260415.mbx

260415.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, April 15, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 75 Headlines 1602 LAND TRUST: Cleveland Sues Over Entertainers' Unpaid Wages 5.11 INC: Tate Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. 9227-8712 QUEBEC: Faces Class Suit Over Mislabeled Maple Syrup ACCESS FINANCE: Faces Taylor Suit Over Improper Credit Denial AFNI INC: Scheduling Order Entered in Cerean Class Suit ALAMO MIT LLC: Brown Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas ALDEYRA THERAPEUTICS: Kirby Balks at Misleading Company Statements ALEXIS IRENE: Hampton Sues Over Website Inaccessibility AMAZON.COM INC: Court Stays Cross Proceedings AMAZON.COM INC: Must Produce Expert Materials, Court Says AMAZON.COM INC: Uses HR Systems to Shortchange Women, Suit Claims AMERICA PAC: Class Cert Bid Filing Due June 1 AMERICA PAC: Class Cert Bid in Maglietta Due June 1 AMERICAN ACCOUNTS: Class Cert Bid in Peterson Reset to May 8 APEX TRADER FUNDING: Patel Files Suit in S.D. California AUDI OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Defective Door Locks AUTOZONERS LLC: Grigsby Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages BLUECREW LLC: Espinoza Suit Removed to C.D. California BOEING CO: Faces Class Suit Over Plant Mechanics' Unpaid Wages BRISTOL WEST INSURANCE: Mburugu Sues Over Breach of Contract CAIRO, NY: Lee Sues Over Constitutional Right Deprivation CAMBIUM NETWORKS: Hamby Securities Suit Voluntarily Dismissed CANPOTEX LTD: Faces Antitrust Class Action Suit Over Price-Fixing CERNER CORP: Fails to Protect Highly Sensitive Data, House Says CITRUS COUNTY, FL: Waite Balks at Improper Appellate Record Charges CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK: Levine Sues Over Requests Denial CLINTON 79 INC: Perez Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Final Hearing of $2.9MM Settlement Set Sept. 10 COMBE INCORPORATED: Stevenson Suit Removed to C.D. California COMCAST CABLE: $117.5MM Breach Settlement Final Hearing Set July 7 COMPASS GROUP USA: Wilborn Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations CONCORD ORTHOPAEDICS: Agrees to Settles Data Breach Class Action CSC SERVICEWORKS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action Suit CVS PHARMACY: Tin RX Holding Sues Over Unlawful Market Dominance DAMON MARINACCI: Sweeney Sues Over Unlawful Drug Distribution DANUBENET INC: Fernandez Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ENCOMPASS HEALTH: Hopper Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties FARFETCH.COM LIMITED: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FAST GROWING TREES: Ramirez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FIFTH ERA: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With SMT Holdings FIGURE TECHNOLOGY: Arabian Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII FIREFLIES.AI CORP: Illegally Collects Biometric Data, Martinez Says FIRST PREMIER HOME: Laplante Sues Over Unlawful Spamming FORD MOTOR: Flores Suit Removed to C.D. California FREEDOM DEBT: Garcia Sues Over Unlawful Spamming G8X LLC: Cigarroa Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation GREENBRIER CLINIC: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Unreliable Mammograms HASHI BRANDS INC: Ramirez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website HERITAGE BANK: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Holmes Suit Says HIGH MOWING: Ramirez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website HIMALAYA WELLNESS: Vaugh Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind HOLZER HEALTH: Discloses Private Info, Fulcher et al. Suit Alleges HOMETAP INVESTMENT: Hoffman Suit Removed to W.D. Washington HOWARD COUNTY GENERAL: Henson Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Martin Suit Over Deceptive E-mail Promotions J.G. WENTWORTH: Gonzalez Sues Over Deceptive Spam Emails JOLIE SKIN: Faces Class Action Suit Over Filtered Showerheads JU-JU-BE INTL: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind K-SWISS INC: Morris Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website KASAMA RESTAURANT: Figueroa Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website KLARNA INC: Faces Clay Suit Over Mandatory Automatic Withdrawals KMK HOSPITALITY: Eckert Seeks Restaurant Staff's Proper Wages KURA SUSHI: Settlement in Wage and Hour Suit for for Court Approval LA CASA DEL KIPE: Cruz Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages LAKE COUNTY, CA: Doe Suit Removed to N.D. California LEATHER GOODS: Wilson Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users LIEFF CABRASER: Appellate Court Upheld Summary Judgment in Doe Suit LOWE'S HOME CENTERS: Grimes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MARS CHEESE CASTLE: Morris Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MAXWELL LEADERSHIP: Sumrell Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois MDL 2843: Transfer of O'Neill Suit to Facebook Privacy Row Denied MDL 2873: 7 Suits Consolidated in AFFF Products Liability Row MDL 2885: Canup v. Aysltock Transferred to N.D. Fla. MDL 3014: Gravelyn v. Koninklijke Transferred to W.D. Pa. MDL 3084: Two Suits Consolidated in Uber Sexual Assault Litigation MDL 3128: Panel Denies Transfer of Forero Action to D. Minn. MDL 3176: Panel Transfers 6 Suits to E.D. Tex. MERCOR.IO: Lofton Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Information MICROSOFT CORP: Resale Class Action Enters Appeals Phase MILLENNIUM GROUP: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims MONTREAL NORTH: Court Greenlights Class Action Over COVID Deaths MOVENTO DESIGN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Tessman Alleges NATIONAL COATINGS INC: Heikes Files Suit in E.D. North Carolina NEO-CONCEPT INTERNATIONAL: Rosen Law Probes Securities Claims NORTH EAST MEDICAL: Bulatov Suit Removed to N.D. California NOVATECH LTD: Court Dismisses "Mullins" for Lack of Standing NUMALE WISCONSIN: Order Dismissing "Brazeau" Class Suit Affirmed NUTS TO YOU: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Echols Suit Claims PACIFIC MARKET: Wins Dismissal of Stanley Drinkware Class Action PACIFICORP: Panel Says Wildfires Class Suit "Procedurally Flawed" PHILIPS NORTH: Court Tosses "Tucker" Medical Monitoring Suit POP AND BOTTLE: Licea Sues Over Unlawful Automatic Renewal POWER SOLUTIONS: Dishion Sues Over Securities Law Breaches QUICK COVER AUTO: McMillan Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California RELWEN LLC: Lamperis Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website REVIVAL RUGS INC: Morris Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ROBERTSON COUNTY, TX: Underpays Dispatchers, Massey Suit Alleges RR SAN DIMAS: Denial of Class Certification in Aerni Suit Reversed SHIELD PHARMACEUTICALS: Moreno Files FDCPA Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. SHOE CARNIVALA: Sanders Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania SPICE ALLIANCE: Morris Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ST. FRANCIS HOTEL: Trius Suit Removed to N.D. California STAPLES INC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Williams Alleges STAPLES INC: Wilson Sues Over Unlawful Non-Emergency Calls STREMICKS HERITAGE FOODS: Sanchez Suit Removed to C.D. California SWALLOWTAIL GARDEN: Ramirez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website TALENTBURST INC: Castro Suit Removed to C.D. California TURBO ENERGY: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims UNITED STATES: DeRouin Balks at Exposure to Toxic Chemicals UNITED STATES: DOE's Emergency Bid for Stay in Sweet Denied UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: LWMC Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Rebound Physical Suit Removed to D. Maryland UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Young Files Suit in D. Arizona UPSTART HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit VCI GLOBAL: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims VIRTA HEALTH: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach WAHL CLIPPER: Henderson Sues Over Website's ADA Non-Compliance WASHINGTON: Dismissal of "Bell" Affirmed in Part WEST HOUSTON: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Threet Alleges WEX INC: Darby Suit Alleges Wage and Hour Law Violations WHAT IF HOLDINGS: Starling Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas WHITTAKER FORD: Lagrand Files Suit in N.D. New York WOOD TRICK LLC: Ramirez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website WOUND TECHNOLOGY: Rocha Files Suit in M.D. Florida ZAGG INC: Figueroa Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website [] Loly Garcia Tor Joins Reed Smith as Partner in N.J. Office ********* 1602 LAND TRUST: Cleveland Sues Over Entertainers' Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- JASMINE CLEVELAND, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 1602 LAND TRUST LLC dba TABOO by GFive Gentlemen's Club, a Florida Limited Liability Company, SHEMARA TODD an individual, COREY TODD an individual; and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-22184 (S.D. Fla., March 30, 2026) is an action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act seeking to recover unpaid wages, including "kickbacks," liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiffs at an hourly rate above or equal to the minimum wage. The Defendants further violated the FLSA by requiring the Plaintiff and similar situated entertainers to pay house fees and tip outs as a condition of employment. The Defendants' house fee and tip out requirement benefitted the Defendants and caused the Plaintiff's and similar situated entertainers potential wages to fall well below the minimum wage, says the suit. The Plaintiff was a former employee of Defendants, having been hired as an entertainer at the Taboo from April 2025 to November 2025. 1602 LAND TRUST LLC, dba TABOO by GFive Gentlemen's Club, is a gentlemen's club based in Miami Beach, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vickie S. Poliard, Esq. THE SOLOMON FIRM, LLC, LLC 1718 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 195 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 565-0641 Facsimile: (404) 565-0643 E-mail: vickie@thesolomonfirm.com 5.11 INC: Tate Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 5.11, Inc. The case is styled as Tyler Tate, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 5.11, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UNPI-2026-0002496 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., April 2, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Non-PI/PD/WD (Other) Tort." 5.11 -- https://www.511tactical.com/ -- is an American apparel brand of outdoor clothing, footwear, uniforms and tactical equipment, primarily targeting the market of military, law enforcement and public safety personnel.[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 9227-8712 QUEBEC: Faces Class Suit Over Mislabeled Maple Syrup -------------------------------------------------------------- CBC News reports that a company accused of producing bogus maple syrup is now the target of a class-action lawsuit that has been filed in Quebec Superior Court. The lawsuit request targets the numbered company 9227-8712 Quebec Inc., which operates under the name "Erabliere Steve Bourdeau." Steve Bourdeau is a producer based in Saint-Chrysostome, Que., in the Monteregie region southwest of Montreal. The lawsuit has not yet been authorized. According to the class-action filing, the company betrayed consumer trust by representing or describing its maple syrup as "pure." The company is also accused of selling maple syrup as originating from Quebec when it actually came from another province. This class-action request is based on revelations from Radio-Canada's investigative program Enquete, which had five cans sold in grocery stores laboratory tested. All samples contained at least 50 per cent cane sugar and all cans came from the numbered company. The filing accuses Bourdeau's company of knowingly misleading "millions of consumers in Canada regarding the composition, quality or origin of its cans of maple syrup." The lawsuit was filed by the firm Slater Vecchio on behalf of plaintiff Maude Fraser-Jodoin. Fraser-Jodoin wants the court to grant a payment of $100 in punitive damages per group member. If authorized, the class action will include anyone who has purchased a can since April 7, 2023. Last year alone, Bourdeau's company sold hundreds of thousands of cans, he said during a phone call with Radio-Canada. In front of Enquete's hidden cameras, Bourdeau boasted about selling his products at low prices in hundreds of grocery stores in Quebec and Ontario, including Metro, Farm Boy and IGA. Bourdeau told Enquete that he did not modify his syrup and blamed his suppliers. "Maybe we were sent a bad batch. We are going to try to find where it's coming from. I'll do my own investigation," he said. As for the adulterated syrup offered on grocery store shelves, he had no plans to correct the situation. He said there wouldn't be much left after a few weeks and "we aren't going to do much about it." Some Quebec grocery stores have since invited customers to return their unopened cans following the investigation. "As soon as we learned of the situation, we asked all stores concerned to pull this product from their shelves," said Metro grocery store spokesperson Genevieve Gregoire. [GN] ACCESS FINANCE: Faces Taylor Suit Over Improper Credit Denial ------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT S. TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACCESS FINANCE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-02773 (N.D. Cal., March 31, 2026) alleges violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant violated the ECOA by failing to provide the Plaintiff and the Class with adverse action notices detailing the specific reasons for the credit denial. Access Finance, Inc. consumer finance company specializing in originating, purchasing, and servicing loans for borrowers with non-prime credit. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander J. Taylor, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD 2500 S. Highland Avenue Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: (331) 307-7646 Facsimile: (630) 575-8188 E-mail: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com AFNI INC: Scheduling Order Entered in Cerean Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENJAMIN CEREAN, on behalf of himself, and as representative of similarly situated persons, v. AFNI, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-00452-RAJ (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Jones entered a scheduling order as follows: Event Date Deadline to join additional parties: May 18, 2026 Deadline for the Plaintiff to file Dec. 21, 2026 motion for class certification (to be noted 63 days after filing): Deadline for the Defendant to file 42 days after filing of Opposition to the Plaintiff's motion the Plaintiff's Motion for class certification: for Class certification Deadline for the Plaintiff to file 63 days after filing of reply to the Defendant's opposition the Plaintiff's Motion to the Plaintiff's motion for class for Class certification certification: The Court will set further case scheduling deadlines after ruling on the motion for class certification. Should the Court deny the class certification motion, any party may request an expedited trial date. Afni is a business process outsourcing company and contact center services provider. A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=swZ33E at no extra charge.[CC] ALAMO MIT LLC: Brown Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alamo MIT, LLC. The case is styled as Willis Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Alamo MIT, LLC d/b/a Mission Mitsubishi, Case No. 5:26-cv-02195 (W.D. Tex., April 2, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Alamo MIT, LLC doing business as Mission Mitsubishi in San Antonio, Texas -- https://www.missionmitsubishi.com/ -- offers new and used Mitsubishi cars, trucks, and SUVs to our customers near New Braunfels.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Angelica Gentile, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 400 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com ALDEYRA THERAPEUTICS: Kirby Balks at Misleading Company Statements ------------------------------------------------------------------ NICHOLAS KIRBY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALDEYRA THERAPEUTICS, INC., TODD C. BRADY, MICHAEL ALFERI, and BRUCE M. GREENBERG, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-11510 (D. Mass., March 30, 2026) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Aldeyra securities between November 3, 2023 and March 16, 2026, inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose the adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operations and prospects, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the results of the reproxalap clinical trials were inconsistent; (2) the inconsistency of the results rendered any positive findings from these trials unreliable and not meaningful; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about Aldeyra's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common shares, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Aldeyra Therapeutics, Inc., a biotechnology company, discovers and develops therapies designed to treat immune-mediated diseases.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Baker, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: jbaker@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com ALEXIS IRENE: Hampton Sues Over Website Inaccessibility ------------------------------------------------------- TAMMY HAMPTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Alexis Irene Companies, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03128 (N.D. Ill., March 20, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of a nail lacquer on Defendant's website. Despite her efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Headquartered in Austin, TX, Alexis Irene Companies, LLC owns and operates the website, https://staticnails.com, which offers press-on nails and nail care products 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 AMAZON.COM INC: Court Stays Cross Proceedings --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEAH CROSS, MARCO GRANGER-RIVERA, RYAN SCHILLING, and CASSIE WHINNIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-02099-NYW-SBP (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Prose entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to stay proceedings. All proceedings in this action -- including all discovery deadlines, pending and anticipated discovery motions, and class certification briefing --are stayed pending the Supreme Court's issuance of its decision in Flower Foods, Inc. v. Brock, Case No. 24-935. Within 14 days of the Supreme Court issuing its decision in Brock, the parties shall file a Joint Status Report advising the Court of the decision and its implications for this litigation and proposing an amended case schedule consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling. The Status Conference currently set for Aug. 10, 2026, is vacated and will be reset by separate order following receipt of the parties' Joint Status Report. The Plaintiffs have not identified any specific evidence at imminent risk of loss, any particular witness whose memory is especially vulnerable, or any third-party data retention policy under which relevant records would be deleted during the period of the anticipated stay. The concern Plaintiffs raise -- that third parties "may" not preserve evidence --is a generic risk present in virtually every complex civil case and is insufficient to defeat a stay. The Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on Oct. 9, 2023, asserting individual and class claims under federal, state, and local wage-and-hour laws, as well as claims for disparate impact discrimination under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) on behalf of Plaintiffs Cross and Whinnie. Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9R4nD0 at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM INC: Must Produce Expert Materials, Court Says --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, et al., v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-01495-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Chun entered an order regarding expert materials from coordinated actions: The parties have met and conferred, and have agreed to the following, subject to the Court’s approval: Amazon will produce expert materials served or produced by plaintiffs in any Coordinated Action, including expert reports, backup materials, and deposition transcripts of Plaintiffs' experts: Amazon will produce opening expert materials served or produced by plaintiffs in any Coordinated Action within five (5) business days of when Amazon receives such expert materials. To the extent plaintiffs serve rebuttal expert reports in any Coordinated Action on or before the deadline for serving opening expert reports in this action on March 27, 2026, Amazon will produce such reports and any related expert materials no later than April 3, 2026. Amazon will produce expert materials served or produced by Amazon in any Coordinated Action, including expert reports, backup materials, and deposition transcripts of Amazon’s experts, as follows: a. To the extent Amazon serves opening expert reports in any Coordinated Action on or before the parties serve opening expert reports in this action on March 27, 2026, Amazon will produce such reports and any related expert materials no later than April 3, 2026. Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5q1qpm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edward H. Takashima, Esq. Shira A. Steinberg, Esq. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20580 Telephone: (202) 326-2464 (Takashima) E-mail: etakashima@ftc.gov ssteinberg1@ftc.gov - and - Michael Jo, Esq. OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 416-6537 E-mail: Michael.Jo@ag.ny.gov - and - Nicole Demers, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CONNECTICUT 165 Capitol Avenue Hartford, CT 06016 Telephone: (860) 808-5030 E-mail: Nicole.Demers@ct.gov - and - Alexandra C. Sosnowski, Esq. NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE One Granite Place South Concord, NH 03301 Telephone: (603) 271-2678 E-mail: Alexandra.c.sosnowski@doj.nh.gov - and - Christopher J. Campbell, Esq. OFFICE OF THE OKLAHOMA ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 N.E. 21st Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 Telephone: (405) 522-0858 E-mail: Chris.Campbell@oag.ok.gov - and - Timothy D. Smith, Esq. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 100 SW Market St Portland, OR 97201 Telephone: (503) 934-4400 E-mail: tim.smith@doj.oregon.gov - and - Jennifer A. Thomson, Esq. PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL Strawberry Square, 14th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17120 Telephone: (717) 787-4530 E-mail: jthomson@attorneygeneral.gov - and - Michael A. Undorf, Esq. DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 820 N. French St., 5th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 683-8816 E-mail: michael.undorf@delaware.gov - and - Christina M. Moylan, Esq. OFFICE OF THE MAINE ATTORNEY GENERAL 6 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333-0006 Telephone: (207) 626-8800 E-mail: christina.moylan@maine.gov - and - Schonette Walker, Esq. OFFICE OF THE MARYLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL 200 St. Paul Place Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 576-6473 E-mail: swalker@oag.state.md.us - and - Katherine W. Krems, Esq. OFFICE OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL One Ashburton Place, 18th Floor Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 963-2189 E-mail: katherine.krems@mass.gov - and - Scott A. Mertens, Esq. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL 525 West Ottawa Street Lansing, MI 48933 Telephone: (517) 335-7622 E-mail: MertensS@michigan.gov - and - Zach Biesanz, Esq. OFFICE OF THE MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1400 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 757-1257 E-mail: zach.biesanz@ag.state.mn.us - and - Lucas J. Tucker, Esq. OFFICE OF THE NEVADA ATTORNEY GENERAL 100 N. Carson St. Carson City, NV 89701 Telephone: (775) 684-1100 E-mail: LTucker@ag.nv.gov - and - Andrew Esoldi, Esq. NEW JERSEY OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 124 Halsey Street, 5th Floor Newark, NJ 07101 Telephone: (973) 648-7819 E-mail: andrew.esoldi@law.njoag.gov - and - Anthony R. Juzaitis, Esq. NEW MEXICO OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 408 Galisteo St. Santa Fe, NM 87501 Telephone: (505) 651-7565 E-mail: AJuzaitis@nmag.gov - and - Zulma Carrasquillo Almena, Esq. PUERTO RICO DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE San Juan, Puerto Rico 00902-0192 Telephone: (787) 721-2900, Ext. 1211 E-mail: zcarrasquillo@justicia.pr.gov - and - Alexander Carnevale, Esq. RHODE ISLAND OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 150 South Main Street Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 274-4400 E-mail: acarnevale@riag.ri.gov - and - Sarah L.J. Aceves, Esq. PUBLIC PROTECTION DIVISION VERMONT ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE 109 State Street Montpelier, VT 05609 Telephone: (802) 828-3170 E-mail: Sarah.Aceves@vermont.gov - and - Caitlin M. Madden, Esq. WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Madison, WI 53707-7857 Telephone: (608) 267-1311 E-mail: caitlin.madden@wisdoj.gov The Defendant is represented by: Patty A. Eakes, Esq. Molly A. Terwilliger MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2800 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 274-6400 E-mail: patti.eakes@morganlewis.com molly.terwilliger@morganlewis.com - and - Heidi K. Hubbard, Esq. John E. Schmidtlein, Esq. Kevin M. Hodges, Esq. Jonathan B. Pitt, Esq. Carl R. Metz, Esq. Carol J. Pruski, Esq. Katherine Trefz, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 680 Maine Avenue SW Washington, DC 20024 Phone: (202) 434-5000 E-mail: hhubbard@wc.com khodges@wc.com jpitt@wc.com cmetz@wc.com cpruski@wc.com ktrefz@wc.com - and - Thomas O. Barnett, Esq. Katherine Mitchell-Tombras, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One CityCenter 850 Tenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001-4956 Telephone: (202) 662-5407 E-mail: tbarnett@cov.com kmitchelltombras@cov.com - and - Kosta S. Stojilkovic, Esq. WILKINSON STEKLOFF LLP 2001 M Street NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 847-4045 E-mail: kstojilkovic@wilkinsonstekloff.com AMAZON.COM INC: Uses HR Systems to Shortchange Women, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tez Romero, writing for HRD, reports that Amazon is being accused of using its own HR playbook -- job classifications, pay algorithms, and promotion rules -- to systematically shortchange women. A class action filed on April 8 in the Western District of Washington (Srinivas et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-01199) lays out a detailed picture of how Amazon's centralized people operations allegedly produce gender-based pay gaps across its corporate workforce. The two named plaintiffs, both former employees based in King County, Washington, are seeking to represent a class of all women who held positions at Job Levels 4 through 8 in the state. The central allegation is straightforward: Amazon pays women less than men who do substantially similar work, and it restricts women's opportunities to advance. What makes the case stand out for HR leaders is that the alleged discrimination doesn't stem from rogue managers or isolated decisions. Instead, the filing points to the very systems most HR departments would recognize as best practice -- standardized job architecture, algorithmic compensation, and structured promotion cycles. Amazon's job classification system sits at the heart of the claims. The company organizes employees into Job Families, Job Levels, and Job Codes, with certain codes labeled "tech" and others "non-tech." According to the filing, the "tech" label doesn't require any specific coding ability, but it does come with a significantly higher pay scale. The plaintiffs allege that Amazon routinely slots women into non-"tech" codes while giving men the higher-paying "tech" designation -- even when they work side by side on the same teams doing the same things. The filing also takes aim at how Amazon sets pay. After an employee's initial compensation is determined at hire, the company allegedly uses a single automated algorithm -- fed by Job Level, Job Family, and performance rating -- to calculate ongoing pay. Managers have little room to adjust the output. The plaintiffs argue this system bakes in and perpetuates gender-based disparities. Promotion practices draw scrutiny too. Amazon allegedly limits promotions to fixed cycles -- twice a year for senior levels, four times a year for junior ones -- and bars managers from promoting employees outside those windows. Even when someone takes on a higher-level role through an internal transfer, they reportedly cannot receive the corresponding pay or title until they clear the formal promotion process. The named plaintiffs offer concrete examples. Amy Cisneroz, a former L7 Principal Product Manager, alleges she held a non-"tech" code while a male colleague doing substantially similar work on her team carried a "tech" designation and higher compensation. Gayatri Srinivas, a former L6 Senior Technical Writer with over two decades of experience, alleges her own manager told her that her salary fell below industry standard for her level and experience. No determination has been made on the merits of the case. Amazon has not yet publicly responded to the claims. [GN] AMERICA PAC: Class Cert Bid Filing Due June 1 --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE and BOBBI PISOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERICA PAC and ELON MUSK, Case No. 2:25-cv-01691-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Wendy Beetlestone entered an order granting joint stipulation for extension of deadline: Motion for class certification -- June 1, 2026 Since the Court’s order of January 6, the parties have been diligently pursuing discovery. Both parties have responded to each other’s Requests for Production, Requests for Admission, and Interrogatories. The parties have produced documents to each other and anticipate further productions of documents. America PAC is a super PAC created by Elon Musk with the backing of a number of prominent tech businessmen. A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hflSYh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Thomas Fowler, Esq. Kristen Connon, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com tfowler@llrlaw.com kconnon@llrlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Matthew H. Haverstick, Esq. KLEINBARD LLC Three Logan Square, 5th Floor 1717 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 568-2000 Facsimile: (215) 568-0140 E-mail: mhaverstick@kleinbard.com - and - Jesse Vazquez, Esq. Andy Taylor, Esq. Anne Marie Mackin, Esq. Nadin Linthorst, Esq. LEX POLITICA PLLC #129 7415 SW Parkway Bldg. 6, Ste. 500 Austin, TX 78735 Telephone: (512) 354-1785 E-mail: jvazquez@lexpolitica.com ataylor@ataylorlaw.com amackin@lexpolitica.com nlinthorst@lexpolitica.com AMERICA PAC: Class Cert Bid in Maglietta Due June 1 --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY MAGLIETTA, STEVEN REID, and JERRY VICTORIOUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERICA PAC and ELON MUSK, Case No. 5:25-cv-02364-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Beetlestone entered an order extending the deadline for a motion for class certification as follows: Motion for class certification -- June 1, 2026 Since the Court's order of January 6, the parties have been diligently pursuing discovery. Both parties have responded to each other’s Requests for Production, Requests for Admission, and Interrogatories. The parties have produced documents to each other and anticipate further productions of documents. The parties have also been diligent in negotiating the timing of depositions. Plaintiffs anticipate deposing Defendants' Rule 30(b)(6) witness after a forthcoming production of documents by Defendants, and thereafter, Defendants anticipate deposing Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have also noticed a deposition for Elon Musk. After conferring with Defendants, Plaintiffs have agreed to hold this notice in abeyance until after deposing Defendants’ Rule 30(b)(6) witness. After that deposition is complete, the parties will meet and confer about the necessity of deposing Mr. Musk. The Defendants reserve the right to seek a protective order should Plaintiffs pursue Mr. Musk's deposition. America PAC is a super PAC created by Elon Musk with the backing of a number of prominent tech businessmen. A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VUoZVP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Thomas Fowler, Esq. Kristen Connon, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com tfowler@llrlaw.com kconnon@llrlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Matthew H. Haverstick, Esq. KLEINBARD LLC Three Logan Square, 5th Floor 1717 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 568-2000 Facsimile: (215) 568-0140 E-mail: mhaverstick@kleinbard.com - and - Jesse Vazquez, Esq. Andy Taylor, Esq. Anne Marie Mackin, Esq. Nadin Linthorst, Esq. LEX POLITICA PLLC #129 7415 SW Parkway Bldg. 6, Ste. 500 Austin, TX 78735 Telephone: (512) 354-1785 E-mail: jvazquez@lexpolitica.com ataylor@ataylorlaw.com amackin@lexpolitica.com nlinthorst@lexpolitica.com AMERICAN ACCOUNTS: Class Cert Bid in Peterson Reset to May 8 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Blum, Kimberly v. American Accounts & Advisers, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-00367 (W.D. Wisc., Filed May 8, 2025), the Hon. Judge James D. Peterson entered an order granting the parties' request in part and resetting the class certification motion deadline to May 8, 2026. The moves the deadline as close to the next case milestone as the court can manage, so the parties should expect no further extensions. All other deadlines remain in place, the Court says. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. American Accounts is a national collection agency and billing company.[CC] APEX TRADER FUNDING: Patel Files Suit in S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apex Trader Funding, Inc. The case is styled as Moneal Patel, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Apex Trader Funding, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-02079-WQH-JLB (S.D. Cal., April 2, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit for Unsolicited Telephone Sales. Apex Trader Funding -- https://apextraderfunding.com/ -- offers simulated trading programs for educational, informational, and evaluation purposes only..[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com AUDI OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Defective Door Locks ------------------------------------------------------------------ Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Audi of America has been hit with a proposed class action lawsuit that alleges the automaker knowingly sold vehicles equipped with defective electronic door-locking mechanisms, posing a significant safety hazard. The 28-page automotive lawsuit alleges that Audi has falsely represented that a laundry list of vehicle models are safe and reliable, despite being aware of the apparent defect since "at least 2019." According to the complaint, the electronic door-locking mechanism and related software suffer from a defect that can intermittently prevent the mechanism from engaging or releasing during normal operation, which can lock drivers and passengers in or out of the car in "needlessly dangerous circumstances." Per the filing, the vehicles at issue in the Audi lawsuit (the "class vehicles") include the following: -- 2019–2024 A6, A7, A8, S8, and Q8; -- 2019 and 2021–2024 e-tron Quattro; -- 2020–2024 A6 allroad, S6, S7, S8, e-tron Sportback Quattro, SQ8, and RS Q8; -- 2020–2021 A8 e Quattro; -- 2020–2022 RS 6, RS 7, A8 PHEV, e-tron Quattro, and e-tron Sportback Quattro models; -- 2022 e-tron S Quattro, e-tron GT, and RS e-tron GT; -- 2021–2022 A6 Avant, RS 6 Avant, and A7 PHEV; -- 2021–2024 RS 6 Avant and RS 7; -- 2021–2022 A7 e Quattro; -- 2022–2024 e-tron S, e-tron GT, and RS e-tron GT; -- 2025 A6 Sportback e-tron, S6 Sportback e-tron, Q6 e-tron, Q6 Sportback e-tron, SQ6 e-tron, and SQ6 Sportback e-tron; -- 2025-2026 A5, S5, Q5, Q5 Sportback, and SQ5 Sportback; and -- 2026 A6. When the door-locking mechanism does not release, the filing says, a vehicle cannot be opened from the inside or outside, presenting a "serious safety issue" for drivers and passengers who may be "trapped in the vehicles after an accident or on a hot sunny day," or who could be "locked out of the vehicles in potentially dangerous situations." On the other hand, the suit continues, when the mechanism does not engage, consumers are unable to lock their car doors, leaving the luxury vehicles and any contents therein "vulnerable to theft" if left in an unsafe location. As a result of the locking defect, there is no reasonable way for drivers to ensure that the vehicles lock or unlock when needed, the lawsuit explains, and drivers are forced to "either consciously or subconsciously" make decisions with the understanding that the locking mechanism was likely to fail, a scenario the suit calls a "powerful and ongoing distraction." Audi has known of the door-lock defect since at least 2019, in part through aggregated information from dealerships, testing data, and consumer complaints, the case contends. The suit adds that Audi has also issued at least eight technical service bulletins related to "malfunctions" in the locking system, one of which states that "no repairs are necessary." However, the suit argues that this statement is "obviously false." Per the lawsuit, Audi had a duty to warn consumers about the door-locking defect but has failed to do so, and the manufacturer has not provided consumers with notice via a recall. To make matters worse, Audi has not fixed the door locking mechanism issue in newer vehicle models. To the contrary, "the problem seems to be worse in the newest class vehicles," and Audi has done "little, if anything," to resolve the "glaring" safety concerns, the class action lawsuit alleges. The lawsuit says that the plaintiff purchased an Audi in 2024 with "no forewarning" of the locking defect. The case says that the locking defect manifested shortly thereafter; in one "particularly alarming incident," the inability to unlock the car left his infant son "trapped" in the back seat while the plaintiff was locked out of the vehicle, the complaint relays. In addition, the case states that the "unreliability" of the locking mechanism has forced the plaintiff to factor the locking defect into normal driving decisions, "altering the use of his car and parking habits in anticipation of the extremely dangerous situation." The plaintiff claims to have brought his vehicle to an Audi dealership to investigate the problem at least three times, but the lawsuit says the locking defect "continues to manifest." The Audi class action lawsuit seeks to cover all individuals in the United States who formerly or currently own or lease one or more of the class vehicles listed on this page. [GN] AUTOZONERS LLC: Grigsby Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- JAY GRIGSBY and ZAKK GILL, on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AUTOZONERS, LLC, AUTOZONE STORES, LLC, AUTOZONE PARTS, INC., and AUTOZONE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-05033-ECS (D.S.D., March 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants seeking to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other benefits of employment to which Plaintiffs are entitled under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs and similarly situated current and former AutoZone store managers in South Dakota who have been improperly classified as exempt from overtime compensation, which has resulted in denial of compensation for their hours of work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiffs, and other similarly situated employees designated as AutoZone store managers, also devote or devoted substantial time to other non-managerial tasks including staffing the counter, cleaning the store, stocking the store, checking inventory, and more such tasks typically performed by hourly employees who work at AutoZone stores. AutoZoners, LLC is a subsidiary of AutoZone, Inc. that acts as the employer for AutoZone's retail store employees in many US locations, handling staffing for the company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joel Rische, Esq. DAVENPORT, EVANS, HURWITZ & SMITH, L.L.P. 206 West 14th Street PO Box 1030 Sioux Falls, SD 57101-1030 Telephone: (605) 336-2880 Facsimile: (605) 335-3639 E-mail: jrische@dehs.com - and - Benjamin R. Graybill, Esq. Raph Graybill, Esq. Rachel Parker, Esq. GRAYBILL LAW FIRM, PC 300 4th Street N. Great Falls, MT 59403 Telephone: (406) 452-8566 E-mail: ben@graybilllawfirm.com raph@graybilllawfirm.com rachel@graybilllawfirm.com - and - William A. Rossbach, Esq. ROSSBACH LAW, PC 401 N. Washington Street Missoula, MT 59807 Telephone: (406) 543-5156 E-mail: bill@rossbachlaw.com - and - Samir F. Aarab, Esq. Caitlin Boland Aarab, Esq. BOLAND AARAB PLLP 18 6th Street N., Ste. 200 Great Falls, MT 59401 Telephone: (406) 315-3737 E-mail: sfaarab@bolandaarab.com cbaarab@bolandaarab.com BLUECREW LLC: Espinoza Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Ruben Espinoza, on behalf of himself and all other current and former non-exempt employees v. BLUECREW, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; FASHION NOVA, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; FASHION NOVA HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; FN LOGISTICS, LLC, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV06448 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 1, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-03462. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts five causes of action on a putative class action basis, styled as follows: Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure to Pay Hourly Wages; Failure to Provide Accurate Written Wage Statements; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Sabrina A. Beldner, Esq. Charles J. Ureña, Esq. Sutton T. McCann, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 1800 Century Park East, 7th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501 Phone: (310) 315-8200 Fax: (310) 315-8210 Email: SBeldner@mcguirewoods.com CUrena@mcguirewoods.com SMcCann@mcguirewoods.com BOEING CO: Faces Class Suit Over Plant Mechanics' Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Jenna Millikan, writing for the Herald Net, reports that a class action lawsuit from a former mechanic at Boeing's Everett plant alleges the aerospace company failed to compensate employees for their hours worked. Initially filed in Snohomish County Superior Court in February, lawyers for Boeing transferred the lawsuit April 3, Friday, to the U.S. District Court in Seattle. The complaint alleges Boeing violated state law by "knowingly and willfully" permitting employees like the plaintiff to work off the clock without proper compensation, according to court documents. The class action lawsuit is on behalf of current and former hourly or non-exempt Boeing employees who were allegedly denied proper payment for all the hours they worked, proper reimbursement for business expenses, compliant meal breaks, rest periods and were subject to improper timekeeping practices within the last three years. The complaint estimates the number of people eligible for the class action is approximately 5,000 individuals. A spokesperson for Boeing declined to comment on April 7. The plaintiff, who is a Bothell resident, earned $39.20 per hour and typically worked five days a week for seven and a half hours with a 30-minute unpaid meal period, court documents said. The complaint alleges that the company's policies and practices led to employees not being paid for all time worked, such as when finding parking, walking approximately 10 minutes to the facility, obtaining equipment from the locker room and putting on safety gear, which can take up to 10 to 20 minutes each day. Employees are required to take meal breaks at scheduled times, which are sometimes interrupted, cut short or forced to be taken later because of meetings and trainings, court documents said. Employees' pay still reflects the 30-minute break, the lawsuit said. Additionally, "the plaintiff is informed and therefore alleges that Class Members are required to attend similar trainings and meetings on weekends without compensation," court documents said. Boeing pressured employees to use meal periods for restroom use instead of using the restroom as reasonably necessary, court documents said. The pressure to work until a meal break allegedly discourages employees from taking regular mandated rest breaks. Rounding practices Boeing used in its timekeeping policies allegedly resulted in uncompensated time, due to the three-minute grace period for clocking in. After the grace period passed, it rounded to six minutes. The complaint alleges this led workers to use paid time off, risk being subject to disciplinary action and losing several minutes of compensation per shift. When employees received overtime compensation, the rate did not reflect their regular rate of pay "because, for example, the regular rate of pay does not include all non-discretionary bonuses," court documents said. The complaint asks for monetary relief and an order preventing Boeing from retaliating against members of the lawsuit, court documents said. [GN] BRISTOL WEST INSURANCE: Mburugu Sues Over Breach of Contract ------------------------------------------------------------ Purity Mburugu, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly- situated v. BRISTOL WEST INSURANCE COMPANY AND FARMERS GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-03454 (N.D. Ill., March 29, 2026), is brought seeking appropriate judicial relief, including attorneys' fees and costs, alleging that Defendants committed fraud, breach of contract and unfair business practice acts On August 26, 2025, Plaintiff noticed that her premium payment had not gone through and manually made a payment immediately for the full amount. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff purchased a new auto insurance policy from Progressive Insurance Company and informed Mr. Smith, who asked for a copy of the declaration page from her new insurance policy, which Plaintiff provided. Upon receiving Plaintiff's new declaration page, Defendants sent Plaintiff emails and mail indicating that they had reinstated his policy and deducted $237 from her checking account. Defendants also sent Plaintiff correspondence indicating that her policy had been cancelled on August 31, 2025. This was false because Plaintiff's policy had been cancelled on August 25, 2025. On November 3, 2025 Defendants sent Plaintiff a letter demanding $142 even though she had been told that her policy had been cancelled effective August 25, 2025. Shortly on or after November 3, 2025, Defendants sent Plaintiff's information to a collection agency. Plaintiff incurred out of pocket expenses exceeding $100 in dealings with the collection agency. The Plaintiff and Defendants had a valid and enforceable insurance contract that was in force at relevant times and Defendants' conduct constituted a breach of that contract. Defendants have physical custody of the contract. As a direct or proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff suffered damages of a pecuniary nature, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was insured by the Defendants in August 2025. The Defendant provided auto insurance services to Plaintiffs across the country, including in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Onyango PRIME LEGAL, LLC 222 North Columbus Drive #1507 Chicago, IL 60601 CAIRO, NY: Lee Sues Over Constitutional Right Deprivation --------------------------------------------------------- C.K. Lee, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. TOWN OF CAIRO, TANJA SIRAGO, individually and in her capacity as Town Justice, ANGELA NEMIER, individually and in her capacity as Town Court Clerk and Justice Court Office Administrator, Case No. 1:26-cv-00531-AMN-DJS (N.D.N.Y., April 2, 2026), is brought against Defendants for needlessly requiring individuals to appear in Cairo Town Court in-person (rather than virtually) for non-criminal traffic violations, without regard to the distance from their homes, thereby depriving them of their constitutional right to due process. The Defendants are required under the Constitution of the United States to guarantee due process of law to motorists summoned to appear before Cairo Town Court for traffic violations. The Defendants' policy of requiring in-person hearings for non-criminal traffic violations when remote hearings through video conferencing would be virtually costless and easily administrated deprived Plaintiff and Class members such an opportunity. The Plaintiff wrote to the Court on February 27, 2026, to request that the court hold the pre-trial conference virtually. Defendants denied Plaintiff's request, however, in disregard of the substantial burdens and costs that their inflexible in-person appearance requirement would impose on the exercise of his right to contest a minor, non-criminal traffic violation. Defendants effectively backed Plaintiff into a corner, presenting him with the choice of either forfeiting his right to challenge a $200 ticket or incurring the significant costs of travelling to Cairo twice, first for the pre-trial conference and then for the trial itself, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and at all relevant times has been a resident of New York County, New York. Town of Cairo is a town within Greene County, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rony Guldmann, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 W 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-661-0052 Fax: 212-465-1181 Email: rony@leelitigation.com CAMBIUM NETWORKS: Hamby Securities Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------- Cambium Networks Corp disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2024, dated Monday, April 6, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Tuesday, April 7, 2026, that a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed on May 22, 2024 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Hamby v. Cambium Networks Corporation et al, Case No. 1:24-cv-04240) against the Company and three of its current or former officers. On December 4, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice. The complaint purported to assert claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, on behalf of persons and entities who acquired the Company's ordinary shares between May 8, 2023 and January 18, 2024, or the Class Period. The complaint alleged that, during the Class Period, the Company and certain of its executive officers made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about its business, operations, and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiffs sought damages in an unspecified amount. On July 22, 2024, motions were filed on behalf of purported class member shareholders seeking to serve as lead plaintiff, and on October 21, 2024, the court approved the appointment of lead plaintiff. Future litigation of this type could result in substantial costs and diversion of managements attention and resources, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects, and any adverse determination in litigation could also subject the Company to significant monetary liabilities. Cambium Networks Corp is a provider of wireless broadband networking infrastructure solutions, offering fixed wireless and Wi-Fi platforms for network operators, enterprises, industrial and governmental customers worldwide. The company designs and sells hardware, software and cloud-managed solutions that enable high-speed connectivity in urban, suburban and remote environments. CANPOTEX LTD: Faces Antitrust Class Action Suit Over Price-Fixing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed antitrust class action lawsuit alleges that some of the biggest producers and sellers of fertilizer have colluded in a price-fixing scheme for nitrogen, phosphate and potassium fertilizers. The 24-page antitrust lawsuit claims that six of the largest fertilizer producers in the United States—Canpotex, CF Industries Holdings, Koch Agronomic Services, Nutrien AG Solutions, The Mosaic Company and Yara International—violated the federal Sherman Antitrust Act by conspiring to inflate and fix fertilizer prices since at least January 1, 2020. Notably, before the companies began their alleged price-fixing scheme, the market for nitrogen, phosphate and potassium (NPK) fertilizers was competitive, with price increases that were "transitory," the case says. The lawsuit contends that the defendants' illegal price-fixing scheme has suppressed competition and forced indirect purchasers of NPK fertilizers to pay artificially inflated, supra-competitive prices. The lawsuit conveys that NPK fertilizers are "favored" by American farmers because they supply the three macronutrients needed for healthy crops, and are concentrated, predictable and fast-acting. However, the collusion among fertilizer manufacturers has led to a "massive" jump in price for NPK fertilizers, while crop revenues for farmers are "comparatively stagnant," the case says. The lawsuit claims that the structure of the NPK fertilizer market makes it more likely to be susceptible to a price-fixing conspiracy. Like many markets where collusion becomes a problem, the market is small and highly concentrated, with the number of fertilizer manufacturers dropping rapidly since the 1980s, the case says. Per the suit, the defendants collectively control over 80 percent of the nitrogen fertilizer market in North America and over 90 percent of the North American phosphate and potash, or potassium, markets. Further, the suit says, the NPK products are standardized, which makes it easier for the defendants to coordinate and agree on a pricing structure, and the companies have allegedly had opportunities to "collude" at trade association events. Per the filing, the NPK fertilizer market has high barriers to entry because expenses to purchase machines and a plant, along with costs associated with research and development, make entering the fertilizer market prohibitively expensive and discourage new players. Likewise, the filing states that demand for NPK fertilizers is "inelastic" and rarely changes because the fertilizers cannot be "interchanged freely" with other goods to produce the same balanced nutrients to crops, making the market more susceptible to schemes and collusion. Interestingly, the lawsuit says, the NPK fertilizer market has a history of antitrust "scrutiny;" the complaint describes a 2008 lawsuit brought against major NPK fertilizer manufacturers that alleged producers "shared market information, allocated volumes, and restricted output as part of a tight-knit global cartel." Some of these companies, the lawsuit says, ended up settling for millions of dollars, with settlements of approximately $43.75 million each from companies like Mosaic and PotashCorp. More recently, the case says, the United States Department of Justice opened a formal antitrust investigation to determine whether NFK fertilizer producers "colluded or coordinated" to raise prices for nitrogen, phosphate and potash fertilizers. The NPK fertilizer antitrust class action lawsuit seeks to cover all individuals and entities in the United States and its territories who purchased NPK fertilizers directly from any of the defendants or their subsidiaries or affiliates between January 1, 2020 and the date on which a class is certified. [GN] CERNER CORP: Fails to Protect Highly Sensitive Data, House Says --------------------------------------------------------------- KELLIE HOUSE, CHARNICA MCLAMORE, RAYMON MCLAMORE and CAMREN MCLAMORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CERNER CORPORATION D/B/A ORACLE HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00270-BP (W.D. Mo., March 30, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, Oracle Health failed to meet its duty to safeguard that data from unauthorized access and disclosure, leading to a massive data breach in January 2025 that compromised the extremely sensitive financial and medical information entrusted to it by patients and their healthcare providers. The cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train their employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' private information. In short, the Defendant's failures placed the Class' private information in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the suit. Plaintiff House received care from a hospital that utilized Cerner as their EHR vendor before the data breach. Cerner Corporation d/b/a Oracle Health is an electronic medical record vendor with its principal place of business in Kansas City, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Norman E. Siegel, Esq. Barrett J. Vahle, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64113 Telephone: (816) 714-7112 E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com vahle@stuevesiegel.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481  E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com - and - Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY LLP 1809 7th Ave., Ste. 1610 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 802-1272 E-mail: tloeser@cpmlegal.com - and - Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL, LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Suite #300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 E-mail: thudson@wcllp.com CITRUS COUNTY, FL: Waite Balks at Improper Appellate Record Charges ------------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL WAITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRACI PERRY in her official capacity as CITRUS COUNTY CLERK OF COURT AND COMPTROLLER, Defendant, Case No. 244997538 (Fla. Cir., Citrus Cty., March 31, 2026) alleges that the Defendant systematically charged for some period of time litigants $1 per page for electronic or digital appellate record copies prepared for appeal, including charging multiple times for identical digital files transmitted to different recipients. The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 North Franklin Street 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 Email: JYanchunis@forthepeople.com CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK: Levine Sues Over Requests Denial ------------------------------------------------------------- Robin Levine, Noreen Mulvanerty, Shavone Sease, Malik Sullivan, and Lucas Kwong, each individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK (CUNY), THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, and FELIX V. MATOS RODRIGUEZ, in his official capacity, Case No. 1:26-cv-01859-RML (E.D.N.Y., March 29, 2026), is brought as a result of the Defendants' violation of the Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Section 504") and the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), and/or the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"), as a result of the Defendants' repeated denial of the Plaintiffs' disability-based remote accommodation requests. The Defendants maintain a one-size-fits-all, in-person teaching mandate prohibiting or unnecessarily limiting fully remote work or teaching irrespective of the disability-based accommodations requested, particularly for those with permanent or long-term disabilities – in violation of federal, state, and city disability and medical leave laws. The Defendants' pattern or practice of disability discrimination and related retaliation includes, but is not limited to: a standard operating procedure of illegal denial of remote work disability accommodations; and a standard operating procedure of retaliation against employees who requested fully remote disability accommodations (or protected leave). The Plaintiffs provided Defendants with extensive medical documentation from board certified physicians, surgeons, psychiatrists, psychiatric nurse practitioners, neurologists, gastroenterologists, surgical oncologists, pain management specialists, and/or licensed clinical social workers -- all certifying Plaintiffs' qualifying disabilities and recommending reasonable, fully remote work arrangements that would enable Plaintiffs to perform their essential job functions without exposing them to unacceptable health risks. Despite this extensive medical documentation, Defendants repeatedly denied Plaintiffs' disability-based remote accommodation requests, unreasonably delayed processing and/or approval of these requests, provided grossly inadequate partial accommodations that failed to address documented functional limitations, imposed arbitrary time restrictions shorter than medically-recommended periods, demanded repeated resubmissions of documentation already provided, and misrepresented medical providers' recommendations, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are current and former CUNY faculty and staff employed at QCC, BMCC, KCC, Hostos, and City Tech. CUNY is the publicly-funded public university system of New York City, comprised of both senior and community colleges.