260413.mbx

260413.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, April 13, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 73 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Wins Bid for Leave to File Instanter Notice ACCENTURE LLP: Erdos-Major Suit Removed to S.D. California ADVOCATE AURORA: Bid to Certify Class in Uriel Due May 22 ADVOCATE AURORA: Class Cert Bid in Shaw Suit Extended to May 22 ALQUIST 3D: Hernandez Sues to Recover Overtime Wages AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Wade Suit Removed to E.D. California AMERICAN ACCOUNTS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Blum Due May 21 ANGI INC: Card-Krauss Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation APOLLO GLOBAL: Investors Entitled to Contingency Fee Arrangement ASP AESTHETICS: Agrees to Settle Telemarketing Suit for $1.3-Mil. AVIS RENT A CAR: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $1.025MM BARON APP: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Illegal Drip Pricing BIOLIFE PLASMA: Guerrero's Ex-Parte Application Tossed BKF ENGINEERS: Batchelor Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. BOOZ ALLEN: Loses Bid to Dismiss Face Tax Data Disclosure Suit BROOKDALE SENIOR: McDonald Seeks OK of Class Cert Memo BW EQUITY LLC: Anderson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BWW RESOURCES: Waite Files Suit Over Unlawful Pay Practices CABLE COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Ayala Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. CARSON'S OF MALTA: Conrick Suit Seeks Class Certification CELGENE CORP: Bid to Amend Pomalyst Antitrust Suit Denied CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT: Court Dismisses "Cantey" FLSA Wage Suit CHANSON INTERNATIONAL: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Suit CHARGEPOINT HOLDINGS: Class, Derivative Actions Stayed CHARLES RIVER: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach Incident CHICAGO, IL: Jacobs et al. Allege Deprivation of Due Process of Law CHILDCARE CAREERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Policare Says CLEARLINK TECHNOLOGIES: Gibson Seeks Associate Sales Agents' Wages CLOVER NEEDLECRAFT: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Cole Says COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH: Dickson Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Law Violation COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Dickson Says COMPASS GROUP: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Mercedez Suit Tossed COMPREHENSIVE ORTHOPAEDICS: Gagnon Files Suit Over Data Breach CONAIR LLC: McCabe Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Reply COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Membership Renewals CRUNCHYROLL LLC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over 2026 Data Breach DEERE & CO: Agrees to Settle Right to Repair Class Action for $99MM DELTA SONIC: Customer Sues Over Membership Automatic Renewal DENTALPLANS.COM: Wins Bid to Decertify Class in Bradley Suit DIGITAL MEDIA: Watson Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. DNOW INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims DOCKETWISE: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach Incident DREXEL UNIVERSITY: Settlement in Deller Gets Prelim. Nod ELANCO ANIMAL: Federal Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action ELEVANCE INC: Bid to Compel Arbitration Tossed ELIGO ENERGY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Brous Extended to May 8 EMPOWER CONSULTING: Soltesz Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Ohio EP WEALTH ADVISORS: Cunningham Files Suit in S.D. California ERSG US: Court Narrows Claims in Finney Suit EUROPEAN WAX: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to General Atlantic EXCLUSIVE WIRELESS: Clas Cert Bid Filing Due Feb. 5, 2027 EXICURE INC: Hearing on Colwell Settlement Set for June 2 EXPERITY INC: Website Uses Tracking Tools, Jane Doe Alleges FAYETTE COUNTY PRISON: Spada Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS: Loses Bid to Junk Washington Suit FINANCE OF AMERICA: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Thompson Says FIRSTRUST SAVINGS: Loses Bid to Toss "Chrupcala" Lawsuit FRED MEYER: Class Cert Bid Filing in Shields Suit Due Dec. 12 FRY'S FOOD: Settles Prescription Drug Prices Class Suit for $17MM GARDA CL: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Chung Suit Due Oct. 16 GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over EV System Failures GOOGLE LLC: Court Narrows Claims in May Suit GOSSAMER BIO: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 1 GRAYBACK FORESTRY: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Mull Says GREAT AMERICAN: Renewed Bid for Class Cert in Lee Due June 24 H2M COM LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Fagnani Alleges HANNA ANDERSSON: Hudson Files Suit in D. Oregon HEALTHCARE.COM INSURANCE: Garcia Sues Over Misleading Spam Emails HOLLOWAY CREDIT: Pettway Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Alabama IMMUTEP LTD: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims INSURANCEZEBRA INC: Penning Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Parties Seek to Amend Class Scheduling Order IPPC INC: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach J.R. WATKINS: Dodgion Balks at Mislabeled Soap, Cleaning Products JACKSON COUNTY, MO: Judge Certifies Property Assessment Class Suit JBS SOUDERTON: Edwards SAC Dismissed with Prejudice JOEST LLC: Conditional Certification Withdrawn in Mezoff Suit JOEST LLC: Mezoff Seeks Conditional Status of Collective JSHEALTH VITAMINS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Davis Says KMART AUSTRALIA: Salaried Managers Sue Over Unpaid Wages LA BELLE DISTRIBUTORS: Cazares Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website LEMON PERFECT: Faces Suit Over Artificial Sweeteners' False Ads LOUIS VUITTON: Botto Sues Over Invasive Telemarketing Practices MARTIN & PLEASANCE: Faces Class Action Over "All-Natural" Labels MARYLAND: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Bangura Suit Due April 30 MASTER MOBILELINK: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Bolen Alleges MDL 3178: 19 Baby Formula Suits Transferred to S.D.N.Y. MDL 3179: 12 Suits Consolidated in Fire Truck Antitrust Litigation MEAD JOHNSON: Court Junks Lopez Amended Complaint MEDIASTAR LIMITED: Class Cert. in Hossain Suit Due April 17 MEDSTAR HEALTH: Wins Dismissal of FMLA Maternity Leave Suit MERCOR.IO CORP: Faces Class Action Over Personal Info Exposure MI CASA: Pardini Wins Class Certification Bid MICRODENTAL LAB: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert Hearing MIZUNO USA: Agrees to 2024 Data Breach Class Action Settlement MYRTLE BEACH, SC: Daniel Must File Class Cert Bid by July 20 NAVIGATE360 LLC: Buckles Files Suit Over Data Breach NEARLY NATURAL: Corbett Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind NEW ERA ENERGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 1 NEW YORK, NY: Berdynaj Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge NEW YORK: Court Narrows Claims in De Souza Suit ORTHOPEDICSNY LLP: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $1.45MM OUTFRONT MEDIA: Bid to Extend Class Cert Filing Date Tossed PACHA SOAP: Faces Class Suit Over Mislabeled Beauty Products PATELCO CREDIT: $7.25MM Settlement Exclusion, Objection, Due May 12 PAYCOR INC: Terry's Bid for Equitable Tolling OK'd PEACHTREE CLEANING: Jackson et al. Seek Proper Overtime Wages PEOPLE PLACES: Cornell Files FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages PETSNOWY: Bennett Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users POTOMAC BEAD: Echols Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind PRECISION DRILLING: Class Cert Filing in Tyger Due April 24, 2027 PRIME PROMETICS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Henry Suit Says PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Narcisse Seeks More Time to File Reply QVC INC: Johnson TCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida REGENCE BLUESHIELD: Class Counsel Gets $39K from Settlement Fund RESIDENCE ANGELICA: Quebec Judge OK's Lawsuit Over COVID-19 Deaths RICHARDS CAPITAL: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Brito Alleges RINGCONN LLC: Corbett Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ROADSAFE TRAFFIC SYSTEMS: Aitken Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ROTO-ROOTER SERVICES: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Nohle Due April 24 RTA CABINET: Potrykus Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind SAFEWAY INC: Bid to Modify Schedule and Extend Deadlines Entered SEATTLE, WA: Faces Suit Over Precinct's Exposure to Carbon Monoxide SECURESPACE MANAGEMENT: Faces Bodnar Suit Over Managers' Unpaid OT SECURITAS SECURITY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Malpica Due August 31 SELECT PORTFOLIO: Johnson Seeks to Certify Class Action SHEIN DISTRIBUTION: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SMART FOODS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Mislabeled Cooking Oil SOUTHERN ILLINOIS: ClassAction.org Probes Data Breach SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Seeks to Decertify Refuerzo Class Action ST DALFOUR: Knowles Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website STABILITY AI: Seeks Assistance in Discovery Dispute STARBUCKS CORPORATION: Lubin Seeks Class Settlement Prelim. Nod STATE FARM: Settles Vehicle Insurance Class Action for $20.93MM SUPER MICRO: Fails to Disclose Material Adverse Info, Bhuva Says SYRACUSE HAULERS: Class Cert Bid in Sims Due Sept. 9 TAIER NEW YORK: Castro Sues Over Unlawful Tip Sharing Policy TAPESTRY INC: Bid to Continue Class Cert Hearing Date Tossed THREAD WALLETS: Henderson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website TILLAMOOK CREAMERY: Appeals Court Revives Greenwashing Class Suit TOBIAS READ: Bid for TRO in Right to Vote Class Suit Tossed TOP CHOICE: Underpays Workers, Church Says TOPGOLF PAYROLL: Bid to Deny Class Certification Terminated TRUBRIDGE INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims TWILIO INC: Intercepts Sensitive Medical Info, E.R. Suit Says UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Over Unlawful Termination of Yemen's TPS UNLOCK PARTNERSHIP: Removes Seong Suit to W.D. Wash. UPONOR INC: Bid to Compel Arbitration in 1625 Riviera Tossed UPONOR INC: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Binkley Tossed VAIL RESORTS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Unfair Ski Pass Pricing VALVOLINE INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Using Non-Spec Oil VESTIS UNIFORMS: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Feb. 1, 2027 VF CORP: Esparza Sues Over Privacy Law Violations VITAL FARMS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 26 VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Parikh Sues Over Vehicle's Locking Defect VUORI INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Mayeli Suit Due Sept. 18 WALT DISNEY: Local 272 LMPF Seeks Class Certification WALT DISNEY: Local 272 Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal WARBY PARKER : Garcia Sues Over Misleading Spam E-mails WESTGATE RESORTS: Court Dismisses Helms SAC with Prejudice WILLINGDON SCHOOL: BC Sup. Court Certifies Suit Over Sexual Abuse WONKA CORP: Oompa Loompa Workers File Class Action ADA Suit WOUND TECHNOLOGY: Faces Cruz Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info ZSPACE INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ********* 3M COMPANY: Wins Bid for Leave to File Instanter Notice ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN D. HARDWICK, v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-03121-EAS-SCS (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Edmund Sargus, Jr. entered an order as follows: -- The Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Instanter Notice of Supplemental Authority is granted. -- The Defendants' Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss is denied and the Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss is held in abeyance. -- The Court certifies this matter for interlocutory review. Mr. Hardwick has sufficiently pled his alleged injury in fact is redressable by a favorable decision of this Court. Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) Motion is DENIED. Being mindful of obtaining an efficient and legally-sound disposition of this dispute, as well as conserving judicial resources and party expenses in this litigation, the Court holds in abeyance the Joint Motion Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Court certifies this matter for interlocutory review and stays this matter pending disposition of this recommendation. Mr. Hardwick is a citizen of Ohio and a resident of the Southern District of Ohio. He has worked as a firefighter for more than 40 years. Mr. Hardwick alleges that he "was exposed at home and at work to C8 through ingestion, inhalation, and absorption of C8 in air, water, food, dust, clothing, uniforms, equipment, gear, and consumer and industrial products contaminated with or otherwise containing C8." Mr. Hardwick states that testing has confirmed he has more than 2 parts per billion ("ppb") C8 in his blood serum. He alleges the Defendants manufactured the C8 in his blood. 3M is a manufacturer and distributor of industrial products and solutions. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lE7L9K at no extra charge.[CC] ACCENTURE LLP: Erdos-Major Suit Removed to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Alexis Erdos-Major, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ACCENTURE, LLP, NEURAFLASH; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 26CU007457C was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on March 27, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-01940-WQH-DEB. The Plaintiff's Complaint brings one claim against Defendants: violation of California's Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"). The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants implemented a "policy and practice of recording and monitoring telephone conversations without the consent of all parties" in violation of CIPA.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Douglas M. Fuchs, Esq. Timothy W. Loose, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Phone: 213.229.7000 Facsimile: 213.229.6652 Email: DFuchs@gibsondunn.com TLoose@gibsondunn.com ADVOCATE AURORA: Bid to Certify Class in Uriel Due May 22 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Uriel Pharmacy Health and Welfare Plan. et al., v. Advocate Aurora Health Inc., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00610 (E.D. Wisc., Filed May 24, 2022), the Hon. Judge Lynn Adelman entered an order granting motion for extension of time as to certain expert discovery deadlines: -- Expert depositions are due by April 20, 2026 -- The deadline to file a motion to certify class and Daubert motions related to class certification is May 22, 2026 -- Opposition to motion to certify a class and to Daubert motions related to class certifications are due by July 21, 2026 -- The deadline to reply in support of Daubert motions is Sept. 4, 2026 -- The deadline to reply in support of a motion to certify class is September 11, 2026. The nature of suit states Antitrust Litigation. Advocate Aurora Health was a non-profit, faith-based hospital network.[CC] ADVOCATE AURORA: Class Cert Bid in Shaw Suit Extended to May 22 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shaw, et al., v. Advocate Aurora Health Inc., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00157 (E.D. Wisc., Filed Feb. 5, 2024), the Hon. Judge Lynn Adelman entered an order granting motion for extension of time as to certain expert discovery deadlines as follows: -- Expert depositions are due by April 20, 2026 -- The deadline to file a motion to certify class and Daubert motions related to class certification is May 22, 2026 -- Opposition to motion to certify a class and to Daubert motions related to class certifications are due by July 21, 2026 -- The deadline to reply in support of Daubert motions is Sept. 4, 2026 -- The deadline to reply in support of a motion to certify class is Sept. 11, 2026. The nature of suit states Antitrust Litigation. Advocate Aurora Health was a non-profit, faith-based hospital network.[CC] ALQUIST 3D: Hernandez Sues to Recover Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------- Marco Hernandez, individually and for others similarly situated v. ALQUIST 3D, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-01304 (D. Colo., March 27, 2026), is brought to recover overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff and other workers like him regularly worked for in excess of 40 hours each week. But these workers never received overtime as required by FLSA. Instead, the Defendant improperly classified the Plaintiff and those similarly situated workers as exempt employees and paid them a salary with no overtime compensation. The Plaintiff brings this collective action to recover unpaid overtime and other damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Alquist on a commercial 3D concrete printing project from July 2024 until September 2024. The Defendant is a company that provides 3D concrete printing and construction services for commercial projects across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl A. Fitz, Esq. FITZ LAW PLLC 3730 Kirby Drive, Ste. 1200 Houston, TX 77098 Phone: (713) 766-4000 Email: carl@fitz.legal AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Wade Suit Removed to E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Murchant Wade, an individual, et al., and on behalf of all similarly situated employees v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, Case No. 24CECG05530 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Fresno, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on March 27, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-02381-SKO. The Plaintiff does not allege the specific date on which he was supposedly denied employment with Amazon. However, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department on December 19, 2023, which made reference to the alleged unlawful conduct that forms the basis of his allegations in this action and alleges that he was denied employment on November 1, 2023.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Andrew P. Frederick, Esq. Dominic D. Sbrocca, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1400 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1124 Phone: +1.650.843.4000 Fax: +1.650.843.4001 Email: andrew.frederick@morganlewis.com dominic.sbrocca@morganlewis.com AMERICAN ACCOUNTS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Blum Due May 21 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY BLUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN ACCOUNTS & ADVISERS, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00367-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order continuing the motion for class certification filing and briefing as follows: Deadline to file motion for class May 21, 2026 Certification: Deadline to file opposition to motion June 11, 2026 for class certification: Deadline to file reply brief: June 21, 2026 On October 9, 2026, the Court issued a Preliminary Pretrial Conference Order, which set the deadline for motions on class certification for April 3, 2026. American is a national collection agency and billing company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pGVtRO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mona Amini, Esq. Gustavo Ponce, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Ave., Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: mona@kazlg.com gustavo@kazlg.com - and - Matthew McKenna, Esq. SHIELD LAW, LLC 237 South St. Unit 110 Waukesha, WI 53186 Telephone: (262) 420-5953 Facsimile: (508) 588-7303 E-mail: matt@shieldlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael S. Poncin, Esq. BASSFORD REMELE 50 South Fifth Street, Suite 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402 E-mail: mponcin@bassford.com ANGI INC: Card-Krauss Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------ Melissa Card-Krauss and Crystal Renfro, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ANGI INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-01301 (D. Colo., March 27, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") for overtime compensation and other relief. The Plaintiffs and the Collective Action Members are entitled to unpaid overtime compensation from the Defendant for all unpaid hours worked by them in excess of 40 hours in a workweek and are also entitled to liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA. During the relevant time periods, the Defendant willfully violated the FLSA by failing to pay the Plaintiffs and the Collective for all of their hours and overtime hours worked, based upon their unlawful policies and practices. While the Defendant required the Plaintiffs and the Collective to work overtime hours, they did not pay them for all hours worked. Accordingly, the Defendant failed to record or compensate Plaintiffs and the Collective for all their hours and overtime hours worked in willful violation of the FLSA. The Defendant also violated the FLSA by failing to pay the Plaintiffs and the Collective Action Members premium overtime compensation at the proper rate because the Defendant failed to include the restricted stock unit compensation in their regular rates of pay to calculate overtime pay. The Plaintiffs and the Collective Action Members are entitled to unpaid overtime compensation at the correct rate from the Defendant for all hours worked by them in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, and they are also entitled to liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant for 50 or more hours per week. Angi Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in Denver, Colorado.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 622 Banyan Trail Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: (561) 447-8888 Fax: (561) 447-8831 Email: gshavitz@shavitlzlaw.com - and - Michael J. Palitz, Esq. WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER GOLDFARB, LLC 477 Madison Avenue, 6th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (561) 447-8888 Fax: (561) 447-8831 Email: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com APOLLO GLOBAL: Investors Entitled to Contingency Fee Arrangement ---------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of securities of Apollo Global Management, Inc. (NYSE: APO) between May 10, 2021 and February 21, 2026, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important May 1, 2026 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action first filed by the Firm. SO WHAT: If you purchased Apollo Global securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Apollo Global class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=1323 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 1, 2026. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) defendants Marc Rowan and Leon Black, among other leadership figures at Apollo Global, frequently communicated with Jeffrey Epstein in the 2010s regarding Apollo Global's business; (2) as a result, Apollo Global's assertion that Apollo Global had never done business with Jeffrey Epstein was untrue; (3) because of the entanglement between Apollo Global's leaders and Jeffrey Epstein, the harm to Apollo Global's reputation was more than a mere possibility; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Apollo Global class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=1323 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] ASP AESTHETICS: Agrees to Settle Telemarketing Suit for $1.3-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that ASP Aesthetics has agreed to a $1,319,450 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the med-spa chain continued to send promotional texts to consumers who opted out of receiving the messages. The ASP Aesthetics class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on February 10, 2026. The deal covers all individuals in the United States who, between April 4, 2021 and February 10, 2026, made a request to ASP Aesthetics to not receive future texts but were sent a text message from ASP (or another party on its behalf) to their cell phone number that promoted the med-spa’s goods, products or services. The court-approved website for the ASP Aesthetics settlement can be found at ASPTCPASettlement.com. According to the website, ASP settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form can receive up to $55 per text message they received after opting out of the med-spa’s marketing texts, up to a maximum of 10 texts. To file an ASP Aesthetics settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and log in using the claim number and PIN found on their 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. All ASP Aesthetics claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by June 11, 2026. Finally, as part of the class action settlement, ASP Aesthetics has agreed to adopt policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the ASP Aesthetics settlement following a hearing on May 27, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The ASP Aesthetics class action lawsuit claimed that the med-spa chain sent marketing texts to the cell phones of consumers who had previously indicated that they no longer wished to receive them, in violation of the TCPA. [GN] AVIS RENT A CAR: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $1.025MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Avis Rent-A-Car System has agreed to a $1,025,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the rental car company failed to protect sensitive consumer information from an August 2024 data breach. The $1.02 million Avis class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on January 20, 2026 and covers all United States residents whose private information was compromised in the data breach Avis experienced between August 3, 2024 and August 6, 2024. Court documents state that approximately 299,006 people are covered by the Avis settlement. The court-approved website for the Avis data breach settlement can be found at AvisDataSecuritySettlement.com. According to the settlement agreement, class members who submit a timely, valid claim form can receive up to $5,000 in reimbursement of out-of-pocket losses stemming from the data breach, such as losses related to fraud or identity theft, credit monitoring costs, professional fees, and other miscellaneous expenses like postage and bank fees. The agreement specifies that class members must submit proof, such as invoices or receipts, to claim this benefit. The settlement website says that all class members, regardless of whether they submit a claim for a documented-loss payment, may submit a claim form to receive an equal-share cash payment from the settlement fund, with no proof required. To submit an Avis data breach settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the unique ID and PIN 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 Avis settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by June 21, 2026. Additionally, Avis, as part of the class action settlement, has agreed to implement certain business practice changes to enhance its cybersecurity systems and mitigate the risk of a future data breach, per the agreement. The court will determine whether to grant the Avis settlement final approval following a hearing on July 28, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Avis class action lawsuit claimed that the rental car company failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to prevent sensitive consumer information from being accessed without authorization in a data breach that occurred sometime between August 3, 2024 and August 6, 2024. Per the filing, private information that may have been compromised in the incident included names, driver's license numbers, credit card numbers and expiration dates, dates of birth and phone numbers. [GN] BARON APP: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Illegal Drip Pricing --------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that the Cameo app unlawfully fails to disclose the true cost of personalized video messages and instead utilizes unlawful drip pricing to tack on a junk service fee at the very end of the checkout process. The 22-page lawsuit accuses Cameo operator Baron App, Inc. of enriching itself by adding to each transaction a 10 percent service fee that is not reflected upfront in the advertised prices of the personalized celebrity message videos sold on the platform. Per the complaint, the Cameo service fee is instead revealed only on the final checkout page in small, faded text. "At this point, consumers have already selected a celebrity, customized the video message, entered their email, and filled out their payment information," the suit says of when the final cost of a Cameo message is revealed. "And they have done all this based on the lower, up-front price." The case claims that Cameo, by way of the alleged drip-pricing scheme, has harmed consumers by luring them with fictitious low prices to create artificial demand, only to then tack on a mandatory junk charge late in the transaction that many might not even notice. Cameo is an online platform that allows consumers to purchase videos from celebrities and other public figures that can be personalized to include specific messaging, typically at a cost of a few hundred dollars, depending on the figure, the filing explains. Given the personalized nature of Cameo videos, the purchase process can be rather involved as consumers must browse through celebrities, select who they want, describe who the video is for, and enter any request details, all before beginning the checkout process, the case shares. According to the complaint, as consumers proceed through these stages, there are multiple disclosures indicating that the final price may increase, but not because of any service fees. For instance, a "+" symbol found near the price, as consumers customize a video request, suggests that the price may be higher for higher video quality or a more elaborate video, the suit states. Similarly, the lawsuit says that another disclosure after the consumer has initiated checkout indicates that the "[f]inal price [will be] calculated after selecting delivery speed," suggesting that the price will increase for faster delivery. It is only at the very end of checkout, after a consumer has selected their celebrity, made personalization requests and provided contact and payment information, that the service fee is shown in fine, faded print at the bottom of a "cluttered" page, the class action lawsuit says. "If consumers do notice the service fee or the increase in the total price, they are pressured to just go through with it (and eat the service fee) so as not to waste their previous effort," the complaint reads. "This drives consumers to pay service fees that they would not otherwise pay, if the higher price was disclosed up front." The case reiterates that the pressure consumers feel to complete a transaction is why drip pricing can be effective, and also why it is illegal. In California, the suit relays, drip pricing "always has been" illegal under the state’s Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law, but in July 2024, the practice also became illegal under the Honest Pricing Law, an amendment to the state’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The Cameo class action lawsuit seeks to represent all California consumers who purchased a personal video or message from Cameo during the applicable statute of limitations period and paid a service fee. [GN] BIOLIFE PLASMA: Guerrero's Ex-Parte Application Tossed ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lisa Guerrero v. Biolife Plasma Services, L.P. et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-02936-KK-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kenly Kiya Kato entered an order denying the Plaintiff's ex parte application. Accordingly, because Plaintiff is not without fault in creating the crisis that requires ex parte relief, Plaintiff's Application is denied. The Plaintiff fails to demonstrate she is without fault in creating the crisis requiring ex parte relief, or that the crisis resulted from excusable neglect. The Plaintiff has been aware of the class certification deadline since Nov. 14, 2025. In addition, the Court expressly reminded Plaintiff of the class certification deadline on January 9, 2026. Despite this, the Plaintiff failed to act diligently to complete the Belaire-West notice process and conduct discovery by, among other things, waiting until Feb. 18, 2026, to request an informal discovery conference regarding the Belaire-West notice and Feb. 26, 2026, to serve notices of depositions on defendants Biolife Plasma Services, L.P. and Biolife Plasma, L.L.C. Moreover, the Plaintiff did not seek a stipulation to continue the certification deadline until February 25, 2026. After the Defendants declined to stipulate to an extension, rather than promptly moving for a continuance using regular noticed motion procedures, Plaintiff waited two weeks before filing the instant Application. On Sept. 12, 2025, plaintiff Lisa Guerrero initiated the instant action by filing a putative Class Action Complaint against the Defendants. On November 3, 2025, the case was removed to this Court. On Nov. 14, 2025, the Court issued a Civil Standing Order requiring Plaintiff to "file a motion for class certification no later than 100 days from the date of the scheduling conference." Biolife manufactures pharmaceutical products. A copy of the Court's order dated March 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9H1PSI at no extra charge.[CC] BKF ENGINEERS: Batchelor Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as KRISTINA BATCHELOR, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. BKF ENGINEERS; BKF ENGINEERS/AGS; BKF ENGINEERS/TELAMONT JOINT VENTURE and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26-CIV-00930, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on March 25, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-02623 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in unlawful labor practices in violation of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. BKF Engineers operates as an engineering firm. The Company offers services that include civil engineering, transportation, specialty services, entitlement support, land planning, and surveying.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Nicky Jatana, Esq. Sehreen Ladak, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Telephone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 E-mail: nicky.jatana@jacksonlewis.com sehreen.ladak@jacksonlewis.com BOOZ ALLEN: Loses Bid to Dismiss Face Tax Data Disclosure Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Safe Harbor International LLC, Alarm Concepts, Inc., Belpointe Sleepovation Investment, LP, Shelby Lowman, and Cedrick Williams, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., the Internal Revenue Service, and the United States Department of the Treasury, Defendants, Civil Action No. 25-cv-00139-LKG (D. Md.), Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied the Government Defendants' motion to dismiss and denied Defendant Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc.'s motion to dismiss . The Plaintiffs bring claims for violations of Sections 6103(a) and 7431(a) of the Internal Revenue Code against the Government Defendants and Booz Allen, arising from the alleged access and disclosure of their tax information by Charles Edward Littlejohn. Booz Allen provides consulting, analysis, and engineering services to public and private-sector organizations, including the IRS and the Treasury Department. During the period 2018 to 2021, it performed information-technology, cybersecurity, tax-administration, and other electronic-data services for the IRS under various government contracts. In 2017, Booz Allen re-hired Littlejohn as an associate in the finance and economic development practice to perform work under its IT-related contracts with the IRS. The Plaintiffs allege that Littlejohn arrived at the IRS in 2017 with a plan to access and leak the tax returns and return information of President Donald Trump and other high-net-worth individuals. In or around May 2019, he contacted the New York Times to discuss providing the newspaper with President Trump's tax return data. In July and August 2020, he expanded his scheme and searched for historic tax data on the nation's wealthiest taxpayers, later providing this information to ProPublica, Inc. in or around September 2020. Littlejohn was subsequently charged, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to five years in prison. The Plaintiffs assert two claims: (1) violation of Sections 6103(a)(1) and 7431(a)(1) against the Government Defendants, and (2) violation of Sections 6103(a)(3) and 7431(a)(2) against Booz Allen. They allege that the IRS maintained control over the detailed physical performance of Littlejohn's work and that Booz Allen and the IRS jointly employed him. The Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, monetary damages, attorney's fees, and costs. The Government Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), arguing that the Government had not waived its sovereign immunity because Littlejohn was a contractor, not an officer or employee of the United States. The Court disagreed. The consolidated class action complaint contains sufficient factual allegations to show that Littlejohn was an employee of the IRS. The Plaintiffs allege that the IRS issued Littlejohn an IRS laptop and an IRS.gov email address, that he had staff-like access to IRS systems, facilities, and confidential taxpayer information, and that the IRS exercised extensive, detailed, day-to-day supervision over his work. The Court also held that nothing in the plain language of Section 7431 precludes the application of the common law control test to determine whether Littlejohn was an employee of the United States. Accordingly, the Court denied the Government Defendants' motion to dismiss Count I. Booz Allen moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that Section 7431(a)(2) forecloses a vicarious liability theory and that Littlejohn acted outside the scope of his employment. The Court rejected both arguments. It held that Section 7431(a)(2) does not preclude a wrongful disclosure claim under a vicarious liability theory, and that the term "person" in Sections 6103 and 7431 reflects Congress's intent that an employer of the individual who engaged in the wrongful disclosure may be held liable. The Court further found that the consolidated class action complaint contains sufficient factual allegations to show that Littlejohn was acting within the scope of his employment with Booz Allen when he disclosed the Plaintiffs' tax returns and return information, including that he accessed and disclosed their tax returns in part to benefit Booz Allen, because Booz Allen requested that he do so as part of his work on its contracts. Accordingly, the Court denied Booz Allen's motion to dismiss Count II. The Court: (1) Denied the Government Defendants' motion to dismiss and (2) Denied Booz Allen's motion to dismiss. A copy of the MEMORANDUM OPINION is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PbAnqp from PacerMonitor.com Consol Defendants Internal Revenue Service and U.S. Department of the Treasury are represented by Nicholas S. Willingham, Esq. Defendant Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. is represented by Ilana Frier, Esq., at WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY Consol Plaintiff Alarm Concepts, Inc. is represented by: Veronica Byam Nannis, Esq. JOSEPH GREENWALD AND LAAKE PA Email: vnannis@jgllaw.com James P. Ulwick, Esq. KRAMON & GRAHAM, P.A. Tel: 410-752-6030 Email: julwick@kg-law.com Joy D. Merklen, Esq. Barrett J. Vahle, Esq. Norman E. Siegel, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP Tel: 816-714-7117 (Merklen); 816-714-7112 (Siegel) Email: merklen@stuevesiegel.com; vahle@stuevesiegel.com; siegel@stuevesiegel.com John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN AND MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com Consol Plaintiff Belpointe Sleepovation Investment, LP is represented by: Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. Tel: 917-438-9189 Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com James P. Ulwick, Esq. KRAMON & GRAHAM, P.A. Tel: 410-752-6030 Email: julwick@kg-law.com James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. Steven M. Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP Tel: 202-540-7200 (Pizzirusso); 646-357-1100 (Nathan) Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com; snathan@hausfeld.com Plaintiff Safe Harbor International LLC is represented by: Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq. Israel Rosenberg, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. Tel: 646-837-7150 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com; irosenberg@bursor.com James P. Ulwick, Esq. KRAMON & GRAHAM, P.A. Tel: 410-752-6030 Email: julwick@kg-law.com Nathaniel K. Risch, Esq. MANN & RISCH LLC Email: nate@mannrisch.com BROOKDALE SENIOR: McDonald Seeks OK of Class Cert Memo ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONIQUE McDONALD, individually and as a representative of a class of similarly situated persons, on behalf of the BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING, INC. 401(K) RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN, v. BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00094 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order regarding corrected Memorandum and McDonald declaration in support of class certification. The Plaintiff submits this Notice to alert the Court to an inadvertent error in the Memorandum in Support of Motion to Certify Class and declaration of Monique McDonald in support of motion to certify class. Both the Memorandum and the McDonald Declaration state that the Plaintiff is a current participant in the Plan. However, Ms. McDonald's participation in the Plan ended as of June 30, 2024. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is concurrently filing a corrected Memorandum and corrected McDonald Declaration, which reflect that the Plaintiff is a former participant in the Plan. The correction of Plaintiff's participant status is the only change between the original and corrected versions of the Memorandum and McDonald Declaration, and the Plaintiff submits that this correction does not alter any of the grounds for class certification discussed in the Memorandum. The Defendant owns and operates retirement homes across the United States. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=unD2WG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Miller, Esq. Laurie Rubinow, Esq. Alec J. Berin, Esq. Anna K. D'Agostino, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 65 Main Street Chester, CT 06412 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: jemiller@millershah.com lrubinow@millershah.com ajberin@millershah.com akdagostino@millershah.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com BW EQUITY LLC: Anderson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Lisa Anderson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. BW Equity LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-03546 (N.D. Ill., March 31, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://www.brochuwalker.com/ (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website") to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Wood and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the Website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a variety of elegant dresses, tops, sweaters, cardigans, jackets and wraps, loungewear, skirts, knitwear, denim, shoes, handbags, belts, scarves, fine jewelry, fragrances, candles, and blankets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 4903 Avenue N, Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 929-442-2154 Email: Achan@ealg.law BWW RESOURCES: Waite Files Suit Over Unlawful Pay Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- MONICA WAITE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BWW RESOURCES, LLC, d/b/a BUFFALO WILD WINGS, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01684-TWT (N.D. Ga., March 30, 2026) arises from Defendant's unlawful pay practices, including its failure to pay minimum and overtime wages. The complaint relates that during the past three years, the Defendant has maintained common, uniform compensation policies and practices that unlawfully underpaid its tipped employees, including by improperly taking and applying a tip credit and paying a subminimum tipped cash wage (or service rate) for hours that should have been paid at the full minimum wage (and overtime premium where applicable), requiring tipped employees to perform substantial non-tipped work and other duties outside their tipped occupation while still being paid at tipped rates, and otherwise failing to comply with the requirements governing tipped compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and related regulations. The Defendant uniformly enforced these company-wide policies and practices at all restaurants in Pennsylvania irrespective of their location. As a result, Defendant may not rely on the tip credit and failed to pay Representative Plaintiff and similarly situated Tipped Employees at least the required minimum wage and overtime wage under the FLSA and/or Pennsylvania law for all hours worked, says the suit. The Representative Plaintiff and the putative collective and class members seek unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other relief available at law and in equity. Plaintiff Waite worked as a server at Buffalo Wild Wings in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Defendant BWW RESOURCES, LLC d/b/a BUFFALO WILD WINGS is a Georgia-headquartered restaurant company operating Buffalo Wild Wings locations throughout Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road 4th Floor Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 327-5355 E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com CABLE COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Ayala Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- BILL AYALA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, SAFE ROAD SOLUTIONS INCORPORATED, JAMES TELESCO, MELANIE TELESCO nee CORDERO, and NEIL TOMASETTI, Defendants, Case No. 26-cv-2433 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2026) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the FLSA and NYLL by failing to pay for each hour worked; failing to pay mandatory overtime wages; and terminating him in retaliation for his questions regarding pay discrepancies and/or refusal to participate in Defendants' dangerous unlawful activity, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a driver from January 6, 2025, until his termination on February 20, 2026. He was tasked with loading, operating, and unloading supplies and equipment at Defendants' work sites. Cable Communications, LLC designs, installs, tests, and certifies Internet Service Provider infrastructure.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary Naidich, Esq. NAIDICH LAW 137 5th Ave, 9th Fl. New York, NY 10010 CARSON'S OF MALTA: Conrick Suit Seeks Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Aidan Conrick, et al. v. Carson's of Malta, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00585-AMN-DJS (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting request for court conference on motion for Rule 23 class certification. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). The Plaintiff requests a conference with the Court regarding the Plaintiff's anticipated non-dispositive Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification. Carson's of Malta is a privately-held company that operates in the restaurants industry. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QmVRG3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Miller, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: John B. DuCharme, Esq. DUCHARME CLARK, LLP 646 Plank Road - Suite 204 Clifton Park, NY 12065 Telephone: (518) 373-1482 Facsimile: (518)-373-8758 E-mail: jducharme@nycap.rr.com CELGENE CORP: Bid to Amend Pomalyst Antitrust Suit Denied --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana, HMO Louisiana Inc., and David Mitchell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Celgene Corporation, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, Anthony Insogna, and Jerome Zeldis, Defendants, consolidated under Civil Action Nos. 23-cv-7871, 24-cv-02230, and 24-cv-06924 (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Edgardo Ramos of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint and granted Defendants' motion to strike Appendix A and Appendix B from Plaintiffs' reply brief, in this putative class action alleging unlawful monopolization of the Pomalyst market. Plaintiffs are customers of pharmacies which initially purchased pomalidomide -- a drug used in the treatment of multiple myeloma and sold under the brand name Pomalyst -- from Celgene or entities who reimbursed unspecified customers of such pharmacies. Plaintiffs contended that Celgene unlawfully extended a monopoly in the Pomalyst market through (i) a pattern of fraud on the U.S. Patent Office, (ii) abuse of the federal judicial system, and (iii) settling with generic competitors for extended delay of generic entry through agreements protecting unlawful supra-competitive pricing. Motion to Strike: The Court allowed Plaintiffs to file a 15-page reply, but Plaintiffs filed 11 additional pages in two appendices. Appendix A was a 10-page, single-spaced road map in chart form identifying deficiencies noted in the Court's March 2025 Order alongside Plaintiffs' new responsive factual allegations. Appendix B was a single-spaced collection of cases. The Court struck both appendices because they exceeded the court-authorized page limit and because Appendix A could be classified as arguments that should have been in the body of the reply brief, citing only the Court's prior dismissal order and Plaintiffs' proposed Second Amended Complaint. Antitrust Standing: The Court determined that Plaintiffs lacked antitrust standing to bring Walker Process claims, focusing on three primary factors. First, Direct Purchasers -- plaintiffs better situated to vindicate the antitrust laws -- exist, diminishing the justification for allowing a more remote party to perform the office of a private attorney general. Second, Plaintiffs conceded they typically maintained no direct product supply arrangements with Celgene and were separated from Celgene by wholesalers and specialty pharmacies, relying entirely on a theory of indirect injury. Third, standing hinges not on who is able to certify the broadest class action but whether there are more efficient enforcers with the self-interest to vindicate the public interest in antitrust enforcement -- and Direct Purchasers had in fact brought Walker Process claims. Walker Process Fraud: Even if Plaintiffs had antitrust standing, the Court found they failed to plausibly plead that the patents were obtained by fraud. As to the '262 patent, even though the D'Amato patent was listed among nearly 300 references, Celgene did disclose the patent and accordingly did not deliberately conceal information from the PTO; once the examiner became aware of the reference, Celgene had no obligation to emphasize its importance. As to the '554 and '633 patents, the Court was not convinced that the Thakurta Declaration characterizing results as unexpected and surprising amounted to a misrepresentation before the PTO, as the examiner was free to reach her own opinion based on the prior art. As to the '427 formulation patent, the Second Amended Complaint did not allege the materiality of Schey (April 2002) to the issued patent, failing Rule 9(b) requirements. The Tutino Declaration allegations as to the '467 and '373 patents were likewise insufficient. Sham Litigation: The Court again could not conclude that Celgene's infringement actions against the ANDA filers were objectively baseless such that no reasonable litigant could realistically expect success on the merits. Since the sources were disclosed to the examiner, it is rare that a patentee's assertion of its patent in the face of invalidity will be so unreasonable as to support a sham litigation claim, and Plaintiffs added no facts warranting such a finding. Reverse Payment Claims: Plaintiffs failed to plead the requisite linkage -- tying the pay to the delay -- to sustain their reverse payment claims. Volume-limited licenses in this scenario do not constitute a reverse payment within the meaning of Actavis. The Second Amended Complaint also failed to identify references to or provisions within any of the Pomalyst settlements mentioning Revlimid, or any other plausible reason to believe the Revlimid agreements were incorporated within them. Accordingly, the Court granted Defendants' motion to strike and denied Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motions and close the case. A copy of the Opinion and Order Dated March 30, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fw7BQZ from PacerMonitor.com CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT: Court Dismisses "Cantey" FLSA Wage Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned Andre Cantey and Terrence Boston, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Center for Employment Opportunities, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 25-cv-4843 (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lewis J. Liman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint without prejudice, with leave to file a second amended complaint. Defendant is an employment services organization that provides short-term paid transitional employment to those with criminal convictions. It has over 30 locations in the United States, with five in New York State, and employs thousands of hourly employees — referred to as Participants — to perform entry-level jobs such as litter abatement, landscaping, and maintenance projects. Plaintiffs Andre Cantey and Terrence Boston are New York residents who were employed as transitional employees by Defendant in Albany County. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant imposed a uniform, mandatory weekly job coaching requirement on all Participants, requiring them to travel on their days off to attend a meeting on Defendant's property for one hour or more, without pay. Plaintiffs further alleged that supervisors recorded time inaccurately based on scheduled rather than actual hours, that Defendant implemented an unlawful time-rounding policy, and that Participants regularly worked over 40 hours a week without receiving overtime compensation. The amended complaint asserted four causes of action: (1) failure to pay overtime and willful failure to keep records under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), asserted only by Plaintiff Boston; (2) failure to pay all wages due under New York Labor Law (NYLL) Section 650 et seq.; (3) failure to pay overtime under NYLL Section 650 et seq.; and (4) failure to provide accurate wage notices under NYLL Sections 195 and 198. Plaintiffs brought these claims as a class and collective action on behalf of all non-exempt persons employed by Defendant in New York State on or after August 25, 2022. On the FLSA claim, Defendant argued that the amended complaint failed to plead enterprise coverage, including that Defendant had an annual gross volume of sales of not less than $500,000. The court agreed. Although Boston alleged that Defendant employs thousands of nonexempt workers and receives millions of dollars in government contracts, Plaintiffs did not plead, even on information and belief, that Defendant had over $500,000 in gross sales. The court held that omission was not a minor defect, as a factual allegation in a complaint signifies that counsel has evidentiary support for it. For completeness, the court separately found that Boston adequately alleged a violation of FLSA's overtime requirements. Boston alleged he worked from 6:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., five shifts per week, and was also required to attend unpaid job coaching lasting at least one hour on days off, placing his total weekly hours above 40. On the wage statement claim under NYLL Section 195(3), the court found that Plaintiffs adequately alleged Article III standing. Plaintiffs alleged that because Defendant's paystubs omitted job coaching hours, they were unaware of the number of compensable hours they worked each week and were prevented from being able to calculate or advocate for their proper pay. However, having dismissed the only federal claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Accordingly, the court dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice and directed Plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint by April 10, 2026. The court also ordered Plaintiff Cantey to show cause why he should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, given that he asserted no FLSA or other federal claim. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3akeF8 from PacerMonitor.com CHANSON INTERNATIONAL: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Chanson International Holding (NASDAQ: CHSN) resulting from allegations that Chanson International Holding may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So what: If you purchased Chanson International securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=56805 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: Rosen Law Firm is investigating potential civil securities claims. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com [GN] CHARGEPOINT HOLDINGS: Class, Derivative Actions Stayed ------------------------------------------------------ ChargePoint Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending Jan. 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2026, that it is currently subject to a consolidated securities class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and is currently, and may in the future become, the target of stockholder derivative actions related to the same alleged events and statements at issue in the securities class action. These actions have been stayed. On November 29, 2023, a class action lawsuit alleging violations of federal securities laws was filed against ChargePoint Holdings, Inc. and certain of its former officers, and a second class action lawsuit was filed on January 22, 2024. In May 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California consolidated these class actions into one action captioned 'Khan v. ChargePoint Holdings, Inc., et al.' On May 16, 2024, the court consolidated the class actions into one action captioned Khan v. ChargePoint Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-cv-06172-NW, appointed two lead plaintiffs and appointed lead counsel. On July 19, 2024, the lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint, purportedly on behalf of purchasers of the company's stock between December 7, 2021 and November 16, 2023, alleging that ChargePoint and certain of its former officers made materially false and misleading statements in violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 regarding ChargePoint's revenue and the value of its inventory, and further alleging that the same parties engaged in a scheme to prematurely recognize revenue in violation of Section 10(b) and Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) of the Exchange Act. In connection with this consolidated class action, ChargePoint could be forced to make significant payments to or other settlements with its stockholders and their lawyers that are outside of ChargePoint's insurance coverage, and such payments or settlement arrangements could have a material adverse effect on its business, operating results or financial condition. On January 4, 2024, a ChargePoint stockholder purporting to act on behalf of the company filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against its Board of Directors and certain of its former officers, alleging that the derivative defendants breached their fiduciary duties to ChargePoint in connection with the same alleged events and alleged materially false and misleading statements asserted in the class actions. Four additional substantively duplicative derivative actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on January 8, 2024, March 1, 2024, May 2, 2024, and May 24, 2024. The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On September 23, 2024, the Northern District of California court consolidated the four California derivative actions into one action captioned 'In re ChargePoint Holdings, Inc. Derivative Litigation,' Case No. 24-cv-00149-NW. On November 4, 2024, the court entered an order staying this pending resolution of the defendants' motion to dismiss it, and a Case Management Conference for the Consolidated Derivative Action was scheduled to be held on May 26, 2026, concurrently with the Case Management Conference for the class actions. In addition to these matters, the company has also agreed to indemnify its directors and executive officers for costs associated with any fees, expenses, judgments, fines, and settlement amounts incurred by them in any action or proceeding to which any of them are, or are threatened to be, made a party by reason of their service as a director or officer. The company maintains director and officer insurance coverage that would generally enable it to recover a portion of any future amounts paid and also may be subject to indemnification obligations by law with respect to the actions of its employees under certain circumstances and in certain jurisdictions. ChargePoint Holdings, Inc. is a provider of networked charging solutions for electric vehicles, offering hardware, software and services that enable businesses, fleets and drivers to charge EVs across North America and Europe. The company operates one of the largest EV charging networks, serving commercial, fleet and residential customers. CHARLES RIVER: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach Incident ---------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Charles River Insurance data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Charles River Insurance data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Charles River Insurance Security Incident: What Happened? Charles River Insurance has confirmed a data breach that may have compromised personal information. A notice posted to the company's website states that unauthorized access may have affected individuals' sensitive data. The incident is under investigation by a cybersecurity firm, and Charles River Insurance plans to notify affected individuals if private data is found to have been compromised. Though the investigation into the Charles River Insurance data breach is ongoing, a post was made to Ransomware.Live, indicating that ransomware group Akira claims to possess 63GB of data pertaining to employees and customers, including Social Security numbers, driver's licenses, passports, addresses, contact information, and financial details. Charles River Insurance operates two offices in Framingham and Leominster, Massachusetts, offering a range of coverage for individuals and businesses. What You Can Do After the Charles River Insurance Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Charles River Insurance data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Charles River Insurance to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] CHICAGO, IL: Jacobs et al. Allege Deprivation of Due Process of Law ------------------------------------------------------------------- VERNON JACOBS, THOMAS VIERE, MARY SMITH, STEFAN SZLEMBARSKI, BRENDA MARTIN, ALFRED IVY, LETICIA BELLO ZAVALETA, JUTON HEMPHILL, AND IRIS NELSON, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF CHICAGO AND CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03093 (N.D. Ill., March 19, 2026) is a class action seeking for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Defendants who denied the conveyance of 86-142 of these $1.00 large lots to 105 Qualifying Property Owners (QPOs), including the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs maintain that the Defendants' conduct is an unlawful refusal to finalize the transfers. Moreover, the Plaintiffs alleges that the Chicago Department of Planning and Development is currently soliciting new buyers for 86 of the $1.00 large lots City Council awarded to Plaintiffs and other QPOs, in violation of the Large Lot Program Ordinance, Ordinance SO2019-6466, and the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, DPD's refusal to convey these lots constitutes a deprivation of protected property interests without due process of law, alleges the suit. Chicago's Department of Planning and Development is a department responsible for administering the City's zoning and land use policies. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert M. Walker, Esq. THE WALKER LAW GROUP 605 N. Michigan Ave, Floor 4 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (312) 810-9886 E-mail: robert.walker.esq@gmail.com CHILDCARE CAREERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Policare Says ----------------------------------------------------------- RACHEL POLICARE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHILDCARE CAREERS, LLC; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-02592 (N.D. Cal., March 25, 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 Policare was employed by the Defendants as a recruiter. Childcare Careers, LLC offers staffing and recruitment services for child care. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Olivia R. Beale, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 5847 San Felipe St., Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 Email: obeale@mybackwages.com CLEARLINK TECHNOLOGIES: Gibson Seeks Associate Sales Agents' Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ GREGORY GIBSON, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, CLEARLINK TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00227-JCB (D. Utah, March 19, 2026), accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and other appropriate rules, regulations, statutes, and ordinances. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an associate sales agent from July 2025 to February 2026. Allegedly, the Defendant subjected Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, to Defendant's policy and practice of failing to compensate its associate sales agents for their necessary boot-up and call ready work, which resulted in the failure to properly compensate them as required under applicable federal law. Headquartered in Utah, Clearlink Technologies, LLC operates a sales center. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jared D. Scott, Esq. ANDERSON & KARRENBERG 250 E. 200 S., Suite 340 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 534-1700 Facsimile: (801) 364-7697 E-mail: jscott@aklawfirm.com - and - Jacob Rusch, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com CLOVER NEEDLECRAFT: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Cole Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MORGAN COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Clover Needlecraft, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-04078-SLD-RLH (C.D. Ill., March 25, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://clover-usa.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Cole and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On November 10, 2025, the Plaintiff was searching online for knitting and crochet products for his hobby and discovered Defendant's website. He decided to explore the website with the intent to make a purchase. However, he encountered multiple accessibility barriers that ultimately prevented him from completing the purchase. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Cole and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, lack of alt-text on graphics, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. Plaintiff Cole seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Clover Needlecraft, Inc. operates the website that offers a selection of crafting tools and accessories, including crochet hook sets, knitting needles, quilting and sewing notions, stitch markers, pom-pom makers, and specialty crafting tools.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (718) 554-0237 E-mail: dreyes@ealg.law COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH: Dickson Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Law Violation ------------------------------------------------------------------ SHELBY DICKSON and EILEEN MCGETTRICK, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01275-CNS (D. Colo., March 26, 2026) is a class action that challenges Defendant's long standing policy of failing to properly compensate its non-exempt employees for all hours that they worked. The complaint relates that the Defendant instituted a policy of failing to pay for time spent working during meal periods by Plaintiffs Shelby Dickson and Eileen McGettrick. Indeed, Defendant deducted time for a meal break even when no meal break was taken by Plaintiffs. This conduct violates both Colorado law and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant also violated Colorado law in failing to provide Plaintiffs with a 10 minute paid rest break for each four hours they worked for Defendant; and in failing to include holiday incentive pay in the calculation of the regular rate of pay. The Defendant's conduct violates Colorado law because Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs their minimum wage and overtime compensation for all time worked as required by the Colorado Constitution, the Colorado Wage Act, the Colorado Minimum Wage Act , and the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order, adds the complaint. Consequently, the Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, mandatory penalties, additional penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs due to them and the similarly situated workers. The Plaintiffs also bring their claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs seek to recover all unpaid overtime wages under the FLSA. Plaintiff Shelby Dickson worked for Defendant in Colorado Springs, Pueblo, and Canon City, Colorado. She worked for Defendant at Penrose Hospital, St. Francis Hospital, St. Mary-Corwin Hospital, and St. Thomas More Hospital from approximately July 2023 to October 2024. She was a registered nurse that normally worked in the intensive care unit. Plaintiff Eileen McGettrick worked for Defendant at Penrose Hospital and St. Francis Hospital from approximately October 2021 to May 2024. She was a charge nurse that normally worked in the bariatric and spine unit. Defendant CommonSpirit Health is a Colorado non-profit corporation that operates over 200 hospitals and healthcare facilities in Colorado.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. FOTY LAW GROUP 2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@fotylawgroup.com COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Dickson Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- SHELBY DICKSON and EILEEN MCGETTRICK, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01275-CNS (D. Colo., March 26, 2026) is a class and collective action that challenges Defendant's long standing policy of failing to properly compensate its non-exempt employees for all hours that they worked. The Defendant's conduct violates Colorado law because Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs their minimum wage and overtime compensation for all time worked as required by the Colorado Constitution, the Colorado Wage Act, the Colorado Minimum Wage Act, and the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order, assert the complaint. The complaint further relates that the Defendant instituted a policy of failing to pay for time spent working during meal periods by Plaintiffs Shelby Dickson and Eileen McGettrick. The Defendant deducted time for a meal break even when no meal break was taken by Plaintiffs. Defendant also (i) failed to provide Plaintiffs with a 10 minute paid rest break for each four hours they worked for Defendant; and (ii) failed to include holiday incentive pay in the calculation of the regular rate of pay. This conduct violates both Colorado law and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, asserts the complaint. Consequently, the Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit as a class action to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, mandatory penalties, additional penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs due to them and the similarly situated workers. The Plaintiffs also bring their claims under the FLSA. The Plaintiffs seek to recover all unpaid overtime wages under the FLSA. Plaintiff Shelby Dickson worked for Defendant in Colorado Springs, Pueblo, and Canon City, Colorado. She worked for Defendant at Penrose Hospital, St. Francis Hospital, St. Mary-Corwin Hospital, and St. Thomas More Hospital from July 2023 to October 2024. Plaintiff Eileen McGettrick worked for Defendant at Penrose Hospital and St. Francis Hospital from October 2021 to May 2024. She was a charge nurse that normally worked in the bariatric and spine unit.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. FOTY LAW GROUP 2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@fotylawgroup.com COMPASS GROUP: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Mercedez Suit Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLA MERCEDEZ, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. COMPASS GROUP USA, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00942-GS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Stein entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration. The parties shall meet and confer and submit a joint status letter by no later than April 3, 2026, with their proposal for the next steps in this case (or, if they cannot agree, their competing proposals). Accordingly, although it is supported by adequate consideration, the Agreement is not authorized by the CBA, violates the Union's exclusive bargaining rights under the NLRA, and must be found void and unenforceable under Mendez. As a result, the Agreement cannot be a basis for compelling Mercedez to arbitrate her claims. Ultimately, the Court finds that it need not determine whether Mercedez was, as she claims, "already [ ] hired" when she signed the Agreement and thus "already a union member at the time of hiring pursuant to the CBA." The Plaintiff alleges that Compass unlawfully undercompensated the Plaintiff and others similarly situated in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York law. Compass moves to compel Mercedez to arbitrate her claims under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), and to stay this action pending arbitration. For the reasons set forth below, Compass’s motion is DENIED. Mercedez, who was a union member while employed by Compass, brings this action on behalf of an FLSA collective, and a class, consisting of: "all non exempt employees working for fast-food establishments operated by Compass in New York City." Compass operates a number of Starbucks and other fast-food establishments in New York City. A copy of the Court's opinion & order dated March 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=b4sqId at no extra charge.[CC] COMPREHENSIVE ORTHOPAEDICS: Gagnon Files Suit Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- GARRY GAGNON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMPREHENSIVE ORTHOPAEDICS AND MUSCULOSKELETAL CARE LLC, Defendant, Case No. ____ (Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Cal., March 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to secure and monitor its network resulting in a data breach of highly sensitive documents and information stored on the computer network of Comprehensive Orthopaedics, an orthopaedic practice providing medical services and/or employment to individuals, including Plaintiff and Class Members. The complaint relates that in the ordinary course of receiving medical services from Defendant Comprehensive Orthopaedics, or alternatively being employed by Comprehensive Orthopaedics, each patient and employee must provide (and Plaintiff did provide) Defendant Comprehensive Orthopaedics with sensitive, personal, and private information, such as their: Name, address, phone number, and email address; Date of birth; Social Security number; Marital status; Employer with contact information; Primary and secondary insurance policy holders' name, address, date of birth, and Social Security number; Demographic information; Driver's license or state or federal identification; Information relating to the individual's medical and medical history; Insurance information and coverage; and Banking and/or credit card information. The Defendant experienced a cyber-attack on its computer systems by threat actor Insomnia on November 28, 2025, when it took many of the business's networked systems offline, adversely affecting medical services. The Defendant has yet to notify the Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") of the Data Breach that occurred on March 18, 2026. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. Plaintiff and Class Members must now and for years into the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft, says the suit. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant seeking redress for its unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for: (i) negligence, (ii) negligence per se, (iii) breach of implied contract, (iv) breach of fiduciary duty; and (v) unjust enrichment, and (vi) declaratory relief. The Plaintiff seeks remedies including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief, including improvements to Defendant's data security systems, future annual audits, as well as long-term and adequate credit monitoring services funded by Defendant, and declaratory relief. Plaintiff Garry Gagnon was a patient of Comprehensive Orthopaedics. Defendant Comprehensive Orthopaedics and Musculoskeletal Care LLC is an orthopaedic practice in various locations in Connecticut, specializing in helping patients regain mobility, function, and comfort. It offers a variety of services, including a variety of physical therapy, pain management, and rehabilitation programs, while offering advanced surgical options for cases that require operative intervention.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 100 Pearl Street 14th Floor - #16946876 Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (929) 677-5181 E-mail: ofaircloth@sirillp.