@dicellolevitt.com mabramowitz@dicellolevitt.com - and - Mary S. Thomas, Esq. THOMAS LAW LLC 1521 Concord Pike, Suite 301 Wilmington, DE 19803 Phone: (302) 647-1203 Email: mthomas@marythomaslaw.com TOYOTA MOTOR: Allowed to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YAN DONG, SARA HADI, and JUN IMAIZUMI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., a California corporation; TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., a California corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-09613-JLS-SSC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Staton entered an order granting the application to file under seal documents relating to Toyota's opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and motion to exclude Mr. Okcuoglu: Bates Range and/or Title Document Ruling Memorandum of Points and Exhibit A to the Toyota's Authorities in Opposition to Declaration of Lisa Proposed to the Plaintiffs' Motion R. Weddle ISO Redactions for class certification: Application to Seal Sealed Jan. 16, 2026 Expert Exhibit 5 to Weddle Toyota's Report of Peter E. Rossi, Sealing Decl. Proposed PH.D. Redactions Sealed TOY-HADI-00030996 Exhibit 6 to Sealed Weddle Sealing Decl. Toyota is the North American Toyota sales, marketing, and distribution subsidiary. A copy of the Court's order dated March 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1Q3Ktb at no extra charge.[CC] TRIZETTO PROVIDER: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Whiteside Says --------------------------------------------------------------- LANIA WHITESIDE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRIZETTO PROVIDER SOLUTIONS, LLC; COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORPORATION; and LOCAL INITIATIVE HEALTH AUTHORITY FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY, dba L.A. CARE HEALTH PLAN, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02373 (D.N.J., March 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the protected health information and other personally identifiable information of certain individuals. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of Defendants' failure to implement reasonable safeguards to protect PHI/PII from a foreseeable and preventable risk of unauthorized disclosure. Had the Defendants implemented administrative, technical, and physical controls consistent with industry standards and best practices, they could have prevented the Data Breach. The Defendants' negligence resulted in the unauthorized disclosure of Plaintiff's Private Information to cybercriminals. The unauthorized disclosure of Plaintiff's PHI/PII constitutes an invasion of a legally protected privacy interest, that is traceable to the Defendants' failure to adequately secure the PHI/PII in their custody, and has resulted in actual, particularized, and concrete harm to the Plaintiff. The injuries Plaintiff suffered can be redressed by a favorable decision in this matter, says the suit. Trizetto Provider Solutions, LLC provides custom information technology (IT) consulting services. The Company provides artificial intelligence, business process solutions, cloud, core modernization, cybersecurity, digital strategy, enterprise platform, and infrastructure services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00097 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Email: pauldoolittle@poulinwilley.com TROPICANA ATLANTIC: Oshea Files FLSA Suit in D. New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tropicana Atlantic City Corp. The case is styled as Ellen L. Oshea, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tropicana Atlantic City Corp. doing business as: Tropicana Atlantic City, Case No. 1:26-cv-02479-ESK-MJS (M.D. Pa., March 10, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Tropicana -- https://www.caesars.com/tropicana -- is the largest resort and casino on the boardwalk.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Phone: (215) 884-2491 Fax: (215) 884-2492 Email: asantillo@winebrakelaw.com UNIFI SECURITY PACIFIC: Jordan Smith Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unifi Security Pacific, Inc., et al. The case is styled as James Smith on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Unifi Security Pacific Inc., Unifi Service LLC, Case No. 26STCV07662 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 10, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Unifi -- https://unifiservice.com/ -- is a leading global provider of ground handling and aviation services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM 9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: 949-379-6250 Fax: (949) 379-6251 Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com UNISON AGREEMENT: Coffin Sues Over Illegal Mortgage Loans --------------------------------------------------------- GERALD COFFIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNISON AGREEMENT CORP. and UNISON INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01587 (E.D.N.Y., March 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for issuing illegal mortgage loans and masquerading as "option" contracts, in violation of the N.Y. General Obligations Law and the N.Y. Banking Law. The complaint notes that Mr. Coffin is a victim of Unison's illegal