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cyrus E. Dugger, Esq. THE DUGGER LAW FIRM, Gotham Center 28-07 Jackson Ave., 5th Fl. Long Island City, NY 11101 Phone: (646) 560-3208 Fax: (646) 390-4524 Email: cd@theduggerlawfirm.com CLINTON 79 INC: Perez Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Maria Del Carmen Perez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CLINTON 79 INC. d/b/a DAVIDOVICH BAKERY SHOP; ALL NATURAL PRODUCTS, INC. d/b/a DAVIDOVICH BAKERY; SCHRIPPS BAKING LLC; GENE DAVIDOVICH; GENE SHVEDOV; and ABC CORP. 1-10 and JOHN/JANE DOE 1- 10, Case No. 1:26-cv-02564 (S.D.N.Y., March 29, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages, unpaid straight-time wages, unpaid spread-of-hours pay, statutory damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), including the Wage Theft Prevention Act and the Hospitality Industry Wage Order. The Defendants maintained common and unlawful compensation practices, including, upon information and belief, paying straight-time rates for overtime hours, failing to pay for all hours worked, requiring or permitting off-the-clock work, failing to pay spread-of-hours pay, and failing to furnish legally compliant wage notices and accurate wage statements, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt hourly employee at Defendants' Davidovich bakery/cafe retail operation. The Defendants operated a unified bakery, wholesale, and retail enterprise under the Davidovich name, including retail operations in Manhattan and bakery and/or wholesale operations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford Tucker, Esq. SACCO & FILLAS LLP 3119 Newtown Ave, Seventh Floor, Astoria, NY 11102 Phone: 718-269-2243 Email: CTucker@SaccoFillas.com COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Final Hearing of $2.9MM Settlement Set Sept. 10 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Colgate-Palmolive subsidiary Tom's of Maine has agreed to a $2,900,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit filed in the wake of a May 2024 inspection of the company's Sanford, Maine facility, where the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned that conditions at the plant did not comply with the agency's manufacturing standards. The Tom's toothpaste class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on March 6, 2026. The deal covers all purchasers within the United States who, between November 21, 2020 and March 6, 2026, bought for use and not for resale or distribution purposes one or more Tom's toothpaste products. The court-approved website for the Tom's of Maine settlement can be found at ToothpasteSettlement.com. The settlement agreement states that settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form with proof of purchase are eligible to receive a full refund for up to three Tom's of Maine toothpaste products. Class members who cannot provide proof of purchase may submit a claim form to receive a refund for one item per household, the settlement website says. The amount of the refund will be the average manufacturer's suggested retail price (MSRP) for the item, as provided by the defendants. Court documents note that if the total value of all approved claims exceeds the amount remaining in the net settlement fund, payments will be subject to an equal-share reduction. To submit a Tom's of Maine toothpaste settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter their name, contact information and proof of purchase, if applicable. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, complete and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Tom's of Maine settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by July 6, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant the Tom's of Maine settlement final approval following a hearing on September 10, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Tom's of Maine class action lawsuit alleged that the company misled and deceived consumers with regard to its manufacture, advertising and sale of Tom's toothpaste. Central to the lawsuit was a May 2024 inspection of the company's manufacturing facility, after which the FDA raised concerns that conditions at the plant did not meet the agency's Current Good Manufacturing Processes. Per the complaint, the FDA report stated that Tom's of Maine used water contaminated with harmful bacteria in its products and to clean facility equipment. [GN] COMBE INCORPORATED: Stevenson Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Tiga Stevenson, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. COMBE INCORPORATED and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV05160 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 2, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-03503. The Plaintiff purports to bring three causes of action for False and Misleading Advertising in violation of the Business & Professions Code Section 17500; Violation of the California Business a & Professions Code Section 17200 ("UCL"); and Violation of California Civil Code Section 1750 ("CLRA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Erik Swanholt, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 555 South Flower Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2418 Phone: 213.972.4614 Facsimile: 213.486.0065 Email: eswanholt@foley.com COMCAST CABLE: $117.5MM Breach Settlement Final Hearing Set July 7 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that individuals who received a notice from Comcast in December 2023 stating an October 2023 data breach may have compromised their personal information could qualify to submit a claim for up to $10,000 from a class action settlement. The cyberattack impacted an estimated 35,000,000 current and former Xfinity customers. Comcast Cable Communications LLC and Comcast Corp. agreed to pay $117,500,000 to settle a class action lawsuit. The plaintiffs claimed Comcast failed to safeguard customer data, maintained inadequate data security, received unjust enrichment by using personal data, violated the federal Cable Act and certain state consumer statutes, and improperly notified affected individuals. Who can file a claim for a Comcast data breach payout? Class members are individuals who received a notice from Comcast about the October 2023 data breach, which the company publicly disclosed in December 2023. How much are settlement payments? Class members have the following benefit options: -- Out-of-pocket losses: Class members can claim up to $10,000 in documented out-of-pocket losses traceable to the data breach. This includes unreimbursed expenses, losses or charges incurred as a result of identity theft, identity fraud and/or falsified tax returns, credit monitoring fees, fees for freezing or unfreezing credit, and costs of identity theft insurance and postage for contacting financial institutions. -- Lost time: Class members can claim up to five hours of lost time dealing with the data breach at $30 per hour for a maximum of $150. They can account for time in 15-minute increments. The $10,000 out-of-pocket payment cap includes lost time claims. -- Alternative cash payment: Class members who do not submit an out-of-pocket-losses and/or lost time claim can submit a claim to receive a pro rata cash payment estimated at $50. The settlement administrator will determine the final payment amount by the total number of claims filed. -- Identity defense services: All class members are entitled to three years of CyEx Financial Shield Complete, which includes one-bureau credit monitoring, dark web monitoring, real-time authentication alerts, high-risk transaction monitoring, lost wallet protection and $1 million in identity theft insurance. They do not need to file a claim form to receive this benefit. To claim a settlement payment, class members can file a claim online or print the PDF claim form to complete and mail to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Hasson v. Comcast Cable Communications LLC, c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC, P.O. Box 5324, New York, NY 10150-5324 The claim deadline is Aug. 14, 2026. Required proof and claim information -- Online claims require the class member ID from the settlement notice the class member received. -- Out-of-pocket losses claims require supporting documentation, which may include bank or credit card statements showing unreimbursed fees or fraudulent charges, invoices, receipts, police reports and other proof of fraud or identity theft. -- Lost time claims require a written explanation of time spent remedying misuse or taking preventative measures. Payout options -- Electronic payment (only available for claims submitted online) -- Paper check mailed to the address provided $117.5 million Comcast settlement fund The $117,500,000 settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: Estimated at $7,300,000 -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $39,170,000 -- Attorneys' expenses: To be presented to the court for approval at a later date -- Service awards to class representatives: $5,000 each -- Identity defense services: Cost determined by number of participating class members -- Payments to approved claimants: Remaining settlement funds Important dates -- Opt-out deadline: June 1, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: July 7, 2026 -- Claim deadline: Aug. 14, 2026 When is the Comcast data breach settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments to approved claimants after it completes claim processing and the court grants final approval of the settlement. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged a data breach that occurred at Comcast in October 2023 allowed a third party to gain unauthorized access to customer information. The plaintiffs claimed Comcast failed to protect personal data, maintained inadequate security measures, received unjust enrichment by using personal data, violated the federal Cable Act and certain state consumer statutes, and improperly notified affected individuals. Comcast denies the allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the expense and risk of continued litigation and a possible trial. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Up to $10,000 Deadline: August 14, 2026 [GN] COMPASS GROUP USA: Wilborn Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Kamya Wilborn, an individual, on behalf of the State of California and all other aggrieved employees v. COMPASS GROUP USA, INC., a Delaware corporation; DELTA AIR LINES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, Inclusive, Case No. 26STCV10721 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 2, 2026), is brought under the California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, as codified in Labor Code ("PAGA") against Defendants for civil penalties, interest, cost of suit and attorney's fees, and all other appropriate relief, resulting from Defendants' wage-and-hour violations and other unlawful conduct. During the course of employment, Defendants violated several provisions of the Labor Code by failing to pay for all minimum, regular, and overtime wages; failing to provide legally compliant meal periods; failing to provide legally compliant rest periods; failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failing to maintain accurate wage records; failing to timely pay wages when due during the course of employment and upon termination; and failing to provide a place of employment that is safe and healthful, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a food runner, from October 6, 2024, to the time of filing this action. Compass is a Delaware corporation, which operates a food making and delivery service across numerous airport lounges across California, as well as nationwide, including Delta Air Lines' airport lounge in Los Angeles International Airport.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kaveh Elihu, Esq. Jacob Karczewski, Esq. Justin Hewgill, Esq. Sebastian Morales, Esq. EMPLOYEE JUSTICE LEGAL GROUP PC 1001 Wilshire Blvd 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 382-2222 Fax: (213) 382-2230 Email: kelihu@ejlglaw.com jkarczewski@ejlglaw.com jhewgill@ejlglaw.com smorales@ejlglaw.com CONCORD ORTHOPAEDICS: Agrees to Settles Data Breach Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Alder of The HIPAA Journal reports that Concord Orthopaedics Professional Association, a New Hampshire-based provider of comprehensive orthopedic and rheumatology care, has settled a consolidated class action lawsuit stemming from a November 2024 cybersecurity incident involving unauthorized access to the personal and protected health information of 72,815 individuals. Concord Orthopaedics detected an intrusion on November 21, 2024. Hackers had gained access to its computer network, where names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, appointment information, health insurance information, and driver's license/state identification numbers were stored. The affected individuals started to be notified about the incident on March 25, 2025. The first class action lawsuit was filed by plaintiff Kattie Montambeault on April 1, 2025, in the Merrimack County Superior Court for the State of New Hampshire. A further four class action complaints were filed in response to the data breach, which were consolidated into a single action -- Montambeault, et al. v. Concord Orthopaedics Professional Association -- in the Superior Court of Hillsborough County, New Hampshire. The consolidated class action complaint names 12 individuals as class representatives. The lawsuit alleged that Concord Orthopaedics failed to implement reasonable and appropriate cybersecurity measures to protect sensitive data stored on its network, and that, as a result of that failure, the plaintiffs' and class members' personal and protected health information was accessed by hackers. Concord Orthopaedics agreed to a settlement to resolve all claims asserted in the lawsuit with no admission of wrongdoing, fault, or liability. Class counsel and the class representatives believe that the settlement is fair, and the settlement has received preliminary approval from the court. The settlement provides multiple benefits for the class members. All class members are entitled to a one-year membership to a medical data monitoring service, and may also submit a claim for the following benefits: -- Reimbursement of documented, unreimbursed losses due to the data breach up to a maximum of $3,000 per class member -- Reimbursement of lost time of up to 4 hours at $25 per hour (maximum of $100) In addition to or instead of a claim for reimbursement of out-of-pocket losses, class members may submit a claim for a one-time cash payment, which is estimated to be $50, but may be higher or lower depending on the number of valid claims received. Individuals submitting a claim for reimbursement of lost time are not eligible to claim the one-time cash payment. The deadline for objection to the settlement and exclusion is May 26, 2026. The deadline for submitting a claim is July 8, 2026, and the final fairness hearing has been scheduled for June 23, 2026. [GN] CSC SERVICEWORKS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- ClaimDepot reports that individuals whose personally identifiable information the CSC ServiceWorks data breach may have compromised in or around August 2024 may be eligible to claim up to $5,000 plus two years of credit monitoring from a class action settlement. CSC ServiceWorks Inc. agreed to settle a class action lawsuit alleging negligence, breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment following a data security incident that occurred between Sept. 23, 2023, and Feb. 4, 2024. The breach reportedly exposed the sensitive personal information of 35,340 individuals. Who can file a claim? Class members must meet all of the following criteria: -- They resided in the United States at the time of the incident. -- The data security CSC ServiceWorks Inc. announced in or around August 2024 may have compromised their personal information. The compromised data may include but is not limited to: -- Names -- Dates of birth -- Social Security numbers -- Contact information -- Driver's license numbers -- Financial account information -- Health insurance or medical information -- Any other personally identifiable information CSC ServiceWorks Inc. collected and maintained How much can class members get? The settlement provides two main types of benefits: -- Out-of-pocket expenses: Up to $5,000 per class member for actual, documented, unreimbursed losses. This includes: -- Up to four hours of lost time at $25 per hour for time spent mitigating the effects of the incident (maximum $100) -- Out-of-pocket expenses, such as bank fees, long-distance telephone charges, cellular telephone charges (if charged by the minute), data charges (if charged based on the amount of data used), postage, gasoline for local travel or fees for credit reports, credit monitoring or other identity theft insurance products purchased between Sept. 23, 2023, and July 2, 2026 -- Credit monitoring: Two years of one-bureau credit monitoring and identity theft protection services, including $1,000,000 in identity theft/fraud insurance How to claim a class action payment Class members can submit the online claim form or download, print and complete a PDF claim form and mail or email it to the settlement administrator. The claim deadline is July 2, 2026. Settlement administrator's mailing address: CSC Data Settlement, c/o Atticus Administration, PO Box 64053, St. Paul, MN 55164 Settlement administrator's email address: CSCDataSettlement@atticusadmin.com What proof or documentation is necessary to submit a claim? -- To file an online claim, class members must provide the claimant ID from the settlement notice and their last name. -- For out-of-pocket expenses, class members must provide adequate documentation, such as receipts or other records, to establish the full extent of the claimed loss. Self-prepared documents alone are not sufficient, but the class member can use them to clarify or support other documentation. -- For lost time claims, class members must submit an attestation under penalty of perjury that they spent the claimed time responding to the incident. -- For credit monitoring claims, class members need only select the appropriate option on the claim form. Payout options -- PayPal (provide PayPal account email address) -- Venmo (provide Venmo account mobile number) -- Zelle (provide Zelle mobile number or email address) -- Virtual prepaid e-Mastercard (provide email address) -- Paper check (provide address) Settlement fund breakdown The settlement fund includes: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees and expenses: Up to $225,000 -- Service awards to class representatives: $2,500 each -- Credit monitoring costs: Dependent on number of eligible claims -- Payments to class members: Remainder of the fund Important dates -- Deadline for exclusion: June 2, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: July 2, 2026 -- Fairness hearing: July 28, 2026 When is the CSC ServiceWorks settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments and other settlement benefits after the court resolves any appeals and gives final approval to the settlement. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged a third-party cyberattack on CSC ServiceWorks Inc.'s network between Sept. 23, 2023, and Feb. 4, 2024, compromised customer data. The plaintiffs claimed negligence, breach of implied contracts and unjust enrichment. CSC ServiceWorks Inc. denies any wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the cost, risk and uncertainty of further litigation. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Up to $5,000 plus credit monitoring Deadline: July 2, 2026 [GN] CVS PHARMACY: Tin RX Holding Sues Over Unlawful Market Dominance ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tin RX Holding Company, Inc. and Tin RX The Independent Network, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situate v. CVS PHARMACY, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-00182 (D.R.I., March 29, 2026), is brought as a result of the Defendant raiding the patient base of independent pharmacies--the lifeblood of America's healthcare system--in order to preserve and expand its' dominant market share, seeking actual damages, statutory damages, restitution, treble damages, disgorgement of profit into a constructive trust, injunctive relief, a declaratory judgment, reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. The Defendant and its co-conspirators will do so at any cost: even if it deprives patients of critical healthcare options and includes the destruction of businesses across the United States. Vertical integration, by itself, is not illegal. However, when a vertically integrated corporation maintains dominance in one key market--here, CVS Pharmacy's ubiquitousness is well-known--in combination with the power to control the success or failure of its competitors, that integration becomes illegal when it is used to bludgeon competitors in that market. This is an Action on behalf of independent pharmacies – who have no choice other than to use co-conspirator CVS Caremark as their PBM to process prescriptions while also being forced to horizontally compete with CVS Caremark's sister company, CVS Pharmacy. The Plaintiff TinRx brings this lawsuit on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated against Defendant which acted unlawfully to destroy TinRx. TinRx seeks actual damages, statutory damages, restitution, treble damages, disgorgement of profit into a constructive trust, injunctive relief, a declaratory judgment, reasonable costs and attorneys' fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, as well as any relief this court deems just and proper, says the complaint. The Plaintiff TIN RX Holding Company was domiciled in San Francisco, California. CVS Pharmacy is a wholly owned subsidiary of CVS Health and provides retail pharmacy services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq. YAGMAN PLLC 1050 30th St. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20007 Phone: (929) 709-1493 Email: blake.yagman@yagmanpllc.com DAMON MARINACCI: Sweeney Sues Over Unlawful Drug Distribution ------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Sweeney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Damon Marinacci, Nicole Hartman, Lisa Davis - Hall, Mathew Ruderman, Nicole Femminella, Johnny Jack, Shannon Scott, Melony Collins, Domonick Napolitano, Melissa Miller, Tyrone Johnson, John Does 1-25 and Jane Does 1-9, Case No. 2:26-cv-01946-NJC-ARL (E.D.N.Y., April 1, 2026), is brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, on behalf of a class of individuals harmed by the Defendant's operation of a property functioning as a center for unlawful drug distribution and related harmful conduct. The Plaintiff was exposed to illegal drug activity, including drug distribution and disorderly conduct. As a direct and proximate result, the Plaintiff was subjected to repeated false statement harming reputation. The Plaintiff's peace and quiet enjoyment of life was disrupted. The Plaintiff suffered physical harm, including contraction of communicable disease, allegedly transmitted by the Defendant, Nicole Femminella. The Defendant's conduct contributed the deterioration and loss of property value. The Defendants acted knowingly, recklessly and with disregard for the Plaintiff's rights.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. DANUBENET INC: Fernandez Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------ JONATHAN FERNANDEZ and ROMAN GOMEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DANUBENET, INC. d/b/a DRIVING SCHOOL SOFTWARE, THE NEXT STREET, LLC, and AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-03363 (D.N.J., March 30, 2026) is a class action arising out of the recent data breach involving Defendants that compromised Plaintiffs and Class Members' personally identifiable information. On or around August 19, 2025, Defendant DSS detected unusual activity within its IT Network. Upon discovery, Defendant DSS launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the data breach. On November 17, Defendant TNS became aware of the data breach, and worked to identify individuals potentially impacted. On December 22, Defendant ACSC was made aware of the data breach, and worked to identify individuals potentially impacted. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of Plaintiffs and Class Members, the Defendants assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. In breaching their duties to properly safeguard Plaintiffs and Class Members' private information and give them timely, adequate notice of the data breach's occurrence, the Defendants' conduct amounts to negligence and/or recklessness and violates federal and state statutes, says the suit. Danubenet, Inc., d/b/a Driving School Software, is a tech company specializing in web-based software for small businesses, particularly driving schools, including Defendants The Next Street, LLC and Automobile Club of Southern California. TNS is a driver's education company in Connecticut and Massachusetts. Automobile Club of Southern California is a federation of motor clubs throughout North America.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com - and - Mark K. Svensson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (202) 975-0468 E-mail: msvensson@milberg.com - and - Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Dr., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com ENCOMPASS HEALTH: Hopper Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties --------------------------------------------------------------- PAMELA HOPPER, LASHENA HAMPTON, and KAY MORAN, individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, on behalf of the Encompass Health Corporation 401(k) Retirement Plan f/k/a Encompass Health Corporation Retirement Investment Plan, Plaintiffs v. ENCOMPASS HEALTH CORPORATION; THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ENCOMPASS HEALTH CORPORATION; THE BENEFITS COMMITTEE OF THE ENCOMPASS HEALTH CORPORATION 401(K) RETIREMENT PLAN f/k/a ENCOMPASS HEALTH CORPORATION RETIREMENT INVESTMENT PLAN; and DOES No. 1-20, Whose Names Are Currently Unknown, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00533-NAD (N.D. Ala., March 30, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants for breaches of their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and related breaches of applicable law beginning six years prior to the date this action is filed. The Encompass Health Corporation 401(k) Retirement Plan f/k/a Encompass Health Corporation Retirement Investment Plan is one of the largest defined contribution plans in the United States. As of December 31, 2024, the Plan had 26,994 participants with account balances and assets totaling approximately $1.7 billion, placing it in the top 0.1% of all U.S. defined contribution plans by plan participant count and top 0.1% of all U.S. defined contribution plans by total assets. According to the complaint, the Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to the Plan. As alleged, the Defendants allowed the Plan to be charged unreasonable expenses and failed to appropriately monitor the Plan's investments, resulting in the retention of unsuitable investments in the Plan instead of prudent alternative investments that were readily available at all times. The Defendants selected and retained the funds at issue throughout the Class Period. Since Defendants have discretion to negotiate the fee amounts to be charged to the Plan by its service providers and to select the investments made available to participants, Defendants' breaches directly caused the losses, says the suit. Plaintiff Hopper is a former employee of Encompass Health and participant in the Plan. During the Class Period, Hopper maintained an investment through the Plan in the MainStay Winslow Large Cap Growth Fund. Encompass Health is a national owner and operator of inpatient rehabilitation hospitals headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam P. Plant, Esq. Mallory Morgan Combest, Esq. BATTLE & WINN LLP 2901 Second Avenue South, Suite 220 Birmingham, AL 35233 Telephone: (205) 397-8160 Facsimile: (205) 397-8179 E-mail: aplant@battlewinn.com mmorgan@battlewinn.com - and - James E. Miller, Esq. Laurie Rubinow, 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 - and - James C. Shah, Esq. Alec J. Berin, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (866) 540-5505 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: jcshah@millershah.com ajberin@millershah.com FARFETCH.COM LIMITED: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Farfetch.com Limited, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-01970-JWB-DJF (D. Minn., March 30, 2026) alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The case arises from Defendant's failure to provide its online website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology. Such failure constitutes unfair discriminatory practices against Plaintiff and persons with visual disabilities. Headquartered in Los Angeles, CA, Farfetch.com Limited offers apparel and accessories for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com FAST GROWING TREES: Ramirez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemarie Ramirez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. FAST GROWING TREES, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-03445 (N.D. Ill., March 29, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.brighterblooms.com (the "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 corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, 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 is a company that owns and operates Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com FIFTH ERA: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With SMT Holdings ------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a law firm headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Fifth Era Acquisition Corp. I (NASDAQ: FERA) related to its merger with SMT Holdings Limited. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/fifth-era-acquisition-corp-i/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. 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 one 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] FIGURE TECHNOLOGY: Arabian Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII ------------------------------------------------------------- Bryan Arabian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FIGURE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, INC., and FIGURE LENDING, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-01008 (D. Nev., April 1, 2026), is brought against Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals ("Class Members") personally identifying information, including, upon information and belief, full names, Social Security Numbers, emails, home addresses, dates of birth, and phone numbers (collectively "PII" or "Private Information"). By collecting, storing, and maintaining Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, Defendants have a resulting duty to secure, maintain, protect, and safeguard the Private Information that it collects and stores against unauthorized access and disclosure through reasonable and adequate data security measures. Despite Defendants' duty to safeguard the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, their Private Information in Defendants' possession was compromised when on or around January 28, 2026, a hacking group using the online moniker 'ShinyHunters' infiltrated Defendants' inadequately protected network servers and accessed highly sensitive PII that was being kept there. (the "Data Breach"). The Defendants disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing to implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies, and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was compromised by an unauthorized third party. Plaintiff and Class Members have a continuing interest in ensuring that their information is and remains safe and are entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' failure to implement and follow basic security procedures, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information is now in the hands of cybercriminals, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members are individuals who were required to indirectly and/or directly provide Defendants with their Private Information. The Defendants are a financial technology company providing blockchain-based lending, home equity, mortgage refinancing, and digital asset-backed financial products and services to consumers through an online platform.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark J. Bourassa, Esq. THE BOURASSA LAW GROUP 2350 W. Charleston Blvd., Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Phone: (702) 851-2180 Facsimile: (702) 851-2189 Email: mbourassa@blgwins.