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. Danielle L. Perry, Esq. MASON & PERRY LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com E-mail: dperry@masonllp.com CONAIR LLC: McCabe Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Reply ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kevin McCabe v. Conair LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-05594-RER-VMS (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting request for an extension of time to submit reply in support of his motion for class certification from March 26 to April 9. The action concerns a coffee maker that Conair sold through Amazon. Conair sells small appliances, personal care products, and health and beauty products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3u1Wpm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd C. Bank, Esq. TODD C. BANK, ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C. 119-40 Union Turnpike, Fourth Floor Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 520-7125 E-mail: tbank@toddbanklaw.com COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Membership Renewals ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that a Costco customer filed a class action lawsuit against the company. Why: The plaintiff claims Costco violates California law by sending untimely and deficient membership renewal notices. Where: The Costco class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses Costco of violating California law by sending untimely and deficient membership renewal notices. Plaintiff Russel George's class action lawsuit claims Costco sends its customers an email notice 60 days prior to automatically charging their credit cards for membership renewals, which he argues is untimely and outside the 45-day window set by California's Automatic Renewal Law (ARL). "Due to Costco's untimely and deficient auto-renewal notice, the plaintiff was deprived of information he was statutorily entitled to that would have notified him of the upcoming auto-renewal and provided him with methods of cancellation," the Costco class action lawsuit says. George claims Costco's membership renewal notices also fail to include statutorily required information, such as the length and terms of the renewal, the amount to be charged and any methods to cancel the automatic renewal. Costco membership practices allegedly violate California law George argues he was surprised to learn that Costco automatically renewed his Gold Star annual membership in January 2026, charging his payment card $65, after he began reconsidering whether he should maintain the membership due to the low frequency with which he shopped at the retailer. "Had the plaintiff been provided this notice in a timely manner, he would have cancelled his membership and not gone forward with the auto-renewal," the Costco class action lawsuit says. George claims Costco is guilty of violating California's ARL, False Advertising Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law. The plaintiff demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of damages for himself and all class members. Last month, Costco faced a class action lawsuit alleging it sold chickens contaminated with Salmonella. The plaintiff is represented by Matthew Smith of Migliaccio & Rathod LLP. The Costco class action lawsuit is George II v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. 3:26-cv-02369, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] CRUNCHYROLL LLC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over 2026 Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Crunchyroll failed to properly safeguard private consumer information stored in its systems from a March 2026 data breach. The 30-page data breach lawsuit contends that Crunchyroll, a popular anime streaming platform, failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures and flouted industry data privacy standards, leading to a massive data breach that reportedly occurred on March 12, 2026. According to the suit, an unauthorized third party last month gained access to Crunchyroll's systems after an employee of Telus, one of the defendant's business process outsourcing partners, executed malware that collected and extracted over eight million customer support tickets, including 6.8 million unique consumer email addresses. The filing says that confidential consumer information that may have been compromised in the data breach includes full names, usernames, email addresses, IP addresses, approximate location data, user support communications, and partial payment card details, such as the last four digits or expiration date. The case further notes that "[t]he full extent of what hackers took from [Crunchyroll] is still being investigated." The class action lawsuit shares that when consumers sign up for Crunchyroll's streaming service, they are required to share personal information such as their email address and credit card information. The suit asserts that Crunchyroll failed to meet industry cybersecurity standards and guidelines set by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Per the filing, the FTC has published robust guidelines for businesses that collect consumer information, including disposing of information that is no longer needed, encrypting personal data, assessing and understanding network vulnerabilities, and implementing enhanced security policies such as intrusion detection systems. Crunchyroll failed to meet even these most basic requirements despite its obligation to prevent the "involuntary disclosure" of consumer information to unauthorized third parties, the case alleges. The lawsuit says that Crunchyroll "knew or should have known" of the risk associated with storing consumers' data and that companies' outsourcing partners are often targeted by hackers due to the value and amount of personal data that could potentially be extracted. The filing says that consumers' private information is extremely valuable to cybercriminals, and that there is a "strong probability" that "entire batches" of stolen information will be put up for sale on the dark web. Access to consumer information means cybercriminals "can do more than just empty a victim's bank account," with the case saying there exists the possibility of "all manner of fraud," including obtaining a driver's license or ID card with a victim's name, obtaining jobs with their assumed identity, renting a house, receiving medical services, and even providing the victim's information to police during an arrest. According to the suit, the public first became aware of the Crunchyroll data breach from a social media post made on or about March 22, 2026. Despite outside reporting and social media indicating a data breach had occurred, Crunchyroll did not issue a statement that the incident was under investigation until March 23, 2026, the filing states. The case further alleges that when Crunchyroll announced the data breach, it "deliberately underplayed" the breach's magnitude and "obfuscated" details about how it occurred, what information was taken, who was responsible, and the extent to which the data at issue was compromised. The Crunchyroll data breach class action lawsuit seeks to cover all individuals in the United States whose personally identifiable information was exposed in the streaming platform's March 2026 data breach. [GN] DEERE & CO: Agrees to Settle Right to Repair Class Action for $99MM ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Hanrahan of Farm Policy News reports that "U.S. agriculture equipment maker Deere on Monday, April 6, agreed to pay $99 million into a settlement fund for farms and farmers that are part of a class action over costs and access to repairs. The case is part of broader scrutiny in the U.S. over so-called right-to-repair practices, with regulators and plaintiffs arguing that some manufacturers limit competition by controlling access to repair tools and ⁠software." "The settlement fund covers eligible plaintiffs who paid Deere's authorized dealers for repairs to large agricultural equipment from January 2018, according to a document filed in the federal court in Chicago, Illinois," Reuters reported. "In the settlement, Deere also agreed to make available to farmers for 10 years 'the digital tools required for the maintenance, diagnosis, and repair' of large agricultural equipment, including tractors, combines, and sugarcane harvesters, the filing showed." "The proposed accord requires a judge's approval," Reuters reported. "'This settlement ⁠addresses the issues raised in the 2022 complaint and brings this case to an end with no finding of wrongdoing,' Deere said in a separate statement." Deere Still Facing Separate FTC Lawsuit While this case is now settled, Deere is still facing a separate right-to-repair lawsuit brought by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. The latest action on that case occurred in June 2025, when Bloomberg Law's Benjamin Hernandez reported that "a federal judge denied tractor giant Deere & Co.'s attempt to get an early win in a government lawsuit alleging the company has a tractor-repair monopoly." "Judge Iain D. Johnston of the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois turned aside Deere's argument that the government's claims were factually and legally insufficient regarding the company's power in the 'aftermarket' for tractors," Hernandez reported in June 2025. "The judge also rejected Deere's challenges to the FTC's constitutional structure, including arguments related to the Supreme Court's 1935 decision in Humphrey's Executor v. United States, as well as the states' standing and timeliness in bringing the case." Essentially, the judge ruled at that time that Deere must still face the FTC lawsuit. What Repair Challenges do Farmers Say they Face? NBC News' Natalie Kainz and Adrienne Broaddus reported in April 2025 that "spring is planting season for Missouri farmer Jared Wilson. It's his only opportunity during the year to get his corn and soybeans sown and sprayed. Not getting it right would affect his yield. But every year, he says, he struggles to get his John Deere equipment to do the job. Broken down combines, tractors and harvesters have cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars to fix." "Wilson and others accuse John Deere (in a lawsuit separate from the FTC's) of blocking farmers and everyday mechanics from fixing equipment without going through John Deere dealers," Kainz and Broaddus reported. "Although the company doesn't prohibit users from fixing equipment themselves, the lawsuit claims it locks users out of repairs because of the limited access to software that only dealerships can access. The lawsuit says that makes most fixes nearly impossible. A lot like cars, the farming equipment is equipped with sensors." "The John Deere tractors, for instance, run on firmware that is necessary for basic functions, according to the lawsuit. If something is wrong with the equipment, a code will appear on a display monitor inside the machine," Kainz and Broaddus reported. "The suit says interpreting the error codes on tractors, for instance, requires software that 'Deere refuses to make available to farmers.'" "Right-to-repair advocates say the digitization of agricultural equipment -- with its various computers and sensors -- has made self-repair almost impossible, forcing farmers to depend on the manufacturers. Wilson, for example, said he has to rely on his local John Deere dealership, which he said takes longer and charges more than an independent repair worker," Kainz and Broaddus reported. "In 2019, Wilson said, a John Deere dealership had his fertilizer spreader in the shop for 28 days before it was fixed." [GN] DELTA SONIC: Customer Sues Over Membership Automatic Renewal ------------------------------------------------------------ John Ferak, writing for MSN, reports that a woman who has been a customer at the Joliet Delta Sonic Carwash along West Jefferson Street and Larkin Avenue has retained a Chicago lawyer to pursue a class action complaint against the Illinois company, accusing Delta-Sonic of violating the Illinois Automatic Contract Renewal Act and the Illinois Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act "in regard to its car wash memberships." Joliet Patch, the only news outlet that regularly covers civil lawsuits at the Will County Courthouse, discovered this week's filing from Chicago attorney Matthew Peterson at Consumer Law Practice on North Lake Shore Drive. According to the lawsuit, the defendant has 10 car washes in Illinois that offer automatic monthly carwashes for a fixed price. "Defendant systematically violates the Illinois Automatic Contract Renewal Act by failing to provide an acknowledgement after a consumer signs up for a membership that includes the automatic renewal offer terms, cancellation policy, and information regarding how to cancel, which may be accomplished by linking to a resource that provides instructions that account for different platforms and services, in a manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer." The Chicago lawyer for Stacey indicates he filed his lawsuit in Will County "because the transactions out of which this cause of action arises occurred in this county, as plaintiff purchased her monthly pass in this county." The lawsuit further explains that Stacey "sometime in the last several years . . . visited the Delta Sonic car wash in Joliet . . . that defendant operates at 1812 West Jefferson Street and purchased the monthly membership for both interior and exterior. Defendant failed to provide an acknowledgement after she signed up for the monthly membership that included the automatic renewal offer terms, cancellation policy, and information regarding how to cancel . . . it is defendant's uniform policy and practice to not provide such cancelation instructions to all consumers at each of the locations that defendant operates in Illinois," the lawsuit contends. "Plaintiff had issues trying to cancel her membership even when she went to the Joliet location where she signed up and requested for the attendant to cancel her membership. "Plaintiff was told to contact corporate, which plaintiff had difficulty doing. Plaintiff ultimately had the membership canceled," the lawsuit explained. The Joliet woman's lawsuit also points out, "plaintiff suffered real monetary loss as a result of defendant's failure to properly disclose its autorenewal terms, cancellation policy, and how to cancel the membership. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated ... the precise number of Class members are unknown to plaintiff but exceeds 40 individuals. The true number of Class members is known by defendant and potential Class members may be identified and notified of the pendency of this action by first class mail, electronic mail, text message and or published notice." The 10-page lawsuit filed by Peterson asks Will County's judges to appoint Stacey, the Joliet Delta Sonic customer, as representative of the class and appointing her lawyer as class counsel. The lawsuit wants Will County's judiciary to declare Delta Sonic's actions violate both the Illinois Automatic Contract Renewal Act and Illinois Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and "award plaintiff and the Class refunds for amounts not authorized to be re-occurring charges." The lawsuit also seeks an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs and other litigation expenses. A lawsuit summons has been sent to the Delta Sonic company, and its legal representatives have not entered an appearance or filed their response to this week's Will County lawsuit. [GN] DENTALPLANS.COM: Wins Bid to Decertify Class in Bradley Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH BRADLEY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, V. DENTALPLANS.COM ET AL., Case No. 1:20-cv-01094-BAH (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Hurson entered a memorandum as follows -- granting DentalPlans' motion for reconsideration and decertification; and -- denying the Plaintiffs motion for leave to file a surreply. A separate implementing order will issue. While this case is in a slightly different posture on reconsideration, the same logic-applies. Class certification is not appropriate where summary judgment is granted to the defendant. As such, the Court will grant the motion for decertification. The Plaintiff brings a claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), alleging that the Defendants violated the statute by placing unauthorized telemarketing calls to her and the proposed class of former DentalPlans customers. Because the Plaintiff provided her consent to receive calls made with an autodialer or prerecorded voice, DentalPlans did not violate the TCP A as a matter of law. DentalPlans.com provides dental care plans online. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated March 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MLx6Sw at no extra charge.[CC] DIGITAL MEDIA: Watson Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Digital Media Innovations, LLC. The case is styled as Kenjrick Watson, Reese Jordan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bassett Healthcare Network, Case No. 606839/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., March 31, 2026). The nature of suit stated as Other Torts (Unpaid Wages). Digital Media Innovations -- https://digitalmediainnovations.com/ -- is a leading home automation specialist based in Colorado, focused on creating seamless technological integration within homes.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sally Jasmine Abrahamson, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 609 H Street NE, 4th Floor Washington D.C. 20001 Phone: (312) 419-1008 Fax: 312-419-1025 Email: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com DNOW INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of DNOW Inc. (NYSE: DNOW) resulting from allegations that DNOW Inc. may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased DNOW Inc. securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=53946 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On February 20, 2026, StockStory published an article entitled "Why DNOW (DNOW) Shares Are Getting Obliterated Today." The article stated that DNOW shares fell "after the company reported disappointing fourth-quarter 2025 financial results, which included a significant loss and missed Wall Street's expectations." On this news, DNOW stock fell 19.1% on February 20, 2026. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] DOCKETWISE: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach Incident ------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the DocketWise data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the DocketWise data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. DocketWise Security Incident: What Happened? DocketWise, a cloud-based case management platform for immigration attorneys, announced a data breach affecting 116,666 people, including clients of firms that use DocketWise. A notice posted to DocketWise's website states that in October 2025, DocketWise discovered unauthorized access to one of its third-party partner repositories. The DocketWise data breach involved an unauthorized actor using valid credentials to copy certain data, impacting files containing law firm records and personal information. An investigation supported by cybersecurity experts identified that personal information from a subset of law firm clients was accessed. The data involved may include names, addresses, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, driver's license numbers, passport numbers, financial account numbers, financial account usernames and access information, payment card numbers and access information, government ID numbers, tax ID numbers, health insurance policy numbers, medical conditions or treatment information, and usernames and access information for non-financial accounts. Notification letters were sent to affected individuals starting April 3, 2026, on behalf of the affected law firm customers. What You Can Do After the DocketWise Data Breach If your information was exposed in the DocketWise data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force DocketWise to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. [GN] DREXEL UNIVERSITY: Settlement in Deller Gets Prelim. Nod -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA DELLER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. DREXEL UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2:23-cv-03746-JDW (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Wolson entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement and provisionally certifying the class for the purpose of settlement. The proposed settlement seeks to certify a settlement class consisting of: "All enrolled students at Drexel University during the Spring 2020 term who paid any Tuition and/or Fees for that term, or who were credited with having paid the same for the Spring 2020 Term." The class definition excludes any person who (1) was enrolled solely in online classes through Drexel University Online, (2) whose tuition and fees were fully funded by Drexel, or (3) who properly executes and files a timely opt-out request to be excluded from the Settlement Class. The number of class members, the common interest of class members, and the prevalence of common questions of law and fact make class action a more efficient vehicle for resolving these claims. Joshua Deller filed a class action complaint on September 26, 2023, asserting claims for breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment. Drexel moved for summary judgment on March 8, 2024, arguing in part that it never promised in-person education as it announced the transition to remote education weeks prior to the beginning of the Spring 2020 term. The Defendant is a private research university that offers its students an on campus, in-person educational experience in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. A copy of the Court's memorandum dated March 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FHLx0m at no extra charge.[CC] ELANCO ANIMAL: Federal Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Caitlin McCafferty of dvm 360 reports that a federal judge in Maryland dismissed a proposed securities class action against Elanco Animal Health (Elanco) this past Thursday, April 2. The lawsuit claimed that Elanco misled investors regarding the safety of its ilunocitinib tablets (Zenrelia) during development and provided an unrealistic timeline for the medication's commercial launch. US District Judge Brendan A. Hurson issued an opinion agreeing with Elanco's argument that most of the suit's challenged statements were protected as opinions or forward-looking statements. The judge noted that the company never made definitive promises regarding the exact timing or "future prospects" of Zenrelia. The court found that the "vast majority" of the statements in the complaint constituted nonactionable corporate puffery, and that all statements regarding the timing of FDA approval "sound in actionable opinion." "Defendants spoke consistently of their expectations and estimations, and that there was a 'path' to approval in the first half of 2024," Judge Hurson stated in the opinion. "And early on in the class period…defendants cautioned that their statements did not 'mean it's a guaranteed first half approval.'" According to Law360, the opinion further noted that the plaintiffs failed to provide factual allegations to support their assertion that defendants did not sincerely hold the beliefs they expressed. In addition to the original allegations, the investors accused Elanco of concealing a vaccine response study. They claimed the study -- which resulted in severe health problems for several dogs and the euthanasia of 2 others -- was likely to negatively impact FDA approval and commercial prospects. However, Judge Hurson found that Elanco had no legal duty to disclose the study's existence at that stage. He concluded that the complaint failed to allege that the study would have inherently prevented Zenrelia's approval. Furthermore, the judge ruled that the investors failed to adequately plead scienter, or proof that Elanco executives acted with the intent to deceive or with knowledge of wrongdoing. The court also rejected accounts from an anonymous former employee (FE-1) intended to support the scienter claims.1 According to Law360, the judge noted that FE-1 had no direct knowledge of what the defendants knew and had left the company in early 2022, before the vaccine study was even underway. Ultimately, Judge Hurson ruled that while it is possible to infer that executives concealed the study, the "more compelling inference" is that the company offered only vague references to ongoing studies because they did not believe the results would derail the FDA approval or the treatment's commercial launch. The original lawsuit, filed in October 2024, followed a delay in the US product launch that caused Elanco's stock price to fall. This delay occurred after it was revealed that the medication would require specific label warnings regarding vaccine interference.1 In September 2025, the FDA approved an updated label for Zenrelia, removing certain language regarding the risk of fatal vaccine-induced diseases after reviewing additional data submitted by the company. [GN] ELEVANCE INC: Bid to Compel Arbitration Tossed ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRUSTEES OF INTERNATIONAL UNION OF BRICKLAYERS AND ALLIED CRAFTWORKERS LOCAL 1 CONNECTICUT HEALTH FUND and TRUSTEES OF SHEET METAL WORKERS' LOCAL NO. 40 HEALTH FUND, individually and on behalf of the INTERNATIONAL BRICKLAYERS AND ALLIED CRAFTWORKERS LOCAL 1 CONNECTICUT HEALTH FUND, the SHEET METAL WORKERS' LOCAL NO. 40 HEALTH FUND, and all others similarly situated, v. ELEVANCE, INC. F/K/A ANTHEM, INC., ANTHEM HEALTH PLANS, INC. D/B/A ANTHEM BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD, ANTHEM BLUE CROSS, EMPIRE BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD, and EMPIRE BLUE CROSS, Case No. 3:22-cv-01541-SFR (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Russell entered an order denying the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. In sum, the Defendants' conduct in this litigation demonstrates they knowingly relinquished their right to arbitrate the claims asserted by the Local 1 Fund by acting inconsistently with that right. The case is distinguished from Louisiana Stadium only insofar as there is no allegation that Plaintiffs' counsel misled or in any way obstructed Defendants from obtaining the copies of the ASAs. Instead, Plaintiffs’ counsel promptly produced the ASAs in response to Defendants’ request. And significantly, the information Defendants "uncovered" was a document that one of them had itself signed—and updated as recently as nine months before the lawsuit commenced. The Defendants rely on several district court opinions declining to find waiver even after the party seeking arbitration conducted a substantial amount of discovery. But here, unlike in those cases, Defendants moved to compel arbitration after first responding to the complaint on the merits. The Plaintiffs are the trustees of two multi-employer, self-funded health benefit plans. Elevance provides health, dental, vision, and pharmacy benefits, as well as life insurance. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated March 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LGScSU at no extra charge.[CC] ELIGO ENERGY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Brous Extended to May 8 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brous et al., v. Eligo Energy, LLC et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01260-ER (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ramos entered an order extending the deadlines to brief the summary judgment and class certification motions as follows: The Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending Defendants' current deadline to file their opposition to class certification by seven days, to and through Mar 27, 2026, and that the deadline for the Plaintiffs' reply in support of their class certification motion be extended by seven days, to May 8, 2026. The Defendants further request that their deadline to file their motion for summary judgment be extended by 15 days, to and through Apr. 7, 2026, and that the deadlines for the Plaintiffs' opposition to the Defendants' motion for summary judgment be extended by 15 days, to May 5, 2026, with any replies due on May 27, 2026. Eligo is a Chicago-based retail energy supplier. A copy of the Court's order dated March 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DuaQQy at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Ryan Watstein, Esq. WATSTEIN TEREPKA LLP 75 14th Street NE, Ste. 2600 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 782-0695 E-mail: Ryan@wtlaw.com EMPOWER CONSULTING: Soltesz Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Ohio -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Empower Consulting Associates, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Cara Soltesz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Empower Consulting Associates, LLC, Sara Channell, Case No. 4:26-cv-00721-BYP (N.D. Ohio, March 26, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act for Minimum Wage or Overtime Compensation. Empower is a community focused mental health center dedicated to enhancing the holistic well-being of clients.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher P. Wido, Esq. SPITZ LAW 3 Summit Park Drive, Ste. 200 Independence, OH 44131 Phone: (216) 364-1330 Fax: (216) 291-5744 Email: chris.wido@spitzlawfirm.com EP WEALTH ADVISORS: Cunningham Files Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against EP Wealth Advisors, LLC. The case is styled as Gary Cunningham, Colleen Cunningham, on behalf of herself individually and all others similarly situated v. EP Wealth Advisors, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-02036-BTM-DEB (S.D. Cal., March 31, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. EP Wealth Advisors -- https://www.epwealth.com/ -- is an investment management, financial planning and wealth advisory firm.[BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 ERSG US: Court Narrows Claims in Finney Suit -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEVON FINNEY, Individually and For All Others Similarly Situated, v. ERSG US HOLDINGS INC., Case No. 6:24-cv-01238-GTS-MJK (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Suddaby entered an order declining to strike Plaintiff's class allegations. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. The Court further entered that the claims pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL) in the Plaintiff's complaint shall be dismissed without further order of the Court, unless, within 30 days from the entry of this Decision and Order, the Plaintiff files an Amended Complaint curing the pleading defects. the Court finds that Plaintiff has plausibly stated claims for uncompensated overtime related to his meal breaks. The Court finds that dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim related to the per diem payment would be inappropriate on this motion to dismiss. The Court finds that a private right of action exists for Plaintiff to assert this claim, and therefore denies Defendant’s motion to dismiss it on that ground. A copy of the Court's order dated March 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j1yBQb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 - and - Michael Josephson, Esq. BOUSQUET HOLSTEIN, PLLC 110 West Fayette Street, Suite 1000 One Lincoln Center Syracuse, NY 13202 - and - Ryan G. Files, Esq. RICHARD J. BURCH, ESQ. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 The Defendant is represented by: Gerald L. Maatman Jr., Esq. Jennifer A. Riley, Esq. Alex W. Karasik, Esq. Gregory S. Slotnick, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 190 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 370 Chicago, IL 60603 EUROPEAN WAX: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to General Atlantic ---------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a class action firm headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating -- European Wax Center, Inc. (NASDAQ: EWCZ) related to its sale to General Atlantic. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, European Wax shareholders are expected to receive $5.80 per share in cash. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for May 7, 2026. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/european-wax-center-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Stellar Bancorp, Inc. (NYSE: STEL) related to its sale to Prosperity Bancshares, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Stellar shareholders are expected to receive 0.3803 shares of Prosperity common stock and $11.36 in cash for each share of Stellar common stock. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/stellar-bancorp-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Rallybio Corporation (NASDAQ: RLYB) related to its merger with Candid Therapeutics, Inc. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, Rallybio shareholders are expected to own approximately 3.65% of the combined company. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/rallybio-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Coterra Energy, Inc. (NYSE: CTRA) related to its sale to Devon Energy Corporation. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Coterra shareholders will receive 0.70 of a share of Devon common stock for each share of Coterra common stock. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for May 4, 2026. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/coterra-energy-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] EXCLUSIVE WIRELESS: Clas Cert Bid Filing Due Feb. 5, 2027 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAIA AGUILAR, v. EXCLUSIVE WIRELESS, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-06084-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge entered an order setting class certification briefing schedule as follows: The Plaintiff's deadline to move for Dec. 7, 2026 substitution of class representative: The Plaintiff's motion for class Feb. 5, 2027 certification due: The Defendant's opposition to the March 5, 2027 Plaintiff's motion: The Plaintiff's reply due: March 19, 2027 Hearing on motion for class certification: To be set by the Court Exclusive operates as a consumer electronics store. A copy of the Court's order dated March 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EIKCq4 at no extra charge.[CC] EXICURE INC: Hearing on Colwell Settlement Set for June 2 --------------------------------------------------------- Exicure Inc. disclosed in a Form 8-K, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2026, that a final order had been entered in the securities class action captioned 'Colwell v. Exicure Inc. et al.,' Case No. 1:21-cv-06637, on January 23, 2025, as reflected in the court's March 31, 2025 minute entry, which also required plaintiffs to file a status report by April 4, 2025. Additionally, on April 28, 2022, the parties to an Illinois suit filed a joint motion to stay, requesting that the court stay said action until the sooner of (a) the denial of any part of the motion to dismiss the aforementioned securities class action or its dismissal with prejudice, which motion the court granted on May 5, 2022 (ECF Nos. 14, 18). On June 21, 2022, the parties to a Delaware suit filed a stipulation to stay the case, requesting that the court stay it until the sooner of (a) the denial of any motion to dismiss in the class action or its dismissal with prejudice, which the court so-ordered on June 22, 2022. Plaintiffs' counsel have respectively conducted extensive investigation and analysis, including, inter alia, (i) reviewing and analyzing Exicure press releases, public statements, and filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC); reviewing and analyzing securities analysts' reports and advisories and media reports about the Company; reviewing and analyzing the pleadings and orders in the Securities Class Action; researching the applicable law with respect to the claims alleged and the potential defenses thereto; preparing and filing complaints in the Illinois and Delaware action; researching, preparing and sending the demand and related correspondence; researching and evaluating factual and legal issues relevant to the claims; engaging in settlement negotiations with defendants' counsel regarding the specific facts and perceived strengths and weaknesses of the derivative matters and other issues in an effort to facilitate negotiations; researching the company's corporate governance structure in connection with settlement efforts; preparing comprehensive written settlement demands and modified demands over the course of the parties' settlement negotiations; and negotiating and drafting a comprehensive stipulation of settlement. Separately, a hearing set for June 2, 2026 at 10:30 a.m. before the Judge Manish S. Shah at the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division for the purpose of determining whether the settlement of the derivative matters should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate and whether the court should approve the agreed-to fee and expense amount and the service awards for plaintiffs, and, because this is not a class action, except as otherwise provided for in the stipulation with respect to the plaintiffs, no current Exicure stockholder has the right to receive any individual compensation as a result of the settlement. Exicure Inc. is a biotechnology company focused on developing therapies based on its proprietary spherical nucleic acid technology. The company pursues applications in neurology and other therapeutic areas through internal programs and strategic collaborations. EXPERITY INC: Website Uses Tracking Tools, Jane Doe Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE, JANET DOE, JOHN DOE, JANICE DOE, JAMIE DOE, JASMINE DOE, and JULIA DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. EXPERITY, INC. d/b/a CLOCKWISE MD AND ACCESS CLINICAL PARTNERS, LLC d/b/a GOHEALTH URGENT CARE, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-02667-LB (N.D. Cal., March 26, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for installing and configuring Google Analytics tracking pixels and other Tracking Technologies to intercept, disclose, and exploit patients' protected health information ("PHI"), including appointment information, with Google and other third parties. Defendant Experity, Inc. d/b/a Clockwise MD offers an online appointment software platform to its health care provider clients, including Defendant GoHealth and others (like Hoag Health), across the United States via its "Clockwise MD" branded websites and appointment booking technology. The Plaintiffs all have made multiple urgent care appointments via the Experity Appointment Making Services. According to the complaint, Experity's conduct in deploying surrepsitous Tracking Technologies on its appointment making websites violates reasonable expectations of patient privacy. Experity did not provide patients with any warnings that using its Appointment Making Services would result in Experity divulging their PHI, personally identifying information ("PII"), and the substance of their communications to Third Parties. As a direct and proximate result of these failures, Plaintiffs and the Class Members have been harmed and have suffered, and will continue to suffer, actual damages and injuries, including, without limitation, the release and disclosure of their PHI, the loss of control of their PHI, and the loss of the benefit of the bargain they had struck with Defendants, says the suit. The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the Class Members, seek all monetary and non-monetary relief allowed by law, including actual damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. Defendant Access Clinical Partners, LLC d/b/a GoHealth Urgent Care is an urgent care healthcare provider, and a covered entity under Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that owns and operates clinics nationwide, including in Northern California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew J. Langley, Esq. Christopher M. Nienhaus, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (773) 554-9354 E-mail: matt@almeidalawgroup.com chris@almeidalawgroup.com - and - Foster C. Johnson, Esq. Joeseph Ahmad, Esq. Mark Holden, Esq. AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS & MENSING, PLLC 1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2500 Houston TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 655-1101 Facsimile: (713) 655-0062 E-mail: fjohnson@azalaw.com joeahmad@azalaw.com mholden@azalaw.com FAYETTE COUNTY PRISON: Spada Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fayette County Prison, et al. The case is styled as Zachary Spada, Dustin Wade Twardesky, Chanze Bryle, Sehven Rule, Barry Baker, Frank Campbell, all others past and present similarly situated v. Fayette County Prison; Fayette County Jail; Fayette County, Pennsylvania; Warden Lankey, and his predecessors and successors; Major Van Meater, Deputy Warden of Security; Kern, Deputy Warden of Treatment; John McGuire, all others past and present similarly situated, in their individual and official capacities, Case No. 2:26-cv-00537-CBB (W.D. Pa., March 31, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights. Fayette County Prison -- https://www.fayettecountypa.org/797/Fayette-County-Prison-Project -- is a prison in Uniontown, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS: Loses Bid to Junk Washington Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MILFORD WASHINGTON, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-03219-MJM (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Matthew J. Maddox entered an order that: 1. The Clerk shall amend the docket to replace defendant Collette Peters with the current Director of the BOP, William K. Marshall III; 2. The Defendants' motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, construed as a motion for summary judgment is denied; 3. The Defendants shall file an answer to the Complaint within 30 days of the date of this Order; 4. Washington's motion for monetary damages is denied; 5. Washington's motion to certify a class is denied; 6. Washington's "Motion for Leave to File a Surreponse," is denied as moot; 7. Washington's motion for discovery is denied without prejudice; Federal Bureau of Prisons is responsible for all federal prisons in the country and provides for the care, custody, and control of federal prisoners. A copy of the Court's order dated March 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VWECsQ at no extra charge.