scheme. Several years ago, Mr. Coffin was navigating how to live on diminished income. In 2021, he saw one of Unison's television ads and contacted Unison about getting a loan. After he signed nearly 100 pages of complex contracts, Unison paid out a lump sum of $167,490.45. What Mr. Coffin did not understand when he signed the agreement was that he would be forced to repay Unison far more money than he received at an interest rate far higher than the legal limit. That is a simple interest rate of around 40.81% and an Annual Percentage Rate of 28.6%, far above what New York law permits and far greater than any traditional mortgage-secured loan. In 2025, Mr. Coffin paid Unison $412,387 to exit his agreement, adds the complaint. The complaint alleges that Unison's complex "HomeOwner Agreement" poses greater risks than more traditional mortgages, but purports to be exempt from laws regulating mortgage lenders. Unison calls its product an "option" to purchase an interest in homeowners' homes, but it is not a true option. Instead, it is an advance of funds to be repaid at a later date, with substantial interest, secured by a home. In other words, it is a residential mortgage loan. Unison attempts to hide this reality through a combination of complex accounting and deceptive marketing. This includes illusory payments, opaque fees, convoluted terms, and claims meant to reassure homeowners that they are "partners" with Unison, won't take on any debt, and won't have to pay any interest. The reality is anything but. Unison isn't a partner with homeowners, as its own contract admits in fine print. Instead, it locks them into contracts under which they must pay Unison far more money than they received up front--and, in some cases, forces them to sell their homes to do so, the complaint notes. Mr. Coffin brings this lawsuit to recover the exorbitant interest and other fees and costs he paid Unison and protect other New York homeowners from Unison's unlawful conduct. Plaintiff Gerald Coffin is a 70-year-old retired New York City firefighter who lives in Brooklyn. In 2021, Mr. Coffin took out a loan on his home through Unison. Defendants Unison Agreement Corporation (UAC) and Unison Investment Management, LLC (UIM) (collectively as "Unison") is a financial technology company based in San Francisco that sells unlicensed mortgage loans with predatory terms and usurious interest rates.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Danielle Tarantolo, Esq. Claire Torchiana, Esq. Julie Howe, Esq. NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP 100 Pearl Street, 19th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 613-5000 Facsimile: (212) 714-7589 E-mail: dtarantolo@nylag.org E-mail: ctorchiana@nylag.org E-mail: jhowe@nylag.org - and - Beth E. Terrell, Esq. Blythe H. Chandler, Esq. Elizabeth A. Adams, Esq. Eleanor Eagan, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 1700 Westlake Avenue North, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98109 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com E-mail: bchandler@terrellmarshall.com E-mail: eadams@terrellmarshall.com E-mail: eeagan@terrellmarshall.com UNITED INVESTMENT: Faces Brito Suit Over Property's Access Barriers ------------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS BRITO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED INVESTMENT CONSTRUCTION CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-21585 (S.D. Fla., March 11, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its facilities to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other persons with disabilities. The Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of its property and business. The Plaintiff and similarly situated disabled individuals encountered architectural barriers in common areas such parking and entrance access and path of travel. The Plaintiff and Class members seek injunctive relief to remove the existing architectural barriers to the physically disabled when such removal is readily achievable for the place of public accommodation. United Investment Construction Corp. is a commercial property owner and operator based in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, PL 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 Email: aquezada@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, PA 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (305) 350-3103 Email: rdiego@lawgmp.com UNITED PARCEL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Saechao Amended to July 20 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MANDY SAECHAO, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:25-cv-02431-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion to change time for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification pursuant to local rule 6-3 or, in the alternative, motion for administrative relief for an order to modify the scheduling order regarding class certification pursuant to local rule 7-11. Good cause exists for modifying the Case Management and Scheduling Order regarding the dates for class certification. First, the facts demonstrate that Plaintiff has diligently pursued discovery while Defendant has repeatedly stalled the process. Second, even if the Court does not attribute the