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Stephen E. Connolly, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 267-609-6910 Fax: 267-609-6955 Email: jerry@lcllp.com steve@lcllp.com FIREFLIES.AI CORP: Illegally Collects Biometric Data, Martinez Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- LORENZO MARTINEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIREFLIES.AI CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03512 (N.D. Ill., March 30, 2026) arises from Fireflies' collection, possession, and retention of Plaintiff's and Class members' biometric data, that includes retention of voiceprints, without the notice, written consent, and statutory safeguards required by the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. When enabled by a meeting host, the Fireflies assistant records, analyzes, transcribes, and stores the voiceprints of all participants in the meeting, including Plaintiff and other individuals who have not created Fireflies accounts, agreed to Fireflies' Terms of Service, or provided any form of written consent authorizing the collection of their biometric data. Fireflies markets that their product explicitly provides "Speaker Recognition" and that product/software will identify different speakers in meetings and audio files. Fireflies collected and stored Plaintiff's and Class members' voiceprints without complying with BIPA. As a result, the Plaintiff and members of the Class are entitled to statutory damages and injunctive relief. The Defendant must compensate Plaintiff and members of the Class for its unauthorized collection of their sensitive data, and it must permanently delete that data to ensure Plaintiff and Class members are not subject to fraud or identity theft. Fireflies.AI Corp is an artificial intelligence assistant that automatically joins virtual meetings conducted through platforms such as Microsoft Teams, Zoom, and Google Meet.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. William J. Edelman, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com wedelman@milberg.com - and - Mason A. Barney, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Kennedy M. Brian, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com kbrian@sirillp.com - and - Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Ave S, Unit 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com FIRST PREMIER HOME: Laplante Sues Over Unlawful Spamming -------------------------------------------------------- Brady Laplante, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FIRST PREMIER HOME WARRANTY CORP, a New York corporation, d/b/a FIRSTPREMIERHOMEWARRANTY.COM, Case No. 2:26-cv-03545 (C.D. Cal., April 2, 2026), is brought for unlawful spamming and invasion of privacy. The Defendant funds a network of affiliate marketers who blanket Americans with illegal spam. They deploy every deceptive tactic in the proverbial playbook — falsified headers, spoofed domains, and deceptive subject lines — to trick unwary recipients into opening messages they would otherwise ignore. In short, Defendant is the definition of a company that profits from everything that people hate about modern spam abuse. The harm does not stop at the inbox. After being deceived into engaging with the spam, Plaintiff was funneled to Defendant's website at firstpremierhomewarranty.com where Defendant installed a web of illegal tracking pixels on Plaintiff's device. Those tracking technologies enable Defendant and its partners to follow Plaintiff's behavior across the internet, converting a single deceptive email into ongoing digital surveillance. Both the spam and the surveillance are illegal under California law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was spammed by the Defendant. FIRST PREMIER is a home warranty company.[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 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com FORD MOTOR: Flores Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Randy Flores, and all others similarly situated v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY; AUTONATION FORD VALENCIA; and DOES 1 through 10; inclusive, Case No. 25STCV19582 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 2, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-03522. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he purchased a 2023 Ford F 150 on November 24, 2023. The Complaint originally alleged five claims against Ford for violation of Song-Beverly Act – Section 1793.2(d); violation of Song-Beverly Act – Section 1793.2(b); violation of Song-Beverly Act – Section 1793.2(a)(3); violation of Song Beverly Act – breach of implied warranty; and fraudulent inducement - concealment.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael D. Mortenson, Esq. Craig A. Taggart, Esq. Bradley E. Marrett, Esq. Jacob N. Moawad, Esq. MORTENSON TAGGART ADAMS LLP 300 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1200 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 774-2224 Facsimile: (949) 774-2545 Email: service@mortensontaggart.com ctaggart@mortensontaggart.com bmarrett@mortensontaggart.com jmoawad@mortensontaggart.com FREEDOM DEBT: Garcia Sues Over Unlawful Spamming ------------------------------------------------ BIANCA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FREEDOM DEBT RELIEF, LLC, a Delaware entity, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-03077 (C.D. Cal., March 22, 2026) accuses the Defendant of paying commissions to affiliate marketers who send spam using falsified header information, spoofed domains and nonsensical sending addresses to evade spam filters. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons similarly situated and all United States citizens citizens in any state who received any commercial e-mail promoting any Freedom Debt 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. Plaintiff maintains that the Defendant outsources its membership solicitation to third-party affiliate marketers to reap the benefits of large-scale unlawful spamming. Moreover, the Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of the California Business & Professions Code. Based in California, Freedom Debt Relief offers debt repayment services. [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 G8X LLC: Cigarroa Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation -------------------------------------------------------------- David Cigarroa, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated current and former employees V. G8X LLC d/b/a GREEK XPRESS, ALEX PLEVRITIS, Individually, DIMITRIOS SOURSOS, Individually, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:26-cv-02571 (S.D.N.Y., March 29, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), as recently amended by the Wage Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA"), and related provisions from Title 12 of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations ("NYCRR"), to recover, inter alia, unpaid overtime compensation, spread-of-hours, and statutory damages. The Defendants were required, under federal law pursuant to the FLSA, and New York State law pursuant to NYLL § 650 et seq. and 12 NYCRR, to compensate Plaintiff with overtime compensation at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Despite regularly working in excess of 40 hours per workweek—ranging from approximately forty-five (45) to eighty-eight (88) hours per week, and averaging approximately fifty nine (59) hours per week as corroborated by Plaintiff's bank records reflecting weekly payroll deposits from Defendants—Plaintiff was paid only a straight-time rate of $17.00 per hour, with no overtime compensation whatsoever, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants at their Manhattan restaurant and worked as a line cook and general kitchen worker. G8X LLC d/b/a GREEK XPRESS owns and operates a multi-location restaurant enterprise operating under the "Greek Xpress" brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12t Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 203-2417 Web: www.StillmanLegalPC.com GREENBRIER CLINIC: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Unreliable Mammograms ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brad McElhinny, writing for the MetroNews, reports that The Greenbrier Clinic is already being sued in federal court over its public acknowledgement of unreliable mammograms over more than two years. The federal class action lawsuit alleges that more than 1,000 patients underwent unreliable screenings through deficient mammography services. The attorneys who filed the lawsuit wrote that the lead plaintiff "went from having every reason to believe she was not at risk for breast cancer, to having no reason at all to believe that she was not at risk for breast cancer." On March 23, The Greenbrier Clinic formally notified patients about significant doubt over the quality of breast imaging services performed there over a period of more than two years, late 2023 to early 2026. This week, April 7, a lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. It's been assigned to U.S. District Judge Frank Volk. The lawsuit seeks damages for breach of contract, fraudulent representation, and the emotional distress caused by inaccurate medical results. The filing highlights that while the clinic, which is located in The Greenbrier Hotel, marketed itself as a high-end diagnostic center, it failed to deliver the accurate healthcare promised to its national clientele. "The guests of the Greenbrier Resort and the patients of Defendant are more likely than other given mammography providers to be from out of state than from West Virginia," wrote lawyers in the class action suit. "Defendant's faulty and otherwise worthless mammograms affected a class of patients across the country." The lawsuit notes that the website for The Greenbrier facility specifies that the "3D mammography" offered at the Greenbrier Clinic is "one of the latest technological innovations in women's healthcare" which "improves accuracy and can help detect breast cancer earlier and therefore allow treatment sooner." The lawsuit also describes the experiences of the lead plaintiff, Tabitha Martin of Monroe County, who visited The Greenbrier Clinic a few weeks ago, this past Feb. 13, to receive a mammogram. Following the procedure, she received a report that classified her screening results as "benign" and was assured the results were reliable due to the use of high-resolution real-time ultrasound images. But more recently she was one of the patients who received a letter from the clinic acknowledging the results are not reliable. In the lawsuit, she described financial loss because she paid for a service that was "worthless" and has not been reimbursed or refunded for the deficient mammogram. And she said she has gone through emotional distress because she experienced a false sense of security about her health. She went from believing she was not at risk for breast cancer to having no reliable information about her status, causing her severe distress and concern for her well-being. Mammograms are critical, low-dose X-ray tools used to detect breast cancer early, often up to three years before symptoms develop. Regular screening reduces breast cancer mortality by finding tumors when they are most treatable, allowing for less aggressive treatments. Experts recommend screening every two years for women aged 40–74. This situation developed following an investigation where federal regulators determined that the facility failed to meet essential imaging standards. In a statement in response to questions from MetroNews, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said under "the Mammography Quality Standards Act, the FDA requires that all mammography facilities meet certain high-quality standards. "When a facility fails to meet the standards, the FDA requires it to notify affected patients and their referring health care providers that their recent mammograms could have unreliable results." In the letter that went out to patients who had received mammograms at the clinic during the period in question, patients were told that the FDA had identified a failure to meet the clinical image quality standards established by the clinic's accreditation body, the American College of Radiology. "As a result, the FDA required us to stop performing mammography as of February 26, 2026," wrote Dr. Henry Setliff, radiologist at the clinic, in the letter to patients. The letter from the clinic clarified that past results are not definitely incorrect, and medical professionals urged patients to have their previous scans professionally re-evaluated to determine if a new exam is necessary. Furthermore, the clinic's administration expressed its intent to rectify the clinical failures and eventually regain accreditation from the American College of Radiology. "You need to talk with your healthcare provider as soon as possible about the mammogram(s) you had here between October 28, 2023, and February 26, 2026, and your medical followup," the clinic wrote to patients. [GN] HASHI BRANDS INC: Ramirez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemarie Ramirez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. HASHI BRANDS, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-03441 (N.D. Ill., March 29, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.bokksumarket.com (the "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 corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, 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 is a company that owns and operates www.bokksumarket.com offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com HERITAGE BANK: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Holmes Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- JANET L. HOLMES, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HERITAGE BANK and HERITAGE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-01089 (W.D. Wash., March 30, 2026) is a class action complaint against Heritage for its failure to secure and safeguard personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and other customers that was entrusted to Heritage. On or around March 2, 2026, Heritage discovered unauthorized activity on its network. After further investigation, the Defendant discovered this cyberattack began on March 1, 2026. This cyberattack resulted in the breach and/or compromise of certain files containing the sensitive personal data of Plaintiff and likely hundreds of thousands of other individuals. Defendant Heritage, as a substantial business, had the resources available to take seriously the obligation to protect Private Information. However, Heritage failed to invest the resources necessary to protect the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class members. Heritage failed to implement practices and systems in order to mitigate against the risks posed by Heritage's negligent (if not reckless) IT practices. As a result of these failures, Plaintiff and Class members face a litany of harms that accompany data breaches of this magnitude and severity, says the suit. Heritage Bank is a Washington-based community bank.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl J. Marquardt, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CARL J. MARQUARDT, PLLC 1126 34th Ave., Suite 311 Seattle, WA 98122-5137 Telephone: (206) 388-4498 E-mail: carl@cjmpllc.com - and - Israel David, Esq. Adam M. Harris, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 60 Broad Street, Suite 2900 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 350-8850 E-mail: israel.david@davidllc.com adam.harris@davidllc.com - and - Mark A. Cianci, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 399 Boylston Street, Floor 6, Suite 23 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 295-7771 E-mail: mark.cianci@davidllc.com HIGH MOWING: Ramirez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- Rosemarie Ramirez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. HIGH MOWING ORGANIC SEEDS,, Case No. 1:26-cv-03443 (N.D. Ill., March 29, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.highmowingseeds.com (the "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 corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, 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 is a company that owns and operates www.highmowingseeds.com offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com HIMALAYA WELLNESS: Vaugh Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------------- KENDRICK VAUGHN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HIMALAYA WELLNESS USA, LIMITED, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03597 (N.D. Ill., March 31, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://himalayausa.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. Himalaya Wellness USA, Limited sells diverse selection of herbal supplements and vitamins, including immune support, digestive health formulas, skincare items, and wellness solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N, Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (929) 442-2154 Email: Achan@ealg.law HOLZER HEALTH: Discloses Private Info, Fulcher et al. Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ Amy Fulcher, Christine Yonkins, and Melissa Allen, on behalf of themselves all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Holzer Health System, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00353-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, March 20, 2026), arises from Defendant's systematic violation of the medical privacy rights of patients and users of Defendant's services, resulting in the disclosure of highly sensitive protected health information to Google and other third parties without those patients' or users' knowledge or consent. In violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and Ohio law, the Defendant disclosed its patients' PHI to Google and other third parties to improve its return on marketing dollars and, ultimately, increase its profits. Moreover, the Defendant disclosed this PHI through the deployment of various digital marketing and automatic rerouting tools embedded on its website, patient portals, and mobile applications, says the suit. Headquartered in Gallipolis, Ohio, Holzer Health System operates multiple hospitals, urgent care clinics, and medical centers in Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. Clint Watson, Esq. Kevin M. Cox, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 2754 Erie Ave. Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: (513) 381-2333 Facsimile: (513) 766-9011 E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com cwatson@thelyonfirm.com kcox@thelyonfirm.com - and - Foster C. Johnson, Esq. Mark Holden, Esq. AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, & MENSING, PLLC 1221 McKinney Street, Suite 3460 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 655-1101 Facsimile: (713) 655-0062 E-mail: fjohnson@azalaw.com mholden@azalaw.com - and - Gary Klinger, Esq. Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com ahoneycutt@milberg.com HOMETAP INVESTMENT: Hoffman Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Richard Hoffman and Romy Hoffman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HOMETAP INVESTMENT PARTNERS III SPV, LLC; HOMETAP EQUITY PARTNERS, LLC; and DOES 1–10, Case No. 26-2-06184-0 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of Washington for King County. to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on April 2, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01124. The Complaint asserts six claims for relief: per se violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("CPA"); through alleged violations of the Consumer Loan Act ("CLA"); violation of the CPA for alleged unfair acts or practices; violation of the CPA for alleged deceptive acts or practices; injunctive relief under the CPA on behalf of Washington consumers; declaratory relief that the Option Purchase Agreement is unconscionable; and declaratory relief that the fee-shifting provision in the Deed of Trust Security Agreement is unenforceable.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Monique Wirrick, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP Safeco Plaza 1001 Fourth Ave, Suite 4368 Seattle, WA 98154-1123 Phone: (206) 336-5185 Fax: (206) 336-5795 Email: mwirrick@mcguirewoods.com HOWARD COUNTY GENERAL: Henson Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties ------------------------------------------------------------------ THERESA HENSON, Individually and on behalf of the Howard County General Hospital, Inc. 401(k) Plan, and on behalf of all the similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the plan, Plaintiff, v. HOWARD COUNTY GENERAL HOSPITAL, INC., John and Jane Does 1-30 in their capacities as fiduciaries, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01172-JRR (D. Md., March 20, 2026), accuses the Defendants of violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Allegedly, the Defendants violated their fiduciary duties by both (1) initially selecting; and (2) consistently retaining the American Century Target Date Fund for years, even when it glaringly underperformed under all investment metrics and, consequently, in terms of returns. This lower-performing investment option reduced Plan participants' retirement funds by millions of dollars as compared to if Defendants did not breach their fiduciary duties, says the suit. Howard County General Hospital, Inc. provides health care services in Columbia, MD. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (786) 206-9057 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com - and - John Hughes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 800 S. Gay St., Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 E-mail: Jhughes@milberg.com HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Martin Suit Over Deceptive E-mail Promotions ----------------------------------------------------------------- DOMINICK MARTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, a California entity, d/b/a HYUNDAIUSA.COM, Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-00760 (C.D. Cal., March 30, 2026) arises from the Defendant's violation of the California Business and Professions Code for sending Plaintiff and Class members unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisements. According to the complaint, Defendant Hyundai pays commissions to various "affiliate marketers" that spam unsuspecting victims. Hyundai's affiliate marketers send spam using falsified header information, spoofed domains and nonsensical sending addresses to evade spam filters. They also use false and deceptive subject lines -- everything that makes people despise spam, says the suit. The Plaintiff is and was at all times mentioned herein a citizen of the State of California who has received misleading spam e-mail promoting Hyundai's automobiles. Hyundai Motor America is a Delaware corporation that sells cars and various automotive services.[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 J.G. WENTWORTH: Gonzalez Sues Over Deceptive Spam Emails -------------------------------------------------------- KENIA GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE J.G. WENTWORTH COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-03079 (C.D. Cal., March 22, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the California Business and Professions Code in connection with its practice in paying commissions to affiliate marketers who conduct unlawful spamming. The Plaintiff maintains that the Defendant financially incentivizes these affiliates by paying them on a per-lead or per-conversion basis to flood inboxes with deceptive "discounts" on Defendant's products. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons similarly situated California citizens who received any commercial e-mail promoting any Defendant's 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. Headquartered in Delaware, The J.G. Wentworth Company provides debt relief and loan services. [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 JOLIE SKIN: Faces Class Action Suit Over Filtered Showerheads ------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Jolie Skin Company's filtered showerheads and replacement filters do not actually fully remove chlorine, heavy metals and other impurities from shower water as advertised, but instead only reduce the presence of chlorine by roughly 66 percent. The 25-page lawsuit contends that Jolie has wrongfully capitalized on consumer demand for effective water filtration systems in light of recent health and wellness trends by falsely advertising that its showerhead filters are capable of removing heavy metals and contaminants, like chlorine, from shower water. According to the complaint, consumer emphasis on health concerns related to unregulated chlorine exposure when showering -- including eczema, psoriasis, eye irritation, hair issues and respiratory risks -- has been on the rise, driving many to seek filtration systems that remove contaminants and improve water quality. However, the case alleges that Jolie's showerheads do not actually achieve full chlorine removal, and instead simply reduce the presence of the contaminants. The lawsuit contends that Jolie's own testing of its products, as is industry standard, evidences that the company knew, or should have known, that its filters could only reduce chlorine content. Despite its apparent knowledge that its showerhead filters cannot fully remove chlorine from water, Jolie has advertised its products with prominent claims that the filters are able to "remove chlorine, heavy metals & other contaminants" from shower water. Many of the online advertisements included in the complaint are accompanied by claims that the filtered showerheads are dermatologist-trusted to remove chlorine, and promote desired health and beauty ideals likened to filtered water. "Consistent with that meaning [of removes], consumers understand a claim that a product 'removes chlorine' to mean that it eliminates, or at least removes to negligible levels, chlorine from the water; not that it merely reduces chlorine by a limited percentage," the filing states Consumers such as the plaintiffs, California and New York residents who purchased Jolie showerheads and several subsequent replacement filters, have been wronged by Jolie's misrepresentations, given that they paid a premium price for a product that left a "substantial" portion of chlorine still in their shower water, the class action lawsuit says. The plaintiffs claim that had they known the truth about Jolie's filtered showerheads, they would not have bought the products, or would have paid significantly less for them. The Jolie showerhead class action lawsuit looks to represent all consumers who purchased Jolie Filtered Showerhead and/or Replacement Filters in the United States during the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] JU-JU-BE INTL: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------ DUSTIN YOUNGREN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JU-JU-BE INTL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03545 (N.D. Ill., March 31, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://jujube.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. Ju-Ju-Be Intl, LLC sells variety of diaper and parenting bags and accessories, including backpacks, totes, organizers, wallets, travel bags, and parenting essentials. [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 K-SWISS INC: Morris Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------- Zachary Morris, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. K-SWISS, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-00513 (E.D. Wis., March 29, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.kswiss.com (the "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 corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, 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 is a company that owns and operates www.kswiss.com offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com KASAMA RESTAURANT: Figueroa Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- Geovanni Bahena Figueroa, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. KASAMA RESTAURANT, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-03448 (N.D. Ill., March 29, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.kasamachicago.com (the "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 corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, 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 is a company that owns and operates www.kasamachicago.com offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101. Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com KLARNA INC: Faces Clay Suit Over Mandatory Automatic Withdrawals ---------------------------------------------------------------- BIRGETTA CLAY and CANDICE MCINTRYE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KLARNA INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03506 (N.D. Ill., March 30, 2026) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiffs and a nationwide class of similarly situated consumers for Klarna's violations of the Truth in Lending Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. According to the complaint, Klarna extends credit within the meaning of the EFTA and Regulation E. Klarna allows consumers, including Plaintiffs, to obtain goods immediately and repay Klarna later, including through its "Pay in 4" product. To use Klarna's "Pay in 4" product, Klarna requires consumers to authorize automatic withdrawals from a bank account or debit card as a condition of receiving credit. Those withdrawals are scheduled in advance and recur on regular payment dates. Klarna did not allow Plaintiffs to disable those automatic withdrawals through the app for "Pay in 4" transactions. Once the payment schedule was set, Klarna initiated withdrawals automatically on scheduled due dates from the same accounts Plaintiffs relied on for household expenses. The Defendant's mandatory automatic-withdrawal practice caused concrete harm to Plaintiffs. Plaintiff Clay incurred overdraft fees when Klarna initiated automatic withdrawals despite insufficient funds, and both Plaintiffs were charged late fees after falling behind on Klarna payment schedules. The Plaintiffs also lost the ability to control the timing and priority of payments when funds were limited, alleges the suit. Klarna Inc., the U.S. subsidiary of Klarna Group plc, an English corporation, is one of the largest buy-now-pay-later providers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James B. Zouras, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. Justin M. Caparco, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLC 222 West Adams Street, Suite 2020 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com rstephan@stephanzouras.com jcaparco@stephanzouras.com KMK HOSPITALITY: Eckert Seeks Restaurant Staff's Proper Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- SHARY ECKERT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KMK HOSPITALITY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-03349 (D.N.J., March 30, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the FLSA by: (1) paying Tipped Workers a sub-minimum wage, without first furnishing them with sufficient notice of the Defendant's intent to take a tip credit under the FLSA, and (2) failing to compensate Tipped Workers requisite FLSA overtime rates when they worked over 40 hours in a workweek. The Defendant further violated the FLSA by requiring Plaintiff and similarly situated Tipped Workers to share tips with managers and supervisors. As a result, the Plaintiff and all similarly situated Tipped Workers were deprived of both federal minimum and overtime wages during various workweeks within the Relevant Time Period. The Plaintiff also brings claims in her individual capacity under the NJWHL, including N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a et seq. and NJWPL for Defendant's violations of New Jersey wage and hour law. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a server/bartender at Metropolitan Cafe in Freehold, New Jersey from June 1, 2024, through August 30, 2025. KMK Hospitality, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant that employs waitstaff, cooks, bussers, dishwashers, and other personnel to provide dine in food and beverage service to customers.[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 - and - Jordan Richards, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com KURA SUSHI: Settlement in Wage and Hour Suit for for Court Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- Kura Sushi USA, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending Feb. 28, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 7, 2026, that on December 9, 2024, a former employee filed a putative class action complaint in the Superior Court of California in Los Angeles, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against the Company alleging certain violations of California labor laws. The complaint alleges various wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code and related statutes, and the plaintiff has also served a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) notice for the same alleged wage and hour violations. In February 2026, the Company reached an agreement to settle the claims for $0.9 million, subject to court approval. The Company expensed $0.9 million related to this settlement within general and administrative expenses in the statements of operations and comprehensive loss during the three months ended February 28, 2026, and has an accrued liability of $0.9 million related to this settlement as of February 28, 2026. Kura Sushi USA, Inc. operates a technology-enabled, revolving sushi restaurant concept offering authentic Japanese cuisine in the United States. The company focuses on a distinctive dining experience that combines traditional Japanese dishes with an interactive conveyor-belt service model. LA CASA DEL KIPE: Cruz Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ CAROLINA CRUZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LA CASA DEL KIPE RESTAURANT LLC, d/b/a La Casa Del Kipe; and FREDY LAMA, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-03386 (D.N.J., March 30, 2026) is a class action for Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law, as amended by the New Jersey Wage Theft Act. From approximately May 22, 2025 through January 31, 2026, the Plaintiff worked as a kitchen worker, food preparer, and dishwasher at a restaurant operated by Defendants in Paterson, New Jersey. Throughout her employment, the Defendants paid Plaintiff a flat weekly wage of $400 in cash for approximately 48 hours of work per week -- a rate well below the applicable New Jersey minimum wage -- and failed to pay Plaintiff any overtime premium for the eight hours per week she regularly worked in excess of 40, says the suit. By this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, pre-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and such other relief as may be just and proper. La Casa Del Kipe Restaurant LLC operates a restaurant situated in Paterson, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 E-mail: ls@stillmanlegalpc.com LAKE COUNTY, CA: Doe Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as John J.H. Doe; John I.H. Doe; and Jane L.W. Doe, individuals, and all others similarly situated v. COUNTY OF LAKE, Case No. CV428400 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Lake, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on April 2, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-02878-RMI. The Complaint is for Sexual Assault Sexual Battery Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Violation of Bane Act (Civil Code 52.1) Negligence Negligent Hiring, Training, Supervision, And Retention Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 (against individual Defendants) Municipal Liability Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Monell) (Against County of Lake) 10. Failure To Summon Immediate Medical Care (Gov't Code § 845.6) (Against County of Lake and Individual Defendants).[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Derick E. Konz, Esq. William J. Bittner, Esq. ANGELO, KILDAY & KILDUFF, LLP 601 University Avenue, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95825 Phone: (916) 564-6100 Telecopier: (916) 564-6263 Email: dkonz@akk-law.com wbittner@akk-law.com LEATHER GOODS: Wilson Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users ---------------------------------------------------------------- HOWARD WILSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEATHER GOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03474 (N.D. Ill., March 30, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.wkleinberg.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on August 18, 2025, to access Defendant's website from his home in an effort to shop for Defendant's belt product, but encountered barriers that denied his full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content and services. The website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Leather Goods, Inc. operates the website that offers leather belts and accessories, carrying categories such as American alligator, calf, woven, needlepoint, stretch, and specialty straps.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com LIEFF CABRASER: Appellate Court Upheld Summary Judgment in Doe Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ERIN BRINKMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, Cross-Defendants, and Respondents, v. JANE DOE, Defendant, Cross-Complainant, and Appellant, Case No. A173377 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Two, affirmed the trial court's order granting Brinkman's motions for summary adjudication and summary judgment. Appellant Jane Doe was the lead plaintiff in a class action alleging discrimination against two banks. She was represented by the Attorneys who are the respondents here. The Attorneys negotiated separate settlements with each of the banks, and in the course of the second settlement a dispute arose as to the attorney fees to which the attorneys were entitled. The Attorneys filed an action for declaratory relief, and Doe filed a cross-complaint seeking similar relief and several other claims. The parties filed competing motions for summary adjudication on their claims for declaratory relief, and the trial court ruled for the attorneys. The Attorneys then moved for summary judgment on Doe's remaining claims, on the basis that the summary adjudication meant that those claims could not succeed. The trial court granted that motion too, and entered judgment for the attorneys. In March 2019, Doe, represented by Erin Brinkman, filed a federal class action against Bank One alleging discrimination for refusing account access based on U.S. citizenship status. The complaint asserted claims under the Unruh Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, seeking statutory damages, attorney fees, and punitive damages. In February 2020, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP joined as co-counsel, and together with Brinkman were referred to as the Attorneys. A contingency fee agreement was signed by Doe, outlining variable fee terms depending on case outcomes, and acknowledging her understanding. Doe also had extensive prior experience with litigation and attorney fee arrangements, including involvement in multiple lawsuits and fee dispute matters. After early motion practice and the addition of Bank Two as a defendant, discovery revealed difficulties identifying class members, complicating certification. Despite these issues, settlement discussions with Bank One began, resulting in a July 19, 2021 Memorandum of Understanding for $825,000 covering 105 claimants, including attorney fees. The parties discussed allocation in advance, including $17,500 for Doe and $7,500 for her co-plaintiff, with remaining funds allocated to other claimants and attorneys. Doe was informed of and agreed to the structure, and the MOU was executed. The settlement was later adjusted to 85 claimants, reducing total value per claimant while keeping attorney fees unchanged. Doe signed the final agreement, received $17,500, and cashed her check, though she later questioned the allocation. Litigation against Bank Two continued and ultimately resulted in a $550,000 settlement following mediation on September 22, 2022. Doe later acknowledged agreeing during mediation to the division of funds. The October 6, 2022 settlement agreement allocated $20,000 to Doe, $10,000 to her co-plaintiff, and the remainder to attorney fees and expenses. Doe later disputed the allocation, claiming she was entitled to 65 percent of the total settlement and alleging misconduct, but she still signed the agreement and cashed her payment. The Attorneys then filed a declaratory relief action seeking confirmation of their entitlement to fees, and Doe filed a cross-complaint alleging contract, tort, and statutory claims. The trial court granted summary adjudication for the attorneys, finding the fee agreement allowed separate negotiation of attorney fees and no improper modification occurred under Business and Professions Code section 6147. Summary judgment was entered on Doe's remaining claims because they depended on her rejected interpretation of the fee agreement, and judgment was entered for the Attorneys. Doe appealed. On appeal, Doe raises three arguments, the primary one asserting that the Attorneys' alleged oral understandings were improper modifications of the contingency fee agreement and therefore invalid under Business and Professions Code section 6147. She argues the trial court erred in concluding those discussions were not modifications, claiming they changed the essential fee terms and undermined section 6147's statutory protections. Doe relies heavily on case law, including Stroud v. Tunzi, and contends that allowing separate fee negotiations conflicts with the statutory scheme governing contingency fee agreements. The Court of Appeals of California rejected Doe's argument, finding no modification of the fee agreement. Instead, it held the agreement expressly allowed attorney fees to be negotiated or paid separately without reducing Doe's recovery, which is what occurred here. Citing Flannery v. Prentice, the court reiterated that statutory fees belong to counsel absent a contrary agreement, and concluded both settlements properly allocated fees to attorneys as contemplated by the contract. Doe's reliance on Stroud, Arnall, and Missakian was found misplaced, and her public policy arguments did not overcome the plain language of the agreement. Doe's second argument claims the trial court erred by admitting evidence of an alleged oral agreement made during the Bank Two mediation, in violation of Evidence Code section 1119. She contended the court relied on confidential mediation communications to conclude there was a separately negotiated fee arrangement, and that such evidence was barred by California' mediation privilege. Judge Ulmer did not err, the Court of Appeals opined. In fact, the court did not admit mediation communications at all, but instead declined to rule on Doe's evidentiary objections as unnecessary to its decision. The record included post-mediation emails confirming the settlement terms, including October 6 and October 7 emails from the attorneys and Doe's October 10 confirmation, all occurring after the mediation ended and outside the scope of section 1119. The court also relied on undisputed material facts drawn from the final settlement agreement, not confidential mediation statements, and Doe did not object to those materials on mediation privilege grounds. Finally, Judge Ulmer properly granted summary judgment on Doe's remaining causes of action after concluding there was no triable issue that the parties negotiated a separate fee arrangement and that the 35% contingency provision did not apply. Based on that finding, he held Doe's remaining claims failed as a matter of law because they all depended on her rejected interpretation of the fee agreement. The Court of Appeals also found the undisputed evidence showed Doe was aware of and consented to both settlements, received the relevant documents, and accepted the settlement proceeds. On appeal, Doe's brief offers only conclusory assertions that triable issues exist regarding whether fees were separately negotiated and whether she was coerced into the Bank Two settlement. The Court of Appeals rejected these arguments, emphasizing that Doe failed to meet her burden on summary judgment review to identify specific, material disputes in the record. Applying de novo review standards, it held the undisputed facts were dispositive and fully supported judgment for the Attorneys, leaving no genuine issue of material fact. For these reasons, the judgment is affirmed. The Respondents will recover their costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://l1nq.com/np9htup LOWE'S HOME CENTERS: Grimes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Ashley Grimes, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Lowe's Companies, Inc., Case No. 26CV008109 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April 2, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death tort." Lowe's Home Centers Inc. -- https://www.lowes.com/ -- retails home improvement, building materials, and home appliances.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael P. Connett, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 700 S. Flower Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Email: mconnett@sirillp.com MARS CHEESE CASTLE: Morris Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- Zachary Morris, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. MARS CHEESE CASTLE, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-00510 (E.D. Wis., March 29, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.marscheese.com (the "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 corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, 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 is a company that owns and operates www.marscheese.com offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com MAXWELL LEADERSHIP: Sumrell Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maxwell Leadership, Inc. The case is styled as Robert Sumrell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Maxwell Leadership, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-03661 (N.D. Ill., April 2, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Maxwell Leadership, Inc. -- https://www.maxwellleadership.com/ -- gives individuals, companies, communities and nations a transformational leadership solution.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Berman, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: cberman@shamisgentile.com MDL 2843: Transfer of O'Neill Suit to Facebook Privacy Row Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied the transfer of the case captioned "O'Neill v. Meta Platforms, Inc.," C.A. No. 8:25-02767 to U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California for inclusion in the multi-district action captioned "In Re: Facebook, Inc., Consumer Privacy User Profile Litigation," MDL No. 2843. Plaintiff opposed transfer while Meta Platforms, Inc. moved for inclusion. The MDL involves allegations that Cambridge Analytica, other defendants, and third parties exploited Meta's platform to obtain user data, and that Meta should have imposed more robust controls on the use of data by third party applications to prevent such conduct. O'Neill alleges that Meta shared or otherwise made accessible to third parties user data and data of users' friends, misled users about its privacy tools, and did not sufficiently monitor and enforce third party access to or use of user data. These allegations undoubtedly share questions of fact with the MDL. She alleges her action is unique because her complaint also includes assertions about her website and Facebook user profiles using the "Like" button embedded on it. "Much of plaintiff's complaint overlaps with the allegations in the MDL. But we need not reach the issue of whether this particular action is sufficiently related to justify transfer because, based on our review of the progress of this litigation, and after consultation with the transferee judge, we conclude that inclusion of this and other related actions in MDL No. 2843 no longer is necessary to achieve the just and efficient conduct of the litigation," rules the panel. The relative merits of transferring new tag-along actions to an ongoing MDL can change over time as the transferee court completes its primary tasks and cases already in the centralized proceedings progress towards trial or other resolution, notes the panel. Moreover, the litigation is quite mature. Adding more individual cases to the MDL at this time would delay its resolution unnecessarily. Meta argues that transfer prevents delay because Meta must otherwise move to dismiss for improper venue based on its forum selection clause, and plaintiff may refile her case in the Northern District of California. The outcome of any anticipated motions and plaintiff's response are too speculative to justify transfer on that basis, adds the panel. A full-text copy of the court's April 2, 2026 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2843-Order_Denying_Transfer-3-26.pdf MDL 2873: 7 Suits Consolidated in AFFF Products Liability Row ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers seven actions to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Richard M. Gergel for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multi-district litigation captioned "In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation," MDL NO. 2873. The case are: -- from the Middle District of Alabama: CITY OF CLANTON WATER WORKS AND SEWER BOARD v. 3M COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:25−00751 -- from the Northern District of Alabama: SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA, ET AL. v. 3M COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:25−00112 COOSA VALLEY WATER SUPPLY DISTRICT, INC. v. 3M COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:25−01931 CITY OF IRONDALE, ALABAMA v. 3M COMPANY, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:24−01327 -- from the Eastern District of California: CITY OF FRESNO v. 3M COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:25−02057 -- from the District of Maine: STATE OF MAINE v. 3M COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:23−00210 STATE OF MAINE v. 3M COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:25−00453 Plaintiffs in the actions moved to vacate the panel's orders that conditionally transferred their respective actions to the District of South Carolina for inclusion in MDL No. 2873. Defendant 3M Company opposed all the motions to vacate. The plaintiffs of the actions in the MDL allege that aqueous film-forming foams (AFFFs) used at airports, military bases, or certain industrial locations caused the release of per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) into local groundwater and contaminated drinking water supplies. The MDL actions share factual questions concerning the use and storage of AFFFs; the toxicity of PFAS and the effects of these substances on human health; and these substances' chemical properties and propensity to migrate in groundwater supplies. Plaintiffs in the four Alabama actions are public water providers. Plaintiffs in three of these actions allege that their drinking water supplies have been contaminated by PFAS originating from carpet and textile manufacturing in and around Dalton, Georgia (which allegedly impacted the Coosa River), as well as metal plating businesses in Alabama. Plaintiff in the fourth action (the City of Irondale) alleges that its water supply has been contaminated by various chemical and electroplating facilities in and near Irondale. Plaintiffs in all four actions explicitly disavow claims relating to AFFF use or disposal. The panel concluded that transfer of the four Alabama actions, including Shelby County and City of Irondale, is warranted because the water supplies at issue in those actions are already at issue in actions pending in the MDL. 3M has identified one or more personal injury actions in the MDL in which a plaintiff alleges that they drank water from the Alabama water providers, that PFAS in the water injured them, and that this PFAS stemmed from AFFF use or disposal. The panel previously has concluded that transfer is justified where such overlap exists. In opposition to transfer, plaintiffs argue that their actions do not involve AFFF claims but are wholly focused on non-AFFF sources of PFAS, such as the carpet industry in Dalton, Georgia. Plaintiffs assert that the MDL personal injury plaintiffs' failure to identify a particular contaminated water source (as opposed to a contaminated water supplier) renders the MDL complaints conclusory and does create a sufficiently substantial and concrete overlap necessary to transfer otherwise non-AFFF actions. "However, it is sufficient for our purposes that 3M has identified plaintiffs in the MDL who allege that they consumed water provided by these water providers and that this water allegedly was contaminated from PFAS stemming from AFFF use or disposal," rules the panel. "We see a clear overlap among the Alabama actions and actions pending in the MDL and, as a consequence, efficiencies will be gained from centralized pretrial proceedings and the elimination of duplicative discovery." City of Fresno is another public water provider action in which plaintiff alleges that its water supply has been contaminated by PFAS originating from various non-AFFF industrial concerns (primarily local metal stripping and electroplating firms). As with the Alabama cases, plaintiff expressly disavows claims relating to AFFF use or disposal. And like the Alabama cases, 3M has identified multiple personal injury plaintiffs in eighteen personal injury actions pending in the MDL who allege they were exposed to AFFF-contaminated drinking water supplied by the City of Fresno. In opposition to transfer, the City asserts many of the same arguments as the Alabama plaintiffs, which fail for the reasons previously stated. It argues that City of Fresno is not an AFFF action but is focused on local non-AFFF industries. The City contends that its claims are limited to 26 industrial locations some distance from the one well the City admits was contaminated by AFFF. This narrow characterization of the action, however, is not consistent with the text of the complaint, which does not appear to be limited to specific wells, but rather to specific defendants, says the panel. By seeking recovery for PFAS contamination throughout its system, the City's claims necessarily encompass a known AFFF-contaminated well. The State of Maine filed this non-AFFF action in Maine state court alongside the others. Both are directed to PFAS contamination of the State's groundwater, surface water, and other natural resources. The AFFF action was directed to AFFF manufacturers; the non-AFFF action was limited to 3M and DuPont (the principal manufacturers of PFAS) and explicitly disavowed any claims relating to AFFF use or disposal. The AFFF action was removed to federal court and transferred to the MDL without opposition. The non-AFFF action was also removed, but the district court remanded it to state court, where it proceeded while the First Circuit heard an appeal of the remand order. During written discovery, the State identified more than 900 sites at issue. 3M removed the action again in September 2025, arguing that the State had identified sites where AFFF use was reported. On November 19, 2025, the First Circuit reversed the remand order, holding that the State's disavowal of AFFF claims did not obviate the need for the trial court to determine whether any particular site was contaminated by AFFF use, and thus that federal officer removal was appropriate. The State argues that transfer is inappropriate because this action does not raise AFFF claims. Since 3M's second removal of this action to federal court, the State has filed several disclaimers of liability for PFAS contamination at certain sites that 3M has identified as plausibly involving AFFF contamination. It also has sought leave to amend its complaint to remove any reference to the allegedly AFFF-contaminated sites. The State contends that these disclaimers and its proposed amended complaint remove any potential AFFF-issues from the case and eliminate the overlap the First Circuit identified when it reversed the remand order. It also argues that discovery is well underway in the District of Maine, such that transfer would yield inefficiencies and delay. However, the panel notes that 3M has identified numerous alleged contamination sites identified by the State in it written discovery responses that, 3M contends, involve AFFF contamination and are at issue in personal injury or water district actions pending in the MDL. While the State has since disclaimed liability for these sites, its practice of filing a new disclaimer of liability every time 3M identifies an AFFF-contaminated site is not a practicable way of proceeding. This action must either proceed as part of the MDL or separate from it, and the State' repetitive disclaimers, as well as its stated intent to continue disclaiming sites whenever AFFF is identified as a potential source of PFAS contamination, all strongly suggest that this action currently encompasses sites at which AFFF has been or will be identified. Allowing this action to continue to proceed in this fashion is not tenable and will only result in delay and continuing confusion as to the scope of the action. To date, the parties have only exchanged limited written discovery. There have been no depositions and little motion practice. There remains ample scope for coordination with discovery in the MDL, which involves numerous other state actions. While transfer may result in some delay for the State, transfer is nonetheless appropriate if it furthers the expeditious resolution of the litigation taken as a whole, the panel concludes. 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-2873-Transfer_Order-3-26.pdf MDL 2885: Canup v. Aysltock Transferred to N.D. Fla. ---------------------------------------------------- Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers the case captioned Canup v. Aylstock, et al., C.A. No. 4:25-01255 from the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Texas to U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge M. Casey Rodgers for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multi-district action caption In re: the 3M Combat Arms Earplug product liability litigation, MDL No. 2885. Defendant Bryan F. Aylstock moved to transfer an action pending in the Northern District of Texas to the Northern District of Florida for inclusion in MDL No. 2885. Plaintiff Brandon Canup opposed the motion. The centralized actions in the MDL No. 2885 arises out of allegations that defendants' Combat Arms earplugs were defective, causing plaintiffs to develop hearing loss and/or tinnitus. Previously, Plaintiff alleged he suffered injuries arising from the use of Combat Arms earplugs, filed suit against 3M Company and related entities directly in MDL No. 2885, and settled his claims. In the Canup complaint before the panel, plaintiff brings claims against his former counsel in the MDL, who withdrew from representation; and MDL No. 2885 court-appointed leadership counsel, including defendant Aylstock. He alleges, that (1) the leadership counsel defendants appeared at a March 2024 status conference on his behalf without his knowledge, reviewed his confidential medical records, gave him individual legal advice in a closed-door settlement conference, and pressured him to participate in the settlement; (2) the leadership counsel defendants denied him access to common benefit work product without his counsel signing a common benefit work participation agreement; and (3) all defendants conspired "to protect their financial interest at Canup's expense," by assuming "complementary roles under the framework of the [MDL No. 2885 global settlement] which tied their compensation to Plaintiff participation thresholds and withdrawal requirements." In opposing transfer, plaintiff argues that his claims do not involve factual issues common with those in MDL No. 2885. "Here, plaintiff alleges misconduct on the part of, not only his attorneys in his MDL case, but also leadership counsel in the MDL, largely based upon conduct they argue was undertaken in their capacity as court-appointed leadership counsel. Plaintiff challenges the transferee court's orders regarding the settlement and the MDL's case management, including orders regarding common benefit work and appointment of leadership counsel. Transfer, therefore, is appropriate," rules the panel. Plaintiff further argues that his is a standalone case without opportunity for coordination. The panel notes that while the panel's docket has been closed for several months, the MDL No. 2885 docket in the Northern District of Florida has remained open and active. In suggesting the panel close its docket, the transferee judge recommended the termination be subject to the transferee court's "continuing jurisdiction to enforce its Orders, handle any matters related to the settlement, or address any other miscellaneous issues necessary to complete the administration of these cases." Moreover, in consultation with the transferee judge, the panel recently reopened the panel's docket to transfer a related case to the MDL. The panel also declines Plaintiff's request to defer its ruling pending a decision on his motion to remand to state court or Defendants' motions to dismiss. The pendency of motions to dismiss and jurisdictional motions are not an impediment to Section 1407 transfer, adds the panel. 