260416.mbx

260416.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, April 16, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 76 Headlines 6SENSE INSIGHTS: Malmstein and Laird Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. ALLBIRDS INC: Jenkins Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ANESTHESIA BUSINESS: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Jan. 19, 2027 ANTHEM COMPANIES: Learing FLSA Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia APPLE INC: Ted Entertainment Sues over DMCA Violations ARSTRAT LLC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Rush Suit Due Oct. 23 ARXIUM INC: Guzman Seeks Proper Wages for Field Service Reps AT WORLD PROPERTIES: Agrees to Settle Antitrust Suit for $52.25MM ATARA BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Faces Kuang Suit Over Securities Law Breach B24 INC: Lee and Montmeas Sue Over Cryptocurrency Fraud BEST BAAZ: Singh Files Suit Over Unlawful Employment Practices BLOCK INC: Gonsalves Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class CALIFORNIA DENTAL: Rojas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CICA2 CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Maldonado Alleges CONNECTAMERICA.COM: Expert Discovery in Felix Due Feb. 8, 2027 COTY INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 22 CRABBAE LLC: Blind Users Denied Equal Access to Website, Orcel Says DOLLARAMA AUSTRALIA: Court Delivers Mixed Ruling in Wage Class Suit EASTWOOD MALL: Court OKs $10MM Settlement in Mall Collapse Suit ELK VALLEY: Falkner Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation FUEGO SMOKE: Dial Suit Seeks Class Certification GAMAKATSU USA: Schultz Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users GARY'S MARKET: Henry Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind GOSSAMER BIO: Faces Kinnamon Suit Over Share Price Drop GREENERY UNLIMITED: Nonato Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website HERITAGE BANK: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Schmitt Says HESS CORPORATION: Class Certification Bid in Wagner Tossed IHRONE INC: Morrison Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ILLINOIS: Seeks Reconsideration of March 10 Order INMAR INC: Plaintiffs Allowed Leave to File Renewed Class Cert Bid IRB MEDICAL: Underpays Company Employees, Dukeshire Alleges J SAVINO: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Filosa Says KAPLAN NORTH: Inadequately Safeguards Private Info, Gentry Says KROGER CO: Cheatham Files Suit Over Unlawful No-Hire Agreement LAI NYC: Gelasio Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages LINKERS INDUSTRIES: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims LONG TINE: Blind Users Face Barriers to Website Access, Cruz Says LOOP AMERICA: Faces Bennett Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website LUFAX HOLDING: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 20 LUKS HOLDINGS: Court Stays Morris Bid for Class Certification MARRIOTT INT'L: Class Cert Bid Filing Due March 26, 2027 MASSIMO GROUP: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims MAXPRO FITNESS: Williams Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind MAZDA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Defective Brakes MEDICAL FACULTY: Fails to Pay for All Hours Worked, Jones Says MERCOR.IO CORPORATION: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Esson Says MERCOR.IO CORPORATION: Fails to Secure Sensitive Info, Deboni Says MERCOR.IO CORPORATION: Gill Files Suit Over Data Breach NAVIGATE360 LLC: Grandquist Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info NEW HORIZONS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, French Alleges NFL PLAYER: Alford Suit Seeks to Certify Four Classes O5 BNG: Hutton Deceptive Marketing Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ODDITY TECH: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 11 OKLAHOMA WINDOWS: Seeks Dismissal of Parisi 4th Amended Complaint OSI SYSTEMS: Russo Files Suit Over Data Breach PENSKE TRUCK: Lilium Group Balks at Unfair Truck Leasing Practices PETSMART LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Frost Says POMARE LTD: Lewis Files Suit Over Unsolicited Sales Calls PREMIUM BRANDS: Hasselkus Seeks to Continue Class Cert Bid Deadline PREMIUM CATERING: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims PROMEDICA EMPLOYMENT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Lafaver Says PTL LTD: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims QMMM HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims RAMY BROOK: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Jenkins Says RICHMOND TRAFFIC: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Page Says RWJBARNABAS HEALTH: Faces Suit Over Unlawful Tobacco Surcharge SAGE MESA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Unsafe Drinking Water SAMFINE CREATION: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims SUTTER HEALTH: Uses AI to Record Patients' Conversations, Suit Says SYNGENTA CROP: Landa Sues Over Defective Paraquat Herbicide SYNGENTA CROP: Looney Sues Over Paraquat's Health Hazards SYNGENTA CROP: Merrill Sues Over Unsafe Paraquat Herbicide TRIDENT DIGITAL: Rosen Laws Probes Potential Securities Claims UNITED HOMES: Faces Class Suit Over Securities' Law Violations UNITED STATES: Ex-FBI Employees File Suit for Unlawful Termination UPSTART HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Misleading Company Statements ZODIAC POOL SYSTEMS: Gadson-Rush Suit Removed to C.D. California ZYNGA INC: Dougherty Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ********* 6SENSE INSIGHTS: Malmstein and Laird Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled RICHARD MALMSTEIN and JAN LAIRD, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 6SENSE INSIGHTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. CGC-26-632942, was removed from the California Superior Court for the County of San Francisco to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on March 23, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-02505 to the proceeding. The case arises from Defendant's alleged violations of the Colorado Prevention of Telemarketing Act. Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, 6Sense Insights, Inc. operates as data broker and maintains the website, 6sense.com. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Myriah V. Jaworski, Esq. CLARK HILL LLP 505 Montgomery Street, 13th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 984-8500 Facsimile: (415) 984-8599 E-mail: mjaworski@ClarkHill.com ALLBIRDS INC: Jenkins Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- ANGEL JENKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLBIRDS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02351 (S.D.N.Y., March 23, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to ensure that its e-commerce website, https://www.allbirds.com, is accessible to the blind and visually impaired individuals. The Plaintiff maintains that the Defendant has violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law by failing to update or remove its website's accessibility barriers. Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, Allbirds, Inc. operates a direct-to-consumer e-commerce website through which it sells shoes, apparel, and accessories to consumers throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG LLC 825 Third Ave. New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 222-5700 E-mail: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com ANESTHESIA BUSINESS: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Jan. 19, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Matthew Kall, v., Anesthesia Business Consultants, L.L.C, Case No. 5:25-cv-13886-JEL-CI (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Levy entered a scheduling order: Event Deadline Email Case Manager regarding proposal June 30, 2026 for Alternative Dispute Resolution: ADR must be completed by: Nov. 13, 2026 Motion for Class Certification filed by: Jan. 19, 2027 Response filed by: March 5, 2027 Reply filed by: March 19, 2027 Discovery completed by: March 26, 2027 The Defendant provides billing & practice management services for anesthesia and pain management providers. A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EAcQjJ at no extra charge.[CC] ANTHEM COMPANIES: Learing FLSA Suit Transferred to E.D. Virginia ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Christine Learing, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Anthem Companies, Inc., Amerigroup Corporation, Amerigroup Partnership Plan, LLC, Case No. 0:21-cv-02283 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on April 3, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00266-DJN to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act for Denial of Overtime Compensation. The Anthem Companies, Inc. also known as Elevance Health, Inc. -- https://www.elevancehealth.com/ -- is an American health insurance company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rachhana T. Srey, Esq. Caroline E. Bressman, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4700 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 Email: srey@nka.com cbressman@nka.com The Defendants are represented by: Brett Christopher Bartlett, Esq. Kevin Michael Young, Esq. Lennon Haas, Esq. Shannon Cherney, Esq. William B. Hill, Jr., Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 1075 Peachtree Street, NE, Ste 2500 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 888-1875 Email: bbartlett@seyfarth.com kyoung@seyfarth.com lhaas@seyfarth.com scherney@seyfarth.com wbhill@seyfarth.com - and - Sharde Skahan, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Ste. 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 201-5216 Email: sskahan@seyfarth.com - and - Thomas J. Posey, Esq. BUCHALTER, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 180 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 980-5760 Email: tposey@buchalter.com APPLE INC: Ted Entertainment Sues over DMCA Violations ------------------------------------------------------ Ted Entertainment, Inc., Matt Fisher, and Golfholics, Inc., each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. APPLE, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-02936 (N.D. Cal., April 3, 2026), is brought against the Defendant, for violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"), arising from Defendant unlawfully circumventing technological protection measures to access and scrape millions of copyrighted videos from the online video viewing platform, YouTube, in order to feed, train, improve, and commercialize Defendant's large scale generative text-to-video artificial intelligence ("AI") model (hereinafter referred to as "Apple AI Video"). The Defendant published a peer-reviewed academic paper authored by its own researchers publicly disclosing that it trained Apple AI Video on Panda-70M--a dataset derived entirely from millions of YouTube videos that were themselves extracted from YouTube through circumvention of YouTube's TPMs. The Defendant deployed tools designed to evade and circumvent YouTube's TPMs by deploying automated systems that replicated and manipulated authorized request flows while evading enforcement mechanisms, thereby gaining access to the underlying works in a form not available to the public and outside the conditions authorized by the copyright owner. The Defendant used automated video-downloading programs combined with virtual machines that rotated IP addresses to avoid detection and blocking, enabling the mass unauthorized access and extraction of videos at the scale necessary to train Apple AI Video. Defendant then used Plaintiffs' and Class Members' intellectual property for their own commercial gain in developing and commercializing Apple AI Video. In doing so, Defendant has violated the law (and YouTube's Terms of Service), which were intended to protect Plaintiffs and others similarly situated. The Plaintiffs and the Class Members whom Plaintiffs seek to represent are content creators who upload their audiovisual content to YouTube. On information and belief, the audiovisual content of Class Members was among the video content utilized by Defendant to train Apple AI Video and related generative AI models, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs and the Class Members are content creators of audiovisual content. Apple Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in Cupertino, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rom Bar-Nissim, Esq. HEAH BAR-NISSIM LLP 1801 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 432-2836 Email: Rom@HeahBarNissim.com ARSTRAT LLC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Rush Suit Due Oct. 23 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER RUSH, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. ARSTRAT, LLC., Case No. 6:25-cv-03378-MDH (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Douglas Harpool entered a Scheduling Order / Discovery Plan. Pursuant to Rules 16(b) and 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties are Ordered to comply with the following Schedule and Order: 1. Any motion to join additional parties shall be filed on or before Aug. 24, 2026. 2. Any motion to amend the pleadings shall be filed on or before Aug. 24, 2026. 3. Discovery shall be completed on or before Sept. 23, 2026. 4. The plaintiff shall designate any expert witnesses on or before July 27, 2026, and the defendant shall designate any expert witnesses on or before Aug. 24, 2026. 5. Absent extraordinary circumstances, all discovery motions shall be filed on or before Sept. 9, 2026. 6. Motion for class certification due on or before Oct. 23, 2026. The Defendant is an industry leading collection and bad debt resolution provider for the healthcare industry. A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0sZb7y at no extra charge.