discovery delays to the Defendant, the Plaintiff has nevertheless acted diligently throughout this litigation. Third, the Plaintiff will be prejudiced if the Court denies to continue the class certification related deadlines and hearing date. The Plaintiff will not have adequate opportunity to propound any remaining discovery, receive the Defendant's long‑overdue supplemental responses, or engage in the required meet‑and‑confer process regarding the Defendant's deficient productions. The Plaintiff makes this request that the Court extend the deadlines for briefing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and continue the hearing date on the motion by approximately 90 days as follows: Event Date Last day for Plaintiff to file Motion for July 20, 2026 Class Certification and Initial Expert Reports in Support of Class Certification: Last day for Defendant to file opposition Sept. 14, 2026 and Rebuttal Expert Reports in opposition to Class Certification: Last day for Plaintiff to file reply in Oct. 2, 2026 support of motion for class certification: Hearing on motion for class certification: Nov. 3, 2026 at 11:00 a.m. United Parcel is an American multinational shipping, receiving, and supply chain management company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W43gLI at no extra charge.[CC] UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Dr. Kallas Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Dr. Kallas Dental Center PLLC, DKDC Falls Church PLLC, DKDC Merrifield PLLC, Smile Dental Center PLLC, Park Avenue Dental Center PLLC, Leesburg Dental Center PLLC doing business as: SMDC, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated; UnitedHealthcare Services, Inc.; Optum Insight, Inc.; Change Healthcare, Inc.; Change Healthcare Operations, LLC; Change Healthcare Solutions LLC; Change Healthcare Holdings Inc; Change Healthcare Technologies, LLC; Change Healthcare Pharmacy Solutions, Inc.; Optum Inc.; Optum Financial, Inc.; Optum Bank; Optum Pay; Case No. 1:26-cv-00439 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on March 12, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-01812-DWF-DJF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated -- https://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/ -- is an American multinational health insurance and services company based in Minnetonka, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Ross Strauser, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 2445 M Street NW, Suite 740 Washington, DC 20037 Phone: (469) 421-9091 Email: mstrauser@burnscharest.com VALSOFT AMERICA: Faces Togetherwork Suit Over Breach of Contract ---------------------------------------------------------------- TOGETHERWORK HOLDINGS, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VALSOFT AMERICA INC., Defendant, Case No. 2026-0348 (Del. Ch., March 13, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract. According to the complaint, the Defendant willfully breached its Membership Interest Purchase Agreement with the Plaintiff by failing to provide the Final Closing Statement within 60 days of the closing date. The Defendant's failure to provide a Final Closing Statement in conformity with the Agreement prevented the Plaintiff from making necessary post-closing adjustments to the net working capital, suit says. Togetherwork Holdings, LLC is a software and payment company, with its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. Valsoft America Inc. is a software company, with its principal place of business in Clearwater, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alessandra Glorioso, Esq. DORSEY & WHITNEY (DELAWARE) LLP 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1010 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 425-7171 Email: glorioso.alessandra@dorsey.com VANDERBILT UNIV: Bogenschild Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty -------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS BOGENSCHILD, STELLA WEAVER, AND CHRISTOPHER JONES individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY RETIREMENT PLAN, Plaintiffs v. VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY, VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY RETIREMENT PLAN OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, and VANDERBILT BOARD OF TRUST, and DOES No. 1-10, Whose Names Are Currently Unknown, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00319 (M.D. Tenn., March 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for breaches of their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and related breaches of applicable law beginning six years prior to the date this action is filed and continuing to the date of judgment, or such earlier date that the Court determines is appropriate and just. According to the complaint, the Defendants maintain the Vanderbilt University Retirement Plan ("VURP") (the "Plan"). Defendants are responsible for selecting, monitoring, and retaining the service providers that provide investment services. Defendants are fiduciaries under ERISA, and, as such, owe several well-defined duties to the Plan and its participants and beneficiaries, including obligations to act for the exclusive benefit of participants, select and maintain prudent and diverse investment