[CC] FINANCE OF AMERICA: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Thompson Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- TINA THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FINANCE OF AMERICA COMPANIES INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00292 (E.D. Tex., March 25, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive and personally identifying information, which, as a result, was targeted, accessed, and stolen from Defendant's care by a notorious cybergang in a foreseeable, preventable, data breach. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant breached these duties owed to the Plaintiff and Class Members by failing to safeguard their Private Information it collected and maintained, including by failing to implement industry standards for data security to protect against cyberattacks, which failures caused and allowed criminal hackers to target, access, and steal Plaintiff and Class Members' Private Information from Defendant's care. The Defendant maintained the Private Information in a reckless manner. In particular, Private Information was maintained on and/or accessible from the Defendant's network in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. Upon information and belief, the mechanism of the cyberattack and potential for improper disclosure of the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was a known risk to Defendant, and thus, the Defendant knew that failing to take reasonable steps to secure the Private Information left it in a dangerous condition, say the suit. Finance of America Companies Inc. provides a diverse selection of lending products and services. The Company focuses on loan origination, investing, and other lending services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com FIRSTRUST SAVINGS: Loses Bid to Toss "Chrupcala" Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned Kyle Chrupcala, as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Firstrust 401(k) and Profit Sharing Plan, Plaintiff, v. Firstrust Savings Bank, Defendant, Civil No. 25-6578 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Chad F. Kenney of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Defendant's motion to dismiss the Complaint. Upon consideration of Defendant's motion (ECF No. 15), Plaintiff's opposition (ECF No. 19), Defendant's reply (ECF No. 20), and Plaintiff's surreply (ECF No. 21), the Court denied the motion for the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum opinion. Defendant is ordered to file an answer to Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) on or before April 20, 2026. A copy of the Court's MEMORANDUM ORDER dated April 6, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZKx4Dn from PacerMonitor.com Plaintiff Kyle Chrupcala is represented by Steven J. Eiden, Esq., and Melissa A. Carrington, Esq., at ENGSTROM LEE, and John G. Albanese, Esq., and Yechiel Michael Twersky, Esq., at BERGER MONTAGUE PC; and Carl F. Engstrom, Esq., at NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP. FRED MEYER: Class Cert Bid Filing in Shields Suit Due Dec. 12 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDY SHIELDS, on behalf of himself, and as a representative of similarly situated persons, v. FRED MEYER STORES INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-01455-TL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Lin entered an order continuing case deadlines and order as follows: Event Date Deadline for joining additional parties: Dec. 31, 2024 Deadline for filing amended pleadings: Jan. 31, 2025 Class disclosure of expert testimony due: Aug. 10, 2026 Class expert discovery cutoff: Sept. 7, 2026 Class certification discovery cutoff: Nov. 20, 2026 The Plaintiff's motion for class Dec. 12, 2026 certification to be filed: The Defendant's response to class Jan. 17, 2027 certification motion to be filed: The Plaintiff's reply to class Feb. 27, 2027 certification motion to be filed: Fred Meyer is an American chain of hypermarket superstores. A copy of the Court's order dated March 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YZ1L2D at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Guy W. Beckett, Esq. BERRY & BECKETT, PLLP 1708 Bellevue Avenue Seattle, WA 98122 Telephone: (206) 441-5444 E-mail: gbeckett@beckettlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Fred Burnside, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile: (206) 757-7700 E-mail: fredburnside@dwt.com FRY'S FOOD: Settles Prescription Drug Prices Class Suit for $17MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Casey of KJZZ reports that the company that owns Fry's grocery stores has agreed to settle a multimillion-dollar class-action lawsuit in connection with prescription drug purchases. The lawsuit filed in Ohio in 2021 accuses Kroger of fraud, unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation. Since December of 2018, the chain allegedly improperly reported its prescription drug prices and made insured customers pay higher copays than they should have. The company denies the accusations but has agreed to pay $17 million to settle the case. Kroger owns more than 100 Fry's stores in Arizona, and the company is among the state's top employers. [GN] GARDA CL: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Chung Suit Due Oct. 16 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AJANI CHUNG, v. GARDA CL NORTHWEST, INC. et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-00147-LK (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Lauren King entered a scheduling order regarding class certification motion. Deadline for joining additional parties: May 18, 2026 Deadline for filing amended pleadings: June 15, 2026 Deadline to complete discovery on class Sept. 18, 2026 certification (not to be construed as a bifurcation of discovery): Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file motion Oct. 16, 2026 for class certification: Deadline for the Defendants to file Nov. 15, 2026 opposition to motion for class certification: Deadline for the Plaintiff to file reply in Nov. 30, 2026 support of motion for class certification: Garda provides detective, guard, and armored car services. A copy of the Court's order dated March 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4Y7AFx at no extra charge.[CC] GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over EV System Failures ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jacob Oliva, writing for Autoblog, reports that two owners file a proposed class action over alleged EV system failures. -- Lawsuit claims vehicles can become completely inoperable without warning. -- Plaintiffs say GM knew about defects but failed to disclose them. Not Just an ICE Problem Anymore GM already has its hands full with lawsuits over its gas engines -- a troublesome V8 here, a questionable inline-three there. But the headaches aren't stopping with combustion models. Now, the spotlight is shifting to their electric lineup. This time, it's the Cadillac Lyriq under fire. Two owners have taken GM to court, saying their luxury EVs have problems that run deeper than the typical new-model teething pains. The lawsuit raises a tough question for GM: Even as it tries to lead the EV charge, are some of its top models still struggling with basic reliability? And is this just a couple of unlucky owners, or a sign of a bigger problem? What the Lawsuit Alleges The proposed class action was filed in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington on April 2, with plaintiffs Wendy J. Cochran of Washington and Charlene Riddle of Florida leading the charge. According to the complaint, their Lyriqs are affected by a range of electrical, battery, and software-related issues. These problems can allegedly cause the vehicles to become "bricked," meaning they cannot start, charge, or function at all. The lawsuit points to failures involving control module communication, battery management systems, and charging systems. In some cases, the vehicles reportedly need to be towed to dealerships, where technicians struggle to diagnose or fix the underlying issues. The plaintiffs claim GM has been aware of these defects through internal testing, warranty data, dealership reports, and complaints filed with regulators. Despite this, the company allegedly continued marketing the Lyriq as a premium, reliable EV built on its Ultium platform. They are seeking to represent a broader group of owners nationwide, with additional claims under federal warranty law and state-level consumer protection statutes. GM Offered Buy-Backs So far, GM hasn't said much about the lawsuit. According to the complaint, the automaker offered to buy back some Lyriqs but has dragged its feet on actually paying out -- possibly to soften the financial blow. [GN] GOOGLE LLC: Court Narrows Claims in May Suit -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUDY MAY, et al., v. GOOGLE LLC, et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-01314-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Freeman entered an order granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motion to dismiss: (1) Google's motion is granted in part and denied in part as follows: a. Google's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim No. 1 for unfair practices in violation of the UCL is granted without leave to amend. b. Google's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim No. 2 for unlawful practices in violation of the UCL is granted without leave to amend. c. Google's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim No. 3 for unfair practices in violation of the CLRA is granted without leave to amend. d. Google's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim No. 4 for unlawful practices in violation of the CLRA is granted without leave to amend. e. Google's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim No. 5 for receiving, retaining, withholding, or concealing stolen property in violation of Cal. Penal Code section 496 is granted without leave to amend. f. Google's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim No. 6 for conversion is denied as to Ms. May and Ms. Kennedy and granted without leave to amend as to Ms. Ehly. g. Google's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim No. 7 for declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2201 is denied as to the conversion claim and granted without leave to amend as to all other claims. h. Google's motion to strike the Plaintiffs' class allegations that are time-barred is granted with leave to amend. i. Google's motion to strike the class definition is granted with leave to amend. (2) Ms. Ehly is dismissed from this action because she does not have any remaining claims. (3) The Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint within 30 days after the date of this order, by April 20, 2026. The Plaintiffs may not add new claims or parties without express leave of the Court. The SAC includes two proposed class definitions. The proposed "Nationwide Class" includes: "[a]ll persons in the United States and its territories who purchased one or more Google Play gift cards at the direction of people whose identities they did not know and did not redeem the gift cards for themselves or give them as a gift but instead provided the redemption codes to the people whose identities they did not know (the "Scam") and were not refunded the money they paid for the gift cards by Google or any other source (the "Class")." The proposed "Contract Subclass" consists of: "[a]ll Class members who contacted Google directly or indirectly through law enforcement and reported the Scam." The only claims that survive dismissal are Ms. May and Ms. Kennedy’s claims for strict liability conversion and declaratory relief. Accordingly, it is apparent that both the proposed Nationwide Class and the Contract Subclass envision a much broader class that includes individuals who did not contact Google to report that they were the victims of scams (and hence do not state such claims). But since actual knowledge by Google of the scams is central to the claims and key to the section 1668 issue, the class must be limited to individuals who contacted Google to report that they had been scammed. As a consequence, the Court will grant Google's motion to the extent the class definition is inconsistent with this Order. The dismissal is with leave to amend the class definition to limit the class to those who were scammed and directly reported the scam to Google. A copy of the Court's order dated March 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CEanB7 at no extra charge.[CC] GOSSAMER BIO: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 1 ------------------------------------------------------------ National plaintiffs' law firm Berger Montague PC announces a class action lawsuit against Gossamer Bio, Inc. (NASDAQ: GOSS) ("Gossamer" or the "Company") on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired Gossamer shares during the period from June 16, 2025 through February 20, 2026 (the "Class Period"). Investor Deadline: Investors who purchased or acquired Gossamer securities during the Class Period may, no later than June 1, 2026, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. To learn your rights, CLICK api.newsfilecorp.com/redirect/87x1EiOGGY. Headquartered in San Diego, Gossamer is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing therapies for immuno-inflammatory and other diseases. According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, Gossamer provided overwhelmingly positive statements to investors about its Phase 3 PROSERA study evaluating seralutinib for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). In particular, the Company allegedly failed to adequately disclose how placebo responses at Latin American testing sites could impact trial results. On February 23, 2026, Gossamer announced topline results for its Phase 3 PROSERA study, which failed to meet the primary endpoint of improved six-minute walk distance (6MWD) at Week 24. The Company attributed this outcome to unusually strong placebo performance among patients at Latin American sites, citing enrollment of a heavily-treated lower-risk population. Following this announcement, Gossamer's stock declined from $2.13 per share on February 20, 2026 to $0.42 per share on February 23, 2026, a loss of more than 80% in a single trading day. If you are a Gossamer investor and would like to learn more about this action, CLICK https://bergermontague.com/cases/berger-montague-pc-investigating-claims-on-behalf-of-gossamer-bio-nasdaq-goss-investors-after-class-action-filing/ or please contact Berger Montague: Andrew Abramowitz at aabramowitz@bergermontague.com or (215) 875-3015, or Caitlin Adorni at cadorni@bergermontague.com or (267)764-4865. About Berger Montague Berger Montague is one of the nation's preeminent law firms focusing on complex civil litigation, class actions, and mass torts in federal and state courts throughout the United States. With more than $2.4 billion in 2025 post-trial judgments alone, the Firm is a leader in the fields of complex litigation, antitrust, consumer protection, defective products, environmental law, employment law, securities, and whistleblower cases, among many other practice areas. For over 55 years, Berger Montague has played leading roles in precedent-setting cases and has recovered over $50 billion for its clients and the classes they have represented. Berger Montague is headquartered in Philadelphia and has offices in Chicago; Malvern, PA; Minneapolis; San Diego; San Francisco; Toronto, Canada; Washington, D.C., and Wilmington, DE. For more information or to discuss your rights, please contact: Andrew Abramowitz, Esq. Berger Montague Tel: (215) 875-3015 E-mail: aabramowitz@bergermontague.com - and - Caitlin Adorni, Esq. Berger Montague Tel: (267) 764-4865 E-mail: cadorni@bergermontague.com [GN] GRAYBACK FORESTRY: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Mull Says ------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL MULL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRAYBACK FORESTRY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00591-CL (D. Or., March 26, 2026) is a class action seeking monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief arising from Defendant's failure to safeguard the personally identifiable information1 ("PII" or "Private Information") of Plaintiff and Class Members. Defendant's failure resulted in unauthorized access to its information systems that Defendant discovered on January 6, 2026, and the compromised and unauthorized disclosure of that Private Information, causing widespread injury and damages to Plaintiff and the proposed Class. The complaint relates that as a condition of employment, the Plaintiff was required to entrust Defendant with sensitive, non-public Private Information. On January 6, 2026, the Defendant detected that an unauthorized third party accessed Defendant's network and obtained certain files from its systems between January 5, 2026, and January 6, 2026. As a result of the Data Breach, which Defendant failed to prevent, the Private Information of Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members was stolen, including their names and Social Security numbers. The complaint alleges that the Defendant's harmful conduct has injured Plaintiff and Class Members in multiple ways, including: (i) the lost or diminished value of their Private Information; (ii) costs associated with the prevention, detection, and recovery from identity theft, tax fraud, and other unauthorized use of their data; (iii) lost opportunity costs to mitigate the Data Breach's consequences, including lost time; (iv) invasion of their privacy; (v) loss of the benefit of the bargain; and (vi) emotional distress associated with the loss of control over their highly sensitive Private Information. The Plaintiff, hence, brings causes of action against Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment, seeking an award of monetary damages for Defendant's failure to adequately protect their highly sensitive Private Information. Plaintiff Michael Mull is a former employee of Defendant. Defendant Grayback Forestry, Inc. is one of the largest and most diverse wildfire suppression and forest restoration companies in the United States, with office locations throughout Oregon.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kaleigh N. Boyd, Esq. MCNAUL EBEL PLLC One Union Square 600 University Street, Suite 2700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 467-1816 E-mail: kboyd@mcnaul.com - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE First Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com GREAT AMERICAN: Renewed Bid for Class Cert in Lee Due June 24 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELLEN LEE and CHUNG LEE; Individually, and on Behalf of the Class; v. GREAT AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-01133-SPG-ACCV (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Garnett entered an order granting joint proposed briefing schedule and hearing date for the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification: 1. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file their renewed motion for class certification is March 27, 2026; 2. The Defendant's deadline to file its opposition to the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification is May 11, 2026; 3. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file their reply in support of their renewed motion for class certification is June 1, 2026; and 4. The hearing on the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification shall be June 24, 2026 at 1:30 P.M. Great American is engaged primarily in property and casualty insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated March 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uIHYtt at no extra charge.[CC] H2M COM LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Fagnani Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- MYKAYLA FAGNANI, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. H2M COM LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02421 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2026) is a civil rights action against H2M COM LLC for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.therapetmd.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on February 26, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Dogs Calming Diffuser Kit from the Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. The Plaintiff was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. H2M COM LLC operates the website that offers pet diffuser kits.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal HANNA ANDERSSON: Hudson Files Suit in D. Oregon ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hanna Andersson, LLC. The case is styled as Carly Hudson, Jocelyn Pascall, for themselves, as private attorneys general, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hanna Andersson, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-00643-SB (D. Ore., March 31, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Hanna Andersson, LLC -- https://www.hannaandersson.com/ -- specializes in designing and retailing premium children's clothing, with a focus on quality, comfort, and classic Swedish style.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Che Corrington, Esq. HATTIS LUKACS & CORRINGTON 11711 SE 8th Street, Suite 120 Bellevue, WA 98005 Phone: (425) 233-8633 Email: che@hattislaw.com HEALTHCARE.COM INSURANCE: Garcia Sues Over Misleading Spam Emails ----------------------------------------------------------------- BIANCA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTHCARE.COM INSURANCE SERVICES LLC, an Arizona entity, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01764-AJB-BLM (S.D. Cal., March 19, 2026) accuses the Defendants of violating the California Business and Professions Code by paying affiliate marketers who send spam emails with falsified header information, spoofed domains and false and deceptive subject lines. The Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of California who received a misleading spam e-mail promoting Defendant's insurance products. She maintains that the Defendant deliberately outsources its membership solicitation to third party affiliate marketers to reap the benefits of large-scale unlawful spamming. Based in Florida, Healthcare.com Insurance Services, LLC is a corporation that markets health insurance plans. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com HOLLOWAY CREDIT: Pettway Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Alabama --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Holloway Credit Solutions LLC. The case is styled as Chelsi Pettway, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Holloway Credit Solutions LLC doing business as: HCS, Case No. 7:26-cv-00532-JHE (N.D. Ala., March 31, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Holloway Credit Solutions, LLC -- https://www.hollowaycredit.com/ -- is a debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin N. Smitherman, Esq. ALABAMA LAW SERVICES LLC 4685 Highway 17, Ste. D Helena, AL 35080 Phone: (205) 419-4414 Fax: (205) 419-4407 Email: jsmitherman@alabamalawservices.com IMMUTEP LTD: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Immutep Ltd. (NASDAQ: IMMP) resulting from allegations that Immutep Ltd. may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So what: If you purchased Immutep Ltd. securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=56430 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On March 13, 2026, Immutep issued a press release "announcing that the Independent Data Monitoring Committee (IDMC) for the TACTI 004 Phase III study evaluating eftilagimod alfa ('efti') in patients in 1(st) line non-small cell lung cancer has recommended the discontinuation of the trial following a planned interim futility analysis in accordance with the study protocol." In addition, the press release stated that, "based on its review of the available safety and efficacy data, the IDMC recommended that the trial be discontinued for futility" and that, accordingly, "enrolment in the study will be halted and the Company will implement an orderly wind down of the study, including appropriate patient follow up and site close out in accordance with regulatory and ethical obligations." On this news, Immutep's American Depositary Receipt ("ADR") price fell $2.28 per ADR, or 82.6%, to close at $0.48 per ADR on March 13, 2026. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] INSURANCEZEBRA INC: Penning Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Stacy Penning, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. InsuranceZebra, Inc. doing business as: The Zebra, Case No. 3:25-cv-03531 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on March 31, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00809 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. InsuranceZebra, Inc. doing business as The Zebra -- https://www.thezebra.com/ -- operates as an auto insurance service provider company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Emily Ayres Horne, Esq. FRIEDMAN & SPRINGWATER LLP 350 Sansome Street, Ste. 800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 834-3800 - and - Max Stuart Roberts, Esq. Caroline Cella Donovan, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7408 Fax: (212) 989-9163 - and - Joshua B. Glatt, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard, 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4451 - and - Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Fax: (212) 989-9163 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com The Defendant is represented by: Christopher Walter James, Esq. Lillian Sun, Esq. Meghan Lauren Natenson, Esq. VINSON AND ELKINS LLP 555 Mission Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 979-6949 INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Parties Seek to Amend Class Scheduling Order ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ashworth v. International Paper Co et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00053-JDC-CBW (W.D. La.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting joint motion to amend scheduling order for class certification hearing. The amended scheduling order is sought in good faith and not intended to cause improper delay. This amended scheduling order will also not materially impede the progress of this case or prejudice any party. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and IP request that the Court grant this Joint Motion and enter the proposed Fifth Amended Scheduling Order for Class Certification Hearing. International is an American pulp and paper company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vbUkks at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Perry R. Sanders, Jr., Esq. THE SANDERS LAW FIRM, LLC 400 Broad Street Lake Charles, LA 70601 Telephone: (719) 630-1556 E-mail: perry@perrysanders.com - and - David L. Wallace, Esq. 518 North Pine Street DeRidder, LA 70634 Telephone: (337) 462-0473 E-mail: wnblawoffice@bellsouth.net - and - Andrew K. Glenn, Esq. Trevor J. Welch, Esq. Jason Rotstein, Esq. Nathan J. Ades, Esq. GLENN AGRE BERGMAN & FUENTES LLP 1185 Avenue of the Americas, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 970-1600 E-mail: aglenn@glennagre.com twelch@glennagre.com jrotstein@glennagre.com nades@glennagre.com The Defendants are represented by: Joshua J. Metcalf, Esq. T. Joel Fyke, Esq. Taylor D. Waxley, Esq. FORMAN WATKINS & KRUTZ LLP 210 East Capitol Street, Suite 2200 Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 960-8600 Facsimile: (601) 960-8613 E-mail: LAEService@formanwatkins.com - and - Kyle L. Gideon, Esq. Kevin M. Dills, Esq. DAVIDSON, MEAUX, SONNIER, McELLIGOTT, FONTENOT, GIDEON & EDWARDS, LLP 900 South College Road – Suite 100 Lafayette, LA 70503 Telephone: (337) 237-1600 Facsimile: (337) 237-3676 IPPC INC: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach -------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the IPPC data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the IPPC data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. IPPC Security Incident: What Happened? IPPC Inc., which includes IPPC of New York and Innovative Pharmacy, has disclosed a data breach involving unauthorized access to its network. IPPC provides long-term care pharmacy services across New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. A notice posted to the company's website states that the IPPC data breach occurred from September 18 to September 19, 2025. During this period, files were copied and may have been viewed by an unknown actor. A review of the affected files was completed by February 9, 2026, concluding that the compromised information may include names, birth dates, driver's license or government ID numbers, Medicare/Medicaid identification numbers, diagnosis/treatment information, medical record/patient account number, procedure information, health insurance information, payment card information, financial account information, individual taxpayer identification numbers, passport numbers, prescription information, billing and claims information, provider name, admission and discharge date, and Social Security number. IPPC is notifying affected individuals. What You Can Do After the IPPC Data Breach If your information was exposed in the IPPC data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force IPPC to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. [GN] J.R. WATKINS: Dodgion Balks at Mislabeled Soap, Cleaning Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- Travis Dodgion, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. J.R. Watkins, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-02604-KAW (N.D. Cal., March 25, 2026) arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and multi-state consumer protection statutes. This class action aims to hold Defendant responsible for failing to truthfully and accurately label and market its soap and cleaning products. Through a series of representations made on the front label of the Products, the marketing materials, and in the Products' Amazon.com title listing, including the representation that the Product is "All Natural," the Defendant conveys that the Product is all natural and free from artificial ingredients. However, the Products contain a number of artificial ingredients, says the suit. Like other reasonable consumers, the Plaintiff was deceived by Defendant's unlawful conduct and brings this action individually and on behalf of all similarly situated consumers to remedy Defendant's unlawful acts. J.R. Watkins, LLC provides beauty care and household products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. Nathaniel H. Sari, Esq. GUCOVSCHI LAW FIRM, PLLC 165 Broadway, Fl. 23 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 E-mail: adrian@gucovschilaw.com nathaniel@gucovschilaw.com JACKSON COUNTY, MO: Judge Certifies Property Assessment Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Samantha Boring, writing for KCTV 5, reports that a Jackson County judge on Thursday, April 2, certified a class action that could include roughly 200,000 homeowners who dealt with high increases on their 2023 residential property assessments. In the order, Judge Jacqueline Cook certified the class as: All owners of residential real property in Jackson County, Missouri who paid real property taxes based on a 2023 assessed valuation that increased by more than fifteen percent (15%) over the prior assessment cycle, excluding increases due solely to new construction or improvements. She also ordered some to be excluded from the class: Excluded from the Class are Defendants, including their officers and legislators, counsel for the parties, including their staff and immediate family members, and the judicial officers assigned to this litigation, including staff and immediate family members. Plaintiff, Nancy Wheeler, is the representative of the Class, with her counsel being Kenneth McClain, Jonathan Soper, and Nichelle L. Oxley. The judge ordered that at the next court hearing, they should bring a proposed notice to those in the Class and explain how they would notify them. To certify a class, the judge had to find that four prerequisites for class certification were met: -- Numerosity -- Commonality -- Typicality -- Adequacy The judge said in 2023, there were 300,000 parcels in Jackson County, with approximately 200,000 that dealt with increases over 15%. How we got here In September 2024, Wheeler and her attorneys pushed for a class action settlement regarding the high increases homeowners dealt with regarding property assessments. They are seeking refunds for Jackson County homeowners who had increases higher than 15%. Refunds sought in Jackson County class action suit over property assessment hikes Jackson County Executive Phil LeVota has previously shared the county's plan to give tax credits to those who faced high increases. What does this mean for me? The plaintiffs will begin going through the process of how they would notify Class members and eventually what would happen if they reach a decision with Jackson County. If you live in Jackson County, owned your home in 2023, and dealt with a property assessment increase of more than 15%, you could qualify. The court and attorneys will determine how exactly to go about notifying you through legal proceedings. The case heads back to court on Monday, April 6, at 9:30 a.m. in downtown Kansas City. [GN] JBS SOUDERTON: Edwards SAC Dismissed with Prejudice --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT EDWARDS, et al., v. JBS SOUDERTON INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-01789-CFK (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Chad F. Kenney entered an order granting Defendant's Motion and dismissing the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint with prejudice. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant's request for attorney's fees. After months of delay, multiple attempts to obtain responsive documents from Plaintiffs, and a stipulated motion to compel, on Feb. 5, 2026, Defendant JBS filed a Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Fees. The Plaintiffs oppose dismissal and any award of fees. JBS is a beef processing facility. A copy of the Court's memorandum dated March 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=exvmQH at no extra charge.[CC] JOEST LLC: Conditional Certification Withdrawn in Mezoff Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YVONNE MEZOFF individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JOEST LLC and JOSEPH DEQUATTRO, Case No. 1:26-cv-10555-RGS (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. Withdrawing the motion for conditional certification and memorandum in support thereof; and 2. Granting the Plaintiff leave to file the amended motion For conditional certification and memorandum in support thereof, attached hereto as Exhibits 1 and 2. Joest is in the vibration technology business. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w8hqx9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Patton, Esq. Raven Moeslinger, Esq. Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq. ORTIZ & MOESLINGER, P.C. One Boston Place, Suite 2600 Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 338-9400 E-mail: mdp@mass-legal.com JOEST LLC: Mezoff Seeks Conditional Status of Collective -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YVONNE MEZOFF individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JOEST LLC and JOSEPH DEQUATTRO, Case No. 1:26-cv-10555-RGS (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting step-one notice pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, specifically 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). The Plaintiff requests that the Court enter an order: 1. Conditionally certifying the following collective so that putative opt-in plaintiffs may receive notice of the lawsuit pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b): "All waitstaff and bartenders who were hourly employees of Joest LLC who worked more than 40 hours in at least one workweek between Nov. 18, 2022 and the date of judgment; 2. Ordering the Defendants to, within 30 days, produce the names, last known mailing addresses, email addresses, and phone numbers for all potential class members; 3. Approving the issuance of the Notice and Consent To Join Form attached hereto as Exhibit 1; 4. Allowing individuals 90 days from the date of mailing of the Notice to opt-in to the collective action and authorizing a reminder notice to be sent 45 days prior to the close of the opt-in period; and 5. Requiring Joest LLC to post the Court approved Notice and Consent To Join Form in a visible location in all of its locations. Joest is in the vibration technology business. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uZBidT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Patton, Esq. Raven Moeslinger, Esq. Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq. ORTIZ & MOESLINGER, P.C. One Boston Place, Suite 2600 Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 338-9400 E-mail: mdp@mass-legal.com JSHEALTH VITAMINS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Davis Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ NICOLE DAVIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JSHealth Vitamins US, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03536 (N.D. Ill., March 31, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, https://us.jshealthvitamins.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Davis and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Davis's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint relates that Nicole Davis has made an attempt to complete a purchase on the Website on October 31, 2025. However, Davis encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from completing the transaction. The Website contains access barriers that deny her full and equal access. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Davis 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 in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and/or its implementing regulations, says the suit. Davis seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff Nicole Davis is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant JSHealth Vitamins US, Inc. provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase various health and wellness products, including targeted nutritional supplements, specialized vitamin formulas, and minerals, complemented by skincare and hair solutions designed for dietary support and personal care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn NY 11234 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 929-442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law KMART AUSTRALIA: Salaried Managers Sue Over Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Ashley Nickel, writing for Daily Mail, reports that Kmart is hit with class-action lawsuit by staff who claim they were treated unfairly by retail giant. Alleged Unfair Treatment: Salaried managers claim they were overworked without overtime pay, performing pre-shift, post-shift, and break-time work to complete tasks. Legal Action: A class-action lawsuit filed by Adero Law covers all full-time salaried managers at Kmart in the past six years, led by former manager Jordana Williamson. Industry Context: The case follows similar rulings against Coles and Woolworths, highlighting alleged systemic underpayment in Australia's largest retail chains despite advanced technology to track operations. Salaried managers have filed a class action against Kmart alleging that the retail giant systematically underpaid and overworked them to save costs. Adero Law lodged the lawsuit against Kmart with the Federal Court on Tuesday, March 31, with former manager Jordana Williamson leading the complainants. Ms Williamson began working as a salaried manager in February 2019 at Kmart stores around Brisbane. She alleges she had to work before and after her shift in order to finish her daily tasks and complete leftover administrative work at home. Despite putting in up to 60 hours during busy weeks, Ms Williamson claims she was not paid overtime or given other compensation as required under the Fair Work Act. Documents seen by Daily Mail show the class action extends to all full-time salaried managers who worked in Kmart stores in the last six years. It does not include workers who were casual or on hourly rates. 'Allegations include that managers were routinely required to perform work beyond their rostered and paid hours without receiving overtime, penalty rates or prescribed allowances,' Adero Law alleged in a press release. 'It is further alleged that managers were required to perform pre-shift and post-shift work, work through meal and rest breaks and undertake work outside rostered hours.' The allegations have not been proven and Kmart has not yet filed a defence. The action against Kmart follows a Federal Court ruling in September 2025 that found Coles and Woolworths had unlawfully relied on annualised salaries without properly keeping track of the actual hours staff worked or awarding overtime. 'Kmart joins a growing list of Australia's retail giants that allegedly chose, year after year, to look the other way,' Adero Law said. 'In these multi-billion dollar businesses, the inability to tell when a manager starts or finishes their shift isn't an administrative oversight. 'This claim alleges that Kmart's business model was predicated on strategic ignorance of actual hours worked by managers.' The law firm highlighted how Kmart utilises impressive technology to track its inventory, but was allegedly unable to keep track of the actual hours its staff worked. 'The workers at the heart of this claim aren't asking for a windfall, they are simply asking for award-minimum wages for the time they actually worked,' Adero Law alleged. 'What we see across Coles, Woolworths and now Kmart is the completion of a trifecta of Australia's three largest private sector employers. 'All of whom are sophisticated enterprises with world-leading technology available to track inventory and sales but who seemingly became 'blind' when it comes to tracking actual hours of work by their own employees. 'This blindness has a dollar value and for too long it has been subsidised by the very people who can least afford it.' A Kmart spokesperson told Daily Mail: 'Kmart is committed to its team members being paid correctly for the work they perform. 'As this matter is before the court and we have not yet had an opportunity to review the claims, it is not appropriate for us to comment at this time,' the spokesperson said. [GN] LA BELLE DISTRIBUTORS: Cazares Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------- AMELIA CAZARES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. La Belle Distributors, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-487 (E.D. Wis., March 25, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://labelleperfumes.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Cazares and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On February 18, 2026, Plaintiff Cazares intended to purchase a designer fragrance and came across the Defendant's website. According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff Cazares and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inadequate focus order, inaccessible contact information, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccessible drop-down menus, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. Plaintiff Cazares seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. La Belle Distributors, Inc. operates the website that offers a variety of perfumes, body sprays, lotions, creams, scented candles, and fragrance gift sets for men and women.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (718) 554-0237 E-mail: dreyes@ealg.law LEMON PERFECT: Faces Suit Over Artificial Sweeteners' False Ads --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Star Ghanaat filed a class action lawsuit against The Lemon Perfect Company. Why: Ghanaat alleges Lemon Perfect falsely advertises its beverage products as containing "no artificial sweeteners." Where: The Lemon Perfect class action lawsuit was filed in California state court. A new class action lawsuit accuses Lemon Perfect of falsely advertising its beverage products as containing "no artificial sweeteners" when they actually contain stevia leaf extract. Plaintiff Star Ghanaat filed the class action complaint against The Lemon Perfect Company on Jan. 14 in California state court, alleging violations of state consumer laws. According to the class action lawsuit, Lemon Perfect prominently displays the phrase "No Artificial Sweeteners" on its beverage labels, misleading consumers into believing the drinks are free from such ingredients. Ghanaat claims the products actually contain stevia leaf extract, an artificial sweetener. She argues that Lemon Perfect’s labeling is designed to give consumers the impression they are purchasing a premium product free from artificial ingredients. The plaintiff, who purchased the products in California, alleges she was deceived by Lemon Perfect’s unlawful conduct and is bringing the action individually and on behalf of California consumers to remedy those alleged unlawful acts. Class action disputes how Lemon Perfect describes its sweetener The class action lawsuit argues that the stevia leaf extract used in Lemon Perfect’s beverages is not the same as crude stevia leaf, but rather a highly purified, chemically processed sweetener. Ghanaat claims this distinction is crucial because crude stevia leaves are not approved for use in food in the United States. She wants to represent anyone who purchased Lemon Perfect products in California within the applicable statute of limitations. Ghanaat is suing for violations of California consumer protection laws and breach of express warranty and is seeking certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. Last year, Abbott Laboratories faced a similar lawsuit alleging it misled consumers about the safety of its Pedialyte products, which contain the artificial sweetener sucralose. The plaintiff is represented by Michael T. Houchin of Crosner Legal P.C. The Lemon Perfect class action lawsuit is Ghanaat v. The Lemon Perfect Company, Case No. 3:26-cv-01153, in the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda. [GN] LOUIS VUITTON: Botto Sues Over Invasive Telemarketing Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- NANCY LOPEZ BOTTO, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOUIS VUITTON NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-03185 (C.D. Cal., March 25, 2026) is a putative class action brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. To promote its goods, services, and/or properties, the Defendant allegedly engages in unsolicited text messaging and continues to text message consumers after they have opted out of Defendant's solicitations. The Defendant also engages in telemarketing without the required policies and procedures, and training of its personnel engaged in telemarketing. Furthermore, to promote its goods, services, and/or properties, Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging to consumers that have registered their telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, asserts the complaint. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the intrusion upon seclusion, invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of Plaintiff and members of the Classes. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Classes, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Louis Vuitton North America, Inc. was founded in 1999. The company's line of business includes the retail sale of luggage, trunks, and leather goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com MARTIN & PLEASANCE: Faces Class Action Over "All-Natural" Labels ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Ener-C Sugar-Free Multivitamin Drink Mixes made by Martin & Pleasance North America are falsely advertised as "all-natural" as they contain at least one synthetic ingredient. The 14-page false advertising lawsuit contends that the defendant wrongfully capitalizes on consumer demand for natural, minimally processed foods by promoting the powdered drink mixes as natural when they contain the artificial ingredient DL-malic acid, a compound manufactured from benzene or butane through a series of chemical reactions involving "highly toxic" chemical precursors and byproducts. Despite the presence of DL-malic acid, Martin & Pleasance has nevertheless employed promotions and labels that "state explicitly that the Products are 'All Natural,' with these statements reinforced by depictions of natural fruits that provide the characterizing flavor," the complaint says. As a result of the products' labeling, consumers have no reason to believe that the Ener-C drink mixes are not all-natural and would not have reasonably understood based on the packaging that they contained an artificial ingredient, the suit argues. According to the complaint, there is a naturally occurring form of malic acid derived from apples. However, because natural malic acid is expensive to use in mass quantities, the majority of food products use the synthetic form of the ingredient, called DL-malic acid, the filing says. Indeed, independent testing commissioned by lawyers for the plaintiff, a Virginia resident, revealed the presence of the malic acid D-isomer in Martin & Pleasance's mixes, establishing its synthetic composition, the case shares. "[B]ecause of its deceptive and false labeling statements, Defendant was enabled to charge a premium for the Products relative to key competitors' products, or relative to the average price charged in the marketplace," the lawsuit contends. The Ener-C Drink Mix class action lawsuit seeks to represent all consumers nationwide who purchased any variety of Ener-C Sugar-Free Multivitamin Drink Mixes within the four years before the filing of the complaint on March 24, 2026. [GN] MARYLAND: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Bangura Suit Due April 30 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALPHEAUS BANGURA, et al., v. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-02728-JKB (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Bredar entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' consent motion to extend the class certification deadlines. The class certification briefing schedule is extended as follows: The Plaintiffs' motion for class April 30, 2026 certification: The Defendant's opposition to motion June 18, 2026 for class certification The Plaintiffs' reply in support of July 6, 2026 class certification: A copy of the Court's order dated March 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=S9TMwW at no extra charge.[CC] MASTER MOBILELINK: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Bolen Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRADLEY BOLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MASTER MOBILELINK LLC and MOBILY, LLC, d/b/a MOBILELINK, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-02589 (S.D. Tex., March 31, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. Defendant Master Mobilelink LLC and Mobily LLC, d/b/a Mobilelink is a private Cricket Wireless company with 550+ retail locations across the USA that deals in providing unlimited 5G LTE services and state of the art devices as the largest exclusive retainer of Cricket Wireless. The complaint relates that the Defendant had numerous statutory, regulatory, contractual, and common law duties and obligations, including those based on its affirmative representations to Plaintiff and Class Members, to keep their Private Information confidential, safe, secure, and protected from unauthorized disclosure or access. However, the Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' Private Information secure, notes the complaint. Specifically, on February 26, 2026, Defendant completed an investigation into suspicious network activity that it detected on its network. Defendant concluded that on November 9, 2025, it experienced a network disruption and personal information was acquired without authorization during this incident and the types of Private Information compromised as a result of the Data Breach include names and Social Security numbers. On March 27, 2026, Defendant began sending individualized Notice of Data Security Incident letters to those affected by the Data Breach. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant for: negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. Plaintiff Bradley Bolen is a citizen and resident of White Sulfur Spring, West Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com MDL 3178: 19 Baby Formula Suits Transferred to S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------- Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers 19 actions pending in 12 districts, all to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Arun S. Subramanian for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multi-district action captioned "In re: Byheart, Inc., Infant Formula Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation," MDL No. 3178. All responding parties support, or do not oppose, centralization in the Southern District of New York. These actions share factual questions arising from the November 2025 recall of infant formula manufactured and marketed by ByHeart, Inc., based on its potential contamination with Clostridium botulinum. Plaintiffs in nine actions allege that their infant children became seriously ill with infant botulism after being fed contaminated ByHeart formula. The remaining ten actions are putative nationwide and statewide class actions which assert economic injuries on behalf of purchasers of ByHeart formula. According to the panel, the actions will share factual questions regarding the root cause of the alleged contamination, ByHeart's manufacturing processes, and ByHeart's compliance with applicable FDA and other regulations. Centralization will avoid duplicative fact and expert discovery as to these common issues, as well as the risk of inconsistent pretrial rulings, particularly as to issues of expert admissibility and class certification. In addition, centralization will conserve party and judicial resources, which is of particular importance given that ByHeart reportedly has limited insurance coverage that will be eroded by defense costs. The panel deemed the Southern District of New York as an appropriate transferee district for this MDL as all parties support centralization in the district. ByHeart is headquartered in the Southern District of New York, and eight actions, as well as the potential tag-along action, are pending in that district. A full-text copy of the court's April 2, 2026 transfer order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3178-Transfer_Order-3-26.pdf MDL 3179: 12 Suits Consolidated in Fire Truck Antitrust Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidates two actions pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, one action from the the District of New Jersey, and nine from the Eastern District of Wisconsin, all to Eastern District of Wisconsin, and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge William C. Griesbach for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multi-district action captioned "In re: Fire Apparatus Antitrust Litigation," MDL No. 3179. The common defendants in all actions moved to centralize this litigation in the Northern District of Illinois or, alternatively, the District of Kansas. The 12 actions allege that the leading fire apparatus manufacturers in the United States and various related entities have engaged in conduct from at least 2016 to the present to substantially lessen competition in the U.S. fire truck industry, artificially inflate prices, and restrain trade, in violation of federal antitrust law and/or state laws. The panel notes that the actions present common factual questions arising out of allegations that, as a result of a series of acquisitions, three manufacturers namely, the REV Group, Oshkosh Corporation, and Rosenbauer America, LLC -- dominate the U.S. fire truck manufacturing industry and have used their market power to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of fire trucks sold in the United States from January 2016 through the present, in violation of federal antitrust law. Plaintiffs opposing centralization principally argued that transfer is practicable and preferable to centralization, asserting, inter alia, that plaintiffs have made significant progress in self-organizing the actions in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. However, the panel held that the pending and anticipated transfer motions in the actions outside of the Eastern District of Wisconsin do not provide a practicable alternative to centralization, given the number of actions, districts, and involved counsel. The panel concluded that the Eastern District of Wisconsin is the appropriate transferee district for this litigation as defendants Oshkosh Corporation, Pierce Manufacturing, and the REV Group reportedly are headquartered in this district, where common witnesses and other evidence likely will be found. Nine of the twelve actions on the motion are pending there, along with one potential tag-along action. Additionally, the vast majority of plaintiffs support this district as their first or second choice for transferee district. A full-text copy of the court's April 3, 2026 transfer order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3179-Transfer_Order-3-26.pdf MEAD JOHNSON: Court Junks Lopez Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOMINIQUE LOPEZ, v. MEAD JOHNSON NUTRITION COMPANY, et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-03573-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order granting motion to dismiss amended complaint. The Plaintiff previously had an opportunity to amend and has failed to cure the legal deficiencies the Court previously identified (and to the extent the Amended Complaint advances new theories, they are not viable for the reasons explained in this order). The Court therefore dismissed case against Defendants without leave to amend. The Court directs counsel TO SHOW CAUSE why it should not be sanctioned for including a non-existent quotation from Becerra v. Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc. 945 F.3d 1225, 1228 (9th Cir. 2019). The Defense counsel shall file a statement of two pages or less by March 27, 2026. The Court finds that Plaintiff fails to plead that damages would insufficiently compensate her for the alleged overpayment, and thus GRANTS Mead’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims for restitution and disgorgement. The Plaintiff Dominque Lopez purchased Mead infant formulas between May 2021 and September 2022 from retailers in Contra Costa County, California. Those products included Enfamil (TM) Nutramigen, Enfamil (TM) ProSobee, and Enfamil (TM) Neuro Pro. Id. She also asserts claims on behalf of a putative class regarding infant formulas she did not purchase: Enfamil(TM) A.R., Enfamil (TM) Gentlease, Enfamil (TM) Enspire Gentlease, and PurAmino Hypoallergenic. The Plaintiff alleges that these formulas' packaging contains deceptive statements that imply that they are generally nutritious and have "no detrimental, harmful, or genetically engineered ingredients." Johnson manufactures nutritional products. A copy of the Court's order dated March 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AbdtBH at no extra charge.[CC] MEDIASTAR LIMITED: Class Cert. in Hossain Suit Due April 17 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hossain et al., v. Mediastar Limited et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01201-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Failla entered an order that the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and supporting papers are due on or before April 17, 2026. Mediastar is a media company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a2zxWA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com MEDSTAR HEALTH: Wins Dismissal of FMLA Maternity Leave Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Thy Ma Stimac, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. MedStar Health Inc., Defendant, Civil Case No. SAG-25-01693 (D. Md.), Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted Defendant's motion to dismiss all three claims. Plaintiff is an occupational therapist at a hospital operated by Defendant. For the purpose of an annual raise, Defendant categorizes employees into three performance tiers: Exceptional, Strong, and Needs Improvement. Plaintiff received the Strong categorization in 2024 and was informed that employees in that tier would receive a 3.5% increase effective on their November 22, 2024 paycheck. She began maternity leave, approved as FMLA leave, in October 2024, and did not receive the raise on any of her paychecks during her leave, which ran until early January 2025. Defendant's human resources representative informed her that its standard policy is to apply the raise once employees return from leave. On the FMLA interference claim, the Court noted that receiving the raise during the leave period was not itself a benefit to which the FMLA entitled Plaintiff. Applying 29 CFR Section 825.215(c)(1), which provides that pay increases conditioned upon seniority, length of service, or work performed must be granted in accordance with the employer's policy with respect to employees on equivalent non-FMLA leave, the Court concluded that deferring a conditional pay increase until an employee returns from FMLA leave, when an employer does so equally with respect to non-FMLA leave, does not constitute interference. The FMLA interference claim was therefore dismissed. On the breach of contract claim, the Court found that, without additional factual allegations, the only reasonable inference is that employees in the Strong, or Standard, tier have merely met expectations. The promise to pay such a raise does not form a contract under Maryland law. That claim was dismissed. Finally, because Plaintiff failed to show that the FMLA or a contract entitled her to the raise while on leave, she failed to show that Defendant was unjustly enriched. The unjust enrichment claim was accordingly dismissed and the case closed. A copy of the Court's MEMORANDUM OPINION dated April 2, 2026, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WJxFrk from PacerMonitor.com MERCOR.IO CORP: Faces Class Action Over Personal Info Exposure -------------------------------------------------------------- William C. Gendron of ClaimDepot reports that plaintiff Lisa Gill filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on April 1, 2026, claiming a data breach affected. Mercor.io Corp., a fast-growing artificial intelligence hiring startup. The cyberattack allegedly exposed the sensitive personal data of more than 40,000 people. The suit claims Mercor failed to maintain basic cybersecurity protections, leaving current and former contract employees and customers vulnerable to identity theft and fraud. Gill seeks damages on behalf of herself and a nationwide class of anyone whose personal information the breach compromised. San-Francisco based Mercor.io runs an AI-powered hiring platform that connects specialized domain experts, including scientists, doctors and lawyers, with technology companies that need help training AI models and chatbots. The company's clients include major AI developers OpenAI and Anthropic. LiteLLM supply chain attack The cyberattack at the center of the lawsuit stems from what security professionals call a "supply chain attack." In this type of attack, hackers compromise a third-party software tool that other companies rely on rather than targeting a victim directly. This approach allegedly allows criminals to reach many companies at once through a single point of entry. According to the complaint, the attack entered Mercor's systems through LiteLLM, a widely used open-source software tool. SecurityWeek reported the LiteLLM incident occurred on March 27, 2026. Attackers reportedly used stolen developer credentials to publish two malicious versions of the LiteLLM software package. Thousands of companies allegedly downloaded the software before LiteLLM detected the attack. After the attack became public, a hacking group the complaint identifies as "Lapsus" claimed responsibility for the breach. The group, also known as "Lapsus$," is known for targeting high-profile technology companies through extortion. According to the complaint, the group claimed to have exfiltrated four terabytes of data from Mercor's systems, which it listed for auction on the dark web. Mercor publicly confirmed the security incident, stating it was "one of thousands" of companies the breach affected. The company said its security team moved quickly to contain the breach and that it brought in third-party forensics experts to support a thorough investigation. Allegations of cybersecurity failures The complaint argues Mercor could have prevented the breach and that Mercor's cybersecurity practices fell well below industry standards. It claims Mercor did not implement multifactor authentication, a security system that requires users to confirm their identity in more than one way before accessing a system. The lawsuit further alleges that Mercor failed to encrypt sensitive data during storage and transmission. Encryption is a process that scrambles data so that only authorized parties can read it. Additionally, the suit claims Mercor did not limit which employees or systems could access sensitive personal information, did not monitor its systems for unusual or suspicious activity and did not rotate passwords regularly to reduce the risk of attackers exploiting old or stolen credentials. Extensive relief sought The proposed class covers all U.S. residents whose personal information unauthorized parties accessed or acquired during the breach. The personally identifiable information at issue may include full names, Social Security numbers and other sensitive data belonging to current and former Mercor contract employees and customers. Gill alleges she lost significant time dealing with the consequences of the data breach and faces an elevated risk of identity theft. More broadly, the lawsuit claims invasion of privacy, theft of personal information, reduced value of personal data, lost time and a rise in unwanted spam communications. It also alleges loss of the benefit of the bargain, a legal concept referring to the idea that users gave their data to Mercor with a reasonable expectation of security that the company reportedly did not deliver. The lawsuit asks the court to award compensatory damages to cover actual losses, as well as consequential, statutory, nominal and punitive damages. Beyond financial compensation, the suit seeks extensive injunctive relief, asking the court to order Mercor to overhaul its data security systems, build out a comprehensive information security program, provide credit monitoring services to affected individuals, submit to annual security audits and hire independent, third-party security auditors. As of the time of publishing, plaintiffs filed at least three other class action lawsuits in federal court relating to the Mercor data beach. [GN] MI CASA: Pardini Wins Class Certification Bid --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alexander Pardini, v. Mi Casa Su Casa LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00796-GMS (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Snow entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The following class is conditionally certified: "All current or former hourly employees of Mi Casa working in Arizona who were, at any point from May 10, 2021, to the present, paid an overtime compensation rate that did not take into account all financial renumeration paid to the employee during the workweek, including but not limited to any employee's alternate, higher compensation rate, shift differentials, and non-discretionary bonuses." The court further entered an order that Pardini is designated as Class Representative, and Parmet Law PC is designated as Class Counsel. A copy of the Court's order dated March 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uLcwiJ at no extra charge.[CC] MICRODENTAL LAB: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert Hearing ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL PROVOST, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. MICRODENTAL LABORATORIES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-09306-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order continuing the May 21, 2026, class certification hearing date by 90 days, or a date thereafter convenient for the Court. The Parties are in the process of scheduling dates for the depositions of multiple PMK deponents and the Plaintiff. The Parties are discussing options and timing for scheduling a second day of mediation. The Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for class certification is set by Civil Local Rules, Rule 7 and the Court's order setting the hearing date for Plaintiff’s motion for class certification on May 21, 2026. The Parties believe continuing the May 21, 2026, hearing date will allow the Parties to complete their discussions regarding mediation and have enough time to schedule and complete the above contemplated depositions before filing briefing related to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. MicroDental manufactures dentures, artificial teeth, and orthodontic appliances. A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3T3urb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karen I. Gold, Esq. Sara Pezeshkpour, Esq. Noam Y. Reiffman, Esq. Marissa A. Mayhood, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 622-4278 Facsimile: (855) 786-6356 E-mail: kgold@blackstonepc.com spezeshkpour@blackstonepc.com nreiffman@blackstonepc.com mmayhood@blackstonepc.com The Defendant is represented by: Michelle M. La Mar, Esq. Terry D. Garnett, Esq. SHEILA HANLEY LOEB & LOEB LLP 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 282-2000 Facsimile: (310) 282-2200 E-mail: mlamar@loeb.com tgarnett@loeb.com shanley@loeb.com MIZUNO USA: Agrees to 2024 Data Breach Class Action Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Mizuno agreed to a class action settlement to resolve claims that a 2024 data breach compromised consumer information. The class action settlement benefits individuals who received a data breach notice from Mizuno informing them that their information was potentially compromised in a data breach discovered in November 2024. The Mizuno data breach was discovered in November 2024 and compromised sensitive consumer information, such as names, Social Security numbers, financial account numbers, driver's license numbers and passport numbers. Consumers took legal action against Mizuno, arguing that the company failed to protect their information from cybercriminals. Plaintiffs in the case say that Mizuno could have prevented the data breach through reasonable cybersecurity measures. Mizuno is a sports equipment and apparel company that sells products for baseball, golf, running, soccer, volleyball and other sports. Mizuno has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to resolve the data breach class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Mizuno settlement, class members can receive up to $475 in reimbursement for ordinary losses and lost time related to the data breach. Ordinary losses include bank fees, communication charges, travel expenses and up to four hours of lost time at a rate of $15 per hour. Class members who experienced extraordinary losses as a result of identity theft or fraud related to the data breach can receive up to $5,000 in reimbursement for these losses. Class members can also choose to receive a $50 alternative cash payment instead of settlement benefits. All class members are eligible for 24 months of one-bureau credit monitoring services with at least $1 million in fraud protection. The deadline for exclusion and objection is May 15, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Mizuno settlement is scheduled for June 4, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by June 15, 2026. Who's Eligible The class action settlement benefits individuals who received a data breach notification from Mizuno USA informing them their information was potentially compromised in a November 2024 data breach. Potential Award Ordinary losses up to $475, extraordinary losses up to $5,000 or a pro-rata cash payment of $50. Proof of Purchase Documentation of losses, such as bank statements, phone bills, receipts and invoices. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 06/15/2026 Case Name Freiburger v. Mizuno USA Inc., Case No. 25EV010647, in the State Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia Final Hearing 06/04/2026 Settlement Website MizunoSettlement.com Claims Administrator Mizuno Data Incident c/o Atticus Administration P.O. Box 64053 St. Paul, MN 55164 MizunoSettlement@atticusadmin.com (800) 829-5361 Class Counsel Casondra R. Turner David K. Lietz MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC Defense Counsel Christopher H. Wood LEWIS BRISBOIS [GN] MYRTLE BEACH, SC: Daniel Must File Class Cert Bid by July 20 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as James Daniel, individually and as class representative, v. City of Myrtle Beach, SC, et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-01231-SAL (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Lydon entered a consent second amended scheduling order as follows: -- No later than October 17, 2025, the parties shall file a Rule 26 (f) Report in the form attached to this order. -- Any motions to join other parties and to amend the Pleadings shall be filed by December 5, 2025. -- Discovery shall be completed no later than June 19, 2026. -- The Plaintiff shall file his motion to certify a class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on or before July 20, 2026. -- The Defendant shall file its opposition to the class certification motion on or before Aug. 21, 2026, and the Plaintiff shall file any reply on or before Sept. 4, 2026. City of Myrtle Beach is a residential and vacation community at the heart of South Carolina's Grand Strand coast. A copy of the Court's order dated March 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5CljLm at no extra charge.[CC] NAVIGATE360 LLC: Buckles Files Suit Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------- CHARLES BUCKLES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NAVIGATE360, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-00765 (N.D. Ohio, March 31, 2026) is a class action seeking monetary damages, restitution, and/or injunctive relief over a data breach. Defendant Navigate360, LLC is the owner of P3 Global Intel. It hosted and facilitated Crime Stoppers branches across the country and internationally and promised anonymity. The Defendant and Crime Stoppers promised Plaintiff and the Class that "the community provides anonymous tips by using the P3Tips mobile phone app. Notwithstanding these promises, on March 18, 2026, a hacker group leaked over 8.3 million highly sensitive records of tipsters ranging approximately 38 years. These records included the substance of tips themselves, user account details,24 names, social security numbers, license plate numbers, home addresses, and criminal histories. This personally identifiable information ("PII") was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect sensitive data, asserts the complaint. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The complaint adds that the Plaintiff and Class Members are crime reporters, confidential informants and tipsters who report crime and bring about justice – potentially risking their lives. The Defendant's failure to implement even basic cybersecurity safeguards has led to the disclosure of the identities and PII, with potentially devastating consequences. Beyond the already devastating impacts of a conventional data breach, Plaintiff and Class Members now face the immediate threat of retaliation and potentially physical violence. Furthermore, Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft, at their own expense. Consequently, Plaintiff and the other victims will incur ongoing out-of-pocket costs for, e.g., purchasing credit monitoring services, credit freezes, credit reports, or other protective measures to deter and detect identity theft and ensure their ongoing physical safety, says the suit. Plaintiff Charles Buckles is a citizen of the state of Louisiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas D. Warren, Esq. WARREN TERZIAN LLP 30799 Pinetree Rd., Suite 345 Pepper Pike, OH 44124 Telephone: (216) 304-4970 E-mail: tom.warren@warrenterzian.com - and - Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. Ellen J Wen, Esq. COTCHETT PITRE & McCARTHY LLP 1809 7th Ave., Ste. 1610 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 802-1272 Facsimile: (206) 299-4184 E-mail: tloeser@cpmlegal.com ewen@cpmlegal.com NEARLY NATURAL: Corbett Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------------- KATHERINE CORBETT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nearly Natural, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00251 (W.D. Wis., March 25, 2026) is a civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.nearlynatural.