[CC] ARXIUM INC: Guzman Seeks Proper Wages for Field Service Reps ------------------------------------------------------------ ALCKY A. GUZMAN III, SHAWN SMALLS, WILFREDO BADIA, UGENE ALLEN, and CHRIS BENNETT, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ARxIUM, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02346 (S.D.N.Y., March 23, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York's Labor Law, and the Pennsylvania's Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiffs are field service representatives (FSRs) for Defendant ARxIUM. Allegedly, the Defendant had an established and consistent practice of requiring FSRs, including Plaintiffs and those similarly situated, to enter their travel time from their offices to the client sites as a separate time entry in Defendant's time records. However, the Defendant routinely paid Plaintiffs and those similarly situated only at straight time for these separately entered travel time periods, without regard to the number of hours Plaintiffs and those similarly situated worked in that work week, says the suit. ARxIUM, Inc. provides automated pharmaceutical dispensary systems for pharmacies and pharmaceutical outlets through a variety of robots and other automated systems. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nathaniel K. Charny, Esq. CHARNY & WHEELER P.C. 42 West Market Street Rhinebeck, NY 12572 Telephone: (845) 876-7500 Facsimile: (845) 876-7501 E-mail: Fncharny@charnywheeler.com AT WORLD PROPERTIES: Agrees to Settle Antitrust Suit for $52.25MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Eliana Block of NAR Realty News reports that on Friday, April 10, the National Association of REALTORS(R) announced a settlement agreement in a homebuyer antitrust class-action case, Tuccori et al. v. At World Properties, et al., concerning buyer-agent commissions. The case included allegations that certain industry practices impacted competition and compensation structures. The settlement would not require any new practice changes for agents and brokers who are members of NAR, but reaffirms NAR commitment to the previous practice changes. If approved by the court, the settlement includes a release of liability for REALTOR(R) members, state and local REALTOR(R) associations (including those that do, and do not, operate multiple listing services (MLSs), REALTOR(R) MLSs, non-REALTOR(R) MLSs, and real estate brokerages with a REALTOR(R) as principal that have not previously settled or been named in similar litigation and meet specified eligibility criteria, including compliance with NAR rules and policies and not asserting claims contrary to the settlement. Importantly, NAR is not named in the Tuccori case but elected to engage in the Tuccori court-approved opt-in settlement process to secure a comprehensive resolution to these homebuyer claims. The Tuccori opt-in settlement mechanism allows parties facing similar claims in other litigation to resolve those claims efficiently through the settlement framework. In a statement released on NAR's website, NAR CEO Nykia Wright explains how this agreement reflects the organization's comprehensive three-year plan. "In NAR's 2026-2028 Strategic Plan, we committed to the industry that we would protect and advance the legal interest of REALTORS(R). This settlement is a part of our efforts to fulfill that commitment and will promote a more resilient industry," Wright says in a press release. "This outcome, which provides a broader level of protection and release for the industry than has been secured in any previous NAR settlement, is a result of NAR's new legal team's diligent approach to addressing legal risk and reinforces our commitment to delivering greater value and stability for our members, so they can remain focused on their clients and getting to their next transaction." NAR General Counsel Jon Waclawski says the settlement secures "meaningful protections." "This outcome is a direct result of the more deliberate and strategic legal approach our team has adopted," Waclawski says. "We sought this settlement to secure meaningful protections for our members and the industry. We moved decisively to resolve these claims in a way that avoids significant potential liability and positions NAR more effectively going forward, ensuring our members can continue unlocking the American Dream for generations to come." NAR's legal team will seek a stay in the Batton case, which made similar allegations to those made in the Tuccori litigation. As part of the settlement, NAR will pay $52.25 million into a settlement fund over several years, with the bulk of the payments beginning after June 2028. NAR's final payment in the Sitzer/Burnett settlement is due February 2028. [GN] ATARA BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Faces Kuang Suit Over Securities Law Breach ------------------------------------------------------------------ JEREMY CHIN ZHI KUANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATARA BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC., ANHCO THIEU NGUYEN, PASCAL TOUCHON, ERIC HYLLENGREN, and YANINA GRANT-HUERTA, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-03083 (C.D. Cal., March 23, 2026) seeks to recover recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission's Rule 10b-5, against the Atara Biotherapeutics, Inc. and certain of its top officials. The Plaintiff brings this securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Atara securities between May 20, 2024 and January 9, 2026, both dates inclusive. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) certain manufacturing issues, as well as deficiencies inherent in the ALLELE study, made it unlikely that the FDA would approve the tabelecleucel BLA; (ii) accordingly, tabelecleucel's regulatory prospects were overstated; and (iii) the said manufacturing issues also subjected Atara to a heightened risk of regulatory scrutiny, as well as jeopardized its ongoing clinical trials. Headquartered in Thousand Oaks, CA, Atara develops therapies for patients with solid tumors, hematologic cancers, and autoimmune diseases in the U.S. and the United Kingdom. The company's common stock trades in an efficient market on the Nasdaq Stock Market under the ticker symbol "ATRA." [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 405-7190 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com B24 INC: Lee and Montmeas Sue Over Cryptocurrency Fraud ------------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA LEE and PIERRE MONTMEAS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BEN PASTERNAK; B24, INC.; BELIEVE FOUNDATION; and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-02368 DEH (S.D.N.Y., March 23, 2026) arises from Defendant Ben Pasternak's unfulfilled promise of a buyback program that would use platform fees to support the price of his cryptocurrency token. Defendant Pasternak allegedly diluted consumers' holdings by printing new tokens for insiders, breaking his promises to his consumers. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased, acquired, or held $PASTERNAK, $LAUNCHCOIN, or $BELIEVE tokens and suffered losses as a result of Defendants' deceptive, misleading, and unconscionable conduct, asserting claims under the New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350, the California Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law, and common-law claims for negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment. Headquartered in New York, NY, B24, Inc. developed and maintained the Believe platform and is identified as the developer of the "Believe" iOS application in the Apple App Store. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Max Burwick, Esq. BURWICK LAW, PLLC 1 World Trade Center, 84th Fl. New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (646) 762-1080 E-mail: max@burwick.law BEST BAAZ: Singh Files Suit Over Unlawful Employment Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- AMRAT SINGH, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEST BAAZ, INC., BEST, INC., JATINDER SINGH, and JASDEEP KAUR, Case No. 26-cv-00611 (S.D. Ind., March 27, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Indiana Wage Payment Statute arising from Defendants' various willful, malicious, and unlawful employment policies, patterns, and/or practices. The complaint relates that during Plaintiff's employment, Defendants paid Plaintiff partially on the books of Best Baaz by direct deposit, and partially off the books by Zelle transfers from Best Inc. and Jatinder, in a willful bid to confuse Plaintiff as to his amount of compensation earned and received, and in a willful bid to deceive Indiana and/or federal tax and/or regulatory authorities. The Plaintiff alleges, pursuant to FLSA, that he is entitled to recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid minimum wages; (2) liquidated damages equal to, or prejudgment interest on, unpaid minimum wages; (3) postjudgment interest; (4) reasonable attorney fees; and (5) costs. The Plaintiff alleges, pursuant to IWPS, that he is entitled to recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid earned wages; (2) liquidated damages equal to twice unpaid earned wages; (3) reasonable attorney fees; and (4) costs. Plaintiff AMRAT SINGH is a resident of Queens, New York and was employed by Defendants to work as a truck driver from February 19, 2025 through on or about June 25, 2025. Defendant BEST BAAZ, INC. is a carrier with business consisted of trucking general freight and paper products between points within and without Indiana, and between and among points without Indiana. Defendant BEST, INC. paid Plaintiff wages, off the books by Zelle. Defendant JATINDER SINGH exercised the authority to hire employees to work for Corporate Defendants. Defendant JASDEEP KAUR is the President of Best Baaz.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. Tiffany Troy, Esq. Aaron B. Schweitzer, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com BLOCK INC: Gonsalves Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORINNE GONSALVES, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. BLOCK, INC., JACK DORSEY, and AMRITA AHUJA, Case No. 5:25-cv-00642-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on June 30, 2026, will move the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for entry of an order: (1) Certifying the Class (defined below) under Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3); (2) Appointing the NYC Funds as Class Representative; and (3) Appointing Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g). Block is a financial technology company co-founded in 2009 by the Defendant Jack Dorsey. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0G2qdN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard M. Heimann, Esq. Katherine Lubin Benson, Esq. Courtney J. Liss, Esq. Nicole M. Rubin, Esq. Steven E. Fineman, Esq. Daniel P. Chiplock, Esq. Nicholas Diamand, Esq. Gabriel A. Panek, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 E-mail: rheimann@lchb.com kbenson@lchb.com cliss@lchb.com nrubin@lchb.com sfineman@lchb.com dchiplock@lchb.com ndiamand@lchb.com gpanek@lchb.com - and - Julie Goldsmith Reiser, Esq. Claire Marsden, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: jreiser@cohenmilstein.com cmarsden@cohenmilstein.com - and - Michael B. Eisenkraft, Esq. Benjamin F. Jackson, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 88 Pine Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 838-7797 E-mail: meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com bjackson@cohenmilstein.com CALIFORNIA DENTAL: Rojas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against California Dental Association, et al. The case is styled as Miguel Rojas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and the general public v. California Dental Association, Does 1-50, Case No. 26CV008281 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April 3, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." The California Dental Association -- https://www.cda.org/ -- is a not-for-profit organization representing organized dentistry in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Arakelyan, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Blvd., Ste. 840 Glendale, CA 91203-2920 Phone: 818-962-6465 Email: d.arakelyan@d.law CICA2 CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Maldonado Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- PABLO MALDONADO, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CICA2 CORP., CIRO TURSI and CARLOS CANDO, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-01721 (E.D.N.Y., March 23, 2026) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff seeks to proceed as a collective action on behalf of himself and all persons who are currently, or have been, employed by the Defendants in non-exempt positions including, but not limited to, kitchen workers, cooks, line cooks, food preparers, dishwashers, servers, bartenders and bussers at any time during the three years prior to the filing of their respective consent forms. The Plaintiff maintains that he and other similarly situated employees regularly worked more than 40 hours in a work week but were not paid overtime. Cica2 Corp owns and operates a restaurant located in Nassau County, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 CONNECTAMERICA.COM: Expert Discovery in Felix Due Feb. 8, 2027 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FELIX v. CONNECTAMERICA.COM, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01695 (E.D. Pa., Filed Apri 1, 2025), the Hon. Judge John M. Younge entered a second amended scheduling order that the consent motion for extension of time to complete discovery is granted and the following case management schedule is enacted: -- Fact Discovery Shall be completed by Sept. 17, 2026 -- Expert Discovery is due by Feb. 8, 2027 -- Dispositive motions/class certification motions are due by March 10, 2027 The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Connect America.com provides digital health solutions.