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-2885-Transfer_Order-3-26.pdf MDL 3014: Gravelyn v. Koninklijke Transferred to W.D. Pa. --------------------------------------------------------- Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers the case docketed as "Gravelyn v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., et al.," C.A. No. 3:25−10908 (N.D. Cal.) from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Joy Flowers Conti for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multi-district action captioned "In Re: Philips Recalled CPAP, Bi-Level PAP and Mechanical Ventilator Products Liability Litigation," MDL No. 3014. The plaintiff in the Gravelyn action moved to vacate the order that conditionally transferred the action to the Western District of Pennsylvania for inclusion in MDL No. 3014. Defendants Philips RS North America LLC, Koninklijke Philips N.V., Philips Holding USA, Inc., Philips North America LLC, and Philips RS North America Holding Corporation opposed the motion. The actions in the MDL shares factual questions arising from Philips' recall of certain Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP), Bi-Level PAP, and mechanical ventilator devices on June 14, 2021. The recalled devices allegedly contain PE-PUR sound abatement foam that may degrade into particles or off-gas volatile organic compounds that may then be ingested or inhaled by the user, causing injury. Like the actions in the MDL, plaintiff in Gravelyn alleges that he was injured by a CPAP device subject to the June 2021 recall and that his injury is due to the PE-PUR foam in the device, notes the panel. Gravelyn primarily argues that his claims must receive prompt attention due to the seriousness of his medical condition (Stage IV lung cancer), that his witnesses and counsel are in California, and that litigating in the MDL will cause him delay and inconvenience. However, the panel finds his arguments against transfer not persuasive saying transfer is unlikely to significantly delay resolution of his claims. The panel adds that the transferee court is expeditiously addressing the remaining personal injury actions in the MDL. Additionally, the panel mentioned that plaintiff's counsel may have used generative artificial intelligence to draft plaintiff's brief without checking the accuracy of the information produced, though it is possible counsel used some other unreliable source. Regardless, plaintiff improperly submitted a brief with false legal representations. The panel considers this an abuse of the judicial process. A full-text copy of the court's April 2, 2026 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3014-Transfer_Order-3-26.pdf MDL 3084: Two Suits Consolidated in Uber Sexual Assault Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers two cases -- one from the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado and one from the Northern District of Illinois -- all to the Northern District of California and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Charles R. Breyer for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multi-district litigation captioned "In re: Uber Technologies, Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation," MDL No. 3084. The two cases are: -- from the District of Colorado: UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL. v. EXPRESS DIGITAL SERVICES, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:25-mc-00121 -- from Northern District of Illinois: MCCLAIN v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:26-00297 Respondents in the District of Colorado Express Digital Services action and plaintiff in the Northern District of Illinois McClain action, each moved to vacate the panel's orders that conditionally transferred their actions to the Northern District of California for inclusion in MDL No. 3084. Uber opposed the motions. The actions in the MDL share factual questions arising from allegations that Uber failed to implement appropriate safety precautions to protect passengers, and that plaintiffs suffered sexual assault or harassment as a result. Like many MDL No. 3084 plaintiffs, plaintiff in McClain alleges that she was assaulted by her Uber driver and that Uber performed inadequate background checks, was aware of and concealed the risk of sexual assaults committed by its drivers, and misrepresented its commitment to safety. Plaintiff argues these allegations are merely background information, and her claims will turn on incident-specific evidence. But these allegations appear to be central to her negligence claim against Uber. Furthermore, as plaintiff acknowledges in her brief, "[e]ach alleged assault in MDL No. 3084 involves a different driver, a different location, different witnesses, different medical records, and distinct evidentiary circumstances." In granting centralization, the panel rejected the argument that the actions "will focus on the various circumstances of plaintiffs' alleged assaults and their injuries," finding that, "there are sufficient common issues present to warrant centralized treatment." Plaintiff argues both that there is no concrete evidence of overlapping pretrial proceedings at this stage of her case and that she is willing to informally coordinate any overlap proceedings. The panel points out that the Plaintiff does not persuasively argue why her action alone should be excluded from the MDL and the parties and courts made to informally coordinate. "The clear overlap in factual allegations persuades us that centralization will most efficiently minimize duplicative discovery and other pretrial proceedings," states the panel. In opposing transfer, respondents Express Digital Services argue that the merits of the motion to compel enforcement of the subpoena do not share sufficient factual questions with the MDL because respondents have substantially complied with the subpoena, and the remaining dispute is a narrow one relating to the meaning of the subpoena’s language. The information sought by the subpoena is squarely related to an issue in the MDL -- the transferee court's efforts to curb the submission of fraudulent ride receipts. The expertise and familiarity of the transferee judge with the factual and legal issues in the Uber litigation favor having him decide the motion to compel. Accordingly, transfer will promote the just and efficient conduct of this action and the litigation taken as a whole, the panel adds. Respondents also argue that transfer will be burdensome and inconvenient. The panel opines that while it might impose some burden on respondents to litigate this motion outside their home forum, it would be inefficient and a waste of judicial resources to require the transferor judge to learn the particulars of MDL No. 3084. Moreover, the MDL No. 3084 magistrate judge has stated that she will conduct subpoena enforcement hearings transferred by the Panel using Zoom. It is unlikely that respondents' counsel will need to travel to California to defend the motion to compel. A full-text copy of the court's April 2, 2026 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3084-Transfer_Order-3-26.pdf MDL 3128: Panel Denies Transfer of Forero Action to D. Minn. ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, has entered an order denying the transfer of the case captioned "Forero v. Solar Vision, LLC, et al.," C.A. No. 3:25−18237. Defendant Fifth Third Bank moved to transfer the action from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota for inclusion in the multi-district action captioned "In re: Dividend Solar Finance, LLC, and Fifth Third Bank Sales and Lending Practices Litigation," MDL No. 3128. Forero did not respond to the motion. Forero alleges that he purchased a residential solar system from Solar Vision in 2023, that he financed the purchase through Dividend Finance, and that the system failed to perform as the solar company salesman promised it would. He seeks to hold Dividend Finance liable as the assignee of the sales agreement. Fifth Third Bank argues that the action involves common allegations of fact with the MDL because the plaintiff asserts that the solar company misrepresented the amount of energy that the solar system would produce and because there already are actions in the MDL that involve Vision Solar and assert claims under the same New Jersey statute at issue in Forero. Fifth Third further maintains that, because Vision Solar has filed for bankruptcy, plaintiff likely will attempt to hold Fifth Third liable for Vision Solar's conduct. The panel is not persuaded that the degree of overlap with the MDL identified by Fifth Third Bank is sufficient to justify transfer. According to the panel, the Forero complaint includes no allegations regarding unlawful or unfair terms in the loan agreement or participation by Dividend Finance in the allegedly misleading or fraudulent conduct by the solar company sales representative. By contrast, the MDL actions allege that Fifth Third's finance agreements included a hidden finance fee or that the bank was complicit in misrepresenting to consumers the terms of the finance agreement or the economic and tax advantages of owning a solar system. Hence, there are factual allegations in the MDL of wrongdoing on the part of the bank, not simply that the bank is liable as a matter of law for unlawful conduct on the part of solar companies. Fifth Third argues that like the MDL actions, Forero likely will involve discovery regarding Vision Solar's relationship with Fifth Third its business practices, but nothing in the complaint supports this contention. Rather, discovery regarding the allegations currently included in the complaint would focus exclusively on the particular representations made by the Vision Solar sales representative to Mr. Forero and on the performance of the system sold to him. That plaintiff claims Fifth Third is liable as a matter of New Jersey law for Vision Solar's conduct is not adequate reason to transfer the action, as this claim overlaps with the MDL only with respect to a purely legal issue, notes the panel. A full-text copy of the court's April 2, 2026 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3128-Order_Denying_Transfer-3-26.pdf MDL 3176: Panel Transfers 6 Suits to E.D. Tex. ---------------------------------------------- Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers two cases from the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, and one case each from the Northern District of Ohio, Western District of Oklahoma and the Southern and Western Districts of Texas, all to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Amos L. Mazzant III for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multi-district action captioned "In Re: Super Safety Patent Litigation," MDL No. 3176. This patent litigation involves numerous patents directed at firearm technology known as forced reset triggers (FRTs). This litigation consists of six actions pending in five districts. Defendants, accused infringers in the six actions, moved to centralize this litigation in the Northern District of Ohio. Patentholder plaintiffs Rare Breed Triggers, Inc., and ABC IP, LLC, assert that centralization is appropriate, and they ask the panel to further centralize all potential tag-along actions. Movants opposed plaintiffs' request and, instead, proposed limiting the MDL to actions where plaintiffs allege that a "Super Safety" FRT device infringes U.S. Patent No. 12,038,247. The panel held that, "On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that these actions involve common questions of fact and that centralization in the Eastern District of Texas will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. The six actions on the motion involve seven patents owned by plaintiff ABC IP and exclusively licensed by plaintiff Rare Breed Triggers. All patents relate to forced reset triggers, which are aftermarket firearm components that allow a shooter to maintain continuous pressure and achieve a significantly higher rate of fire while technically performing a separate trigger pull for each round. Patentholder plaintiffs allege in all actions on Schedule A that the Super Safety FRT device infringes the '247 patent. Patent holder plaintiffs further assert that the various defendants also infringed six other patents in varying degrees, by manufacturing, selling, or making and selling the Super Safety device or another FRT device called the Defender FRT. The parties agree that the actions on the motion will present common questions of fact regarding allegations that the Super Safety product infringes the '247 patent. We find that centralization under Section 1407 will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings -- especially regarding claim construction, patent validity, and the appropriateness of injunctive relief—and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary." Moving defendants, the Disruptor defendants, and the Atrius defendants asked the panel to limit the centralized proceedings to actions where plaintiffs allege that the Super Safety infringes the '247 patent. The Disruptor and Atrius defendants further asked that if the panel decide that the cases against them warrant centralization, that the panel create separate MDLs for their accused devices only. "As an initial matter, the cases involving the Disruptor defendants and Atrius defendants are not before us," notes the panel. "It is premature to rule on their inclusion in this MDL." "But we must address movants' request that we limit the MDL's scope," the panel continues. "We are not persuaded that it is necessary here. While the actions on the motion each involve allegations that the Super Safety product infringes the '247 patent, that is not the only overlap. Plaintiffs have asserted the '723 patent in two actions and the '784 patent in three actions. The '223, '003, '336, and '807 patents are unrelated to the other patents, but they are, like the other patents, directed to inventions in the exceptionally narrow field of forced reset triggers. The presence of multiple unrelated patents does not preclude us from centralizing actions asserting different combinations of such patents." The panel further notes that overly restricting this litigation's scope at the outset risks undermining a key reason for centralizing patent cases asserting overlapping patents -- to "prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (particularly with respect to claim construction and patent validity issues)." Additional facts unique to this litigation further weigh against limiting this litigation's scope at the outset, it adds. "Consistent with our decision not to restrict this litigation solely to actions where plaintiffs assert the '247 patent against the Super Safety device, we will rename this litigation, "In re: Rare Breed Triggers Patent Litigation" to better reflect the substance of the litigation,"" the panel concludes. 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-3176-Transfer_Order-3-26.pdf MERCOR.IO: Lofton Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Information ------------------------------------------------------------ Jelani Lofton, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MERCOR.IO CORPORATION, Case No. 3:26-cv-02865 (N.D. Cal., April 2, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of individuals that was compromised in a cyber incident (the "Data Breach"). The Defendant collected and maintained certain personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information") of Plaintiff and the putative Class Members, who provided their PII to Defendant, directly or indirectly. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive and confidential Private Information--which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure--was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach. The PII compromised in the Data Breach may include Plaintiff's and Class Members' full names, Social Security numbers, and other sensitive information. The PII compromised in the Data Breach was targeted and exfiltrated by cyber-criminals and remains in the hands of those cyber-criminals who target PII for its value to identity thieves. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' PII from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. Defendant could have prevented or mitigated the consequences of the Data Breach by limiting access to sensitive information to only necessary employees, requiring multi-factor authentication to verify access credentials, encrypting data at rest and in transit, monitoring its systems for signs of unusual activity or the transfer of large volumes of data, and regularly rotating passwords. The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by, inter alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized intrusions; failing to take standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach; and failing to provide Plaintiff and Class Members prompt and accurate notice of the Data Breach. 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 in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former contract employees and customers of Defendant. The Defendant is an American artificial intelligence hiring startup that provides experts to train AI models and chatbots.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Email: cardoso@kolawyers.com MICROSOFT CORP: Resale Class Action Enters Appeals Phase -------------------------------------------------------- Richard Speed of The Register reports that The Microsoft and ValueLicensing legal tussle will enter an appeals phase this month, attracting the attention of a multibillion-pound class action against the Windows giant. The appeal, due to be heard on April 28 and 29, follows a ruling by the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) in November that the resale of perpetual licenses for Microsoft software was not illegal. Microsoft disagreed with the decision, and a spokesperson told The Register at the time that the company intended to appeal. The case has rumbled on for years, starting with ValueLicensing suing Microsoft for GBP270 million in 2021 over alleged clauses in contracts that prevented customers from reselling perpetual licenses in return for favorable subscription terms. After years of protesting its innocence, Microsoft made a surprising pivot in 2025 and attempted to make the case about copyright. Office, for example, includes help files and imagery, not just code. Microsoft argued that reselling this material would infringe its copyright. The judge disagreed and Microsoft appealed. A trial could happen in 2027. If Microsoft were to win its appeal, it could have major implications for the secondhand software market in the UK. As well as potentially overturning previous judgments, it could affect pending cases too, such as the Alexander Wolfson class action, which was brought against Microsoft over alleged licensing practices that it claims cost UK customers dear. A 2025 filing contained a statement that the proposed class comprised "an estimated 2.3-2.7 million members" and "a preliminary estimate is that aggregate damages are between GBP1.3 billion and GBP3.5 billion, accounting for interest." The claim period runs from October 1, 2015, to May 12, 2025. Given what is at stake, representatives from the class action have shown keen interest in the ValueLicensing case and the upcoming appeal. The Register understands that an intervention was requested and has seen documentation indicating it was granted. As a result, the class action team will be permitted to attend court. Microsoft declined to comment on the development, and Stewarts LLP, the litigation law firm supporting the class action, did not respond to a request for a statement. Jonathan Horley, Managing Director of ValueLicensing, told The Register: "ValueLicensing is aware of the importance of the Court of Appeal hearings. The jurisdiction appeal deals with whether the CAT can decide non-competition law issues (like copyright). Microsoft believes this is a complete answer to the Wolfson claim because they say that those copyright issues cannot be transferred to the High Court in the context of a class action. That is the reason why the Wolfson team has been granted permission to turn up at the jurisdiction hearing. "The copyright appeal will affect multiple other claims, including the Wolfson class action proceedings. If found in Microsoft's favour, it would overturn parts of the pre-Brexit ECJ decision UsedSoft vs Oracle, and whether the European Computer Programs Directive even applies to Microsoft Office and Windows. "ValueLicensing looks forward to returning to the main competition law issues including the pending applications on further disclosure and the Confidentiality Ring, after this appeal has concluded and the Stay is lifted." [GN] MILLENNIUM GROUP: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Millennium Group International Holdings Limited (NASDAQ: MGIH) resulting from allegations that Millennium Group may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So what: If you purchased Millennium Group 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=58692 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. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] MONTREAL NORTH: Court Greenlights Class Action Over COVID Deaths ---------------------------------------------------------------- Montreal Gazette reports that a Quebec court has greenlit a class-action lawsuit against a Montreal North care home alleged to have mismanaged its response to the COVID-19 pandemic. At its peak, more than 230 residents had COVID at Residence Angelica, nearly 70 per cent of the total population. More than 70 residents died from COVID in 2020; another 40 residents were said to have died of natural causes during that period. Families at the time questioned whether those deaths would have occurred if the staff hadn't been infected by the virus as well. The lawsuit, approved in late March, alleges that at least some of the deaths resulted from the residence's failure to follow public health guidelines. According to the filing, the care home transferred residents who had tested positive for the virus to a unit with no confirmed cases, without providing adequate protective equipment. Representatives of Residence Angelica told employees who had contact with a COVID-positive colleague that they could still come to work, the lawsuit alleges. The filing also claims that an employee was made to work although they were waiting for results from a COVID test that would turn out to be positive. The allegations have yet to be tested in court. Lawyer Patrick Martin-Menard will represent the class action, seeking damages for every person who resided at the home between March 13 and Dec. 1, 2020, as well as their spouses, caregivers, children, grandchildren and heirs. The class action's lead plaintiff is Antonio Capobianco, whose 95-year-old mother, Filomena Greco, died from COVID at the residence in April 2020. The Gazette has contacted Residence Angelica for comment. [GN] MOVENTO DESIGN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Tessman Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- CARLA TESSMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOVENTO DESIGN LLC; and RAFAEL PEREZ G., Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-02581 (S.D. Tex., March 31, 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 Tessman was employed by the Defendants as a staff. Movento Design LLC specializes in the design and installation of modular and custom-made cabinetry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laura A. Hernandez, Esq. LAURA HERNANDEZ LAW, PLLC 7008 Capitol St. Houston, TX 77011 Telephone: (281) 784-0355 Facsimile: (281) 784-0356 Email: LHernandez@laurahernandezlaw.com NATIONAL COATINGS INC: Heikes Files Suit in E.D. North Carolina --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Coatings, Inc. The case is styled as Scott Heikes, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Coatings, Inc., Case No. 5:26-cv-00213-FL (E.D.N.C., April 2, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. National Coatings, Inc. -- https://nationalcoatingsinc.com/ -- is a commercial painting, industrial coatings, and sandblasting company serving commercial & industrial customers nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Christopher Schehr, Esq. SCHEHR LAW PLLC 101 N. McDowell St Unit 200, Ste. Unit 200 Charlotte, NC 28204 Phone: (704) 900-0336 Fax: (980) 326-1717 Email: chris@schehrlaw.com NEO-CONCEPT INTERNATIONAL: Rosen Law Probes Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Neo-Concept International Group Holdings Ltd. (NASDAQ: NCI) resulting from allegations that Neo-Concept International may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So what: If you purchased Neo-Concept 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=58886 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. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] NORTH EAST MEDICAL: Bulatov Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Alla Bulatov, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. NORTH EAST MEDICAL SERVICES, Case No. CGC-26-634184 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on April 2, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-02870. The Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint seeks damages, injunctive relief and equitable relief for Negligence; Negligence per se; Breach of Implied Contract; Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Unjust Enrichment; Invasion of Privacy; Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law; Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act; Violation of the California Customer Records Act; and Violation of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kevin J. Cole, Esq. KJC LAW GROUP, A.P.C. 9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1000 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: 310.861.7797 Email: kevin@kjclawgroup.com - and - Jill H. Fertel, Esq. Ryan P. Slaven, Esq. Sarah K. Adams, Esq. CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C. Three Valley Square, Suite 305 512 E. Township Line Road Blue Bell, PA 19422 Phone: (610) 567-0700 Email: jfertel@c-wlaw.com rslaven@c-wlaw.com sadams@c-wlaw.com NOVATECH LTD: Court Dismisses "Mullins" for Lack of Standing ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in the case captioned Avis Mullins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and United Investor Community v. NovaTech, a foreign company, et al., Civil Action No. 24-CV-824 (VSB)(SDA), adopted a magistrate judge's report and recommendation and granted the moving defendants' motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for lack of standing, with leave to file a third amended complaint within 30 days. On February 5, 2024, plaintiffs Avis Mullins and United Investor Community filed suit against Novatech, LTD, a foreign corporation registered in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, along with 17 other entities and individuals. The operative Second Amended Complaint, filed August 9, 2024, asserts violation of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), as well as state law claims under the New York Organized Crime Control Act, a statutory claim for fraudulent conveyance, and other common law claims. There are currently over 90 defendants named in the case. The action is brought as a purported class action — no class has been certified — of all those who transmitted or forwarded cryptocurrency, money, or property to NovatechFx between January 2019 and December 2023 and were financially damaged when NovatechFx blocked plaintiffs' accounts and refused to return funds. The Second Amended Complaint alleges that NovatechFx, founded by defendants Cynthia Petion and Eddy Petion, functioned as a pyramid scheme, and that a prior related scheme called AWS Mining also existed. Before the court were six motions to dismiss filed by: (1) Kyle Farman and Sera Onion, LLC (Sera Defendants); (2) a group of 22 movants including Dapilnu Dunbar and Corrie J. Sampson, among others; (3) Ricardo Roy; (4) Antonio Arnold; and (5) Troy Rejda. The court referred the motions to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron, who issued a thorough 21-page report and recommendation on December 23, 2025, recommending that the motions filed by the Sera Defendants, the 22 Movants, Roy, Arnold, and Rejda be granted, and that plaintiffs be given leave to replead. No party filed objections. After reviewing the report for clear error and finding none, Judge Broderick adopted it in its entirety. The court agreed that plaintiffs failed to properly allege standing to pursue their claims against the moving defendants. Plaintiffs failed to allege the circumstances under which they came to invest in AWS Mining or NovatechFx, or conduct by any of the defendants directed toward plaintiffs. Therefore, they could not show a direct nexus between the defendants' actions and the plaintiffs' injuries. The court accordingly dismissed the Second Amended Complaint as to the moving defendants without prejudice, with leave to replead. The court cautioned that the Second Amended Complaint contained unsupportable allegations and set out a hodgepodge of claims and theories, many of which ran contrary to governing statutes and precedent. In repleading, plaintiffs were directed to focus on specific defendants against whom they could make concrete, particularized, and distinct allegations of fraud, so as to avoid duplicative and non-cognizable claims that would not satisfy the heightened pleading standard of Rule 9(b). As to Rejda, his Rule 12(b)(5) motion failed because he was served after filing it. His Rule 12(b)(2) personal jurisdiction argument could not be resolved on the current papers, as the third amended complaint may not include RICO claims. Accordingly, both motions were denied without prejudice to refiling after plaintiffs submit the third amended complaint. Plaintiffs were ordered to file a third amended complaint no later than 30 days from the filing of this Opinion and Order. Failure to do so may result in dismissal with prejudice. A copy of the Court's OPINION & ORDER dated March 30, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Nt9hlV from PacerMonitor.com Counsel Plaintiffs are represented by: Jolyon W. Morris, Esq. MORRIS LEGAL, LLC Miami, FL Defendant Ricardo Roy is represented by: Alexander Sakin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALEXANDER SAKIN New York, NY Defendants Frantz Ciceron, Ciceron Frantz & Associates, Inc., King Multi Service Agency, Inc., and Bertha Ciceron are represented by: Vincent Bianco, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT BIANCO Westbury, NY Defendant James Corbett is represented by: William Grausso Bohemia, NY Defendants Bwalya Desmond and Antonio Arnold are represented by: Adam J. Rader, Esq. Lawrence A. Steckman, Esq. HECHT PARTNERS LLP New York, NY Defendants Dapilnu Dunbar, Corrie J. Sampson, John Garofano, Robert Bearden, Steven Greene, Stanley G. Richards, Devey Dejong, Bob St. Louis, Sophia St. Louis, Heather J. Belanger, Goldentastic Consulting LLC, Marsha Hadley, Micheline Thomas, Marie Josee Jean-Bart, Atukuzwe Nyirenda, Andrelle Calixte, George C. Fraser, Yvonne Murren, Martin Jean Zizi, Trinity of Success Club, Inc., Positive Vision Marketing, LLC, and Samantha Zizi are represented by: Marcellous S. McZeal, Esq. GREALISH MCZEAL, LLP Houston, TX Defendants Kyle M. Farman and Sera Orion LLC are represented by: Daniel Z. Goldman, Esq. BIENERT KATZMAN LITTRELL WILLIAMS LLP San Clemente, CA NUMALE WISCONSIN: Order Dismissing "Brazeau" Class Suit Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ROGER BRAZEAU AND TINA BRAZEAU, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NUMALE WISCONSIN GB, S.C., Defendant-Respondent, Appeal No. 2024AP2147 (Wis. App.), the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District III, affirmed the circuit court's order dismissing the Plaintiffs' twice-amended class action claim. Roger Brazeau and Tina Brazeau appeal from an order that dismissed a twice-amended class action claim they filed against NuMale Wisconsin GB, S.C., alleging illegal broker, lending, and sales actions in violation of WIS. STAT. Section 422.505 (2023-24). They contended that the circuit court erred procedurally by granting summary judgment under WIS. STAT. Section 802.08 prior to the issue being joined with an answer to their second amended complaint. The Brazeaus' first amended complaint alleged that NuMale arranged or facilitated third-party financing for Roger and other putative class members to obtain medical services without providing disclosures required of credit services organizations under WIS. STAT. Section 422.505. NuMale moved to dismiss, arguing it did not qualify as a credit services organization under WIS. STAT. Section 422.501(2)(a) and therefore was not subject to the disclosure requirements. After briefing and a hearing, the circuit court indicated it was inclined to grant dismissal but instead allowed the Brazeaus to file a second amended complaint, encouraging them to simplify their theory and assert a clearer contract-based claim, including an unconscionability argument. The Brazeaus filed a second amended complaint that largely repeated the Section 422.505 class claim and added a breach of contract class claim. NuMale moved to dismiss again, arguing the new pleading exceeded the scope of leave granted and that its prior arguments still applied. The circuit court ultimately dismissed the statutory claim, removed class certification from the contract claim, and later dismissed the remaining individual contract claim without prejudice pursuant to stipulation, making the dismissal order final for purposes of appeal. The Brazeaus appealed the dismissal of their WIS. STAT. Section 422.505 claim, arguing the circuit court improperly granted summary judgment before the pleadings were fully joined. They claimed the second amended complaint fully replaced the first, required a new responsive pleading, prevented NuMale from relying on arguments made in earlier motions, and made summary judgment procedurally improper in the absence of an answer. The Court of Appeals rejected these procedural arguments. It agreed the second amended complaint superseded the first and that NuMale's time to file a responsive pleading was tolled while its motion to dismiss was pending under WIS. STAT. Section 802.06. It also held NuMale could incorporate prior dismissal arguments into its renewed motion, noting this is standard practice in motion briefing. The Court of Appeals further declined to address the merits of whether the complaint stated a valid claim under Section 422.505, because the Brazeaus did not develop a substantive argument on that issue, which is necessary for de novo review. Finally, the Court of Appeals concluded the circuit court's reference to "summary judgment" was a harmless misstatement, as the record clearly showed the case was decided on a motion to dismiss, not summary judgment. In sum, the Court of Appeals concluded that the circuit court properly dismissed the WIS. STAT. Section 422.505 claim under WIS. STAT. Section 802.06(2)(b) in response to NuMale's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. It held that it was procedurally proper for the circuit court to rule on the motion before any responsive pleading was filed, because Section 802.06(2)(b) expressly permits certain defenses, including failure to state a claim, to be raised and decided by motion at that stage of the proceedings. Hence, the circuit court's order is affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://l1nq.com/g9plhtv NUTS TO YOU: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Echols Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ TAZINIQUE ECHOLS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nuts To You, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03180 (N.D. Ill., March 20, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. 