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Corbett and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On November 4, 2025, the Plaintiff was searching online for artificial plants for seasonal home decoration. She came across Defendant's website and decided to further explore it with the intention of making a purchase. However, while navigating the Website using her screen reader software, Plaintiff encountered multiple accessibility barriers. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Corbett and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy, inadequate focus order, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccurate drop-down menus, ambiguous link text, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. Plaintiff Corbett seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Nearly Natural, LLC operates the website that offers a selection of artificial trees, plants, hanging greenery, bushes, ferns, and floral arrangements along with decorative planters and plant accessories for indoor and outdoor décor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (718) 554-0237 E-mail: dreyes@ealg.law NEW ERA ENERGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of securities of New Era Energy & Digital, Inc. (NASDAQ: NUAI) between November 6, 2024 and December 29, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 1, 2026. SO WHAT: If you purchased New Era Energy securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the New Era Energy class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=49293 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 1, 2026. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) New Era Energy overstated its progress in its permitting and regulatory filings for its flagship Texas Critical Data Centers project; (2) New Era Energy was involved in a fraudulent scheme "to pocket revenues from hundreds of oil and gas wells in New Mexico" by transferring wells among related entities and then placing liability-bearing companies into bankruptcy to avoid plugging and remediation costs; (3) as a result, New Era Energy's financial results were false and/or misleading; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about New Era Energy's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the New Era Energy class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=49293 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] NEW YORK, NY: Berdynaj Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Berdynaj v. The City of New York, Case No. 1:26-cv-02126-DEH-JW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ho entered an order referring class action to Mag. Judge for the following purposes: General Pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement) Specific Non-dispositive motion/dispute: Class certification The Defendant comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated March 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W2IOQT at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK: Court Narrows Claims in De Souza Suit ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUZETTE DE SOUZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK; NEW YORK STATE OFFICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES; WILLOW BAER, Acting Commissioner (in her official capacity); et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01222-RA (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Abrams entered an order granting Defendants' motions to dismiss in part, and denies them in part, as summarized below: -- With respect to De Souza's reasonable accommodation claims under Title VII, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL, the motions to dismiss are denied. -- With respect to De Souza's disparate-treatment claims under Title VII, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL, the motions to dismiss are granted. -- With respect to De Souza's retaliation claims under Title VII, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL, the motions to dismiss are granted. -- With respect to De Souza's claims under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL, to the extent they seek injunctive relief, the New York State Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted. -- With respect to De Souza's Section 1983 claims against the Individual Defendants, the New York State Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied. -- The Defendants' motions to strike the class allegations in the Amended Complaint are denied. De Souza shall have 30 days from the date of this Opinion and Order to file a Second Amended Complaint, if she has a good-faith basis to do so. Finally, CSEA's first motion to dismiss the Complaint is denied as moot. Because the Court cannot conclude that it will be "impossible" to certify a class on the basis of the allegations in the Amended Complaint, it will not strike the class allegations. This case concerns the extent to which a state agency and a public-sector union, bound by a collective bargaining agreement that assigns shifts by seniority, must accommodate employees who observe the Sabbath. Plaintiff Suzette De Souza is a Seventh Day Adventist who observes the Saturday Sabbath. She worked for a New York State agency and was repeatedly assigned Saturday shifts due to her lack of seniority. Her requests for religious accommodations—that she not be assigned Saturday shifts, or be permitted to voluntarily swap shifts with her co-workers— Case 1:25-cv-01222-RA Document 99 Filed 03/19/26 Page 2 of 56 were denied by the State, on the grounds that doing so would constitute a breach of the collective bargaining agreement it had signed with the union which represents De Souza. Plaintiff Suzette De Souza was hired on August 24, 2023 as a direct support assistant for New York State’s Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (“OPWDD”). Dkt. 59 (“Am. Compl.”) ¶ 51. She is a Seventh Day Adventist and observes the Saturday Sabbath. The Defendants include STEPHANIE THOMAS, Designee for Reasonable Accommodations (in her official and personal capacities); TERESA MEADOWS, Treatment Team Leader at Cleveland IRA (in her official and personal capacities); DAWN WILSON, Deputy Director of State Operations (in her official and personal capacities); SHERMARKE TANNIS, Regional Director of Human Resources (in his official and personal capacities); SHAUNA CARTER, Associate Director of Human Resources (in her official and personal capacities); COREEN PAYNE, Developmental Disabilities Program Specialist IV (in her official and personal capacities); and CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC., LOCAL 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO. New York is a state in the northeastern U.S., known for New York City and towering Niagara Falls. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oIns4n at no extra charge.[CC] ORTHOPEDICSNY LLP: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $1.45MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Alder of HIPAA Journal reports that a $1,450,000 settlement has been agreed upon to resolve a class action lawsuit against the New York orthopedic medicine and surgery practice OrthopedicsNY. The class action complaint was filed in response to a December 2023 ransomware attack and data breach that exposed the personal and electronic protected health information of 656,086 patients. OrthopedicsNY, which operates almost 20 clinics in the Capital Region in New York State, was attacked by the INC Ransom threat group on or around December 28, 2023. Prior to encrypting files, INC Ransom exfiltrated sensitive patient data, including names, contact information, financial information, protected health information, Social Security numbers, passport numbers, and driver's license numbers. The affected individuals were notified on November 4, 2024. Several class action lawsuits were filed in response to the data breach, which were consolidated in a single action -- Michael Sayers, et al. v. OrthopedicsNY, LLP -- in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant promised to protect their sensitive personal and health information but failed to do so, resulting in a ransomware attack and the theft of their data. The plaintiffs asserted claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. OrthopedicsNY agreed to a settlement to avoid the cost and time of protracted litigation and the uncertainty of a trial. Class counsel and the class representatives believe the settlement is fair and that accepting the settlement is in the best interests of class members. Under the terms of the settlement, OrthopedicsNY has agreed to establish a $1,450,000 settlement fund to cover attorneys' fees and expenses, notification and administration costs, and service awards for the 12 named class representatives. After covering those costs, the remainder of the settlement fund will be used to pay for benefits to the class members. Class members may claim one of two cash payments. Class members may submit a claim for reimbursement of documented, unreimbursed losses due to the data breach up to a maximum of $2,500 per class member, or they may claim an alternative cash payment, which is anticipated to be $50 per class member, but may be higher or lower depending on the number of valid claims received. The deadline for objection, opting out, and submitting a claim is June 15, 2026. The settlement has received preliminary approval from the court, and the final fairness hearing has been scheduled for June 30, 2026. In addition to the class action settlement, OrthopedicsNY previously settled an investigation by the New York Attorney General and paid a $500,000 financial penalty. The New York Attorney General determined that OrthopedicsNY failed to implement reasonable and appropriate cybersecurity measures to secure patient data, in violation of federal and state laws. In addition to the financial penalty, OrthopedicsNY agreed to implement and maintain a comprehensive information security program and several cybersecurity measures to bolster security and offer the affected individuals one year of complimentary credit monitoring services. [GN] OUTFRONT MEDIA: Bid to Extend Class Cert Filing Date Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCOS AREVALO, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. OUTFRONT MEDIA LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:26-cv-01682-PA-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anderson entered an order denying stipulation to extend the Plaintiff's June 17, 2026 class certification deadline to July 17, 2026: Outfront Media is an American advertising company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=G1XRJ2 at no extra charge.[CC] PACHA SOAP: Faces Class Suit Over Mislabeled Beauty Products ------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Pacha Soap Company has falsely advertised that its soaps, lotions and body washes contain the skin-friendly ingredients sea salt, mint and eucalyptus. The 31-page false advertising lawsuit contends that Pacha Soap charges a "premium price" for the products based on labeling and advertisements that emphasize that they contain sea salt, mint and eucalyptus. In reality, the filing says, these ingredients are nowhere to be found in the products, which instead contain synthetic ingredients such as fragrance and phenoxyethanol. Per the class action lawsuit, synthetic fragrance includes "unknown and unregulated chemical compounds," while phenoxyethanol has been the subject of FDA concerns that it may "depress the central nervous system" and cause vomiting and diarrhea in infants. The case argues that a reasonable consumer would rely on advertising and labels that "prominently featured" sea salt, mint, and eucalyptus as key ingredients when making purchasing decisions. Pacha Soap's marketing campaigns include depictions of the soap and lotions staged with eucalyptus, mint leaves and sea salt crystals, while the containers bear a front label that explicitly mentions these three ingredients, the filing relays. According to the complaint, consumer demand is higher for products containing these ingredients due to their actual and perceived dermatological benefits. Sea salt can help improve the skin barrier, reduce inflammation, moisturize skin, promote blood circulation and act as a natural antimicrobial, the case shares. Furthermore, eucalyptus is believed to aid acne-prone and irritated skin with its anti-inflammatory properties. Finally, mint provides "robust antioxidant protection" for the skin and also contains hydrating, antimicrobial and skin-cleansing properties, the suit states. Consumers who have purchased the Pacha Soap products at issue have not received the benefit of their bargain, given that the body care products do not contain the advertised ingredients. "[Pacha Soap] knew that consumers would pay more for a product marketed as containing sea salt, mint and eucalyptus and intended to deceive Plaintiff and putative Class Members by labeling and marketing the Products as purportedly containing these three ingredients," the filing states. The Pacha Soap class action lawsuit seeks to represent all consumers who purchased the affected Pacha personal care products in California during the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] PATELCO CREDIT: $7.25MM Settlement Exclusion, Objection, Due May 12 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Patelco Credit Union agreed to a $7.25 million class action settlement to resolve claims that it failed to prevent a 2024 data breach. The Patelco Credit Union settlement benefits individuals whose personally identifiable information was potentially involved in the Patelco Credit Union data breach discovered in June 2024. According to the class action lawsuit, Patelco failed to prevent a 2024 data breach that compromised sensitive consumer information. The breach was allegedly the result of Patelco's failure to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures. Patelco is a credit union based in California with branches around the state. Patelco has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $7.25 million settlement to resolve the data breach class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Patelco Credit Union class action settlement, class members can receive either a cash payment or a reimbursement for documented losses. Class members who experienced losses as a result of the Patelco Credit Union data breach can receive up to $5,000 in reimbursement for these losses. These losses can include fraudulent charges, identity theft and credit monitoring costs. Class members who did not experience losses as a result of the data breach can receive a cash payment of between $100 and $200. Exact payments will vary depending on the number of claims filed with the settlement. The deadline for exclusion and objection is May 12, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Patelco Credit Union class action settlement is scheduled for July 1, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by June 11, 2026. Who's Eligible The class action settlement benefits Individuals whose personally identifiable information was potentially involved in the Patelco Credit Union data breach discovered in June 2024. Potential Award Up to $5,000 in documented losses or a cash payout of between $100 and $200. Proof of Purchase Documentation of losses, such as bank statements, credit card statements and police reports. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 06/11/2026 Case Name Cordell, et al. v. Patelco Credit Union, Case No. 24CV082095, in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda Final Hearing 07/01/2026 Settlement Website PatelcoSettlement.com Claims Administrator Cordell, et al. v. Patelco Credit Union Settlement c/o Angeion Group 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (866) 762-4142 info@patelcosettlement.com Class Counsel Scott Edward Cole COLE & VAN NOTE M. Anderson Berry CLAYEO C. ARNOLD APC Amber L. Schubert SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP Defense Counsel Gilbert S. Keteltas BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP [GN] PAYCOR INC: Terry's Bid for Equitable Tolling OK'd -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC TERRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PAYCOR, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00419-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Michael R. Barrett entered an order granting Plaintiff Eric Terry's Motion for Equitable Tolling. As to the tolling period, the Court agrees that Plaintiff was "more than diligent" in filing his Motion for Court-Authorized Notice on Oct. 14, 2022, so the period will begin on this date. Ending the period 60 days after the putative collective "receives" notice, however, would be inexact. The period instead will end on the date notice is (first) issued to the putative collective. On July 19, 2022, Plaintiff Eric Terry filed a Complaint on behalf of himself and a proposed collective of similarly situated employees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Paycor operates as a software company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MGF7GB at no extra charge.[CC] PEACHTREE CLEANING: Jackson et al. Seek Proper Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- DARYL JACKSON, NAEEM RICHARDSON and LEAFUS THOMAS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PEACHTREE CLEANING LLC and LEO MARTIN, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01499-JPB (N.D. Ga., March 19, 2026) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs previously worked for Defendants as non-exempt employees misclassified by Defendants as independent contractors. Allegedly, the Defendants unlawfully classified Plaintiffs and other similarly situated technicians as independent contractors to avoid their obligations to properly pay for overtime, and to reap the benefits of such illegal classification, such as reducing its tax liability and avoiding required workers compensation coverage, says the suit. Headquartered in Lawrenceville, GA, Peachtree Cleaning LLC provides chimney, fireplace, masonry, dry vent, duct and gutter cleaning and repair services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Beth A. Moeller, Esq. Tracey T. Barbaree, Esq. MOELLER BARBAREE LLP 1355 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1100 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 748-9122 E-mail: bmoeller@moellerbarbaree.com tbarbaree@moellerbarbaree.com PEOPLE PLACES: Cornell Files FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- DENISE CORNELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. PEOPLE, PLACES, AND DREAMS, LLC, and NAFISAH ALIM, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00770 (N.D. Ohio, March 31, 2026) is a collective action against the Defendants for systematically failing to pay overtime premium wages to Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly, non-exempt employees. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and other similarly situated case managers regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek for Defendants. However, the Defendants had a policy and practice of paying Plaintiff and other non-exempt hourly employees, including case managers, at their straight hourly rate for all hours worked, regardless of whether they exceeded 40 hours in a workweek. This unlawful practice is evident from Plaintiff's paystubs, which are in Defendants' possession and control, notes the complaint. As a result, Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were deprived of overtime premium wages to which they were entitled under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio law, the complaint asserts. The exact amount of unpaid overtime owed to Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees is not presently known because it depends on payroll and timekeeping records in Defendants' exclusive possession and control, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this case as an FLSA "collective action" on behalf of herself and other similarly situated persons. The Plaintiff also brings this case as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule on Civil Procedure on behalf of herself and other similarly situated persons who worked for Defendants in Ohio and were denied overtime premium wages in violation of Ohio's Prompt Pay Act. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees are entitled to back wages, liquidated damages under the FLSA, penalties under the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, and attorneys' fees and costs, the complaint says. Plaintiff Denise Cornell was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt hourly employee in the position of case manager for roughly five years, until December 2025. Defendant People, Places, and Dreams, LLC was an "employer" of Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons within the meaning of the FLSA and within the meaning of Ohio's wage and hour laws. Defendant Nafisah Alim owned and operated People, Places, and Dreams, LLC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq. TITTLE & PERLMUTER 4106 Bridge Ave. Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 222-2222 Facsimile: (888) 604-9299 E-mail: scott@tittlelawfirm.com PETSNOWY: Bennett Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users ------------------------------------------------------------ LIVINGSTON BENNETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Petsnowy, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03296 (N.D. Ill., March 25, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://petsnowy.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Bennett and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On October 13, 2025, while searching online for smart pet products, specifically self-cleaning litter boxes, Plaintiff Bennett visited the Defendant's website. While navigating the website using his screen reader and keyboard, the Plaintiff encountered accessibility barriers. For example, color selection controls on the Product Detail page did not indicate whether an option was selected or not. As a result, he was unable to determine the current selection or successfully make informed choices. In addition, on the Product Detail page, multiple images shared identical alternative text. These access barriers render the website inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually impaired individuals, says the Plaintiff. Plaintiff Bennett seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Petsnowy operates the website that offers smart pet care products, including automatic litter boxes, air purifiers, water fountains, pet dryers, smart feeders, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (718) 554-0237 E-mail: dreyes@ealg.law POTOMAC BEAD: Echols Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------- TAZINIQUE ECHOLS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Potomac Bead Company, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03290 (N.D. Ill., March 25, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.potomacbeads.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On August 29, 2025, Plaintiff Echols was searching for jewelry beads and exploring available options online. During her search, she discovered the Defendant's website and attempted to make a purchase. However, while navigating the website using her screen reader software, she encountered multiple accessibility barriers. She asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by her and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, inaccessible contact information, lack of alt-text on graphics, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. The Potomac Bead Company, LLC operates the website that offers a selection of jewelry making supplies such as beads, jewelry-making kits, stringing materials, charms, and other related accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (718) 554-0237 E-mail: dreyes@ealg.law PRECISION DRILLING: Class Cert Filing in Tyger Due April 24, 2027 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RODNEY TYGER and SHAWN WADSWORTH, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. PRECISION DRILLING CORP., PRECISION DRILLING OILFIELD SERVICES, INC., PRECISION DRILLING COMPANY, L.P., and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 4:11-cv-01913-MWB (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Brann entered an order granting the Parties' Joint Proposal for a Scheduling Order on Damages and Class Discovery and Motion for Class Certification: Damages and class discovery deadline: Nov. 13, 2026 Deadline for any physical site inspections: Oct. 2, 2026 Mediation deadline: Aug. 7, 2026 Deadline for deposition of experts: March 20, 2027 The Plaintiffs' deadline to file a motion for class certification: April 24, 2027 The Defendants' deadline to respond to any motion for class certification: June 8, 2027 (45 days after the Plaintiff's motion for class certification) The Plaintiffs' deadline to file a reply to any motion for class certification: June 28, 2027 (20 days after the Defendants' response to motion for class certification) Precision is an integrated oilfield drilling and energy service company providing services to the oil and gas industry. A copy of the Court's order dated March 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=y110qt at no extra charge.[CC] PRIME PROMETICS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Henry Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- CONSTANCE HENRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Prime Prometics, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03083 (N.D. Ill., March 19, 2026) alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.primeprometics.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Defendant's website contains significant access barriers that make it difficult for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website, says the suit. Headquartered in New York, NY, Prime Prometics, Inc. owns and operates the website which offers beauty and cosmetic products for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Narcisse Seeks More Time to File Reply ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Narcisse, et al., v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-04690-JGK (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of their deadline to reply in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs request that the Court extend the deadline for Plaintiffs to Reply in Support of Class Certification by 31 days, making the Reply due on April 20, 2026. The Plaintiffs' counsel is concurrently engaged in another class action matter against Progressive in Colorado, which is approaching trial and involves imminent pretrial deadlines. In light of these competing obligations, the Plaintiffs request that the Court vacate the current deadline March 20, 2026, and extend the time to file their Reply by 31 days. The Plaintiffs served their motion for class certification on the Defendants on Nov. 12, 2025. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A6LLcD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edmund A. Normand, Esq. NORMAND PLLC 3165 McCrory Place, Suite 175, Orlando, FL 32803 Telephone: (407) 603-6031 Facsimile: (888) 974-2175 QVC INC: Johnson TCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Staci Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. QVC, Inc., Case No. 2026-CA-0508 was removed from the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on March 31, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:26-cv-00918 the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. QVC (short for Quality Value Convenience) -- https://www.qvc.com/ -- is an American free-to-air television network and a flagship shopping channel specializing in televised home shopping.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Gabriela Ana Plasencia, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 101 California Street, 21st Floor San Franscisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 591-1000 Email: gplasencia@winston.com REGENCE BLUESHIELD: Class Counsel Gets $39K from Settlement Fund ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as E.S., by and through her parents, R.S. and J.S., and JODI STERNOFF, both on their own behalf, and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, v. REGENCE BLUESHIELD; and CAMBIA HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC., f/k/a THE REGENCE GROUP, Case No. 2:17-cv-01609-RAJ (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Jones entered an order that: 1. The Court grants Class counsel's motion for attorney fees, litigation costs and case contribution awards and Class's unopposed motion for final approval of settlement agreement. 2. Class Counsel is awarded 33 1/3% of the gross amount of the Settlement Fund ($3,000,000) created in this matter as attorney fees. Such fees ($1,000,000) shall be paid from the common Settlement Fund. 3. Class Counsel shall be reimbursed $39,976.28 in costs to be paid from the common Settlement Fund. 4. The Claims Processor is ordered to accept, adjudicate, and pay all late-filed claims and emailed claims received by March 11, 2026, as if the claims were timely received. 5. Class Representatives Jodi Sternoff and E.S. by and through her parents R.S. and J.S. are awarded $15,000 each, or $30,000 total, as case contribution awards, to be paid from the common Settlement Fund. 6. The Claims Processor is ordered to distribute funds remaining after all items identified in Section 6.3 of the Settlement Agreement are paid (to the extent there are any), first to the Washington State Communication Access Project, up to $300,000, and any remaining funds to the Legal Foundation of Washington to be further distributed to charitable organizations that work to ensure that persons who are hard of hearing have full access to public venues. On Oct. 22, 2025, this Court certified a settlement class and preliminarily approved an agreement for a class-wide settlement of claims against Defendants Regence BlueShield and Cambia Health Solutions Inc. The Settlement Agreement resolves all claims against Regence on behalf of a class of present or former Regence members with disabling hearing loss who paid for hearing aids and associated care during the class period. The Settlement Agreement creates a common settlement fund of $3,000,000 out of which class members’ valid claims submitted in compliance with the settlement procedures will be paid. Regence offers a good variety of health insurance plans. A copy of the Court's order dated March 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uRLuuM at no extra charge.[CC] RESIDENCE ANGELICA: Quebec Judge OK's Lawsuit Over COVID-19 Deaths ------------------------------------------------------------------ CBC Canada reports that a Quebec judge has authorized a class-action lawsuit against a private long-term care home in Montreal-Nord over alleged mismanagement of a COVID-19 outbreak in 2020, during which at least 68 residents died. Lead plaintiff Antonio Capobianco alleges that Residence Angelica's actions contributed to the death of his 95-year-old mother, Filomena Greco, and others, as well as having a lasting impact on the survivors and their families. The lawsuit alleges the residence failed to follow proper protocol to manage a COVID-19 outbreak, including by transferring COVID-positive patients to a unit with people who were not known to be infected. It also alleges that the residence failed to respect government-mandated infection control procedures, including ensuring staff members who were sick or had been exposed to the virus didn't come to work. The allegations in the lawsuit have not been tested in court, and the residence did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The lawsuit is seeking damages on behalf of all the people who resided in the home between April 9 and June 26, 2020, as well as their spouses, caregivers, children, grandchildren and heirs. The class action is not the only lawsuit filed in connection with the pandemic. In January 2024, a Quebec judge gave the green light to a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of all residents of public long-term care homes (or CHSLDs, as they're called in Quebec) that experienced major COVID-19 outbreaks between March 13, 2020, and March 20, 2021. The suit alleges that the Quebec government made a series of mistakes when the pandemic began that contributed to large outbreaks and thousands of deaths. According to Patrick Martin-Menard, the lawyer who pushed for the suit to be authorized, 118 long-term care homes are included in the class action. [GN] RICHARDS CAPITAL: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Brito Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS BRITO, Plaintiff v. RICHARDS CAPITAL, LLLP.; BETWEEN TWO BUNS LLC D/B/A/ BETWEEN TWO BUNS; and HZ COFFEE GROUP, LLC D/B/A/ DUNKIN DONUTS 06, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-22195-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 31, 2026) is a class action seeking injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. RICHARDS CAPITAL, LLLP owned and managed a commercial property at 12932 SW 120th Street, Miami, Florida 33186 and conducted a substantial amount of business in that place. The commercial property and commercial restaurant within, are each open to the public. CARLOS BRITO, an individual over 18 years of age, with a residence in Miami-Dade County, Florida visited the commercial property and commercial restaurant on December 16, 2025 and March 27, 2026, and encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the commercial property. The complaint asserts that the Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property. Defendant BETWEEN TWO BUNS LLC D/B/A/ BETWEEN TWO BUNS, and Defendant HZ COFFEE GROUP, LLC D/B/A/ DUNKIN DONUTS 06 owned and operated restaurants within Co-Defendant RICHARDS CAPITAL, LLLP's commercial property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Primary E-Mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary E-Mails: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com RINGCONN LLC: Corbett Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- KATHERINE CORBETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RINGCONN LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00252 (W.D. Wis., March 25, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://ringconn.com/, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. RingConn LLC is a fitness and wellness services company that offers health monitoring and sleep health tracking products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (718) 554-0237 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law ROADSAFE TRAFFIC SYSTEMS: Aitken Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against RoadSafe Traffic Systems, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Casondra Rebecca Aitken, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. RoadSafe Traffic Systems, Inc., Does 1-10, Case No. 26CV007677 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., March 26, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." RoadSafe -- https://www.roadsafetraffic.com/ -- is the national leader in traffic safety services and products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eve Howe, Esq. D.LAW 250 N. Madison Ave, 2nd Floor Pasadena, CA 91103 Phone: +1 818 962 6465 ROTO-ROOTER SERVICES: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Nohle Due April 24 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nohle, et al., v. Roto-Rooter Services Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-01688 (N.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 3, 2025), the Hon. Judge Anthony J. Brindisi entered an order setting the following deadlines during the March 20, 2026, video Initial Pretrial Conference: -- Amended Pleadings due by Sept. 18, 2026 -- Joinder of Parties due by Sept. 18, 2026 -- Limited Discovery as to Class Certification and whether defendant Roto-Rooter is an employer/joint employer due by Aug. 7, 2026 -- Deadline for Class Certification Motion is April 24, 2026, for initial filings, with responses due by May 8, 2026, and replies due by May 15, 2026. -- Rule 12(c) Motions due Aug. 14 2026, with responses due Aug. 28, 2026, and replies due Sept. 9, 2026. -- All other discovery deadlines are held in abeyance at this time. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Roto-Rooter provides plumbing repair and maintenance services.[CC] RTA CABINET: Potrykus Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH POTRYKUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RTA Cabinet Store LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00484-PP (E.D. Wis., March 25, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.rtacabinetstore.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. RTA Cabinet Store LLC is a wholesale provider of ready-to-assemble kitchen cabinets, bathroom vanities, and renovation products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (718) 554-0237 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law SAFEWAY INC: Bid to Modify Schedule and Extend Deadlines Entered ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wilson v. Safeway, Inc., Case No. 6:25-cv-00478 (D. Or., Filed March 20, 2025), the Hon. Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai entered an order granting motion to modify schedule and extend deadlines. Motion for Class Certification to be filed within 90 days after the Court rules on Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. Discovery is to be completed 90 days after the new class certification deadline. Dispositive Motions are due 28 days after the close of discovery. The nature of suit states Labor Litigation. Safeway is an American supermarket chain.