[CC] COTY INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 22 -------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, a nationally recognized investor-rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Coty Inc. (NYSE: COTY) and certain of its officers. This lawsuit seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Coty securities between November 5, 2025 and February 4, 2026, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: bgandg.com/COTY. Coty Case Details The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Defendants issued overwhelmingly positive statements regarding Coty's growth and profitability prospects for fiscal year 2026; (2) Coty's growth in the beauty market was slowing, including underperformance in its Consumer Beauty segment; (3) The Company's margins were being pressured by increased marketing expenditures; (4) Growth in Coty's Prestige fragrance segment was decelerating; and (5) As a result, Defendants' statements about Coty's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. What's Next for Coty Investors? A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint, you can visit the firm's site: bgandg.com/COTY or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Client Relations Manager, Nathan Miller, of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 917-590-0911. If you suffered a loss in Coty you have until May 22, 2026, to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. No Cost to Coty Investors We, Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman LLC, represent investors in class actions on a contingency fee basis. That means we will ask the court to reimburse us for out-of-pocket expenses and attorneys' fees, usually a percentage of the total recovery, only if we are successful. Why Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC for Coty Securities Class Action? Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a nationally recognized firm that represents investors in securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits. Our firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors nationwide. More at www.bgandg.com "Our practice centers on restoring investor capital and ensuring corporate accountability, which serves to uphold the essential integrity of the marketplace," said Peretz Bronstein, Founding Partner of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC. Contact Info Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Nathan Miller, Esq. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Tel: (917) 590-0911 info@bgandg.com [GN] CRABBAE LLC: Blind Users Denied Equal Access to Website, Orcel Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN ORCEL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CRABBAE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-03454 (D.N.J., April 1, 2026) is a civil rights action against the 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, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on October 27, 2025, to access Defendant's Website from his home but encountered barriers that denied his full and equal access to Defendant's online content and services. The Plaintiff asserts that 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. Plaintiff KEVIN ORCEL is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant CRABBAE, LLC operates and owns the website which crabbae.com which is an online platform for a seafood restaurant specializing in crab-centered meals, seafood boils, platters, sides, and signature sauces.[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 DOLLARAMA AUSTRALIA: Court Delivers Mixed Ruling in Wage Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Lin Albalos of HRD reports that a Federal Court has handed down a mixed ruling in a class action over salaried retail managers' pay and hours, with implications for employer compliance. The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia on 10 April 2026 delivered its decision in Cannan v Dollarama Australia Pty Limited [2026] FCAFC 41, a class action brought by Store Managers and Assistant Store Managers against the retailer now known as Dollarama Australia (formerly The Reject Shop). The applicant, Bradley Cannan, filed the proceeding in April 2023 on behalf of himself and other Store Managers and Assistant Store Managers. The original claim alleged the General Retail Industry Award 2010 applied to their employment and that they had been underpaid for actual hours worked during the period from 24 April 2017 to 18 April 2023. Dollarama disputed this, arguing that an enterprise agreement rather than the award governed the managers' employment throughout that period. A judge found that the enterprise agreement did apply and that the award did not, which meant the original group of claimants had no qualifying members. As the Full Court recorded, quoting the primary judge: "[i]n short, it is now accepted -- or, in any event, it is the case -- that neither award applies or applied to the employment of [Dollarama]'s Store Managers or Assistant Store Managers. As presently defined, the group on behalf of which Mr Cannan brings the proceeding is empty." Rather than abandon the proceedings, Cannan's legal team restructured the claim. In June 2025, they filed an application seeking leave to file revised pleadings that dropped the award-based allegations entirely and redefined the class. The revised group covered salaried managers who had worked more than 40 hours in any given week (if full-time) or more than two hours beyond their ordinary hours of work (if part-time). The updated claim alleged underpayments under the enterprise agreement itself, as well as contraventions of the Fair Work Act including in relation to enterprise agreement obligations and maximum weekly hours. The primary judge permitted those amendments and ordered them to take effect from 16 June 2025, being the date the amendment application had been filed. Cannan sought an earlier date, arguing the amendments should relate back to the commencement of the proceeding in April 2023, or alternatively to July 2024. Dollarama cross-appealed, arguing the class action could not have commenced before the amended documents were actually filed. The Full Court dismissed Cannan's appeal and partly allowed Dollarama's cross-appeal. It found that no valid class action existed before the amended pleadings were filed, and that the class action properly commenced on 15 August 2025, being the date those documents were filed. The primary judge's order fixing 16 June 2025 as the operative date was set aside. Notably, the Full Court also confirmed, for the first time at appellate level, that an existing proceeding between individual parties can be converted into a class action by amendment. The underlying wage and hours claims have not been determined on their merits and the case will continue in the Federal Court's Fair Work Division. The Full Court observed that employment class actions are becoming more common, noting: "Persons who seek to commence class actions must give careful consideration, at the outset, to whether the requirements of s 33C are satisfied. In particular, they must ensure that there are, in fact, seven or more persons with claims of the requisite character, and that the proceeding is otherwise properly constituted as a representative proceeding. This is not a matter which can be left to later forensic development." The case illustrates the risk of misidentifying which industrial instrument covers a specific group of employees. Salaried managers in supervisory roles often sit at the boundary between award and enterprise agreement coverage. Here, the entire original claim was undone by a finding about which instrument applied. The restructured claim, now focused on enterprise agreement compliance and additional hours, will proceed. The case continues. [GN] EASTWOOD MALL: Court OKs $10MM Settlement in Mall Collapse Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Kate Rutherford of CBC News reports that a judge has approved a $10 million settlement to compensate survivors of the 2012 mall collapse in Elliot Lake which killed two women and left 20 others injured. A subsequent investigation ordered by the government found years of leaking water, road salt infiltration and a lack of maintenance and proper inspections led to the corrosion of supporting steel beams. Settlements have already been reached with the families of the women killed, Lucie Aylwin and Doloris Perizzolo. This separate class action was led by Elaine and Jack Quinte who owned a business in the food court near where the collapse occurred and stepped up to lead the fight for compensation for survivors like themselves. Their lawyer David O'Connor praised them as exceptional plantiffs who worked tirelessly to advance the case despite physical and psychological trauma sustained during the event and personal financial and health setbacks during the twelve years of negotiations. The Quintes thanked the judge and lawyers for helping reach a settlement. "It's been a long road for us, and it certainly did not come without challenges," said Elaine, also speaking on behalf of her husband "Hardships were tough and scary, and our lives really got turned upside down." Lead plaintiffs may get honorarium She noted it was especially difficult because they had to keep negotiations confidential despite living in a small community where people constantly approached them with questions during the 12-year-long process. O'Connor asked that they be compensated with an honorarium considering their dedication. Justice Benjamin Glustein at first resisted, arguing honorariums are reserved for plaintiffs who must relive incidents like sexual assaults or years of institutional abuse in their affidavits and wasn't sure that the Quintes met that bar. O'Connor persisted saying Elaine Quinte witnessed the building collapsing in front of her. "I don't know many plaintiffs who were physically and psychologically injured who would take on the role (of representative plaintiffs)," he said, adding Quinte also suffered a prolonged autoimmune skin condition in response to her terror and shock at the time of the collapse. He said she suffered shoulder, back and leg injuries in her escape that still plague her today. The judge agreed to consider an honorarium but did not decide yet on an amount. The judge also approved $2.4 million in legal fees which O'Connor argued were reasonable given his firm documented about $5 million in billable hours related to the class action. The judge has yet to approve a distribution plan and the administrator hasn't yet been chosen. Claims are expected from people who suffered physical and psychological injuries during the collapse as well as business losses and even lost wages. City of Elliot Lake to contribute about a third of total settlement The conclusion of the class action means the defendents, including former owners of the property, the province, engineers and the architect will not face any further legal repercussions, and are not admitting liability. The break down of the amounts each defendant will contribute are contained in court documents. -- $3,500,000 on behalf of the Corporation of the City of Elliot Lake. -- $2,000,000 on behalf of the company that built the mall, Algoma Central Properties Inc. -- $1,745,000 on behalf of Eastwood Mall Inc. and its president, owners of the mall at the time of the collapse. -- $1,000,000 each from former owners NorDev Group and Retirement Living. -- $730,000 on behalf of M.R. Wright & Associates, Robert Wood and Gregory Saunders -- engineers who inspected the mall before it collapsed. -- $400,000 on behalf of the province. -- $225,000 on behalf of the company that provided concrete for the building, Coreslab Structures. -- $175,000 on behalf of the original architect, James Keywan, who has since died. The defendents will also pay $775,000 to settle a lawsuit from mall tenant Foodland. In conclusion, Justice Glustein again thanked the Quintes. "There can be no doubt in my mind of the incredibly important role you played in this system," he said. "No matter what we do here, it will never change the day that happened." [GN] ELK VALLEY: Falkner Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation ---------------------------------------------------------- ALEXIS FALKNER, individually, and on behalf of herself and other similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v. ELK VALLEY HEALTH SERVICES, LLC and UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00386 (M.D. Tenn., March 31, 2026) is brought against the Defendants as a multi-plaintiff action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid minimum wage, overtime compensation and other damages owed to Plaintiff and other similarly situated registered nurses. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated performed work for Defendants in excess of 40 hours within weekly pay periods and 80 hours within bi-weekly pay periods during all times material to this action. However, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated the applicable FLSA minimum wage and overtime compensation rates of pay for all hours worked within weekly and bi-weekly pay periods, says the suit. Furthermore, the Plaintiff was constructively terminated from her employment because she complained to Defendants that she had not been paid for several weeks leading up to the time of her separation of employment, notes the complaint. Elk Valley Health Services, LLC, is a provider of home care and senior care services in Nashville, Tennessee and other cities in Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq. Landry Smith, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT Attorneys at Law 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com lsmith@jsyc.com FUEGO SMOKE: Dial Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHLEEN DIAL, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MARGARET P. CALDWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FUEGO SMOKE & VAPE LLC, MANKI INVESTMENTS LLC, HYWAZE LLC, OUTER LIMITS SALES TWO LLC, A&A SMOKE SHOP LLC, PUFFZILLA LLC, and GIVINGO LLC, individually and as representatives of a defendant class, and PLUTO BRANDS, LLC ,GALAXY GAS, LLC, DIMO HEMP LLC, FUSION INTERNATIONAL TRADING LLC, UNITED BRANDS, INC., SWEET AND SOUR HOLDINGS LLC, MONSTER GAS, INC., and BAKING BAD GROUP, INC. Case No. 6:25-cv-00551-AGM-NWH (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the deadline to file her motion for class certification by an additional 126 days, to Aug. 13, 2026. The Plaintiff moves for this extension for two principal reasons: First, the various motions to dismiss remain pending. Until the motions to dismiss are resolved, the precise contours of the Plaintiff's case remain somewhat uncertain. Parties and the Court can derive deficiencies if the motion for class certification is consistent with the outcome of the motions to dismiss. A brief extension will potentially eliminate the need for the parties to brief, and for the Court to consider, briefing on issues that may ultimately not proceed. Second, the motion for certification in a complex class action such as this cannot be finalized until Plaintiff's expert reports are finalized. According to the existing Case Management and Scheduling Order, the Plaintiff's expert reports are due on June 30, 2026, and her rebuttal expert reports are due on Aug. 13, 2026. Accordingly, it would be more efficient to combine the delivery of the rebuttal expert reports with the filing of the certification motion. Fuego is a retail establishment, specializing in a wide range of smoke and vape products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mgZQgp at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com GAMAKATSU USA: Schultz Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users ----------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD SCHULTZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Gamakatsu USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03585 (N.D. Ill., March 31, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://gamakatsu.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Schultz and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On March 11, 2026, Plaintiff Schultz was searching for fishing equipment and exploring available options online. During his search, he came across Defendant's website and decided to explore it with the intention of making a purchase. However, while navigating the website using screen reader software, he encountered multiple accessibility barriers. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by him and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading hierarchy, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, inaccurate drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. Plaintiff Schultz seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Gamakatsu USA, Inc. operates the website that offers fishing gear and equipment, including hooks, lures, rigs, weights, tackle accessories, tools, and outdoor apparel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law GARY'S MARKET: Henry Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------- CONSTANCE HENRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Gary's Market, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03591 (N.D. Ill., March 31, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://christmastraditions.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Henry and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On November 10, 2025, Plaintiff Henry was searching online for Christmas decorations. During her search, she came across the Defendant's website and decided to explore it with the intent to make a purchase. However, while browsing the website with her screen-reader software, she encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from completing the transaction. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by her and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inadequate focus order, inaccessible contact information, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Gary's Market operates the website that offers a selection of year-round holiday products, including collectible glass ornaments, vintage-style holiday figures, and other Christmas-themed home accents.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law GOSSAMER BIO: Faces Kinnamon Suit Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL KINNAMON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOSSAMER BIO, INC. and FAHEEM HASNAIN, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-02016-CAB-AHG (S.D. Cal., March 31, 2026) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Gossamer securities between June 16, 2025, and February 20, 2026, inclusive, including securities acquired through assignments from selling put contracts, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act. The Defendants provided investors with material information concerning Gossamer's Phase 3 PROSERA study evaluating seralutinib for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Defendants' statements included, among other things, confidence in PROSERA's trial design. The Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the study design for the Company's Phase 3 PROSERA study, particularly, controlling for the placebo response at the Latin American testing sites. This caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase Gossamer's securities at artificially inflated prices, says the suit. Consequently, the price of Gossamer's common stock declined from a closing market price of $2.13 per share on February 20, 2026 to $0.42 per share on February 23, 2025, a decline of over 80% in the span of just a single day. The Plaintiff and other investors have sustained significant damages as a result of Defendants' fraudulent statements. The Plaintiff seeks to recover those damages by way of this lawsuit. Gossamer Bio, Inc. operates as a biopharmaceutical company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 515 South Flower Street 18th-19th Floors Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 985-7290 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com GREENERY UNLIMITED: Nonato Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE NONATO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Greenery Unlimited LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03436 (N.D. Ill., March 27, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, https://greeneryunlimited.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Nonato and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Nonato's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint relates that Jose Nonato attempted to complete a purchase on Defendant's Website on January 19, 2026. However, as he attempted to navigate the Website and proceed with the purchase, Nonato encountered several accessibility barriers that hindered his ability to effectively browse the Website and complete the transaction independently. The Website contains access barriers that denied him full and equal access. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Nonato and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of the Website in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and/or its implementing regulations, says the suit. Nonato seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff Jose Nonato is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Greenery Unlimited LLC provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a variety of indoor plants, planters and pots, grow lights, potting soil, and other plant-care supplies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. 4903 Avenue N, Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 929-442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law HERITAGE BANK: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Schmitt Says ------------------------------------------------------------ TIM SCHMITT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HERITAGE BANK, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-05305 (W.D. Wash., March 27, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its negligent failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information"), culminating in a massive and preventable data breach. The complaint relates that as part of its business practices and to provide services, Defendant collects, stores, and maintains the PII of the persons who bank with Heritage, including Plaintiff and Class Members. On March 2, 2026, Heritage discovered suspicious activity on its network and launched an investigation. This investigation revealed that criminal third-party actors had access to Heritage's network and were able to copy customer and employee PII due to an unsecure file share server used by employees on March 1, 2026. The PII stolen in the Breach includes names and one or more of the following: account numbers, Social Security numbers or Individual Taxpayer Identification numbers, dates of birth, and addresses. On March 20, 2026, Heritage posted a "Notice of Security Incident" on its website. Heritage has yet to send individualized notices to people affected by the Data Breach. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff and the Class Members will now have to deal with the danger of identity thieves possessing and misusing their Private Information. Even those Class Members who have yet to experience identity theft will have to spend time responding to the Data Breach and are at an immediate and heightened risk of all manners of identity theft as a direct and proximate result of the Data Breach. The Plaintiff and Class Members have incurred and will continue to incur damages in the form of, among other things, identity theft, attempted identity theft, lost time and expenses mitigating harms, increased risk of harm, damaged credit, diminution of the value of their Private Information, loss of privacy, and additional damages, says the suit. The Plaintiff, hence, brings this action individually and on behalf of the Class, seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, nominal damages, restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and all other remedies this Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff Tim Schmitt is a citizen and individual domiciled in Stanwood, Washington. Plaintiff is a current customer of Heritage Bank and provided his Private Information in return for Defendant's banking services. Defendant Heritage Bank is a regional bank that offers personal banking, commercial banking, and wealth management services with branches in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com jaw@federmanlaw.com HESS CORPORATION: Class Certification Bid in Wagner Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA WAGNER, v. HESS CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 6:24-cv-00004-H (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge James Wesley Hendrix entered an order that Wagner's unopposed class certification and preliminary approval motion and the parties' proposed class are denied without prejudice. The Court orders Wagner to submit, on or before May 8, 2026, a new motion to preliminarily approve the parties' class settlement, conditionally certify the class, appoint class counsel, approve class notice, and schedule a fairness hearing. So ordered on March 24, 2026. Because the parties agree to a narrower class and require additional time to revise the Settlement Agreement, the Court cannot grant the parties’ motion. While the parties represent that the new settlement agreement will mostly require a change of class definition only, they indicate that the new class will also "require several cascading revisions, including changes to the Plan of Allocation to remove the $10 base payment" that would have been allocated to uninjured 401(k) plan members. These changes thus anticipate a change in the relief afforded to injured class members. The Court has every reason to believe the parties will expeditiously identify and propose new terms. However, to ensure the parties have sufficient time to negotiate, the Court finds that a 45-day period—until May 8, 2026 -- is appropriate to permit further discussions on the proposed settlement before resubmission. Hess is an American independent energy company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tDAkKq at no extra charge.[CC] IHRONE INC: Morrison Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW MORRISON, et al. Plaintiffs v. IHRONE INC., LGC GLOBAL, INC., and LGC GLOBAL ENERGY FM, LLC, Jointly and Severally, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-11030-SKD-APP (E.D. Mich., March 27, 2026) is a collective and class action against the Defendants for paying hourly workers less than one-and-a-half times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week depriving Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees, known or unknown, of fair compensation for their labor, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Michigan Improved Workforce Opportunity Wage Act ("MIWOWA"). According to the complaint, the Defendants provide labor for construction projects, including contracts on public works with federal, state, and local governmental entities. As such, on a number of projects for which Defendants supplied laborers, employees were entitled to a minimal rate of pay at the applicable federal or state prevailing wage rate. However, Defendants regularly fail to pay Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees the relevant State prevailing wage for their positions on such projects. As such, Defendants have violated the Michigan Prevailing Wages on State Projects Act ("PWSPA"). Therefore, Plaintiffs now bring the FLSA collective action and class action under the MIWOWA and PWSPA on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals who were employed by Defendants in hourly laborer and skilled laborer positions. They seek all available remedies under the law. Plaintiffs Matthew Morrison, Ahmed Almarsoumi, Scott Benson, Robbie Bristow, Keith Dean, Devin Divine, Ryan Forth, Kyle Hahn, Mathew Halprin, Corey Hogg, Ethan Jeffery, Allen LaBelle, Brian Lashinski, Cesar Mejia, Erick Murphy, Nicholas Dee Norman, Andre Platevoet, Byran Quaker, George Ramirez, Brian Robichaud, Jeffrey Rowell, Matthew Scherer, Darren Smith, Timothy Spicer, Jonathan Stokes, Michael Thompson, and Nicholas Walls are citizens of the United States who performed work for Defendants in the Eastern District of Michigan. Defendant IHRONE Inc. is a leading force in Integrated Facility Management and infrastructure services across the United States. Defendant LGC Global, Inc. is a multifaceted minority-owned general contracting company headquartered in Detroit, Michigan. Defendant LGC Global Energy FM, LLC is one of the fastest-growing Federal, Government, Municipal and Facility Management contracting companies in the US.