options to offer through the Plan (including review and removal of historically poor performing funds), and ensure that expenses paid by the Plan are fair and reasonable in relation to the services obtained. The Defendants, however, breached their fiduciary duties to the Plan, notes the complaint. Specifically, The Defendants failed to appropriately monitor the Plan's investments, resulting in the retention of unsuitable investments in the Plan instead of prudent alternative investments that were readily available at all times. Defendants selected and retained the funds at issue and throughout the Class Period. The fund at issue is the Vanguard Dividend Growth Fund Investor Shares ("VDIGX" or "Vanguard Fund" or "Imprudent Fund"). Since Defendants have the discretion to select the investments made available to participants, Defendants' breaches directly caused the alleged losses, says the suit. To remedy these fiduciary breaches and other violations of ERISA, Plaintiffs bring this class action under ERISA to recover and obtain all losses resulting from each breach of fiduciary duty. In addition, Plaintiffs seek such other equitable or remedial relief for the Plan and the proposed Class as the Court may deem appropriate and just under the circumstances. Plaintiff Thomas Bogenschild was an employee of Vanderbilt University and a participant in the Plan under ERISA. Bogenschild is a resident of Windsor, Colorado. During the Class Period, Bogenschild maintained an investment through the Plan in the Imprudent Fund. Plaintiff Stella Weaver was an employee of Vanderbilt University and a participant in the Plan under ERISA. Weaver is a resident of Murfreesboro, Tennessee. During the Class Period, Weaver maintained an investment through the Plan in the Imprudent Fund. Plaintiff Christopher Jones was an employee of Vanderbilt University and a participant in the Plan under ERISA. Jones is a resident of Franklin, Tennessee. During the Class Period, Jones maintained an investment through the Plan in the Imprudent Fund. Defendant Vanderbilt University is a private university located in Nashville, TN. Defendant Vanderbilt University Retirement Plan Oversight Committee "serves in a fiduciary role by overseeing the core investment options in tiers 1 and 2 and managing the plan in the best interests of participants. Defendant Vanderbilt Board of Trust--including Does No. 1-10, who are current and former members of the Board--are fiduciaries of the Plan.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alexandr Rudenco, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 800 S. Gay St., Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 E-mail: arudenco@milberg.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. Alex J. Ephraim, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: aje@federmanlaw.com - and - Don Bivens, Esq. Maxwell K. Weiss, Esq. DON BIVENS PLLC 15169 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 205 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (602) 708-1450 E-mail: don@donbivens.com VERACITY RESEARCH CO: Wood Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Veracity Research Co., L.L.C. The case is styled as Kenneth Wood, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Veracity Research Co., L.L.C., Case No. 26STCV08136 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 12, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Veracity Research -- https://veracityresearchllc.com/ -- provides top-quality title search services across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vache A. Thomassian, Esq. KJT LAW GROUP, LLP 230 N. Maryland Ave., Ste. 306 Glendale, CA 91206-4281 Phone: 818-507-8525 Fax: 818-507-8588 Email: vache@kjtlawgroup.com VERNON LIGGINS: DNN Wins Renewed Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as D.N.N, et al., v. VERNON LIGGINS, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01613-JRR (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Rubin entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification and preliminary injunction to the extent it seeks class certification. Specifically, the following class is certified pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2): "All persons who are now, or will be, detained at the Baltimore Hold Rooms." Accordingly, D.N.N. and V.R.G. are designated class representatives. The Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, the National Immigration Project, and Crowell & Moring LLP are APPOINTED as class counsel. The Defendants and their officers, agents, employees, contractors, and attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with any of the foregoing, are enjoined and restrained, pending final determination of this action, from: a. Detaining any person at the Baltimore Hold Rooms ( Detained Individual) in any room, cell, or other space (Hold Room) b. Detaining a Detained Individual at the Baltimore Hold Rooms without adequate medical care and screening. The Court further entered an order that, within one hour following arrival of a Detained Individual to Baltimore Hold Rooms, Defendants must provide written notice in English and Spanish informing them of their right to the noted provisions and services. A copy of the Court's order dated March 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jaizSG at no extra charge.