[CC] SEATTLE, WA: Faces Suit Over Precinct's Exposure to Carbon Monoxide ------------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Daniels of KOMONews reports that multiple Seattle police officers are moving forward with a proposed class action lawsuit against the city, alleging they were exposed to carbon monoxide and other vehicle exhaust inside the West Precinct's underground garage and nearby work spaces for years -- a problem their attorney says could affect about 200 officers or more. The West Precinct opened in 2000 and is a main police hub for downtown Seattle. The complaint names Sgt. Chad McLaughlin, Lt. Greg Fliegel, and Lt. Gabe Conrad as lead plaintiffs. The suit alleges hundreds of officers and other personnel were exposed to unsafe levels of exhaust components while performing their duties over the years due to the precinct's "Patrol Deck," bullpen, and sergeants' offices having inadequate ventilation while patrol vehicles idled in the enclosed garage. According to the filing, Seattle police leaders knew or should have known about the hazard since at least 2015. The complaint cites internal emails in which leaders warned that unnecessary idling created "excess carbon monoxide in the garage," and "is gonna get somebody hurt." The officers say the exhaust did not remain confined to the garage, with the complaint alleging fumes drifted into the bullpen and sergeants' offices above, causing the named plaintiffs to suffer symptoms including severe headaches, nausea, vomiting, and shortness of breath. It also alleges officers were encouraged to prepare reports in running vehicles on the Patrol Deck because of safety concerns about ambushes outside. The class action builds on a related case brought by Seattle Police Sgt. David Hockett. In a May 2024 opinion, the Washington Court of Appeals said a jury found the Seattle Police Department and the City of Seattle liable for negligently exposing Hockett to car exhaust containing carbon monoxide at the West Precinct, and it affirmed the judgment in all respects except for a remand on attorney-fee findings for nonlawyer work. The officer's attorney, Sumeer Singla, said officers continue to report headaches, confusion, nausea, and breathing problems after working in the garage, and argued the city has not fixed the underlying ventilation problem. He called it "a poisonous building" and said relatively simple measures, including large industrial fans, could improve airflow. Singla said the case is intended to win relief for officers who say they were harmed while preparing for patrol. The complaint seeks class certification, notification of class members at the city's expense, injunctive relief, damages, attorney fees, and costs. Sgt. Patrick Michaud, an SPD spokesperson, wrote, "The Seattle Police Department takes the health and welfare of its officers seriously. Due to the pending litigation, we are unable to speak to these allegations. Please reach out to the City Attorney's Office for any follow-up." SPOG President Kent Loux also wrote, "SPOG's highest priority is the safety and well-being of our members in the workplace. We are actively monitoring this developing situation and will provide additional comment as appropriate." The Seattle City Attorney's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. [GN] SECURESPACE MANAGEMENT: Faces Bodnar Suit Over Managers' Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------------ TAMARA BODNAR, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SECURESPACE MANAGEMENT LLC d/b/a SECURESPACE SELF STORAGE, a Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-03186 (C.D. Cal., March 25, 2026) is a class and collective action to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Washington Industrial Welfare Act, and related Washington Department of Labor & Industries regulations. Plaintiff Bodnar and the other hourly employees regularly work more than 40 hours in a workweek. However, the Plaintiff and other hourly employees do not receive bona fide rest periods. Instead, SecureSpace requires them to remain on duty and perform their regular job duties throughout their shifts and/or subjects them to interruptions during attempted "rest periods," asserts the complaint. Additionally, SecureSpace pays Plaintiff and the other hourly employees non-discretionary bonuses, including incentive bonuses, occupancy bonuses, retention bonuses, and sign-on bonuses, that it excludes from their regular rates of pay for overtime purposes. The Defendants' bonus pay scheme violates the FLSA by depriving Bodnar and the other hourly employees of overtime wages of at least one and a half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, says the suit. Plaintiff Bodnar was employed by the Defendants as a manager from approximately February 2024 through November 2025. SecureSpace Management LLC provides self-storage solutions, including personal and commercial units in various sizes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Olivia R. Beale, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 5847 San Felipe St., Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: obeale@mybackwages.com SECURITAS SECURITY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Malpica Due August 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as HENRY MALPICA, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, v. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:25-cv-03603-BAS-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Leshner entered a scheduling order regulating discovery and class certification motion filing deadline: 1. Any motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional pleadings must be filed on or before May 20, 2026. 2. All written discovery requests must be served by all parties by June 29, 2026. 3. Counsel for the parties must appear for a Status Conference before the Honorable David D. Leshner on July 1, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. 4. All parties must substantially complete the production of documents responsive to any other party's document requests by July 31, 2026. 5. Any motion for class certification must be filed by not later than Aug. 31, 2026. 6. Following the filing of the motion for class certification, counsel must appear for a Status Conference before the Honorable David D. Leshner on Oct. 14, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. The Status Conference will be conducted by videoconference with instructions for appearances to follow. Securitas is a provider of custom security & guarding solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated March 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sr67b6 at no extra charge.[CC] SELECT PORTFOLIO: Johnson Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONALD JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-01583-AR (D. Or.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- Certifying a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), appointing the Plaintiff as the representative of the Class, and -- Appointing the Plaintiff's counsel as counsel for the Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). The Plaintiff seeks certification of the following Class: "All persons (1) with a residential mortgage loan securing property in Oregon, (2) serviced or subserviced by SPS, (3) and who paid a pay-to-pay fee to SPS when making a payment on their mortgage by telephone or the internet, from Aug. 9, 2021 through the date a class is certified." This putative class action asserts claims under Oregon consumer protection law, on behalf of Oregon residents, challenging Defendant Select Portfolio Servicing Inc.'s ("SPS") practice of charging its Oregon loan-servicing consumer-borrowers fees when they make mortgage payments online or by telephone ("pay-to-pay fees"). Select operates as a mortgage servicing company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Tu8ju2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Katherine Aizpuru, Esq. Robin Bleiweis, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 E-mail: kaizpuru@tzlegal.com rbleiweis@tzlegal.com - and - James L. Kauffman, Esq. Bart D. Cohen, Esq. Benjamin A. Schwartzman, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson St., NW, Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 E-mail: jkauffman@baileyglasser.com bcohen@baileyglasser.com bschwartzman@baileyglasser.com SHEIN DISTRIBUTION: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Shein Distribution Corporation d/b/a Romwe, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-02059 (D. Minn., March 26, 2026) arises because Defendant's Website (www.us.romwe.com) is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations. The complaint relates that the Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content. The Plaintiff says she attempted to access Defendant's Website from Minnesota but encountered barriers that denied her full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota; and damages and a damage multiplier pursuant to Minnesota Statute. Plaintiff Julie Dalton is legally blind and has been a resident of Minnesota. Defendant Shein Distribution Corporation is a California Company that offers apparel and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, tops, bottoms, dresses, pajamas, sweaters, hoodies, jackets, swimwear, shoes, accessories and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com SMART FOODS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Mislabeled Cooking Oil ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bluffton Today reports that a proposed class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against Smart Foods, LLC, alleging that certain cooking oil products were mislabeled and marketed in a manner that misled consumers. The lawsuit, Naoum, et al. v. Smart Foods, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-01942-CAB-SBC, alleges that Smart Foods marketed a product labeled “Lombardi Canola Oil & Extra Virgin Olive Oil Blend” that, according to independent laboratory testing cited in the complaint, did not contain detectable olive oil despite labeling suggesting the presence of olive oil. According to the complaint, plaintiffs allege that the product labeling included references to olive oil and imagery associated with olive oil products, which they contend led consumers to believe the product contained olive oil. The lawsuit further alleges that consumers paid a premium for the product based on these representations and would not have purchased the product had they known its true composition. The complaint asserts claims under California consumer protection statutes, including California Business and Professions Code sections governing unfair competition and false advertising, as well as California Health and Safety Code provisions governing labeling of blended oils. Plaintiffs seek restitution, damages, and injunctive relief requiring corrective labeling and other measures if the claims are proven. The lawsuit seeks to represent a nationwide class of consumers who purchased the product within the applicable limitations period, as well as a California subclass of purchasers. The case is currently at an early stage, and no court has made any findings regarding the merits of the allegations. A copy of the filed complaint can be found here: https://workdrive.zohoexternal.com/external/e032e407aea1c5e45ea50a5785bd48a553058d8dfe3c50376316633df983970e The Plaintiffs are represented by the following law firms: SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Suite 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (866) 219-3343 josh@swigartlawgroup.com - and - THE LAW OFFICE OF QUINTIN G. SHAMMAM 2111 Camino del Rio S, Suite 207 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 444-0001 quintin@shammamlaw.com - and - THE LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH M. ATTIQ 2111 Camino del Rio S, Suite 207 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 520-5201 joseph@attiqlaw.com - and - Joshua Swigart, Esq. Swigart Law Group, APC Telephone: (619) 838-8546 josh@swigartlawgroup.com [GN] SOUTHERN ILLINOIS: ClassAction.org Probes Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Southern Illinois Dermatology data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Southern Illinois Dermatology data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Southern Illinois Dermatology Security Incident: What Happened? Southern Illinois Dermatology, a medical and cosmetic dermatology practice with 13 locations in rural Southern Illinois, has reported a cybersecurity incident. A notice posted on the company's website states that on November 28, 2025, the practice identified unusual activity within its network, prompting the company to engage third-party cybersecurity professionals to investigate. The investigation found that unauthorized access potentially exposed personal and protected health information, including names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, contact details, and medical record numbers. Starting April 2, 2026, the practice began notifying those whose information may have been compromised in the Southern Illinois Dermatology data breach. What You Can Do After the Southern Illinois Dermatology Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Southern Illinois Dermatology data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Southern Illinois Dermatology to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. [GN] SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Seeks to Decertify Refuerzo Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RORESTE REFUERZO and SELINA CASHIN, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Case No. 3:22-cv-00868-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant, on May 14, 2026, will move the Court for an order decertifying the class action. Pursuant to subdivisions (a), (b)(2), (b)(3) and (c)(1)(C) of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Southwest moves for decertification of Plaintiffs’ claims for Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") interference, wrongful termination and unfair competition as to the following classes and subclass certified by the Court on Sept. 12, 2024: The "(b)(2) Nationwide Injunctive Relief Class" "All Southwest flight attendants based in the United States since March 1, 2019, to present who exercised their rights to family and medical leave and consequently lost access to disciplinary points reduction." The "(b)(2) California Subclass" "All Southwest flight attendants based in California since March 1, 2019, to present who exercised their right to family and medical leave and consequently lost access to a disciplinary points reduction and were subsequently terminated for an accumulation of disciplinary points." The "(b)(3) Nationwide Damages Class" "All Southwest flight attendants based in the United States since March 1, 2019, to present who exercised their rights to family and medical leave and consequently lost access to disciplinary points reduction and were subsequently terminated for an accumulation of disciplinary points." Southwest Airlines is a major airline in the United States that operates on a low-cost carrier model. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZWcnbs at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Annie Lau, Esq. Megan F. Clark, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP One Montgomery Street, Suite 3400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 490-9000 Facsimile: (415) 490-9001 E-mail: alau@fisherphillips.com mclark@fisherphillips.com ST DALFOUR: Knowles Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- CARLTON KNOWLES, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. ST. DALFOUR INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02618 (S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on March 24, 2026, in an attempt to purchase an Award-Winning Bundle Fruit Spread from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and visually-impaired consumers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the goods, and services Defendant offers to the public on its Website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff CARLTON KNOWLES is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant ST. DALFOUR INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED operates the St. Dalfour online retail store, as well as the St. Dalfour interactive Website that provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's: fruit spread and recipes, as well as other types of goods, pricing, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and internet pricing specials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212-228-9795 Facsimile: 212-982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal STABILITY AI: Seeks Assistance in Discovery Dispute --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Andersen et al., v. Stability AI Ltd. et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00201-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting request for the Court's assistance with a discovery dispute about one interrogatory response seeking information about Stability AI's enterprise customers. The parties' counsel already have made a good faith effort to resolve the issues set forth in this letter, including a conference by video on February 5 and March 13, before filing this letter. Relevant Dates As required by the Court's Standing Order, below are the dates relevant to discovery: -- Next Joint Status Conference with Judge Cisneros: April 16, 2026 -- Close of Fact Discovery: June 1, 2026 -- Close of Expert Discovery: July 17, 2026 -- Questions Presented Whether Stability AI should be required to respond to an interrogatory by providing a list of all of its enterprise customers and the user names and full names associated with each account holder. Stability is an artificial intelligence company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9kCK6g at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Cadio Zirpoli, Esq. Christopher K.L. Young, Esq. Alexandra Fernandez, Esq. Evan Creutz, Esq. Elissa A. Buchanan, Esq. Holden Benon, Esq. Aaron Cera, Esq. Alexander Zeng, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1505 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com czirpoli@saverilawfirm.com cyoung@saverilawfirm.com afernandez@saverilawfirm.com ecreutz@saverilawfirm.com eabuchanan@saverilawfirm.com hbenon@saverilawfirm.com acera@saverilawfirm.com azeng@saverilawfirm.com - and - Matthew Butterick, Esq. BUTTERICK LAW PC 1920 Hillhurst Avenue, #406 Los Angeles, CA 90027 Telephone: (323) 968-2632 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: mb@buttericklaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Aditya Vijay Kamdar, Esq. Brittany Warren, Esq. Joseph Charles Gratz, Esq. Tiffany Cheung, Esq. Timothy Chen Saulsbury, Esq. Christopher R. Adler, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 2100 L Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 887-1500 E-mail: akamdar@mofo.com bwarren@mofo.com jgratz@mofo.com tcheung@mofo.com tsaulsbury@mofo.com cadler@mofo.com - and - Mark A. Lemley, Esq. LEX LUMINA PLLC 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (646) 898-2055 Facsimile: (646) 906-8657 E-mail: mlemley@lex-lumina.com STARBUCKS CORPORATION: Lubin Seeks Class Settlement Prelim. Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAPHYR LUBIN, et al., v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, Case No. 8:20-cv-01311-CEH-TGW (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting preliminary approval of the parties' class action settlement. The Agreement defines the proposed Settlement Class as follows: "All participants who opted out of arbitration, and all beneficiaries in the Defendant's Welfare Benefits Plan, including the Health Plan and Vision Plan, in the United States who were sent a COBRA notice between July 21, 2016, to the date of the Preliminary Approval Order, as a result of a qualifying event, as determined by Defendant and/or its third party administrator, and who did not elect continuation coverage." The lawsuit alleges the Defendant provided Named Plaintiff and the putative class with a deficient COBRA Notice. Accordingly, the case has been pending for nearly six years. As detailed below, the Parties, with the assistance of a highly respected mediator, Carlos J. Burruezo, reached a tentative class-wide resolution for which Named Plaintiff now seeks Court approval. The Settlement provides for a fund of $325,000.00 to be made available to approximately 24,962 Settlement Class Members less administrative costs. Every Settlement Class Member who submits a valid claim form will receive their pro-rata share of the Net Settlement Fund, which shall be disbursed in full to all Settlement Class Members. There is no reversion to Defendant. Separately, Defendant agrees to pay Class Counsel $450,000.00 in attorneys' fees and costs, subject to Court approval. Starbucks is an American multinational chain of coffeehouses and roastery reserves. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=auI7Du at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. Amanda E. Heystek, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com aheystek@wfclaw.com - and - Chad A. Justice, Esq. JUSTICE LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, PLLC 1205 N. Franklin Street, Suite 326 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 566-0550 Facsimile: 813-566-0770 E-mail: chad@getjusticeforjustice.com STATE FARM: Settles Vehicle Insurance Class Action for $20.93MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that individuals whom State Farm insured under a New Mexico insurance policy that included U coverage between Jan. 1, 2010, and Dec. 31, 2021, may qualify to submit a claim for a cash payment from a class action settlement. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., and State Farm General Insurance Co. agreed to pay as much as $20,925,000 to settle a class action lawsuit. The plaintiff claimed State Farm violated New Mexico law in connection with its sale of the underinsured motorist component of uninsured and unknown motorist coverage. Who can file a claim for a State Farm payout? Class members must meet the following criteria: -- A New Mexico insurance policy issued by State Farm insured them with a coverage period between Jan. 1, 2010, and Dec. 31, 2021. -- The policy included U coverage, also known as uninsured and unknown motorist coverage. The settlement class also includes heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of eligible policyholders. Who is excluded from the class? The settlement excludes the following individuals: -- Anyone who filed a separate lawsuit against State Farm before the notice date regarding reduction or denial of benefits based on a Schmick offset -- Anyone who settled such a claim and signed a final release before the notice date How much will settlement payments be? -- Minimum limits: Class members who purchased minimum limits U coverage between 2010 and 2021 can submit a claim to receive a pro rata cash payment of up to 21% of premiums paid. -- Non-minimum limits: Class members who purchased non-minimum limits U coverage between 2010 and 2021 can submit a claim to receive a pro rata cash payment of up to 13% of premiums paid. How to claim a class action rebate To receive a settlement payment, class members can file a claim online at https://schwartzuimclasssettlement.com/Login, or download and print the PDF claim form, https://schwartzuimclasssettlement.com/Content/Documents/Claim%20Form.pdf, to complete and mail to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Schwartz v. State Farm Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 4359, Portland, OR 97208-4359 The claim deadline is July 2, 2026. Required claim information -- Unique ID and PIN required to submit a claim online Payout options -- Paper check mailed to the address provided State Farm settlement fund breakdown The $20,925,000 settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees and expenses: Up to $4,250,000 -- Service award to named plaintiff: $25,000 -- Payments to approved claimants: Up to $20,925,000 Important dates -- Deadline to opt out: May 18, 2026 -- Final fairness hearing: June 8, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: July 2, 2026 When is the State Farm New Mexico U coverage settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments to approved claimants approximately 90 days after it completes claim processing or the court grants final approval of the settlement, whichever is later. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged State Farm failed to properly explain offset procedures required under New Mexico law when selling UIM coverage as part of U coverage. The plaintiff brought claims including negligence, misrepresentation, violations of New Mexico's Unfair Trade Practices Act and Unfair Insurance Practices Act, breach of good faith and more. State Farm denies the allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the uncertainty and expense of ongoing litigation and a possible trial. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Varies Deadline: July 2, 2026 [GN] SUPER MICRO: Fails to Disclose Material Adverse Info, Bhuva Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- APURVA BHUVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUPER MICRO COMPUTER, INC., CHARLES LIANG, and DAVID WEIGAND, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-02606 (N.D. Cal., March 25, 2026) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Super Micro securities between April 30, 2024 and March 19, 2026, inclusive, pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly 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, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) a significant portion of the Company's sales of servers were to companies based in China; (2) these transactions violated U.S. export control laws; (3) there were material weaknesses in the Company's controls to ensure compliance with applicable export control laws and regulations; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Super Micro Computer, Inc. is technology company which designs, develops, and manufactures high-performance server and storage systems, primarily for artificial intelligence, data center, and cloud solutions customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY WOLKE & ROTTER LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: clinehan@glancylaw.com prajesh@glancylaw.com - and - Rebecca Dawson, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY WOLKE & ROTTER LLP 230 Park Ave, Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (213) 521-8007 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: RDawson@glancylaw.com - and - Frank R. Cruz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800 Century City, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 914-5007 SYRACUSE HAULERS: Class Cert Bid in Sims Due Sept. 9 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sims v. Syracuse Haulers Waste Removal, Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-01080 (N.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 12, 2025), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth C Coombe entered an order granting the joint motion for extension of time to complete discovery. The deadlines are extended as follows: -- The Plaintiff's Phase I Expert Witness Disclosures are due by June 3, 2026 -- The Defendant's Phase I Expert Witness Disclosures are due by July 17, 2026 -- Phase I Expert discovery is to be completed by July 31, 2026 -- The deadline for class certification discovery motions is now July 31, 2026 -- The deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 is now Sept. 9, 2026. -- The deadline for Defendant to file its response to that motion is now Oct. 9, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendant offers residential and commercial waste, trash, and recycling collection services.[CC] TAIER NEW YORK: Castro Sues Over Unlawful Tip Sharing Policy ------------------------------------------------------------ JASHUA CASTRO, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TAIER NEW YORK INC., and WEIYE LI a/k/a GUO XIANG LI, individually, and HANSON WONG a/k/a YUDI WANG, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01655 (E.D.N.Y., March 19, 2026) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a non-managerial front-of-the-house employee from May 7, 2025, until August 20, 2025. Throughout his employment, the Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff his proper share of tips, in violation of the FLSA, the NYLL, and the NYCRR, which also constitutes conversion under New York common law. Specifically, the Defendants required Plaintiff to participate in an unlawful tip sharing arrangement in which the Defendants kept portions of tips intended for Plaintiff, and thus Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff the full amount of tips owed to Plaintiff each workweek, says the suit. Headquartered in Flushing, NY, Taier New York Inc. operates a Szechuan restaurant in Queens, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edgar M. Rivera, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 TAPESTRY INC: Bid to Continue Class Cert Hearing Date Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Richard Paul Merrell v. Tapestry, Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-02510-RGK-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Klausner entered an order denying the Defendant's ex parte application to continue the hearing date of various motions. The Defendant reasons that good cause exists to continue the current hearing date of Apr. 27, 2026 to Apr. 13, Apr. 20, or May 4, 2026, as one of the Defendant's counsel will be out of town on Apr. 27, 2026. The Court denies the application, as the Court will take under submission, without oral argument, the motions currently scheduled for hearing on Apr. 27, 2026 (Plaintiff's motion for class certification, Plaintiff's motion to exclude expert opinions of the Defendant's expert Aaron Cannon, and the Defendant's motion for summary judgment). No appearances by counsel will be necessary. Tapestry is a New York-based luxury fashion holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rnrHEw at no extra charge.[CC] THREAD WALLETS: Henderson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH HENDERSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Thread Wallets LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03079 (N.D. Ill., March 19, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff maintains that Defendant's website, https://threadwallets.com, contains access barriers that make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to complete a transaction on the website. Despite readily available accessible technology, the Defendant has chosen to rely on an exclusively visual interface that provides no meaningful accommodations for screen-reading software users, says the Plaintiff. Headquartered in Provo, UT, Thread Wallets LLC owns and operates the website which offers wallets, bags and related accessories for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 (716) 281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law TILLAMOOK CREAMERY: Appeals Court Revives Greenwashing Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gosia Wozniacka of The Oregonian/OregonLive reports that the Oregon Court of Appeals has revived the potential for a consumer class action accusing the Tillamook County Creamery Association of "greenwashing" practices. The court earlier this week reversed a lower court's dismissal of a class-action lawsuit, allowing plaintiffs to proceed to trial court with claims regarding allegedly misleading advertising of dairy products. The appeals court ruled that customers who say they suffered a financial loss by buying Tillamook products would not have to prove they viewed the company's allegedly misleading ads or that they were persuaded by those ads to buy the products. The court did not determine whether the creamery association, which operates the Tillamook brand, misled or deceived consumers, whether the lawsuit will ultimately qualify as a class action or whether the plaintiffs' legal theories will ultimately succeed. The decision came a year after the Oregon Supreme Court asked the appeals court to reconsider disqualifying the class-action case against the creamery association. A class-action case allows a group of people to file a suit on behalf of others who have suffered similar losses. If the lawsuit is successful, they can all file for damages. In the Tillamook case, filed in 2019 in Multnomah County, four Oregon consumers alleged they bought Tillamook products because they formed a positive belief based on the 110-year-old farmer-owned dairy cooperative's advertising that the milk the company used to make its cheese and ice cream came from small family dairies whose cows graze on the Oregon coast's pastures – when in fact most of Tillamook's milk comes from an industrial dairy in eastern Oregon. But the lawsuit also alleged that Tillamook's misrepresentations allowed the company to charge a "premium" price for its products, a premium paid by anyone who bought the products, regardless of whether they saw the company's marketing and advertising. It sought monetary relief on behalf of all people in Oregon who bought Tillamook dairy products between Aug. 19, 2018, and the date when the court would certify the class action. [GN] TOBIAS READ: Bid for TRO in Right to Vote Class Suit Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RIGHT TO VOTE ON THE GAS TAX PAC; VIRGINIA HALL, MICHAEL FIRESTONE, PAUL RUMMELL, and BEN ROCHE, v. TOBIAS READ, in his official capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Oregon, Case No. 3:26-cv-00515-SI (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Simon entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order. Thus, Plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on, or even serious questions going to the merits of, their claim based on the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The Court has located no case law addressing this situation, and the parties have cited none. Accordingly, in Martin v. Read, No. 3:26-cv-433-SI, 2026 WL 686759 (D. Or. Mar. 11, 2026), the undersigned district judge found serious questions going to the merits and a balance of hardships that tipped sharply toward the plaintiff. Because the Court finds neither likelihood of success nor serious questions going to the merits of the Plaintiffs' claims, the Court need not address the other factors under Winter. The Plaintiff Right to Vote on the Gas Tax PAC ("RTV") is a registered Oregon political action committee, organized by Edwin Diehl, Bruce Starr, and Jason Williams. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O0mU92 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas R. Rask, III, Esq. Julie Parrish, Esq. KELL ALTERMAN & RUNSTEIN LLP 520 SW Yamhill Street, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97204 The Defendant is represented by: Dan Rayfield, Esq. Thomas H. Castelli, Esq. Austin D. Saylor, Esq. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 100 SW Market Street, Portland, OR 97201 TOP CHOICE: Underpays Workers, Church Says ------------------------------------------ BRAHEEM CHURCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. TOP CHOICE HOME CARE LLC and SAMERA BUTLER, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02100 (E.D. Pa., March 31, 2026) is a class action complaint contending that Defendants have unlawfully failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly-situated individuals employed in the position of Direct Care Worker or in positions with similar job duties overtime compensation and minimum wages owed pursuant to the requirements of and in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Philadelphia Wage Theft Ordinance. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to pay him and Class Plaintiffs agreed upon wages for all compensable work performed for Defendants pursuant to the requirements of and in violation of the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law and the PWTO. Accordingly, Plaintiff contends that he and Class Plaintiffs are owed unpaid minimum, regular, and overtime wages which are due and owing that were denied to them as a result of Defendants' unlawful pay practices. The Plaintiff adds that Defendant violated the FLSA and PWTO by discriminating and retaliating against him and terminating his employment because he complained about Defendants' wage violations. The Plaintiff brings this action as a representative action under the FLSA, PMWA, WPCL, and PWTO for all available relief, including monetary damages and penalties, to seek redress for Defendants' willful, unlawful, and improper conduct. Plaintiff Braheem Church is a citizen of the United States and Pennsylvania who currently resides at 1905 E. Venango Street, Philadelphia, PA 19134. Defendant Top Choice Home Care LLC is a Pennsylvania company that provides non-medical home care for seniors and disabled individuals. Defendant Samera Butler is the owner, president, and governor of Defendant Top Choice Home Care LLC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jake Daniel Novelli, Esq. Michael Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC 1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 2000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 267-273-1054 Facsimile: 215-525-0210 E-mail: jnovelli@phillyemploymentlawyer.com murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com TOPGOLF PAYROLL: Bid to Deny Class Certification Terminated ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOB B. BENYAMIN, v. TOPGOLF PAYROLL SERVICES, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00303-DAD-SCR (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Drozd entered an order requesting status report and terminating the Defendants' motion to deny class certification: On Aug. 11, 2025, the parties filed a joint status report where they requested that the court defer ruling on defendants’ pending motion to deny class certification until the parties have completed mediation. On Aug. 12, 2025, the court granted the parties’ request. On February 18, 2026, the parties filed a stipulation requesting that the court continue the February 23, 2026 initial scheduling conference until a date after their mediation scheduled for March 9, 2026. On Feb. 18, 2026, the court granted their request and on March 12, 2026, the court continued the date for the initial scheduling conference in this action. The court DIRECTS the parties to file a joint status report regarding mediation no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of entry of this order. Further, in light of the court deferring its ruling on defendants’ motion until after the parties have completed mediation, the court administratively terminates defendants' motion to deny class certification, with that motion to be re-opened if necessary and appropriate. A copy of the Court's order dated March 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Vkj8ys at no extra charge.[CC] TRUBRIDGE INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of TruBridge, Inc. (NASDAQ: TBRG) resulting from allegations that TruBridge, Inc. may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased TruBridge, Inc. securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=56548 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On March 17, 2026, TruBridge filed a Notification of Late Filing on Form 12b-25, in which it stated that TruBridge was unable to file its Annual Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025. The report stated its inability to file was a result of "the identification of out-of-period errors of previously issued financial statements and the consequential need to complete certain related analyses." In addition, the report stated that "the Company's management identified errors in the Company's previously issued consolidated financial statements, including for the years ended December 31, 2024 and December 31, 2023, as well as out-of-period errors in the condensed financial statements for the quarters ended March 31, June 30, and September 30, 2025. These errors relate to revenue recognition and related contract cost, stock-based compensation expense, and capitalized software development expense. As a result, the Company is required to make revisions to its previously issued consolidated financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2024 and December 31, 2023, filed with its Annual Reports on Form 10-K for the years then ended, in order to recognize certain of such revenues, costs and expenses in the appropriate fiscal year." On this news, TruBridge's stock price fell $1.84 per share, or 10.5%, to close at $15.75 per share on March 17, 2026. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] TWILIO INC: Intercepts Sensitive Medical Info, E.R. Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- E.R. and C.N., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TWILIO INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-02609-LJC (N.D. Cal., March 25, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against the Defendant for unlawfully intercepting sensitive medical information from online therapy platform, Grow Therapy, patients, without their consent. Grow Therapy owns and operates a telehealth platform for mental health services, allowing patients to search for mental health professionals by specialization and insurance coverage. Unbeknownst to Grow's patients, including Plaintiff, Grow allegedly installed Twilio's Segment Tracker on its website platform, enabling Defendant Twilio to surreptitiously collect and analyze patients' sensitive mental health information from the moment they begin using the platform, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the putative Class, bring this action to enjoin Twilio from obtaining and using Grow patients' sensitive medical information, and to recover statutory damages for violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the California Information Privacy Act. Twilio Inc. develops and publishes Internet infrastructure solutions. The Company offers cloud computing platform that allow web developers to integrate phone calls, Internet protocol voice communications, and text messages into web, mobile, and phone applications. Twilio serves customers worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaman Salahi, Esq. Nicole Cabanez, Esq. Taylor Applegate, Esq. SALAHI PC 505 Montgomery Street, 11th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 236-2305 E-mail: yaman@salahilaw.com nicolec@salahilaw.com taylora@salahilaw.com - and - Albert Plawinski, Esq. PLAWINSKI, PLLC 2101 Pearl St. Boulder, CO 80302 Telephone: (303) 720-7095 E-mail: albert@plawinski.law UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Over Unlawful Termination of Yemen's TPS ------------------------------------------------------------------ Abdo DOE, Hadeel DOE, Faiz DOE, Ebe DOE, Sam DOE, Ali DOE, and Fahad DOE, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Kristi NOEM, Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security, in her official capacity; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-02280 (S.D.N.Y., March 19, 2026) accuses the Defendants of violating the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Since September 2015, the United States has granted Yemeni nationals Temporary Protected Status (TPS), a statutory form of humanitarian relief that shields people from removal when their country is deemed unsafe due to armed conflict, natural disaster, or other extraordinary circumstances, and allows them to live and work legally here in the interim. However, the Department of Homeland Security formally announced the termination of Yemen's TPS via a notice published under Secretary Kristi Noem's name in the Federal Register on March 3, 2026, says the suit. The Department of Homeland Security is a cabinet-level department in the U.S. federal government. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shayana Kadidal, Esq. Angelo Guisado, Esq. Baher Azmy, Esq. CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 666 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10012 Telephone: (212) 614-6438 Facsimile: (212) 614-6451 E-mail: kadidal@ccrjustice.org aguisado@ccrjustice.org bazmy@ccrjustice.org UNLOCK PARTNERSHIP: Removes Seong Suit to W.D. Wash. ---------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of SEUNGJAE SEONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNLOCK PARTNERSHIP SOLUTIONS INC., Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of King (Case No. 26-2-04910-6) to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on March 25, 2025. The clerk of court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01023. The case is assigned to Judge James L. Robart. Unlock Partnership Solutions Inc. operates as a home equity investment company. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Fred B. Burnside, Esq. Xiang Li, Esq. Alec Zatirka, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Email: fredburnside@dwt.com xiangli@dwt.com aleczatirka@dwt.com UPONOR INC: Bid to Compel Arbitration in 1625 Riviera Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as 1625 RIVIERA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, v. UPONOR, INC., Case No. 25-cv-07176-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Chen entered an order: -- denying motion to compel arbitration; and -- granting in part and denying in part motion to dismiss. -- Uponor's motion to compel arbitration is denied for both the Binkley and Riviera Plaintiffs. -- Uponor's motion to strike class allegations is denied for both the Binkley and Riviera Plaintiffs. -- Uponor's motion to dismiss due to lack of standing for Plaintiff Riviera is denied. -- Uponor's motion to strike damages under the economic loss rule is granted without leave to amend. -- Uponor's motion to dismiss the negligence and strict liability counts are denied. -- Uponor's motion to dismiss the Implied Warranty Count and Song-Beverly Count for the Binkley Plaintiffs is granted without leave to amend. -- Uponor's Motion to Dismiss the FAL, CLRA, UCL, and fraud by concealment claims for the Binkley Plaintiffs and the UCL claim for Plaintiff Riviera is granted with leave to amend. -- Uponor's motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim is granted for both the Binkley and Riviera Plaintiffs without leave to amend. The parties shall submit a joint proposed case schedule by Mar. 31, 2026. In two related cases, Plaintiffs sue Defendant, alleging that Uponor’s pipes prematurely degrade and leak. Plaintiff 1625 Riviera Homeowners Association seeks to represent a putative class of condominiums, and brings claims in Strict Products Liability, Negligence, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and Unjust Enrichment. The proposed class for the 1625 Riviera Action is: "All incorporated condominium common interest developments ('CIDs') in the United States that: (1) own or owned properties with Uponor Aqua-PEX potable water systems—which failed, degraded, or leaked from January 1, 2010, to the date of class notice and (2) did not make a warranty claim to Defendant." The proposed Binkley class covers: "All persons and entities that own residential properties in the state of California in which UPONOR PEX pipe manufactured and installed after 2010, or who replaced their UPONOR PEX pipe manufactured after 2010." Uponor is a manufacturer and seller of piping products. A copy of the Court's order dated March 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aJ1g8I at no extra charge.[CC] UPONOR INC: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Binkley Tossed ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BINKLEY, ET AL, v. UPONOR, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-07180-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Chen entered an order: -- denying motion to compel arbitration; and -- granting in part and denying in part motion to dismiss. -- Uponor's motion to compel arbitration is denied for both the Binkley and Riviera Plaintiffs. -- Uponor's motion to strike class allegations is denied for both the Binkley and Riviera Plaintiffs. -- Uponor's motion to dismiss due to lack of standing for Plaintiff Riviera is denied. -- Uponor's motion to strike damages under the economic loss rule is granted without leave to amend. -- Uponor's motion to dismiss the negligence and strict liability counts are denied. -- Uponor's motion to dismiss the Implied Warranty Count and Song-Beverly Count for the Binkley Plaintiffs is granted without leave to amend. -- Uponor's Motion to Dismiss the FAL, CLRA, UCL, and fraud by concealment claims for the Binkley Plaintiffs and the UCL claim for Plaintiff Riviera is granted with leave to amend. -- Uponor's motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim is granted for both the Binkley and Riviera Plaintiffs without leave to amend. The parties shall submit a joint proposed case schedule by Mar. 31, 2026. In two related cases, Plaintiffs sue Defendant, alleging that Uponor’s pipes prematurely degrade and leak. Plaintiff 1625 Riviera Homeowners Association seeks to represent a putative class of condominiums, and brings claims in Strict Products Liability, Negligence, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and Unjust Enrichment. The proposed class for the 1625 Riviera Action is: "All incorporated condominium common interest developments ('CIDs') in the United States that: (1) own or owned properties with Uponor Aqua-PEX potable water systems—which failed, degraded, or leaked from January 1, 2010, to the date of class notice and (2) did not make a warranty claim to Defendant." The proposed Binkley class covers: "All persons and entities that own residential properties in the state of California in which UPONOR PEX pipe manufactured and installed after 2010, or who replaced their UPONOR PEX pipe manufactured after 2010." A copy of the Court's order dated March 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Qo0hVG at no extra charge.[CC] VAIL RESORTS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Unfair Ski Pass Pricing ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kevin Charach of CTV News reports that a proposed U.S. antitrust class‑action lawsuit is accusing the owner of Whistler Blackcomb of using bundled ski passes and high single‑day ticket prices to stifle competition. The lawsuit, filed in Colorado federal court last week on behalf of four U.S. residents, names Vail Resorts and rival operator Alterra Mountain Company. Vail Resorts owns Whistler Blackcomb. The claim alleges Vail uses steeply priced single‑day lift tickets to push skiers toward its Epic Pass, a season‑long product that costs roughly C$1,500 and provides access to dozens of resorts worldwide. Plaintiffs argue that strategy locks customers into Vail's system at the start of the season and makes it financially impractical to ski at independent or competing resorts. At a ski and snowboard shop in Vancouver, longtime employee Colleen Zirk says she regularly hears frustration from local customers. "Lots of comments about how they don't want to go there anymore, that Vail is just not thinking about the Vancouver people. They don't care about the Vancouver people," said Colleen Zirk, manager of Destination Slope and Surf Outfitters in North Vancouver. In 2007, a daily lift ticket at Whistler cost about $77. That rose to roughly $130 by 2017 and now exceeds $300. Carrie Syme, a New York lawyer representing the proposed class, says the pricing model effectively narrows consumers' choices. "They've now locked that customer into the Vail Epic or the Alterra Ikon system at the beginning of the season," Syme said. "So that means it no longer makes any financial sense for that customer who bought the pass to go outside the system to visit competing resorts." The lawsuit also alleges Epic Pass membership has surged from roughly 60,000 users when it launched in 2008 to more than two million today, giving large resort operators increasing market power. In a statement to CTV News, Vail Resorts said it believes the claims are without merit. The company said it launched the Epic Pass in 2008 to make skiing and riding more accessible, including cutting the price of a season pass by 60 per cent at the time. Vail also says it has introduced lower‑priced pass options and prices in‑season lift tickets on a resort‑by‑resort basis, with discounts available. The proposed lawsuit is seeking financial compensation and changes to how the companies price and sell lift access. "So that could mean changing pricing structures. It could mean offering different kinds of passes. It could mean changing sales practices," Syme said. However, a Canadian lawyer contacted by CTV News noted that even if the plaintiffs succeed, any impact at Whistler could be limited. "A U.S. court can't order what is essentially a Canadian operation to change how it markets its products," said John Green, a lawyer with John Michael Green Law Corporation. "So, I mean, they might choose to change it company‑wide—but who knows what they do up here." Back at the ski shop, Zirk says many locals already feel priced out. "It's becoming so prohibitive for local skiers to go for a day," she said. None of the allegations have been proven in court. [GN] VALVOLINE INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Using Non-Spec Oil ----------------------------------------------------------------- Earl Lee, writing for Autoblog, reports that a class action alleges Valvoline used non-spec oil in a 2025 Kia Sorento. -- Plaintiff claims incorrect oil caused expenses, performance loss, warranty and value concerns. -- Lawsuit seeks nationwide class certification, damages, and declaratory relief for affected customers. The "Wrong" Oil A class action lawsuit was served to Valvoline after its Instant Oil Change facility filled a 2025 Kia Sorento with oil that did not meet the vehicle manufacturer's specifications. According to the suit, the vehicle manufacturer's oil specification for the Sorento is 0W-30. Despite that, the Valvoline Instant Oil Change Facility used 5W-30 for the service. The Indiana plaintiff, Robert Campbell, claims that because Valvoline used a different grade of oil during his service, this resulted in additional expenses, decreased performance, an increased risk of engine damage, loss of warranty coverage, and a reduction in the value of his vehicle. A Routine Oil Change, Allegedly Gone Wrong Campbell brought his 2025 Kia Sorento to the Valvoline location in Westfield, Indiana, for service on October 8, 2025. The Instant Oil Change service center replaced his oil with 5W-30, despite Kia's recommended grade of 0W-30. After discovering this, Campbell requested a refund from the service center; however, he was offered a back job. Worse still, he was given another batch of oil that also did not meet the manufacturer's recommended specifications. After the two successive oil changes, Campbell had no choice but to go to another service center to have his oil replaced a third time at his own expense. The plaintiff was charged $102.99 for the first oil change and the back job. By the third change at a different outlet, the correct manufacturer-recommended specification was used. Campbell claims that Valvoline is guilty of a "breach of contract, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, violation of the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, and unjust enrichment," the class action lawsuit reads. "All individual owners of vehicles serviced at a Valvoline Instant Oil Change location operated by Valvoline Inc. and whose vehicle engine oil was replaced with oil that did not conform to the vehicle manufacturer's specifications." The plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class and an Indiana subclass of customers who've had their engine oil replaced at a Valvoline Instant Oil Change location that did not meet the manufacturer's recommended specifications. He is also demanding a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as an award of actual, statutory, and treble damages for himself and all class members. Was the Oil Really Incorrect? The two numbers in the SAE Viscosity standard are not too far apart in Campbell's case, but the difference between 0W and 5W matters when the engine is cold and when ambient temperatures drop below a certain point. The recommended 0W-30 weight oil should flow more easily when cold than the 5W-30 that was put in by Valvoline, per the SAE J300 standard. Oil is more viscous when cold; at low enough temperatures, 0W oil flows more easily than 5W oil, which means it can reach the engine more quickly and provide better protection on cold starts. However, once the engine reaches operating temperature, the "30" at the end of the grades indicates that both engine oils should perform similarly. [GN] VESTIS UNIFORMS: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Feb. 1, 2027 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MANUEL CISNEROS, v. VESTIS UNIFORMS AND WORKPLACE SUPPLIES, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-03695-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered a scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline Amendment of Pleadings/ Joinder: May 19, 2026 Close of Fact Discovery: Nov. 17, 2026 Exchange of Opening Expert Reports: Dec. 2, 2026 Close of Expert Discovery: Jan. 1, 2027 Class Certification Filing Deadline: Feb. 1, 2027 Class Certification Hearing: March 18, 2027 Vestis is a provider of rental uniforms and workplace supplies. A copy of the Court's order dated March 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WYuJAA at no extra charge.[CC] VF CORP: Esparza Sues Over Privacy Law Violations ------------------------------------------------- MIGUEL ESPARZA, Plaintiff v. V.F. CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania corporation, d/b/a US.KIPLING.COM, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01752-BJC-AHG (S.D. Cal., March 19, 2026) is a class action alleging privacy violation and total breach of consumer trust in violation of California law. When consumers visit Defendant's commercial website, https://www.us.kipling.com, the Defendant offers no pop-up cookie consent banner known as a consent management platform on the homepage to disclose to users that the website uses cookies. Yet Defendant deploys cookies to a user's browser immediately upon landing on the homepage without offering consumers the ability to opt in or out of tracking, nor any idea how their data is being used once the Defendant gathers it, says the suit. Headquartered in Denver, CO, V.F. Corporation markets, advertises, and sells handbags, luggage, and related merchandise nationwide and in California through its website. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com VITAL FARMS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 26 ----------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of securities of Vital Farms, Inc. (NASDAQ: VITL) between May 8, 2025 and February 26, 2026, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important May 26, 2026 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action first filed by the Firm. SO WHAT: If you purchased Vital Farms securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Vital Farms class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=54670 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 26, 2026. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Vital Farms downplayed the risks of delay associated with the roll out of its new enterprise resource planning ("ERP") system as merely a hypothetical; (2) when the ERP roll out caused delays, Vital Farms downplayed the impact of the delay; (3) in truth, the delays caused Vital Farms to miss its full year 2025 earnings guidance and earnings per share consensus; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about Vital Farms' business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Vital Farms class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=54670 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Parikh Sues Over Vehicle's Locking Defect ----------------------------------------------------------- JAY PARIKH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. d/b/a AUDI OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-03288 (C.D. Cal., March 26, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for not disclosing a locking defect of its vehicles, and for its deceptive business practice in violation of California statutory law and California common law. The complaint relates that since 2019, Defendant designed, manufactured, distributed, marketed, sold, and leased to Plaintiff and Class Members Audi Class Vehicles equipped with defective door locking systems. The door locking systems rely, in whole or in part, on electronic locking mechanisms and software that intermittently fails, thereby preventing the Vehicle's door-locking mechanism from engaging or releasing. When the door-locking mechanism fails to release, the Vehicles cannot be opened from either inside or outside of the Vehicle. This defect presents a serious safety issue for passengers of the Vehicles, as they can be trapped in the Vehicles after an accident or on a hot sunny day, or they can be locked out of the Vehicles in potentially dangerous situations. Conversely, when the door-locking mechanism fails to engage, the Vehicles cannot be secured. As a result, the luxury Vehicles and their contents are left vulnerable to theft. The failure to lock additionally poses personal safety concerns. The Locking Defect occurs during normal use and operation of the Vehicles. As evidenced by the complaints of Plaintiff and other Vehicle owners that have been filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Vehicles' Locking Defect arises unexpectedly and presents ongoing safety concerns. Accordingly, the Plaintiff files this action over Defendant's misconduct, including Defendant's conscious effort to conceal material facts concerning the Locking Defect during and after the design, distribution, marketing, and sale and/or lease of the Vehicles. This action seeks redress for Plaintiff and the Class in the form of compensatory damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief, which would include, inter alia, an order directing Defendant to cease the challenged practices, including the manufacture, sale, and installation of the defective locking system, and initiate a program to provide refunds, repairs, and/or restitution to Plaintiff and the Class. Plaintiff Jay Parikh is a California citizen residing in Montebello (Los Angeles County), California. Mr. Parikh purchased a 2021 Audi e-tron. This Vehicle was designed, manufactured, sold, distributed, advertised, marketed, and/or warranted by Defendant. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., doing business as Audi of America, Inc. was engaged in the business of importing, advertising, marketing, distributing, warranting, servicing, repairing and selling automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components throughout the United States of America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Robert R. Ahdoot, Esq. Theodore Maya, Esq. Lisa Cintron, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Ave., Suite 500 Burbank, California 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com lcintron@ahdootwolfson.com VUORI INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Mayeli Suit Due Sept. 18 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAYELI HO, et al., v. VUORI, INC, Case No. 3:26-cv-00123-GPC-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Butcher entered a scheduling order regulating discovery, class certification motion filing, and other pre-trial proceedings. 1. A telephonic Status Conference will be held on June 12, 2026 at 10:30 AM. The Court will email audio-only Zoom connection information to counsel of record in advance of the conference. 2. Any motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional pleadings shall be filed by June 12, 2026. 3. A motion for class certification must be filed no later than Sept. 18, 2026. 4. All fact discovery shall be completed by all parties by Nov. 20, 2026. 5. All expert discovery shall be completed by all parties by Feb. 12, 2027. 6. The final Pretrial Conference is scheduled on the calendar of the Honorable Gonzalo P. Curiel on July 16, 2027 at 1:30 pm. Vuori offers a collection of apparel brand for men and women. A copy of the Court's order dated March 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2GuIeU at no extra charge.[CC] WALT DISNEY: Local 272 LMPF Seeks Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOCAL 272 LABOR-MANAGEMENT PENSION FUND, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-03661-CBM-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on July 14, 2026, will ask the Court to grant motion for class certification. Walt Disney is an American multinational mass media and entertainment conglomerate. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZIrqk3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel S. Drosman, Esq. Ryan A. Llorens, Esq. Jessica T. Shinnefield, Esq. Darryl J. Alvarado, Esq. Jeffrey J. Stein, Esq. Nicole Q. Gilliland, Esq. Jessica E. Robertson, Esq. Cristelle R. Rabban, Esq. Scott I. Dion, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: dand@rgrdlaw.com ryanl@rgrdlaw.com jshinnefield@rgrdlaw.com dalvarado@rgrdlaw.com jstein@rgrdlaw.com ngilliland@rgrdlaw.com jrobertson@rgrdlaw.com crabban@rgrdlaw.com sdion@rgrdlaw.com WALT DISNEY: Local 272 Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOCAL 272 LABOR-MANAGEMENT PENSION FUND, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-03661-CBM-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting application for leave to file under seal Exhibits 5-19 to the Declaration of Daniel S. Drosman in Support of motion for class certification. The exhibits were designated "Confidential" by defendants pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order. Plaintiffs take no position as to the appropriateness of the application as to those documents that defendants have marked "Confidential." The Plaintiffs also submit this application to file under seal (1) the Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and (2) the Declaration of Daniel S. Drosman in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, which reference the exhibits. Walt Disney is an American multinational mass media and entertainment conglomerate. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aaEZ0B at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel S. Drosman, Esq. Ryan A. Llorens, Esq. Jessica T. Shinnefield, Esq. Darryl J. Alvarado, Esq. Jeffrey J. Stein, Esq. Nicole Q. Gilliland, Esq. Jessica E. Robertson, Esq. Cristelle R. Rabban, Esq. Scott I. Dion, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: dand@rgrdlaw.com ryanl@rgrdlaw.com jshinnefield@rgrdlaw.com dalvarado@rgrdlaw.com jstein@rgrdlaw.com ngilliland@rgrdlaw.com jrobertson@rgrdlaw.com crabban@rgrdlaw.com sdion@rgrdlaw.com WARBY PARKER : Garcia Sues Over Misleading Spam E-mails ------------------------------------------------------- BIANCA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WARBY PARKER INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02980 (C.D. Cal., March 19, 2026) accuses the Defendant of paying affiliate marketers to send misleading spam e-mails that promote Defendants' eyewear products. The Plaintiff never gave "direct consent" to receive commercial e-mail advertisements from Defendant or its marketing agents. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all California citizens who received any commercial e-mail promoting any Warby Parker product or service at a California e-mail address where such email(s) contained: (1) a falsified, misrepresented, or forged domain name; (2) falsified, misrepresented, or forged header information; or (3) false or misleading subject line or contents. The Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of the California Business and Professions Code. Headquartered in Delaware, Warby Parker sells eyewear products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com WESTGATE RESORTS: Court Dismisses Helms SAC with Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANE HELMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Westgate Resorts, Inc.; Westgate Resorts, Ltd, Westgate Myrtle Beach, LLC; Central Florida Investments, Inc; John Doe Corporations 1-25, Case No. 4:24-cv-04154-JD (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Joseph Dawson III entered an order: -- granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss, -- dismissing with prejudice the Plaintiff's second amended complaint, and -- denying the Plaintiff's request for leave to amend. The Plaintiff's allegations do not plausibly demonstrate that these conditions were satisfied in a manner that would entitle her to payment under the terms of the Employment Agreement. The Plaintiff's additional proposed claims—including those for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and violation of the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act -- are derivative of this same deficient contractual theory and therefore fail for the same reasons. The action arises from Plaintiff's former employment as a timeshare sales representative and her allegations that the captioned Defendants failed to pay commissions and related compensation purportedly owed under the parties' employment agreement. The Plaintiff initiated this action on July 25, 2024, alleging that Defendants failed to pay commissions and related compensation purportedly owed under the parties’ employment agreement. Plaintiff also seeks certification of a class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defined as: Nationwide Class: "All individuals within the United States who worked as salespersons for the Defendants within the applicable statute of limitations who had their commissions, or otherwise performance based compensations, unlawfully withheld by the Defendants." South Carolina Class: "All individuals within South Carolina who worked as salespersons for the Defendants within the applicable statute of limitations who had their commissions, or otherwise performance based compensations, unlawfully withheld by the Defendants." Westgate operates as a resort development company A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated March 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kX4kTY at no extra charge.[CC] WILLINGDON SCHOOL: BC Sup. Court Certifies Suit Over Sexual Abuse ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Steacy of CTV News reports that a class action alleging widespread physical, sexual and mental abuse of girls incarcerated at an institution described as a "house of horror" has been certified by the B.C. Supreme Court. The school, originally called the Industrial School for Girls and later the Willingdon School for Girls, operated from 1914 to 1973, and the lawsuit was filed by two surviving attendees against the provincial and federal governments as well as a male doctor who worked at the school when the plaintiffs were confined there. Forced sterilization, genital examination without consent, and prolonged periods of solitary confinement are among some of the abuses alleged. For Indigenous girls, who accounted for a disproportionate number of detainees, the allegations include forced cultural assimilation. "What they describe would be a blend the worst elements of a residential school along with what essentially amounts to a child's prison," the plaintiffs' lawyer Patrick Dudding, told CTV News, describing the allegations of systemic physical and sexual abuse as "horrific." The certification of the class action marks a significant step forward for the litigation, Dudding said. "These girls -- now all old women, and all with horrific scars that will never heal -- this gets them closer to justice," he said. None of the claims have been tested in court. The school Justice Veronica Jackson's decision certifying the class action explained the federal Juvenile Delinquents' Act of 1908 allowed for minors to be committed to so-called industrial schools in order that they be "subjected to such wise care, treatment and control as will tend to check their evil tendencies and to strengthen their better instincts." The B.C. school primarily saw girls committed for offences that included "incorrigibility" and "sexual immorality," according to Jackson's decision, which noted the latter included the "crime of homosexuality." Girls could also be committed to the school for being intoxicated off reserve, an offence that by definition was only committed by Indigenous girls. "Some of the girls were detained at the school because they were considered to be 'unmanageable,'" the judge wrote. Regardless of why a girl was sent to the school, Dudding said the conditions were alleged to have been tantamount to "punishment more severe than we would think is acceptable for hardened adult criminals." The claim The lawsuit alleges abuse was perpetrated by employees, including teachers and medical staff, and claims it began immediately upon detention. "Each girl received a complete physical examination, which included a genital examination, and was kept in 'quarantine' for 14 days in one of five solitary confinement cells, commonly referred to as 'the hole,'" Jackson's decision said, summarizing some of the allegations in the statement of claim. In addition to the alleged use of solitary confinement as discipline, the lawsuit claims the day-to-day operations were prison-like. "There were prison-style haircuts, uniforms, work detail, and meals were eaten in silence under rigid surveillance. The school had secure 'cell chambers' made by repurposing 'cages' from a nearby prison farm. The school was described, in internal documentation, as a 'house of horror,'" Jackson's decision continued. "Indigenous girls were overrepresented at the school, many displaced from communities far away from Vancouver, and that the school's curriculum aimed to deliberately extinguish the cultural identifies of Indigenous girls," the decision also said. Despite barbed wire encircling the grounds of the school, escapes or attempts at escape were rampant, according to the claim, which said 77 out of 132 girls tried to break out in 1956. If a girl did escape and was found, she was subjected to a forced genital examination upon her return, the lawsuit claims. The forced sterilization of girls was alleged to have been done in accordance with provincial legislation in place from 1933 to 1973. The Sexual Sterilization Act allowed for inmates, including women confined in hospitals for the "insane" and girls in industrial schools to be sterilized with institutional authorization -- with a caveat that consent was required but only if the woman or girl was "capable" of providing it. Sterilization was authorized in cases where "the inmate would be likely to produce children who by reason of inheritance would have a tendency to serious mental disease or mental deficiency," according to the 1933 legislation. The decision The provincial and federal governments, as well as the individual doctor, applied to have the claims against them struck in their entirety. "The defendants acknowledge the seriousness of the plaintiffs' allegations. However, they all argue the plaintiffs' applications should be dismissed," Jackson's decision said. Some claims against each of the defendants were allowed to proceed while others were not, the judge decided. Still, Dudding said the decision as a whole was a "resounding success," with significant credit due to the tenacity and bravery of the plaintiffs for bringing it forward. Claims against Canada for breach of fiduciary duty and misfeasance in public office were allowed. Additional claims of breach of constitutional duties and Aboriginal rights for Indigenous class members were approved against both Canada and the province. Claims against the individual doctor, who worked at the school when the plaintiffs attended in the 1960s, included battery and negligence. [GN] WONKA CORP: Oompa Loompa Workers File Class Action ADA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- MV Perry, writing for Ability Magazine, reports that the Oompa Loompa workers of the Willy Wonka Chocolate Factory have filed a class action suit against their employer, the Wonka corporation. The Loompas allege a host of disability and labor violations, claiming requests for reasonable accommodations are ignored, harassing behavior is common, pay is discriminatory, and the factory is wildly out of code with accessibility mandates laid forth in the Americans with Disabilities Act. While other employees are paid in union-negotiated wages, the Loompas -- whose physical characteristics and immigration status from Loompaland make it difficult for them to find work -- are paid in a discriminatory sub-minimum wage, making just $2.50 an hour. They are otherwise paid in food and cocoa beans. The Loompas further claim they are forced to do a "little person's song and dance" for the entertainment of factory guests, which they say is exploitative and not necessary for their jobs, and that they have been retaliated against for objecting to this practice. A representative from the Wonka Corp denied all accusations, calling them baseless and unsubstantiated. This is not the first time Wonka has received a major disability lawsuit. Last year, patrons of the Chocolate Factory sued for wrongful death for reasons rooted in the inaccessibility of the factory's perilous tour. There are no handrails along the walkways of the Chocolate River and Chocolate Waterfall, which has led to multiple disappearances of disabled children who fell into the river. Others have been left in critical condition when tasting one of the many edible features of the factory, under the false auspices of the quality of the material tasted. The Wonka Corp is nearing a settlement with the families of missing children and is believed to be pursuing arbitration with the Loompas. And it's neither here nor there, but the Golden Geese only lay bad eggs in the presence of disabled children, leading to further suspicions of a deep-seated culture of ableism in the factory. [GN] WOUND TECHNOLOGY: Faces Cruz Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- JIMMY CRUZ, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. WOUND TECHNOLOGY NETWORK, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:26-cv-00649 (M.D. Fla., March 25, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information and protected health information. On December 6, 2025, the Defendant became aware of a cybersecurity incident occurring between December 6, 2025, and December 9, 2025, where an unauthorized actor accessed Defendant's network and systems and exfiltrated Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information. According to the complaint, due to Defendant's negligence, cybercriminals have accessed and obtained everything they need to commit identity theft and wreak havoc on the personal lives of thousands of patients, including Plaintiff's. The Defendant knowingly obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive private information and had a resulting duty to securely maintain that information in confidence. The Plaintiff seeks remedies including compensation for time spent responding to the data breach and other types of harm, free credit monitoring and identity theft insurance for a substantial period, and injunctive relief including substantial improvements to Defendant's data security policies and practices. Wound Technology Network, Inc. is a healthcare technology company, focusing in advanced wound care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Tonyia J. Johnson, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: tjohnson@shamisgentile.com ZSPACE INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of zSpace Inc. (NASDAQ: ZSPC) resulting from allegations that zSpace may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased zSpace securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=58151 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: Rosen Law Firm is investigating potential civil securities claims. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2026. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***