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. As a result, the blind and visually-impaired users can't complete a transaction on the website. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Based in Philadelphia, PA, Nuts To You, Inc. owns and operates the website, https://www.nutstoyou.com, which offers gourmet snacks and treats for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N, Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law PACIFIC MARKET: Wins Dismissal of Stanley Drinkware Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Arnold & Porter secured dismissal for Pacific Market International LLC, the maker of Stanley drinkware, in a consolidated consumer class action alleging that the company failed to disclose the use of lead in its popular tumblers. In its decision, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington held that plaintiffs failed to allege "a specific and plausible risk of harm" associated with the small lead pellet used to seal the vacuum insulation layer at the base of the product. The court had previously dismissed an earlier version of the complaint on similar grounds and found that the amended pleading did not cure the deficiencies identified in that ruling. Emphasizing the absence of any plausible allegation of harm, the court concluded that "without sufficient allegations to show that the lead in the Stanley cups could pose actual harm to consumers, the apparent need for disclosure is a moot proposition." The Arnold & Porter team was led by partners James F. Speyer, E. Alex Beroukhim, Pallavi Mehta Wahi, and Ashley E. Gammell; counsel Elie Salamon; and associates Owen Connolly and Nina Leviten. [GN] PACIFICORP: Panel Says Wildfires Class Suit "Procedurally Flawed" ----------------------------------------------------------------- April Ehrlich, writing for OPB, reports that PacifiCorp has won a notable victory in a lawsuit tying it to four major wildfires that burned in Oregon over the 2020 Labor Day weekend. The April 8 Oregon Court of Appeals decision could pause more than 160 damages trials that are scheduled through 2027. It could also send some wildfire survivors back to court. The opinion issued by a three-judge panel highlighted a procedural flaw in the 2023 class action lawsuit brought by 16 Oregonians who were harmed by four different wildfires. The judge in that 2023 lawsuit found that thousands of people, beyond those 16 original plaintiffs, could bring additional claims against PacifiCorp. People harmed by those four wildfires have since been grouped into separate trials to calculate damage awards. PacifiCorp executives acknowledged the hardship caused by wildfires. "There are no winners in wildfire; however, the Court's decision supports PacifiCorp's longstanding belief that this process was prejudicial and not appropriate for managing wildfire litigation," they said in a statement. "The company remains open to resolving reasonable claims and will continue to defend against unsupported claims." Attorneys for the wildfire survivors characterized the court's decision as a "procedural setback." "The Oregon Court of Appeals didn't say PacifiCorp didn't start these fires," lead counsel said in a statement. "It didn't say PacifiCorp wasn't negligent. It didn't say our clients weren't harmed. A jury found all of that, and nothing in this ruling suggests the jury got it wrong." PacifiCorp is owned by the $1-trillion corporation Berkshire Hathaway. It also owns Pacific Power, Oregon's second-largest electrical utility. Over the 2020 Labor Day weekend, PacifiCorp managers left electrical lines charged despite forecast hurricane-force winds, resulting in downed live wires in wooded areas. More than 2,000 fires burned across Oregon that weekend, destroying more than 3,000 buildings and killing 11 people. The appeals court opinion, authored by panel member Judge Anna Joyce, concludes that the jury in the 2023 case received bad instructions. Jury members were told they could "assume that the evidence in the trial applies to all class members." But the lawsuit included people harmed by four different wildfires in different parts of the state: the 242 Fire near Chiloquin, the Echo Mountain Complex Fire near Lincoln City, the South Obenchain Fire near Eagle Point, and the Santiam Canyon Fire in Marion County. Attorneys representing wildfire survivors presented similar evidence tying PacifiCorp to the first three wildfires, but they didn't have a "single, unified theory of causation" for the Santiam Canyon Fire, Joyce said. The Santiam Canyon Fire burned 45,660 acres and destroyed about 1,500 buildings. While it burned through the towns of Detroit and Gates, the Beachie Creek Fire, sparked by lightning, burned nearby. Attorneys on both sides disagree over whether some of the canyon fires were caused by PacifiCorp's equipment, or embers from the Beachie Creek Fire. In the class action lawsuit, wildfire attorneys presented evidence tying PacifiCorp to multiple fires in the canyon. They also argued that those fires forced firefighters to evacuate the area. It's unclear what happens next in this lawsuit. The 15 trials that have already determined damages might go back to court, and the trials scheduled through 2027 could be put on hold. The case also could get kicked up to the Oregon Supreme Court. [GN] PHILIPS NORTH: Court Tosses "Tucker" Medical Monitoring Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Vanessa Tucker, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Harcros Chemicals Inc, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 25-2569-KHV (D. Kan.), Judge Kathryn H. Vratil of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas sustained Defendant Philips North America LLC's motion to dismiss for lack of standing. The Court found that plaintiff failed to allege any injury in fact, that Kansas has never recognized a free-standing cause of action for medical monitoring, and that the Kansas statute of repose, K.S.A. Section 60-513(b), has a preclusive effect on plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff therefore has no legally cognizable injury sufficient to create Article III standing, and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The Court also declined to certify questions to the Kansas Supreme Court, finding that Kansas law is not necessarily unsettled, certification is time-consuming and expensive, and creating a medical monitoring cause of action would not necessarily benefit plaintiff given the statute of repose. A copy of the Court's Order, dated April 9, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vM37iH from PacerMonitor.com Defendants Elementis Chemicals, Inc. and Elementis PLC are represented by: Patrick N. Fanning, Esq. Allyson E. Cunningham, Esq. William G. Beck, Esq. LATHROP GPM, LLP Email: patrick.fanning@lathropgpm.com allyson.cunningham@lathropgpm.com william.beck@lathropgpm.com Defendant Harcros Chemicals Inc. is represented by: Megan A. McCurdy, Esq. Ashley Marie Crisafulli, Esq. Brett A. Shanks, Esq. STINSON LLP Email: megan.mccurdy@stinson.com ashley.crisafulli@stinson.com brett.shanks@stinson.com Defendants Koninklijke Philips N.V. and Philips Electronics North America Corporation are represented by: Kelly Campbell, Esq. Michael W. Seitz, Esq. SPENCER FANE, LLP Email: kcampbell@spencerfane.com mseitz@spencerfane.com Jamie L. Huffman, Esq. John McGahren, Esq. Debra Carfora, Esq. Scott T. Schutte, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP Email: jamie.huffman@morganlewis.com john.mcgahren@morganlewis.com debra.carfora@morganlewis.com scott.schutte@morganlewis.com Plaintiff Vanessa Tucker is represented by: Robert L. Kinsman, Esq. Joanna B. Orscheln, Esq. KRAUSE & KINSMAN GROUP, LLC Email: robert@krauseandkinsman.com joanna@krauseandkinsman.com POP AND BOTTLE: Licea Sues Over Unlawful Automatic Renewal ---------------------------------------------------------- Jose Jesus Licea, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. POP AND BOTTLE, INC., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a WWW.POPANDBOTTLE.COM, Case No. (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 2, 2026), is brought after the Plaintiff purchased an automatically renewing paid subscription at www.popandbottle.com (the "Website"), which caused Plaintiff to incur unlawful charges from Defendant related to an automatic renewal or continuous service. The Defendant made unlawful automatic renewal and/or continuous service offers to consumers in California in violation of California's Automatic Renewal Law (the "ARL"), by: failing to provide "clear and conspicuous" disclosures mandated by California law; and failing to provide an acknowledgment to consumers that includes the automatic renewal or continuous service offer terms, the cancellation policy, and information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased "Vanilla Coffee Concentrate Instant Cold Blew" (the "Product") from Defendant via the Website. The Defendant is an online retailer that sells products nationwide and in California.[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 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com POWER SOLUTIONS: Dishion Sues Over Securities Law Breaches ---------------------------------------------------------- DON DISHION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POWER SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC., DINO XYKIS, and XUN LI, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03149 (N.D. Ill., March 20, 2026) asserts claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) the Company overstated its ability to capture sales demand for its power systems solutions, particularly within the data center market; (2) the Company understated the impact of its enhancements to manufacturing capacity to meet demand within the data center market, including the expected costs and the nature of the related inefficiencies. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now maintains that Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Headquartered in Wood Dale, IL, Power Solutions designs, manufactures, and sells engines and power systems. The company's common stock trades on the NASDAQ under the symbol "PSIX." [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony F. Fata, Esq. Cormac H. Broeg, Esq. KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP 211 West Wacker Drive, Suite 550 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 767-5180 Facsimile: (312) 767-5181 E-mail: afata@kmllp.com cbroeg@kmllp.com - and - Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan 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 - and - Rebecca Dawson, Esq. 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 QUICK COVER AUTO: McMillan Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quick Cover Auto Inc. The case is styled as Lashonna McMillan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Quick Cover Auto Inc., Case No. 5:26-cv-01598 (C.D. Cal., April 2, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Quick Cover Auto Insurance Services -- https://www.quickcoverauto.com/ -- offers a comprehensive range of insurance services to meet diverse needs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Edelsberg, I, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park E, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com RELWEN LLC: Lamperis Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Lamperis, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. RELWEN, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-03446 (N.D. Ill., March 29, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.relwen.com (the "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 corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, 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 is a company that owns and operates www.relwen.com offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101. Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com REVIVAL RUGS INC: Morris Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Zachary Morris, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. REVIVAL RUGS, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-00512 (E.D. Wis., March 29, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.revivalrugs.com (the "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 corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, 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 is a company that owns and operates www.revivalrugs.com offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com ROBERTSON COUNTY, TX: Underpays Dispatchers, Massey Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLYN MASSEY, CHANDA MOSS, DOUGLAS OSBURN, KATHRYN SANDERS, ANGEL TYGRETT, and AMANDA WALKER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ROBERTSON COUNTY, TEXAS, Defendant, Case No. 6:26-cv-00207 (W.D. Tex., March 30, 2026) is a civil action brought by Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the federal Portal-to-Portal Pay Act for Defendant's failure to timely pay Plaintiffs all overtime wages owed. According to the complaint, while Defendant paid Plaintiffs some overtime wages, it nevertheless underpaid Plaintiffs the overtime wages they were owed or, alternatively, did not provide all compensatory time owed, because: a. Defendant measured overtime hours on the basis of hours worked over 80 per two-week period instead of the required standard of hours worked over 40 per seven-day workweek; and b. Defendant required Plaintiffs to be present and working approximately 15 minutes prior to their scheduled daily start time to perform shift change work with the dispatcher working the preceding shift they were relieving. Plaintiff Massey is a former employee of Defendant with approximate dates of employment of February 4, 2019 to February 10, 2026. At all times of her employment with Defendant, Massey was employed as an hourly paid dispatcher in the Robertson County Sherriff's Office. Robertson County, Texas is a political subdivision of the State of Texas and is a public agency.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Allen R. Vaught, Esq. VAUGHT FIRM, LLC 1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (972) 707-7816 Facsimile: (972) 920-3933 E-mail: avaught@txlaborlaw.com RR SAN DIMAS: Denial of Class Certification in Aerni Suit Reversed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, MELISSA I. AERNI et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. RR SAN DIMAS, L.P., et al., Defendants and Respondents, Case No. B341484 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Three, reversed the trial court's denial of class certification. Plaintiffs Melissa I. Aerni and Katherine Atsaves brought this putative class action against defendants RR San Dimas, L.P. and Mountain High/Holiday Hill Corporation, owners of the Red Roof Inn in San Dimas (the hotel), alleging violations of Civil Code section 1940.1. The case involves the "28-day shuffle," where residential hotels require guests to check out or re-register before 30 days to avoid tenant protections. Civil Code Section 1940.1 prohibits this practice and allows a lawsuit if a guest shows the hotel was their primary residence, they were forced to reset their stay before 30 days, and the policy was used to keep them classified as a transient occupant rather than a tenant. The Plaintiffs appeal from the trial court's denial of class certification. The trial court found that the proposed class met requirements like numerosity, ascertainability, typicality, and adequate representation, but still denied certification. It ruled that individual issues outweighed common ones, based on its interpretation that Section 1940.1 requires each class member to separately prove the hotel was their primary residence. The Defendants own a 134-room economy hotel in San Dimas that has enforced a 28-day maximum stay policy since at least November 2018. Guests are informed at check-in, both verbally and in writing, that stays are limited to 28 days, and they must acknowledge this rule. Once a guest reaches 28 continuous days, they are required to check out and leave the property for at least three days before being allowed to re-register. The hotel's representative testified that the policy is intended to avoid creating a landlord-tenant relationship. The Plaintiffs stayed at the hotel multiple times between June and November 2022, each time reaching the 28-day limit. After each stay, they checked out and spent about three days elsewhere, such as in their vehicle or another motel, before returning to re-register at the hotel. In November 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against the hotel owners, alleging violations of Civil Code Section 1940.1 along with claims for violations of Section 52.1, negligence, and unfair competition, all based on the same alleged conduct. In April 2024, they sought class certification of a class defined as: All persons who stayed at the hotel located at 204 Village Court, San Dimas, California 91773 and moved out, or checked out and reregistered, after at least 28 consecutive days of occupancy, but before 31 consecutive days of occupancy at any time from November 28, 2018 through the present. The Plaintiffs argued the class was ascertainable and numerous, citing records showing over 200 guests checked out after 28 days and more than 50 re-registered after 72 hours, with the class potentially exceeding 1,700 members. They also argued common issues predominated because liability depended on whether the hotel qualified as a "residential hotel," which could be shown through shared evidence. They contended the 28-day policy was meant to maintain transient status and that a class action was the most efficient way to address this uniform practice. The Defendants opposed class certification, arguing the hotel was not a "residential hotel" because it was primarily used by transient guests. The trial court denied class certification in part, finding that while the class was numerous, ascertainable, and adequately represented, and while the alleged 28-day move-out policy could be shown through common proof, the question of whether the hotel qualified as a "residential hotel" could not be resolved on a class-wide basis. It concluded that Section 1940.1 required proof that each guest used the hotel as their primary residence, which would require individualized inquiries. The court agreed with the Defendants that determining primary residence would vary by guest and could not be established through common evidence, noting each person's residency status would need to be examined individually. It rejected the Plaintiffs' argument that this issue could be resolved after certification through broader occupancy data, and ultimately held that whether the hotel was a "residential hotel" was not susceptible to common proof, making class certification inappropriate. The Plaintiffs appealed the trial court's order denying class certification. They argued the court erred in concluding that Section 1940.1 requires each class member to individually prove the hotel was their primary residence as a condition of class certification. The Court of Appeals agreed with the Plaintiffs and focused on whether individual or common issues predominated. It explained that class certification turns on whether resolving the legal and factual issues in a single proceeding is practical and efficient. As a general rule, if liability can be determined through common facts, a class may be certified even if individual members still need to prove their damages. The trial court concluded that common issues did not predominate because it believed each Plaintiff had to prove the hotel was their own primary residence under Section 1940.1. The Court of Appeals held this was error, explaining that the statute does not require plaintiffs to show the hotel was their personal primary residence. Instead, the "residential hotel" inquiry focuses on the nature of the hotel itself, including its intended or actual use and whether it is primarily used by transient guests with other primary residences, making it a hotel-wide determination rather than an individualized one. For these reasons, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in interpreting Section 1940.1 to require the Plaintiffs to prove the hotel was their own primary residence. Because that legal error formed the basis for denying class certification, it reversed the order and sent the case back for the trial court to reconsider the motion. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://l1nq.com/2kj2t4y. Clarkson Law Firm, Glenn A. Danas -- gdanas@clarksonlawfirm.com -- Brent A. Robinson; Yash Law Group and Yashdeep Singh -- ysingh@yashlaw.com -- for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Chen Horwitz & Franklin and John Horwitz -- John@chflawfirm.com -- for Defendants and Respondents. SHIELD PHARMACEUTICALS: Moreno Files FDCPA Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shield Pharmaceuticals Corp., et al. The case is styled as Alexander Fernando Bustamante Moreno, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons v. Shield Pharmaceuticals Corp., Mohammed Chowdhury, individually, Case No. Index not Assigned: Pre-RJI (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., April 2, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Commercial – Contract (NYLL). Shield -- https://www.shieldpharmacorp.com/ -- specializes in high-quality solid dose tablets and capsules.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew Ira Glenn, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 301 North Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306 Princeton, NJ 08540 SHOE CARNIVALA: Sanders Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Lakiesha Sanders, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SHOE CARNIVAL, INC., Case No. 260201238 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on April 2, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02186. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts three causes of action against Shoe Carnival for violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act ("WESCA"); Invasion of Privacy – Intrusion Upon Seclusion; and Breach of Contract, arising out of Shoe Carnival's alleged unconsented interception of electronic communications on the website www.shoecarnival.com (the "Website").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michelle A. Paninopoulos, Esq. Paul A. Rosenthal, Esq. Rachel A. Beck, Esq. Krista N. Hartrum, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP One Logan Square, Suite 2000 Philadelphia, PA 19103-6996 Phone: (215) 988-2700 Email: michelle.paninopoulos@faegredrinker.com SPICE ALLIANCE: Morris Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Zachary Morris, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. SPICE ALLIANCE, LLC, D/B/A BEANILLA,, Case No. 2:26-cv-00511 (E.D. Wis., March 29, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.beanilla.com (the "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 corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, 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 is a company that owns and operates www.beanilla.com offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com ST. FRANCIS HOTEL: Trius Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Antonio Trius, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. ST. FRANCIS HOTEL CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. CGC-26-634111 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on April 2, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-02898. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts the following nine causes of action: Minimum Wages; Unpaid Overtime; Meal Break Violations; Rest Break Violations; Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment; Wage Statement Violations; Untimely Final Wages; Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses all Violation of Cal. Labor Codes and Violation of Cal. Business & Professions Code Sections 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Marlene S. Muraco, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 50 W. San Fernando, 7th Floor San Jose, CA 95113.2431 Phone: 408.998.4150 Facsimile: 408.288.5686 Email: mmuraco@littler.com STAPLES INC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Williams Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- ZACHARY BERNARD WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STAPLES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-11513 (D. Mass., March 31, 2026) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of the Plaintiff and the Class. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff and Class Members' Private Information including their names, Social Security Numbers, phone numbers, positions, salaries, employment dates, dates of birth, and other sensitive personal information. The Defendant owed the Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. The Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices, says the suit. Staples, Inc. is an office supply retail company headquartered in Framingham, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina Xenides, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 1005 Congress Avenue, Ste 925-C36 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 265-5622 Email: cxenides@sirillp.com - and - Grayson Wells, Esq. Greg Mullens, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gwells@stranchlaw.com gmullens@stranchlaw.com STAPLES INC: Wilson Sues Over Unlawful Non-Emergency Calls ---------------------------------------------------------- Chet Michael Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STAPLES, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-11489 (D. Mass., March 29, 2026), is brought against Defendant under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), as a result of the Defendants unlawful artificial or prerecorded voice in connection with non-emergency calls. The Defendant routinely violates the TCPA by using an artificial or prerecorded voice in connection with non-emergency calls it places to telephone numbers assigned to a cellular telephone service, without prior express consent. More specifically, upon information and good faith belief, Defendant routinely uses an artificial or prerecorded voice in connection with non-emergency calls it places to wrong or reassigned cellular telephone numbers. The Plaintiff suffered actual harm as a result Defendant's subject calls, in connection with which it used an artificial or prerecorded voice, in that he suffered an invasion of privacy, an intrusion into his life, and a private nuisance, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is, and has been for at least five years, the subscriber to and customary user of his cellular telephone number. The Defendant is a corporation that is headquartered within this District.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (508) 221-1510 Fax: (508) 318-8100 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com STREMICKS HERITAGE FOODS: Sanchez Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Cesear A. Sanchez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Stremicks Heritage Foods, LLC, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2506974 was removed from the Riverside Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on April 2, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-01621 the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights. Stremicks Heritage Foods LLC -- https://www.heritage-foods.com/ -- produces and sells dairy products. The Company offers organic milk, kerns, rice dream, and refrigerated beverages.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Patrick Thomas Cain, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART, P.C. 400 S. Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 239-9800 Fax: (213) 239-9045 Email: patrick.cain@ogletree.com SWALLOWTAIL GARDEN: Ramirez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemarie Ramirez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. SWALLOWTAIL GARDEN SEEDS, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-03442 (N.D. Ill., March 29, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.swallowtailgardenseeds.com (the "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 corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, 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 is a company that owns and operates www.swallowtailgardenseeds.com offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com TALENTBURST INC: Castro Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as David Castro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. TALENTBURST, INC., a Delaware Corporation; TALENTBURST CONNECT, INC., a Delaware Corporation and DOES 1-50, Case No. 26STCV04293 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 2, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-03542. In the Complaint, Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and a putative class of similarly situated individuals, alleging eight causes of action against Defendants for: Failure to Pay All Overtime Wages; Meal Period Violations; Rest Period Violations; Failure to Pay All Sick Time; Wage Statement Violations; Waiting Time Penalties; Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Karen Luh, Esq. Rachel E. Albert, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Phone:(213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 Email: Karen.Luh@jacksonlewis.com Rachel.Albert@jacksonlewis.com TURBO ENERGY: 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 Turbo Energy S.A. (NASDAQ: TURB) resulting from allegations that Turbo Energy may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So what: If you purchased Turbo Energy 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=58633 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. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] UNITED STATES: DeRouin Balks at Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ----------------------------------------------------------- DERRON DeROUIN v. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA); JARED ISAACMAN, in his official capacity as NASA Administrator; UNITED STATES OFAMERICA, Case No. 1:26−cv−01087 (D.D.C., March 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for alleged violations of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The suit is brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of similarly situated residents, visitors, and vulnerable populations within a 75-mile radius of Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39B. According to the complaint, NASA launched the Artemis II SLS rocket on April 1, 2026, burning 1.26 million kg of ammonium perchlorate composite propellant, releasing approximately 75 tons of HCl, 265 tons of aluminum oxide, 25 tons of chlorine gas, and perchlorate into the atmosphere. About 3 million residents and 250,000 daily theme park visitors within 75 miles have received no public health advisory. NASA fails to apply its own REEDM toxic dispersion model as a public health constraint despite the Air Force cancelling a 1994 Peacekeeper launch when REEDM predicted unsafe HCl levels at a town 5km away. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief only: (1) 30-day delay; (2) Public health advisory for vulnerable populations within 75 miles; (3) Closure of outdoor venues 72 hours post-launch; (4) Independent air quality monitoring at 10, 25, 50, 75 miles; (5) Environmental clearance before venues reopen; (6) Publish Artemis I monitoring data; (7) Supplemental EIS. U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration is an independent agency of the U.S. federal government responsible for the United States' civil space program and for research in aeronautics and space.[BN] UNITED STATES: DOE's Emergency Bid for Stay in Sweet Denied ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, THERESA SWEET; CHENELLE ARCHIBALD; DANIEL DEEGAN; SAMUEL HOOD; TRESA APODACA; ALICIA DAVIS; JESSICA JACOBSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. LINDA McMAHON, Secretary of the United States Department of Education; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 26-1136 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the DOE's Emergency Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal. The Plaintiffs are a certified class of federal student loan borrowers who seek loan forgiveness under the Higher Education Act based on fraudulent misconduct by their educational institutions, in a process known as "borrower defense." In May 2019, they filed the class action under the Administrative Procedure Act against the Department of Education ("DOE"), alleging that the DOE had failed to adjudicate their borrower-defense applications. The district court certified the class of plaintiffs on October 30, 2019. On June 22, 2022, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, which the court later approved on November 16, 2022. The agreement required the DOE to decide certain "Post-Class Applicants" borrower defense applications within three years of the settlement's effective date, setting a hard deadline of January 28, 2026. If the DOE failed to meet that deadline, affected applicants would automatically receive "Full Settlement Relief." In November 2025, the DOE asked the court under Rule 60(b)(5) for an 18-month extension, saying it could not meet the deadline. During a December 2025 hearing, the court criticized the request as "totally unacceptable" but still granted limited relief, extending some deadlines while keeping others in place. After the original judge retired, the new judge later denied the DOE's renewed motion in February 2026, finding no extraordinary circumstances or unfairness that justified changing the settlement terms. The DOE sought a stay pending appeal of the post-class application deadline. Using the four-factor test from Nken v. Holder, the Ninth Circuit looked at (1) how likely the DOE was to win the appeal, (2) whether the DOE would suffer serious harm without a stay, (3) the impact on other parties, and (4) the public interest, with the first two factors being the most important. It focused mainly on the likelihood of success and irreparable harm, which it identified as the most important factors. The Ninth Circuit found the DOE failed to show it was likely to succeed on appeal, noting it could not demonstrate that the district courts abused their discretion in denying Rule 60(b) relief. It also pointed out the DOE was aware of the large size of the Post-Class Applicant group years earlier, undercutting its claim of changed circumstances. The Ninth Circuit concluded the remaining factors did not outweigh this weak showing and denied the stay. Accordingly, the DOE's Emergency Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal is denied. An expedited briefing schedule for the appeal on the merits will follow. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://sl1nk.com/pa1o1x8 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: LWMC Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Living Waters Medical Center, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, UNITEDHEALTHCARESERVICES, INC., OPTUM INSIGHT, INC., CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC., CHANGE HEALTHCARE OPERATIONS, LLC, CHANGE HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, CHANGE HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC., CHANGE HEALTHCARE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, CHANGE HEALTHCARE PHARMACY SOLUTIONS, INC., OPTUM, INC., OPTUM FINANCIAL, INC., OPTUM BANK, and OPTUM PAY, Case No. 26-2-06184-0 SEA was removed from the Circuit Court of Logan County, West Virginia, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia on April 2, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00241. The Plaintiff alleges it suffered monetary losses via rejected and/or delayed payments for medical care and spent significant time and resources including investigating the network outage and alternative methods to receive payment for medical care.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Steven R. Ruby, Esq. David R. Pogue, Esq. CAREY DOUGLAS KESSLER & RUBY PLLC 707 Virginia St. E., Ste. 901 Charleston, WV 25301 Phone: 304-345-1234 Fax: 304-342-1105 Email: sruby@cdkrlaw.com drpogue@cdkrlaw.com UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Rebound Physical Suit Removed to D. Maryland ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Rebound Physical Therapy, LLC, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, UNITEDHEALTHCARESERVICES, INC., OPTUM INSIGHT, INC., CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC., CHANGE HEALTHCARE OPERATIONS, LLC, CHANGE HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, CHANGE HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC., CHANGE HEALTHCARE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, CHANGE HEALTHCARE PHARMACY SOLUTIONS, INC., OPTUM, INC., OPTUM FINANCIAL, INC., OPTUM BANK, and OPTUM PAY, Case No. C-15-CV-26-001042 was removed from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on April 2, 2026, and assigned Case No. 8:26-cv-01315-DKC. The Complaint relates to a cyberattack suffered by Defendants on February 21, 2024. Over 150 cases have been brought against Defendants and Defendants' parent companies in connection with the same cyberattack.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Marc A. Marinaccio, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 100 International Drive, Suite 2000 Baltimore, MD 21202 Phone: (410) 659-5059 Fax: (410) 659-2701 Email: marc.marinaccio@hoganlovells.com UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Young Files Suit in D. Arizona ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against University of Phoenix Incorporated. The case is styled as Karen Young, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. University of Phoenix Incorporated, Case No. 2:26-cv-02267-SPL (D. Ariz., April 2, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. The University of Phoenix -- https://www.phoenix.edu/ -- is an online college that is accredited, affordable, and has degrees that align to careers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell Snow Thompson, IV, Esq. THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP - SCOTTSDALE, AZ 11445 E Via Linda, Ste. 2-492 Scottsdale, AZ 85259 Phone: (602) 388-8898 Email: rthompson@thompsonconsumerlaw.com - and - Sabita Soneji, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI - OAKLAND, CA 1970 Broadway, Ste. 1070 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (510) 254-6808 UPSTART HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who acquired Upstart Holdings, Inc. ("Upstart" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:UPST) securities during the period of May 14, 2025 through November 4, 2025, inclusive ("the Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your Upstart investments, you have until June 8, 2026 to request lead plaintiff appointment. Courts do not consider lead plaintiff applications submitted after this deadline. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. For more information about the lawsuit: https://www.kmllp.com/cases-investigations/upstart-holdings-inc-1 What Is This Lawsuit About? The lawsuit alleges that (i) Model 22, the Company's latest iteration of its AI model, frequently overreacted to negative macroeconomic signals in performing its risk-separation processes; (ii) accordingly, Model 22's overall accuracy and propensity to increase loan approval rates was overstated; and (iii) Model 22's overly conservative assessment of credit and macroeconomic conditions was having a significant negative impact on Upstart's revenue results, rendering the Company's previously issued FY 2025 revenue guidance unreliable and/or unrealistic. On November 5, 2025, Upstart disclosed that it missed third-quarter expectations and blamed the disappointing results on Model 22, which they revealed had "overreact[ed]" to macroeconomic signals in the quarter, reducing borrower approvals and conversion rates. The Company also acknowledged that they had "knowingly" calibrated their AI model to be "more conservative on the credit side in earlier parts of the quarter", and that the negative impacts of Model 22's "overresponsive[ness]" to macroeconomic signals in the quarter would continue to negatively impact revenues in Q4 2025, resulting in Upstart negatively revising FY 2025 financial guidance. On this news, the price of Upstart shares declined by $4.49 per share, or approximately 9.7%, from $46.24 per share on November 4, 2025 to close at $41.75 on November 5, 2025. The Lead Plaintiff Appointment Process. The federal securities laws permit any investor who acquired eligible securities during the class period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit. Courts typically appoint the investor(s) with the largest financial loss in the case and the ability to represent the class rather than investors with simply the largest investment portfolio. Courts regularly appoint individual investors, whether acting alone or as a group, as lead plaintiffs. The rights of any investor who bought shares during the class period are generally already protected. However, lead plaintiffs have the power to influence case strategy and have a say in settlement decisions, as well as decisions concerning allocation of settlement funds among class members. What Should I Do? If you purchased or otherwise acquired Upstart securities, have information, or would like to learn more about this investigation, please contact Lauren Molinaro of Kirby McInerney LLP by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or fill out the contact form below, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters at no cost. Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at Kirby McInerney LLP's website. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Lauren Molinaro, Esq. Kirby McInerney LLP Tel: (212) 699-1171 https://www.kmllp.com https://securitiesleadplaintiff.com/ investigations@kmllp.com [GN] VCI GLOBAL: 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 VCI Global Limited (NASDAQ: VCIG) resulting from allegations that VCI Global may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So what: If you purchased VCI Global 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=58697 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 $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] VIRTA HEALTH: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- Westlaw Today reports that online nutrition and weight-management specialist Virta Health Corp. failed to protect its patients' data from a March ransomware attack claimed by the Lapsus$ cybercriminal group, a proposed class-action lawsuit alleges. Koenemann v. Virta Health Corp., No. 26-cv-1469, complaint filed (D. Colo. Apr. 7, 2026). Former Virta Health patient Julie Koenemann filed the suit April 7 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado seeking to represent a nationwide class of those who entrusted the company with sensitive personal and health information that was compromised in the attack. Denver-based Virta Health describes itself as a "telehealth company" that offers patients a "personalized nutrition program and expert support with technology" to fight such afflictions as type 2 diabetes and obesity. Koenemann's complaint says Virta Health experienced a data breach on or around March 29 when an unauthorized third party accessed its network and extracted the personally identifiable information and protected health information of its patients. The "notorious cybercriminal group 'Lapsus$'" has claimed responsibility for the attack, the suit says, citing a media report. The pilfered PII and PHI includes names, Social Security numbers, birthdates, addresses and medical information, the complaint says. It claims Virta Health has not acknowledged the data breach or informed those affected, preventing them from taking steps to mitigate the risk of fraud. Armed with the stolen data, thieves can open financial accounts, take out loans or obtain medical services in class members' names, the suit says. As a result, the plaintiff and class members face an "imminent, immediate and continuing increased risk" of identity theft and other fraudulent misuse of their information, according to the complaint. The suit alleges the company failed to implement security practices compliant with Federal Trade Commission guidelines and industry standards. Koenemann, represented by Milberg PLLC, says Virta Health is liable for negligence and unjust enrichment, among other claims. The complaint seeks damages, attorney fees and costs. [GN] WAHL CLIPPER: Henderson Sues Over Website's ADA Non-Compliance -------------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH HENDERSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Wahl Clipper Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03129 (N.D. Ill., March 20, 2026) alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Henderson and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Plaintiff maintains that the Defendant failed to update or remove website's access barriers and chose to rely on an exclusively visual interface that provides no meaningful accommodations to screen-reading software users. Wahl Clipper Corporation owns and operates the website, https://wahlusa.com, which offers grooming and personal care 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 WASHINGTON: Dismissal of "Bell" Affirmed in Part ------------------------------------------------ In the case, CLIFTON BELL, GREGORY HYDE, GARRISON SCHRUM, and MATTHEW ROSS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellants, v. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, a state agency, Respondent, Case No. 60660-7-II (Wash. App.), the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division II, affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court's order granting the Department's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Plaintiffs Clifton Bell, Matthew Ross, and Garrison Schrum challenge the Department of Corrections' use of "presumptive" colorimetric drug tests to punish them for alleged drug possession. The Department performs these tests by swabbing incarcerated people's possessions; for example, mail or papers found in their cells. The Plaintiffs allege that although these tests are widely known to be highly inaccurate and susceptible to false positives, the Department imposes punishments based on the test results without confirming them in a laboratory. In some cases, laboratory tests have demonstrated that people were punished based on false positives. The Plaintiffs allege that after finding incarcerated people guilty of drug possession on the basis of unreliable colorimetric tests, the Department has punished them with significant sanctions, including solitary confinement and lost good time credits, sometimes causing delayed release from prison. The Plaintiffs brought this class action lawsuit in September 2023 against the Department seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and damages for the use of colorimetric drug tests as a basis for prison discipline without confirmation of the results with a reliable laboratory test. They allege violations of the due process and cruel punishment clauses of the Washington State Constitution; intentional infliction of emotional distress (outrage); violation of the Department's duty to protect incarcerated people's health, safety, and welfare; negligence; and negligent infliction of emotional distress. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief based on the constitutional claims and damages based on both the constitutional claims and the tort claims. The Department brought motions under CR 12(b)(6) and CR 12(c) seeking judgment on the pleadings. The trial court dismissed all of the Plaintiffs' claims as a matter of law. It determined that the Plaintiffs could not bring their injunctive and declaratory relief claims in a class action lawsuit but must instead proceed through individual personal restraint petitions (PRP); that the Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for any tort; and that constitutional damages claims are not viable in Washington state. The Plaintiffs appeal. Applying the standard for evaluating motions to dismiss under CR 12(b)(6) and CR 12(c) and assuming, that the Plaintiffs' allegations are all true, the Court of Appeals of Washington concluded that the Plaintiffs' allegations were sufficient, for CR 12(b)(6) and CR 12(c) purposes, to state claims for injunctive and declaratory relief based on constitutional violations; outrage; and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The Department has failed to establish that these claims must be dismissed as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals first clarified that personal restraint petitions and habeas petitions are not the exclusive means of challenging prison discipline practices. Because the Plaintiffs are challenging a widespread practice, the Court noted that a class action may be appropriate if the requirements for certification are met. Building on that, the Court addressed the Plaintiffs' requests for injunctive and declaratory relief. It found these claims are not moot and, taking the allegations as true, sufficiently state claims based on the prohibition against cruel punishment and the right to due process. With respect to cruel punishment, the Court of Appeals held that the Plaintiffs alleged enough facts to proceed. They claim the Department relied on unconfirmed colorimetric tests to impose discipline. If proven, this could entitle them to a declaration that their rights were violated, an injunction to stop the practice, and potentially the restoration of some good time credits. The Court of Appeals reached a similar conclusion on the due process claim. It held that Plaintiffs who lost good time credits based on unconfirmed test results adequately stated a claim for injunctive and declaratory relief. The Court then explained why these claims are not moot. The Department's updated policy does not guarantee confirmatory lab testing before discipline, and it has not shown it will not return to prior practices. The Plaintiffs also allege that discipline based on unconfirmed test results is ongoing, which supports keeping the claims alive at this stage. Turning to defenses, the Court of Appeals held that the Department did not establish that immunity bars the claims at this point in the case. It then addressed the emotional distress claims, concluding that the Plaintiffs sufficiently stated claims for both intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. As to the outrage claim, the Court found dismissal was improper. The Plaintiffs alleged facts suggesting the Department's conduct may not be legally justified, that it relied on unreliable testing, and that the resulting punishments, including solitary confinement and the loss of good time credits, were severe. The Court of Appeals likewise held that the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim should proceed. The alleged manner of imposing discipline could support such a claim if proven, and the Plaintiffs also alleged physical harm, which the Department argued was required. The Court then addressed the availability of constitutional damages. It affirmed dismissal of the Plaintiffs' damages claims based on due process violations, noting the lack of clear legal authority and the availability of alternative remedies through common-law tort claims. It declined to decide whether damages are available for cruel punishment violations under these circumstances. Finally, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's procedural decisions. It found no abuse of discretion in deferring class certification and staying discovery, especially given that significant discovery had already occurred and the motion at issue could be resolved on the pleadings. For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals of Washington's Opinion is available at https://sl1nk.com/onh0qux. Alison Sophia Bilow -- alison.bilow@columbialegal.org -- Columbia Legal Services, 1301 5th Ave Ste 1200, Seattle, WA, 98101-2677. Amy Louise Crewdson, Attorney at Law, 2520 Morse Ct Se, Olympia, WA, 98501-3882. Sarah Rachel Nagy, Columbia Legal Services, 711 Capitol Way S. Ste 706, Olympia, WA, 98501-1237, Counsel for Appellant(s). Aaron Michael Williams, Office of the Attorney General, Corrections Division, 1125 Washington Street Se, Olympia, WA, 98504-4010. Department of Corrections A.g. Office, Attorney at Law, Po Box 40116, Olympia, WA, 98504-0116. Kaylynn What -- Kaylynn@SSSLawGroup.com -- Simmons Sweeney Freimund Smith Tardif PL, 711 Capitol Way S. Ste 602, Olympia, WA, 98501-1236. Allison Margaret Croft -- Allison@SSSLawGroup.com -- Simmons Sweeney Freimund Smith Tardif PL, 711 Capitol Way S. Ste 602, Olympia, WA, 98501-1236, Counsel for Respondent(s). Neil Martin Fox -- nf@neilfoxlaw.com -- Law Office of Neil Fox, PLLC, 2125 Western Ave Ste 330, Seattle, WA, 98121-3573, Amicus Curiae on behalf of Seattle Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild. John Marlow, Washington Innocence Project, Po Box 85869, Seattle, WA, 98145-1869, Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington Innocence Project. WEST HOUSTON: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Threet Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTIAN THREET, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WEST HOUSTON ELECTRIC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-02572 (S.D. Tex., March 31, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Threet was employed by the Defendant as an electrician. West Houston Electric, Inc. is a family-owned electrical service provider. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Bohrer, Esq. Scott E. Brady, Esq. BOHRER BRADY, LLC 8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 925-5297 Facsimile: (225) 231-7000 Email: phil@bohrerbrady.com scott@bohrerbrady.com WEX INC: Darby Suit Alleges Wage and Hour Law Violations -------------------------------------------------------- PAMELA DARBY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WEX, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00147-SDN (D. Me., March 20, 2026) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Arizona Minimum Wage Act, the Arizona Wage Act, and common law. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt remote collections/credit representative from approximately March 2025, through December 2025. Throughout her employment with Defendant, the Plaintiff was required to work substantial amounts of uncompensated, off-the-clock time as part of her job duties, says the suit. Headquartered in Portland, ME, WEX, Inc. operates contact centers and provides payment processing and information management services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sally Morris, Esq. SALLY A. MORRIS ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC Six City Center, Suite 300 Portland, ME 04101 Telephone: (207) 543-3602 Facsimile: (207) 899-4870 E-mail: smorris@morrisemploymentlaw.com - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Kathryn E. Milz, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com kmilz@sommerspc.com WHAT IF HOLDINGS: Starling Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against What if Holdings LLC. The case is styled as Ryleigh Starling, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. What if Holdings LLC doing business as: C4R Media Corp., Case No. 3:26-cv-01039-B (N.D. Tex., April 2, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. What if Holdings LLC doing business as C4R Media Corp. -- https://c4rmedia.com/ -- partners with brands to design performance programs that prioritize quality, transparency, and measurable outcomes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 2657 Mt. Carmel Ave. Glenside, PA 19038 Phone: (215) 225-5529 Email: a@perronglaw.com WHITTAKER FORD: Lagrand Files Suit in N.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Whittaker Ford, Inc. The case is styled as Terri Lagrand, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Whittaker Ford, Inc., Case No. 5:26-cv-00530-AJB-ML (N.D.N.Y., April 2, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Whittaker Ford, Inc. -- https://www.whittakerford.com/ -- is a ford dealer in Williamson, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna Alexis Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Avenue-Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com WOOD TRICK LLC: Ramirez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Rosemarie Ramirez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. WOOD TRICK, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-03444 (N.D. Ill., March 29, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.woodtrick.com (the "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 corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, 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 is a company that owns and operates www.woodtrick.com offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com WOUND TECHNOLOGY: Rocha Files Suit in M.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wound Technology Network, Inc. The case is styled as Danny Rocha, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. Wound Technology Network, Inc., Case No. 6:26-cv-00723 (M.D. Fla., April 2, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Contract Dispute. Wound Technology Network -- https://woundtech.net/ -- is a medical group practice located in Hollywood, FL that specializes in Nursing (Nurse Practitioner) and Nursing (Registered Nurse).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (954) 647-1866 Email: mweekes@milberg.com ZAGG INC: Figueroa Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------- Geovanni Bahena Figueroa, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. ZAGG, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-03447 (N.D. Ill., March 29, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.mophie.com (the "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 corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, 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 is a company that owns and operates www.mophie.com offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101. Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com [] Loly Garcia Tor Joins Reed Smith as Partner in N.J. Office ------------------------------------------------------------- Global law firm Reed Smith announced that Loly Garcia Tor will join the firm as a partner in the Global Commercial Disputes Group, based in the firm's Princeton office. Arriving from K&L Gates, Tor brings extensive experience in consumer class action defense, construction, and complex commercial disputes across federal and state courts nationwide. Her arrival is part of a broader expansion of Reed Smith's Global Commercial Disputes and Labor and Employment Groups, including the addition of three partners in the firm's Boston office, also from K&L Gates. "Loly is an exceptional litigator who will immediately strengthen our class action and commercial disputes capabilities," said Jim Hultquist, co-chair of Reed Smith's Global Commercial Disputes Group. "Her arrival reflects the continued momentum of our litigation practice and our commitment to building market-leading capabilities in class action, construction and commercial litigation." Tor focuses on complex civil litigation throughout the United States, with an emphasis on consumer and building products litigation, construction disputes, and complex commercial disputes. She has extensive experience defending consumer class actions involving allegations of false advertising and deceptive marketing, product labeling, regulatory compliance, and emerging issues such as greenwashing and PFAS. She also represents clients in disputes related to construction and design defects, construction delays, warranty claims, mechanic's liens, and other construction-related disputes. Her complex commercial litigation experience spans a wide variety of contract disputes, with a focus on disputes along the supply chain and in the manufacturing industry. "I have always been impressed with Reed Smith's distinguished class action and commercial litigation work," said Tor. "The firm's national platform and collaborative culture provide an ideal environment for serving clients across a variety of industries. I look forward to contributing to the firm's continued growth and success." Tor earned her J.D., magna cum laude, from Boston University School of Law and her B.A., summa cum laude, from Seton Hall University. "Loly's addition to our Princeton office is a significant win for our clients in the region," said Nicholas Valvanis, managing partner of Reed Smith's Princeton office. "Her deep bench strength in class action defense and construction litigation fills a key need in this market. We are thrilled to welcome her." [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 ***