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam M. Taub, Esq. CROSON, TAUB, & MICHAELS, PLLC 455 E. Eisenhower Pkwy, Ste. 75 Ann Arbor, MI 48108 Telephone: (734) 519-0872 E-mail: ataub@ctmlawyers.com ILLINOIS: Seeks Reconsideration of March 10 Order ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Heather Kainz, et al., on behalf of Themselves and a Class of Similarly Situated Persons, v. Illinois Department of Corrections, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01250-JEH-RLH (C.D. Ill.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order to reconsider the Court's March 10, 2026, Order granting class certification. IDOC was established in 1970, combining the state's prisons, juvenile centers, and parole services. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LwRB2i at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: M. Nieves Bolaños, Esq. Patrick Cowlin, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. 111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60601 E-mail: mnbolanos@hq-law.com pcowlin@hq-law.com - and - Patricia A. Stamler, Esq. Elizabeth C. Thomson, Esq. Matthew J. Turchyn, Esq. HERTZ SCHRAM PC 1760 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 300 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 E-mail: pstamler@hertzschram.com sweiss@hertzschram.com lthomson@hertzschram.com mturchyn@hertzschram.com - and - Martin A. Dolan, Esq. DOLAN LAW PC 10 South LaSalle Street #3702 Chicago, IL 60603 E-mail: mdolan@dolanlegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael A. Warner, Jr., Esq. Reva G. Ghadge, Esq. FRANCZEK P.C. 300 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 3400 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 986-0300 E-mail: maw@franczek.com rgg@franczek.com - and - Denise Baker-Seal, Esq. Kara Burke, Esq. Jessica S. Holliday, Esq. BROWN & JAMES, P.C. Richland Plaza I 525 West Main Street, Suite 200 Belleville, IL 62220-1547 Telephone: (618) 235-5590 Facsimile: (618) 235-5591 E-mail: dseal@bjpc.com dowens@bjpc.com jholliday@bjpc.com atame@bjpc.com karab@bjpc.com - and - Ambrose V. McCall, Esq. Robert T. Shannon, Esq. Justin Penn, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 416 Main Street, Suite 529 Peoria, IL 61602 Telephone: (309) 674-1025 Facsimile: (309) 674-9328 E-mail: amccall@hinshawlaw.com rshannon@hinshawlaw.com jpenn@hinshawlaw.com INMAR INC: Plaintiffs Allowed Leave to File Renewed Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MR. DEE'S INC., RETAIL MARKETING SERVICES, INC., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and CONNECTICUT FOOD ASSOCIATION, v. INMAR, INC., CAROLINA MANUFACTURER'S SERVICES, INC., CAROLINA SERVICES, and CAROLINA COUPON CLEARING, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-00141-WO-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge William Osteen Jr. entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file renewed motion for class certification. The Defendants shall respond within 21 days of filing, and the Plaintiffs shall reply within 14 days of the Defendants' response. The Court further entered an order that the matter is set for hearing on May 29, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom no. 1 in Greensboro. The parties should prepare to argue both sanctions and class certification. Inmar develops software for health care sector. A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qnP0jI at no extra charge.[CC] IRB MEDICAL: Underpays Company Employees, Dukeshire Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL DUKESHIRE, On behalf of himself and those similarly, Plaintiff vs. IRB MEDICAL EQUIPMENT, LLC d.b.a "Hart Medical Equipment", Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-11075-LJM-KGA (E.D. Mich., April 1, 2026) is a collective action against the Defendant for its failure to pay Dukeshire and other similarly situated employees their full overtime wages. The Putative Collective Members are all current and former non-exempt hourly employees of IRB. The complaint contends that the Defendant violated and continues to violate the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to include non-discretionary and other non-excludable remuneration, including but not limited to delivery premiums, on-call pay, and similar additional compensation, in the regular rate of pay when calculating overtime. As a direct and proximate result of IRB's unlawful conduct, Dukeshire and similarly situated employees suffered unpaid overtime damages. Dukeshire and similarly situated employees are entitled to recover their unpaid overtime compensation, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and all other relief available under FLSA, adds the complaint. Plaintiff Michael Dukeshire worked for IRB as a non-exempt, hourly Medical Equipment Technician in Fremont, Ohio. Defendant IRB Medical Equipment, LLC d/b/a Hart Medical Equipment ("IRB") is a Michigan limited liability company which maintains its principal place of business in Grand Blanc, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris Wido, Esq. SPITZ, THE EMPLOYEE'S ATTORNEY 3 Summit Park Drive, Suite 200 Independence, OH 44131 Telephone: (216) 364-1330 Facsimile: (216) 291-5744 E-mail: Chris.Wido@Spitzlawfirm.com J SAVINO: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Filosa Says ---------------------------------------------------- LISA FIGUEROA FILOSA, on behalf of herself and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, Plaintiff v. J SAVINO CAFE INC., RICHARD MASTRANGELO, JAMES SAVINO, AND MICHELLE MASTRANGELO, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-01943 (E.D.N.Y., April 1, 2026) is a collective action to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages arising from Defendants' willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The complaint relates that the Defendants participated in a brazen pattern and practice of wage theft and tax evasion. While employing Plaintiff as a bartender and office assistant, Defendants systematically paid Plaintiff "off the books" in cash for her office duties to artificially suppress her recorded hours and avoid paying overtime premiums. Despite regularly working in excess of 50 hours per week, Plaintiff was paid a flat cash fee for her office work and was deprived of overtime compensation for thousands of hours worked over her 13-year tenure, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff further asserts claims for unlawful retaliation and whistleblower protection violations under the FLSA, NYLL, and the New York State Human Rights Law. When Plaintiff objected to Defendants' unlawful practice of converting employee gratuities into "administrative fees" and paying staff "off the books," Defendants, led by Defendant Michelle, subjected Plaintiff to a hostile work environment characterized by verbal abuse, intimidation, and retaliatory scheduling changes, notes the complaint. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, emotional distress damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff Lisa Figueroa Filosa is a former employee of Defendants. She has over 20-years of experience in the service, bar, and restaurant industry. Defendant J Savino Cafe Inc., is a New York Corporation with its principal place of business at 511 Commack Rd, Deer Park, NY 11729. JSC does business as Edgewood Bar and Grille. Defendant James Savino is an owner and operator of JSC and Edgewood Bar and Grille. Defendant Richard Mastrangelo is an owner and operator of JSC and Edgewood Bar and Grille. Richard is married to Defendant Michelle. Defendant Michelle Mastrangelo is the spouse of owner and operator Richard. Michelle held a managerial position at JSC and Edgewood Bar and Grille for all relevant times.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taimur Alamgir, Esq. Matthew Daidola, Esq. TA LEGAL GROUP PLLC 205 E Main Street, STE 3-2 Huntington, NY 11743 Telephone: (914) 552-2669 E-mail: tim@talegalgroup.com matthew@talegalgroup.com KAPLAN NORTH: Inadequately Safeguards Private Info, Gentry Says --------------------------------------------------------------- DANNY GENTRY II, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KAPLAN NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-60917-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 1, 2026) is a class action seeking to hold Defendant responsible for the injuries Defendant inflicted on Plaintiff and of others due to Defendant's egregiously inadequate data security, which resulted in the private information of Plaintiff and those similarly situated to be exposed to unauthorized third parties. The complaint relates that the Defendant collects Private Information from Plaintiff and Class Members such as their emails, usernames, passwords, and authentication data in the ordinary course of business. This Private Information is then stored on Defendant's systems. On March 17, 2026, Defendant announced to the public that it experienced a data breach. The actual Data Breach occurred between October 30, 2025 and November 18, 2025. The Data Breach was discovered by the Defendant on February 21, 2026 when its was able to confirm that an authorized actor had accessed the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members. The Plaintiff and Class Members are now subject to the present and continuing risk of fraud, identity theft, and misuse resulting from the possible publication of their Private Information, especially their Social Security numbers and sensitive information, onto the Dark Web, notes the complaint. Plaintiff and Class Members face a lifetime risk of identity theft, which is heightened here by unauthorized access, disclosure, and/or activity by cybercriminals on computer systems containing hundreds of thousands of Social Security numbers. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty. The Plaintiff and Class Members seek injunctive relief requiring Defendant to: (i) strengthen its data security systems and monitoring procedures; (ii) submit to future annual audits of those systems and monitoring procedures; and (iii) continue to provide adequate credit monitoring to all Class Members. Plaintiff Danny Gentry II is a natural person, resident, and citizen of Gillette, Wyoming. Defendant Kaplan North America, LLC is one of the world's largest, most diverse education providers that provides test preparation, professional training, and higher education services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: JOHN A. YANCHUNIS, Esq. RIYA SHARMA, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 275-5272 Facsimile: (813) 222-4736 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com rsharma@forthepeople.com KROGER CO: Cheatham Files Suit Over Unlawful No-Hire Agreement -------------------------------------------------------------- DAN CHEATHAM, BRIAN KUHN, and ERIC CABLER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. THE KROGER CO., WERNER TRUCKING COMPANY f/k/a WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC, SWIFT TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, LLC, and U.S. XPRESS ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-330 (S.D. Ohio, April 2, 2026 is a class action complaint brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by Plaintiffs on their own behalf and on behalf of the other similarly situated commercial truck drivers who had been employed by Quickway Transportation, Inc. The complaint relates that in the wake of Quickway's bankruptcy, representatives of Kroger made false representations that the company was concerned for the drivers' job security and was looking for avenues to assist them. Around the same time, Kroger entered into new dedicated transportation contracts with Werner, Swift and U.S. Xpress to replace its contract with Quickway. Under the contracts, Werner, Swift and U.S. Xpress took over logistics responsibilities covering the same geographic service territory and routes that Quickway had serviced. Werner, Swift, and U.S. Xpress actively recruited commercial drivers for the new Kroger contracts. Former Quickway drivers, including named Plaintiffs and members of the putative class, applied for these positions. They met all necessary qualifications and, in fact, had been performing identical or nearly identical jobs for Quickway. However, representatives of Werner, Swift, and U.S. Xpress acknowledged to Plaintiffs that they had been instructed by Kroger not to hire former Quickway drivers at the time they rejected Plaintiffs' job applications. Plaintiffs were told there was "a gentlemen's agreement" and that it "came from the top." As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' unlawful no-hire agreements, Plaintiffs and the putative class of former Quickway drivers suffered substantial harm, including loss of employment, suppression of wages and earning potential, restriction of their ability to obtain comparable employment in the commercial transportation industry, and deprivation of the competitive bidding for their labor services to which they were entitled under federal antitrust law, says the suit. Defendant Werner Trucking Company f/k/a Werner Enterprises, Inc. is one of the largest truckload transportation and logistics companies in the United States. Defendant Swift Transportation Services, LLC is a major nationwide truckload carrier. Defendant U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. is also a major nationwide truckload carrier. Defendant The Kroger Co. operates one of the largest private supply chain and logistics networks in the United States, servicing hundreds of retail grocery stores across the country.