[CC] VETERANS GUARDIAN: Amended Bid to Seal Info & Exhibits Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER FORD, ERIC BEARD, and BRIAN OTTERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VETERANS GUARDIAN VA CLAIM CONSULTING, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge entered an order denying the Defendant's amended motion to seal certain information in the briefing and exhibits submitted in connection with the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as follows: 1. The updated version of the spreadsheet that redacts only client names and that was filed with the Clerk by the plaintiffs via USB drive on Jan. 29, 2026, is available to the public at the courthouse. If the parties wish to have the USB drives filed with different versions of Doc. 75-1 returned to them, they shall pick them up from the courthouse no later than April 3, 2026. If they are not picked up by that date, the Clerk's office will destroy them. 2. The Clerk shall unseal the 30-page brief titled "Memorandum of Law in Support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification." 3. The Plaintiffs shall provide the Clerk's office with an updated, public version of the expert report redacting only the names of Guardian clients who are not plaintiffs. The Clerk shall replace with the provided, public copy. The motion to seal, as amended, is denied because Guardian has not met the common law standard for sealing information associated with a class certification motion. Guardian's general claims of harms to its competitive standing and reputation, are insufficient to overcome the public's right of access. Veterans Guardian is a pre-filing consulting firm. A copy of the Court's order dated March 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BqWO33 at no extra charge.[CC] VSI INC: Rangel Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against VSI Inc. The case is styled as Ray Rangel, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. VSI Inc. Doing business as: Vallarta Supermarkets, Case No. 1:26-cv-01972-SAB (E.D. Cal., March 12, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. VSI Inc. doing business as Vallarta Supermarkets Inc. is an American supermarket chain.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com WASHINGTON COUNTY, OR: Settles Suits Over "Surplus Funds" for $1.5M ------------------------------------------------------------------- Austin De Dios of The Oregonian/OregonLive reports that Washington County will cough up $1.5 million to settle two linked lawsuits that accused it of keeping money from former owners, heirs or valid lien holders who were entitled to a portion of proceeds from the sales on their foreclosed homes. The first was a class action lawsuit, filed in 2023, that sought to compel Oregon counties to pay homeowners for the "surplus funds" they were owed after their properties were foreclosed on by those governments. Those funds include money remaining after all unpaid taxes, fees and other costs have been covered. The second lawsuit, which was specific to Washington County, was seeking similar remedies and was settled before being filed in court, a county spokesperson said. The Washington County Board of Commissioners approved the settlement payment Tuesday, March 17. Multnomah County agreed to pay $3.5 million in the 2023 class action lawsuit in September 2025. Three Oregon homeowners first filed the lawsuit in October 2023 after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that counties could not collect the total proceeds in sales of foreclosed homes. Martin Lynch, the lead filer in the case, sued on behalf of his deceased wife, who had accrued nearly $32,000 in unpaid taxes on her Springfield home. Lane County foreclosed on the property and sold the home for around $118,500 -- nearly $87,000 more than what Lynch’s wife owed in taxes. The Washington County settlement requires court approval. Notices will be sent to those who are potentially entitled to funds. [GN] WEBER-STEPHEN PRODUCTS: Hose Files Suit in N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Weber-Stephen Products LLC, et al. The case is styled as Christopher Hose, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Christopher Alexander Delgado, Goliath Ventures Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-02774 (N.D. Ill., March 12, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Weber-Stephen Products LLC -- https://www.weber.com/ -- is a leading American manufacturer of high-quality charcoal, gas, wood pellet, and electric outdoor grills, along with accessories and cooking products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul Doolittle, Esq. POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC - SC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (803) 222-2222 Fax: (843) 494-5536 Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com WESTERN DENTAL: Fuentes Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Western Dental Services, Inc. The case is styled as Carlos Fuentes, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Western Dental Services, Inc, Case No. 1:26-cv-01974-FRS (E.D. Cal., March 12, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Western Dental & Orthodontics -- https://www.westerndental.com/en-us/ -- is a chain of dental offices based in Orange, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com WICKED TACO: Bid to Certify Class Referred to Magistrate Judge -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gonzalez v. Wicked Taco LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-09555 (E.D.N.Y.. Filed Dec. 28, 2023), the Hon. Judge Natasha C. Merle entered an order referring the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class and the parties' cross motions for summary judgment to Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Marutollo for a Report & Recommendation. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Wicked Taco is a California-Mexican style, dining establishment.[CC] WORK TRUCK SOLUTIONS: Redick Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Work Truck Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as William Redick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Work Truck Solutions, Inc. doing business as: Kingsburg Truck Center, Case No. 1:26-cv-01968-CDB (E.D. Cal., March 12, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Work Truck Solutions, Inc. doing business as Kingsburg Truck Center -- https://kingsburgtruckcenter.com/ -- is Central Valley's largest used work truck dealership.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com WSAF INC: Faces Rodriguez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WSAF INC., SLEEPY HOLLOW HOTEL AND CONFERENCE CENTER LLC d/b/a SLEEPY HOLLOW HOTEL, IGOR ALTERMAN, SHLOMO SUCHARD and LINDA FERONE, Defendants, Case No. 7:26-cv-02129 (S.D.N.Y., March 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to timely pay wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to provide wage notice, failure to provide accurate wage statements, unlawful wage deductions, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a houseman from on or about December 11, 2023 through the present. WSAF Inc. is a private equity firm, with its principal place of business in Brooklyn, New York. Sleepy Hollow Hotel and Conference Center LLC, doing business as Sleepy Hollow Hotel, is a hotel owner and operator based in Tarrytown, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Barnhorn, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Faces Product Liability Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Certain of the Companies subsidiaries and, in some cases, Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation, is a defendant in numerous claims alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos-containing components historically used in certain products of these subsidiaries, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Settlement agreements between the insurance carriers, our subsidiaries and, in some cases, us encompass the majority of insurance policies that provide coverage for claims. Through the current year end, our insurance has covered a majority of our settlement and defense costs. We believe the estimated costs, net of anticipated insurance recoveries, of our pending and future asbestos legal proceedings should not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or liquidity. However, there can be no assurance our subsidiaries or we will not be subject to significant additional claims in the future or our subsidiaries’ ultimate liability with respect to asbestos claims will not present significantly greater and longer lasting financial exposure than provided in our consolidated financial statements." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=91nLCV ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vanderbilt Minerals Files Ch. 11 Over Talc Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Church, writing for claimsjournal.com, reports that Vanderbilt Minerals, which mines materials used in industrial products, filed for bankruptcy after its cash flow was overwhelmed by an increase in lawsuits that accuse the company of once selling items contaminated by asbestos. The firm, which denies that its products contained the cancer-causing substance, plans to hold an auction for its assets, according to a court filing Monday. The opening offer would be $50 million from Commodore Materials. Vanderbilt, in the documents, blamed its bankruptcy on more than 1,400 talc lawsuits. The Norwalk, Connecticut-based company spent $8 million on talc-related cases last year. The firm "was cash-flow positive absent the growing costs of the talc-related litigation," Chief Restructuring Officer Dean Vomero said in the filing. He added Vanderbilt faces $117.2 million in talc-related costs. The company is the latest to file bankruptcy in order to shed debt related to talc. Johnson & Johnson unsuccessfully tried to use the bankruptcy of a small unit to rid itself of tens of thousands of claims that talc-based baby powder caused ovarian cancer. J&J denies the allegations and continues to fight the lawsuits outside of bankruptcy. For decades, asbestos was used in everything from insulation to automobile break pads because of its ability to withstand heat. After it was linked to lung cancer and other diseases, the substance was heavily restricted by regulators. ********* 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 ***