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alyson Steele Beridon, Esq. HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL, LENISKI, AND WALL PLLC 600 Vine Street, Suite 2720 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 381-2224 Facsimile: (615) 994-8625 E-mail: alyson@hsglawgroup.com - and - Benjamin A. Gastel* (TN #28699) HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL, LENISKI, AND WALL PLLC 1920 Adelicia Street, Suite 300 Nashville, TN 37212 Telephone: (615) 716-9163 Facsimile: (615) 994-8625 E-mail: ben@hsglawgroup.com LAI NYC: Gelasio Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------- JUAN GELASIO, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAI NYC INC. d/b/a POP'S PIZZA, NAB P. SING a/k /a NICK SINGH, RICKY SINGH, and TJ SINGH, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-02638 (S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2026) seeks to recover from Defendants: (a) unpaid minimum wages, (b) unpaid overtime compensation, (c) unpaid "spread of hours" premium for each day that Plaintiffs work shift exceeded 10 hours, (d) liquidated and statutory damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff his lawfully earned minimum wages; failed to pay Plaintiff his lawfully earned overtime compensation; and failed to pay Plaintiff his lawfully earned "spread of hours" premium. The Plaintiff was hired to work as a non-exempt pizza maker at the Defendants' restaurant from July 2021 through December 24, 2025. LAI NYC INC. owns and operates a restaurant doing business as "Pop's Pizza," situated in New York, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 60 East 42nd Street, 40th Floor New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com LINKERS INDUSTRIES: 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 Linkers Industries Limited (NASDAQ: LNKS) resulting from allegations that Linkers Industries may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So what: If you purchased Linkers Industries 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=59151 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. [GN] LONG TINE: Blind Users Face Barriers to Website Access, Cruz Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- GABRIELA CRUZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Long Tine, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00549 (E.D. Wis., April 1, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://shefit.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Cruz and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Cruz's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint relates that Cruz has made an attempt to complete a purchase on the Website on November 6, 2025. However, while navigating the Website using a keyboard and screen reader, Cruz encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from completing the purchase independently. The Website contains access barriers that denied her full and equal access. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Cruz and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of the Website in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and/or its implementing regulations, says the suit. Cruz seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff Gabriela Cruz is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Long Tine, LLC provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a selection of activewear products, including sports bras, athletic tops, leggings, skirts, shorts, and accessories such as socks and hats.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N, Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 718-554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law LOOP AMERICA: Faces Bennett Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- LIVINGSTON BENNETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Loop America, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03599 (N.D. Ill., March 31, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://us.loopearplugs.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Bennett and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On December 15, 2025, while searching on Google for earplugs to help reduce noise in everyday settings, the Plaintiff discovered Defendant's website. He decided to explore the website and its earplug collection with the intent to make a purchase. However, while browsing the website, he encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented him from independently completing the purchase. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by him and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, lack of alt-text on graphics, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. Plaintiff Bennett seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Loop America, Inc. operates the website that offers a selection of ear protection products, including earplugs for sleep, focus, travel, social settings, and loud events, as well as adjustable earplugs and related accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law LUFAX HOLDING: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 20 ------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Lufax Holding Ltd. ("Lufax" or the "Company") (NYSE:LU).   Such investors are advised to contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980, (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. The class action concerns whether Lufax and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. You have until May 20, 2026, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class if you purchased or otherwise acquired Lufax securities during the Class Period. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. On January 27, 2025, Lufax announced that it was proposing to remove its auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers ("PwC"), because PwC had significant concerns about Lufax's financial disclosures and, in particular, the Company's 2022 and 2023 Annual Reports. PwC's concerns were purportedly such that its audit opinions for the 2022 and 2023 Annual Reports were no longer to be relied upon. On this news, Lufax's American Depositary Share price fell nearly 22% over three trading sessions. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. [GN] LUKS HOLDINGS: Court Stays Morris Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Morris v. Luks Holdings LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00351 (E.D. Wisc., Filed March 4, 2026), the Hon. Judge Pamela Pepper entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to stay his motion for class certification and for relief from the local rules setting an automatic briefing schedule. For administrative purposes only, the court terminates the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The court stays briefing on the plaintiff's class cert motion and will re-set a briefing schedule at the Rule 16 scheduling conference. The suit alleges violation of the American Disabilities Act. Luks Holdings is a manufacturing company specializing in unique, patent-pending pearled candle products and decorating solutions.[CC] MARRIOTT INT'L: Class Cert Bid Filing Due March 26, 2027 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARDILLO ARNOLD, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00221-RAJ (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Jones entered a scheduling order as follows: Event Date Deadline to join additional parties: May 1, 2026 Deadline for the Plaintiff to file March 26, 2027 motion for class certification: Deadline for the Defendant to file April 28, 2027 opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification: Deadline for the Plaintiff to file June 2, 2027 reply to the Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification: The Court declines the Defendant's request to bifurcate class and merits discovery. By agreement of the parties, discovery shall not commence prior to July 6, 2026. Marriott engages in the operation and franchise of hotel, residential, and timeshare properties. A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4lf46C at no extra charge.[CC] MASSIMO GROUP: 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 Massimo Group (NASDAQ: MAMO) resulting from allegations that Massimo Group may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So what: If you purchased Massimo 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=58858 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: Rosen Law Firm is investigating potential civil securities claims. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. CONTACT: 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] MAXPRO FITNESS: Williams Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------------- DARNELL WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Maxpro Fitness, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03530 (N.D. Ill., March 31, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://maxprofitness.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Williams and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On March 18, 2026, Plaintiff Williams was searching online for portable fitness equipment and came across the Defendant's website. After reviewing customer feedback, he decided to explore the website with the intent to make a purchase. However, he encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented him from completing the transaction. The Plaintiff alleges that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by him and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading hierarchy, inaccessible contact information, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccurate alt text on graphics, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. Plaintiff Williams seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Maxpro Fitness, LLC operates the website that offers home fitness equipment, including portable cable gym machines, workout bundles, and accessories such as wall tracks, benches, backpacks, suspension handles, ankle and wrist straps, and replacement kits.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law MAZDA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Defective Brakes ------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff James R. Burnell filed a class action lawsuit against Mazda Motor Corp. Why: Burnell claims the automaker sold Mazda CX-90 vehicles with defective brakes and lane-keep assist systems. Where: The Mazda class action lawsuit was filed in Virginia federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Mazda CX-90 vehicles have defective brakes and lane-keep assist systems that pose safety risks to drivers. Plaintiff James R. Burnell filed the class action complaint against Mazda Motor Corp. on March 17 in Virginia federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to Burnell, Mazda sold and leased model year 2024-2026 CX-90 vehicles with defective braking systems that deteriorate prematurely and excessively, causing loud squealing noises that distract drivers and undermine confidence in the vehicle's safety systems. The Mazda class action lawsuit also alleges that the lane-keep assist system in the CX-90 vehicles is overly corrective, steering the vehicle in opposition to the driver's input, creating safety risks and forcing drivers to disable the feature. Mazda failed to disclose defects to consumers, class action claims Burnell says he purchased a new 2024 Mazda CX-90 in Virginia and began experiencing brake squealing and lane-keep assist problems shortly after. He says he took his vehicle to Mazda dealers multiple times, but the issues were never resolved. He argues Mazda knew or should have known about the defects before selling the vehicles, but failed to disclose them to consumers or provide effective repairs. He says Mazda's dealers repeatedly assured him that the conditions were "normal" and performed temporary or ineffective repairs. "Despite this knowledge, Mazda concealed and failed to disclose the Defect to Plaintiff and Class Members at the time of sale or lease and during subsequent warranty service and repairs," the Mazda class action lawsuit says. The lawsuit comes after Mazda issued a recall in 2024 for a "sudden and unexpected change in steering effort" in the CX-90 vehicles. Burnell claims the recall did not fix the lane-keep assist defect. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of Virginia consumers who purchased or leased affected Mazda CX-90 vehicles in Virginia. Burnell asserts claims under the Virginia Consumer Protection Act and for common law fraud and is seeking damages, restitution and other relief for himself and the proposed class. A similar class action lawsuit filed last year in California also accuses Mazda of failing to disclose a defect in its CX-90 vehicles that impedes braking performance. The plaintiff is represented by Leonard A. Bennett, Mark C. Leffler, Adam W. Short and Drew D. Sarrett of Consumer Litigation Associates P.C. The Mazda class action lawsuit is Burnell v. Mazda Motor Corp., Case No. 2:26-cv-00256, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. [GN] MEDICAL FACULTY: Fails to Pay for All Hours Worked, Jones Says -------------------------------------------------------------- TIFFANY JONES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDICAL FACULTY ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01089 (D.D.C., March 31, 2026) arises from the Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, accompanying United States Dept. of Labor regulations, as well as the District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act, the District of Columbia Wage Payment and Collection Law, and supporting District of Columbia Department of Employment Services regulations. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff received an offer from Defendant to work as an hourly employee, and Plaintiff accepted Defendant's offer with the mutual understanding between Defendant and Plaintiff that her base hourly rate would be paid for all hours worked up to 40 hours a workweek and that Plaintiff would be paid time-and-a-half her base rate for all hours worked over 40 in a given workweek. However, the Defendant engaged in an unlawful policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff and all the proposed FLSA Collective members to perform work off the clock, every shift, and failed to pay these employees their regular hourly rate for all hours worked, and failed to pay the overtime premium for any time worked over 40 in a workweek, for all work performed, alleges the suit. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt employee at times during the past three years from the filing of this complaint. Medical Faculty Associates, Inc. is an independent academic physician practice in the Washington, D.C. metro region with more than 500 physicians and 200 advanced practice providers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gian Fanelli, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 601 Pennsylvania Avenue NW South Building, Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20004 Telephone: (202) 978-3272 E-mail: gfanelli@hkm.com MERCOR.IO CORPORATION: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Esson Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- NATIVIA ESSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERCOR.IO CORPORATION d/b/a MERCOR, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-02839 (N.D. Cal., April 1, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. The complaint relates that the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") about its employees and consumers. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. On March 30, 2026, Defendant was hacked by a ransomware monitoring group. Because of Defendant's Data Breach, the sensitive PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was placed into the hands of cybercriminals, inflicting numerous injuries and significant damages upon Plaintiff and Class Members. The complaint alleges that in the aftermath of the Data Breach, Plaintiff suffered from a spike in spam and scam emails, text messages, and phone calls. Plaintiff suffered actual injury from the exposure and theft of her PII which violates her rights to privacy. In addition to injunctive relief, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the other Class Members, also seeks compensatory damages for Defendant's invasion of privacy, which includes the value of the privacy interest invaded by Defendant, the costs of future monitoring of their credit history for identity theft and fraud, plus prejudgment interest and costs. Plaintiff NaTivia Esson is a Data Breach victim, having received an email from Defendant on March 31, 2026. Defendant Mercor.io d/b/a Mercor is an AI recruiting startup company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew G. Gunem, Esq. Carly M. Roman, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 2261 Market St., Ste. 22946 San Francisco, CA 94114 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: agunem@straussborrelli.com croman@straussborrelli.com MERCOR.IO CORPORATION: Fails to Secure Sensitive Info, Deboni Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTOF DEBONI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERCOR.IO CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-2821 (N.D. Cal., April 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of individuals that was compromised in a cyber incident. The complaint relates that in the course of collecting personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information") from Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant promised to provide confidentiality and adequate security for the data it collected from individuals through its applicable privacy policy and through other disclosures in compliance with statutory privacy requirements. However, the Defendant recently confirmed a security incident connected to a supply chain attack involving the open-source LiteLLM project. Since the Data Breach was discovered, a hacking group known as "LAPSUS" has claimed responsibility for the Data Breach that occurred on March 31, 2026. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members will also incur out of pocket costs, e.g., for purchasing credit monitoring services, credit freezes, credit reports, or other protective measures to deter and detect identity theft. Through this Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of himself, and all similarly situated individuals whose PII was accessed during the Data Breach. Plaintiff Christof Deboni is a resident and citizen of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Defendant Mercor.io Corporation is an American artificial intelligence hiring startup that provides experts to train AI models and chatbots.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive, Penthouse Suite Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com MERCOR.IO CORPORATION: Gill Files Suit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------- LISA GILL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERCOR.IO CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-02831 (N.D. Cal., April 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of individuals that was compromised in a cyber incident. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former contract employees and customers of Defendant. In the course of collecting personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information") from Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant promised to provide confidentiality and adequate security for the data it collected from individuals through its applicable privacy policy and through other disclosures in compliance with statutory privacy requirements. However, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive and confidential Private Information was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed on March 31, 2026. The Defendant recently confirmed the security incident connected to a supply chain attack involving the open-source LiteLLM project. Since the Data Breach was discovered, a hacking group known as "LAPSUS" has claimed responsibility for 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. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered concrete injuries in fact including, but not limited to: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) theft of their PII; (iii) lost or diminished value of PII; (iv) lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (v) loss of benefit of the bargain; (vi) lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (vii) actual misuse of the compromised data consisting of an increase in spam calls, texts, and/or emails; (viii) statutory damages; (ix) nominal damages; and (x) the continued and certainly increased risk to their PII, which: (a) remains unencrypted and available for unauthorized third parties to access and abuse; and (b) remains backed up in Defendant's possession and is subject to further unauthorized disclosures so long as Defendant fails to undertake appropriate and adequate measures to protect the PII, says the suit. Through this Complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of herself, and all similarly situated individuals. Plaintiff Lisa Gill is a resident and citizen of Wahiawa, Hawaii. Defendant Mercor.io Corporation is an American artificial intelligence hiring startup that provides experts to train AI models and chatbots.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park E, #1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com NAVIGATE360 LLC: Grandquist Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL GRANDQUIST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NAVIGATE360, LLC, d/b/a P3 GLOBAL INTEL, Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-00761 (N.D. Ohio, March 31, 2026) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information that was impacted in a data breach. According to the complaint, the Defendant recently experienced a data breach that allowed unauthorized cybercriminals to access and exfiltrate Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information contained on its network. The Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' private information secure, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff, therefore, seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromised on behalf of himself, and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the data breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. Navigate360, LLC, d/b/a P3 Global Intel, provides safety and wellness programs to schools and communities across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Terence R. Coates, Esq. Dylan J. Gould, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com dgould@msdlegal.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite. 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com NEW HORIZONS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, French Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- TAMMY FRENCH and RANDALL MEDEIROS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff(s) vs. NEW HORIZONS BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Defendant(s), Case No. 4:26-cv-00533-CDL (M.D. Ga., April 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to secure its network, allowing the private information and/or protected health information of Plaintiff(s) and the Class to be in the hands of cybercriminals. The complaint relates that by obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from Plaintiffs' and Class Members' personally identifiable information (PII), Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties and knew or should have known that they were responsible for protecting Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII from disclosure. In January 2026, New Horizons Behavioral Health (NHBH) identified a significant data breach involving unauthorized access to its computer network between January 15 and January 18. The incident compromised a wide range of sensitive data, including PII such as names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, and financial account details. Furthermore, protected health information (PHI) was exposed, encompassing medical diagnoses, treatment records, prescription information, provider names, and health insurance policy details. While the organization stated it was not yet aware of any specific identity theft or fraud resulting from the event, the "Devman" threat group reportedly took credit for the attack, claiming to have stolen 236 GB of data. Although the Breach was discovered in January 2026, Defendant did not publicly acknowledge the full scope of the incident or begin the process of identifying all affected individuals until March 2026. This delay in notification deprived Class Members of the opportunity to take immediate protective measures, such as freezing their credit or monitoring their financial accounts, during the critical weeks following the initial theft. The Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered, and will continue to suffer, injuries including: (i) the lost value of their Private Information and/or Protected Health Information; (ii) out-of-pocket expenses associated with credit monitoring and identity theft restoration; (iii) the imminent and ongoing risk of identity theft and medical fraud; and (iv) significant time spent mitigating the fallout of the Breach, says the suit. Accordingly, through this Complaint, Plaintiffs seek redress individually, and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, for the damages that resulted from the Data Breach. Plaintiff Tammy French is a patient of New Horizons Behavioral Health. Plaintiff Randall Medeiros is a former employee of New Horizons Behavioral Health. Defendant New Horizons Behavioral Health (NHBH) is a public corporation created to provide services to persons with mental illness, developmental disabilities and/or addictive diseases. The service area is Chattahoochee, Clay, Harris, Muscogee, Quitman, Randolph, Stewart and Talbot Counties in west central Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andre R. Belanger, Esq. GO BIG INJURY LAW 1 Glenlake Parkway NE Suite 650 Sandy Springs, GA 30328 Telephone: 1-800-777-7777 Facsimile: 1-843-494-5536 E-mail: andre.belanger@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com NFL PLAYER: Alford Suit Seeks to Certify Four Classes ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON ALFORD, DANIEL LOPER, WILLIS MCGAHEE, MICHAEL MCKENZIE, JAMIZE OLAWALE, ALEX PARSONS, ERIC SMITH, CHARLES SIMS, JOEY THOMAS, and LANCE ZENO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. THE NFL PLAYER DISABILITY & SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN; THE NFL PLAYER DISABILITY & NEUROCOGNITIVE BENEFIT PLAN; THE BERT BELL/PETE ROZELLE NFL PLAYER RETIREMENT PLAN; THE DISABILITY BOARD OF THE NFL PLAYER DISABILITY & NEUROCOGNITIVE BENEFIT PLAN; LARRY FERAZANI; JACOB FRANK; BELINDA LERNER; SAM MCCULLUM; ROBERT SMITH; HOBY BRENNER; and ROGER GOODELL, Case No. 1:23-cv-00358-JRR (D. Md.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the following Classes, defined as: The Neutral Physician Class: "All participants in the Plan1 who (i) filed one or more applications for total & permanent disability, line-of-duty disability, or Neurocognitive Disability benefits under the Plan; (ii) were either (a) examined by a Plan-designated "Neutral Physician" (as the term is defined in the Plan) or (b) had their application reviewed by a Plan-designated Medical Advisory Physician ("MAP") (as the term is defined in the Plan); and (iii) received an adverse determination, in whole or in part on at least one such application between April 1, 2017, and [the date of class certification]." The Cumulative Impairments Class: "All participants in the Plan who (i) filed one or more applications for Total & Permanent Disability benefits under the Plan; (ii) were examined by at least two Plan designated Neutral Physicians (as the term is defined in the Plan) specializing in different areas; and (iii) received an adverse determination, in whole or in part on at least one such application between October 15, 2020 and [the date of class certification]." The Education and Training Class: "All participants in the Plan who (i) filed one or more applications for Total & Permanent Disability benefits under the Plan; (ii) were examined by a Plan-designated Neutral Physician (as the term is defined in the Plan) neuropsychologist, neurologist, or psychiatrist; and (iii) received an adverse determination in whole or in part on at least one such application and between August 1, 2018 and [the date of class certification]." The Neuropsychological Testing Class: "All participants in the Plan who (i) filed one or more applications for Total & Permanent Disability, Line-of-Duty Disability, or Neurocognitive Disability benefits under the Plan; (ii) were examined by a Plan-designated Neutral Physician (as the term is defined in the Plan) neuropsychologist; and (iii) received an adverse determination in whole or in part on at least one such application between Aug. 1, 2018 and June 8, 2021. Excluded from the Classes are: (a) The Court and its officers, employees, and relatives; (b) Any officer, director, employee, contractor, or agent of the Plan or of the National Football League Player Benefits Office; and (c) Any applicant for Total & Permanent Disability, Line-of-Duty Disability, or Neurocognitive Disability benefits whose application that would otherwise form the basis of membership in one of the Classes was denied solely on the grounds that it was not timely under the terms of the Plan, or on other non-medical grounds. Relatedly, Plaintiffs also move the Court for the appointment of (i) Plaintiffs Jason Alford, Daniel Loper, Willis McGahee, Michael McKenzie, Jamize Olawale, Alex Parsons, Charles Sims, Eric Smith, Joey Thomas, and Lance Zeno as Representatives of the Neutral Physician Class; (ii) Plaintiffs Loper, McGahee, McKenzie, Olawale, and Smith as Representatives of the Cumulative Impairments Class; (iii) Plaintiffs Loper, McGahee, McKenzie, Olawale, Sims, and Smith as Representatives of the Education and Training Class; (iv) Plaintiffs Alford, McGahee, McKenzie, Olawale, Parsons, Smith, and Thomas as Representatives of the Neuropsychological Testing Class; and (v) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(1), Seeger Weiss LLP and Athlaw LLP as Counsel for the Classes, and Migliaccio & Rathod LLP as Liaison Counsel for the Classes. The NFL Player Disability & Survivor Benefit Plan is a collectively bargained welfare plan providing financial assistance to eligible former players suffering from injuries or impairments stemming from their careers. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZUlzOV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com - and - Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. Diogenes P. Kekatos, Esq. Hillary R. Fidler, Esq. Benjamin R. Barnett, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Telephone: (973) 639-9100 E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com dkekatos@seegereiss.com hfidler@seegerweiss.com bbarnett@seegerweiss.com - and - Samuel L. Katz, Esq. Julia M. Damron, Esq. Noah T. Reid, Esq. Yasha Torabi, Esq. ATHLAW LLP 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 800 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (818) 454-3652 E-mail: samkatz@athlawllp.com julia@athlawllp.com noahreid@athlawllp.com yasha@athlawllp.com - and - Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq. Justin G. Witkin, Esq. Douglass A. Kreis, Esq. Bobby J. Bradford, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS, & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 E. Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 202-1010 E-mail: BAylstock@awkolaw.com JWitkin@awkolaw.com DKreis@awkolaw.com BBradford@awkolaw.com - and - Robert K. Scott, Esq. Gerry H. Goldsholle, Esq. ADVOCATE LAW GROUP P.C. 2330 Marinship Way, Suite 260 Sausalito, CA 94965 Telephone: (949) 753-4950 E-mail: bob@advocatelawgroup.com gerry@advocatelawgroup.com O5 BNG: Hutton Deceptive Marketing Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled COLBY HUTTON, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. O5 BNG, LLC, and 5 STAR APPAREL LLC, Defendants, Case No. 25-2-10647-31, was removed from Superior Court of the State of Washington for Snohomish County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on March 23, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00976 to the proceeding. The case arises from Defendants' practice of sending mass promotional emails containing false or misleading information in their subject lines. The O5 BNG, LLC manages e-commerce and markets the Quiksilver and Billabong apparel brands. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Lauren B. Rainwater, Esq. Rachel Herd, Esq. Bryan Taylor, Esq. Joshua Peck, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile: (206) 757-7700 E-mail: laurenrainwater@dwt.com rachelherd@dwt.com bryantaylor@dwt.com joshpeck@dwt.com ODDITY TECH: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 11 ----------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of securities of ODDITY Tech Ltd. (NASDAQ: ODD) between February 26, 2025 and February 24, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important May 11, 2026 lead plaintiff deadline. SO WHAT: If you purchased Oddity securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Oddity class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=27381 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at (866) 767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 11, 2026. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) due to an algorithm change by Oddity's largest advertising partner, Oddity's advertisements were being diverted to lower quality auctions at abnormally high costs; (2) the foregoing significantly increased Oddity's customer acquisition costs, thereby negatively impacting Oddity's business and financial prospects; (3) accordingly, defendants overstated the overall strength, stability, and sustainability of Oddity's digital operating model and/or market position; and (4) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] OKLAHOMA WINDOWS: Seeks Dismissal of Parisi 4th Amended Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN PARISI, v. OKLAHOMA WINDOWS AND DOORS, LLC d/b/a RENEWAL BY ANDERSON OF OKLAHOMA AND BMO HARRIS BANK, NA d/b/a GREENSKY, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-00115-R (W.D. Okla.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to dismiss the (fourth) amended complaint against Oklahoma windows, and for such other and further relief as is just and proper. The Plaintiff's Complaint against OKLAHOMA WINDOWS should be dismissed. The Plaintiff purportedly attempts to raise claims against OKLAHOMA WINDOWS under the Oklahoma Consumer Credit Code ("OCCC") and Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), however, OKLAHOMA WINDOWS has no obligation under the OCCC as it is not a "lender" and it has no obligation under the OCCC or TILA a sit is not a "creditor." Similarly, Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action against OKLAHOMA WINDOWS under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ("ETFA"). The EFTA only creates liability against a "financial institution" which could only be BMO HARRIS BANK who is the program bank who loaned the funds. Third, the Plaintiff erroneously engages in shotgun pleading attributing the titles "creditor" and "lender" to every single defendant, which is inconsistent with materials in this action previously filed and considered. Fourth, the claims raised in Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Further, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the claims raised against OKLAHOMA WINDOWS because Plaintiff cannot establish Article III standing. Finally, the Plaintiff's class definition fails to carve out those consumers subject to the arbitration agreements and class actions waivers entered into by and between one of the Defendants, and any such determination of validity of any arbitration agreement (as Parisi argued in this Court and on appeal) would require mini-trials / appeals for each and every consumer. Accordingly, OKLAHOMA WINDOWS requests the Court to grant its motion to dismiss all counts against OKLAHOMA WINDOWS. The Class identified in the Fourth Amended Complaint is as follows: The "Greensky Class": "All Oklahoma consumers who, from Nov. 23, 2019 through the present, had a GreenSky Shopping Pass account opened in their name where the acceptance of the loan terms was made through the use of the Shopping Pass number by a GreenSky Merchant." The "Anderson Subclass" is defined as: "all members of the Greensky Class whose loans were charged for products or services sold by Anderson." The case is substantially broader than the class sought in the Amended Petition, which identified the proposed class as: "Oklahoma consumers who, since one year prior to the filing of the litigation, had allegedly failed to receive various disclosures from Defendants as allegedly required under the OCCC." Renewal offers window & door replacement services. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Vb4xCR at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Diane J. Zelmer, Esq. BERENSON LLP 4495 Military Trail, Suite 203 Jupiter, FL 33458 Telephone: (561) 429-4496 E-mail: djz@berensonllp.com - and – Sheila D. Sayne, Esq. SAYNE LAW PLLC Tulsa, OK 74153-3309 Telephone: (918) 740-3013 E-mail: sheila.sayne@outlook.com OSI SYSTEMS: Russo Files Suit Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------- KAREN RUSSO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OSI SYSTEMS, INC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-03338 (C.D. Cal., March 27, 2026) is a class action seeking to hold Defendant responsible for the injuries Defendant inflicted on Plaintiff and thousands of others due to Defendant's egregiously inadequate data security, which resulted in the private information of Plaintiff and those similarly situated to be exposed to unauthorized third parties. The Plaintiff and Class Members provided their personal identifying information ("PII"), like Social Security Numbers ("Private Information") to OSI, as a condition of their employment, with the understanding that OSI would keep that information private in accordance with both state and federal laws. On March 11, 2026, OSI gave notice to the California Attorney General that is suffered a data breach. The actual Data Breach was identified on December 25, 2025. OSI disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing to implement reasonable measures to safeguard Private Information and by failing to take necessary steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of that information, asserts the complaint. OSI's woefully inadequate data security measures made the Data Breach a foreseeable, and even likely, consequence of its negligence. Exacerbating the injuries to Plaintiff and Class Members, OSI failed to provide timely notice to Plaintiff and Class Members, depriving them of the chance to take speedy measures to protect themselves and mitigate harm. Today, the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members continues to be in jeopardy because of Defendant's actions and inactions, alleges the complaint. Plaintiff and Class Members now suffer from a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft for years to come and now must constantly monitor their financial and other accounts for unauthorized activity, says the suit. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to remedy these injuries on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was exposed and compromised in the Data Breach. The Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff Karen Russo is a resident and citizen of Pembroke Pines, Florida. Defendant OSI Systems, Inc. is a designer and manufacturer of electronic systems and components used in the homeland security, healthcare, defense and aerospace industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frederick A. Rispoli, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN CALIFORNIA, LLP 18100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (213) 757-6072 Facsimile: (213) 757-6172 E-mail: frederick.rispoli@forthepeople.com - and - RONALD PODOLNY, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 275-5272 Facsimile: (813) 222-4736 E-mail: ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com PENSKE TRUCK: Lilium Group Balks at Unfair Truck Leasing Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------ LILIUM GROUP LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PENSKE TRUCK LEASING CO., L.P. Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-02105 (E.D. Pa., March 31, 2026) is a nationwide class action to address and rectify Penske's abusive business practices harming its thousands of full-service lease customers, including Plaintiff. Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P. operates a truck rental and leasing company. The Company offers complete fleet management services. According to the complaint, Penske has a pattern and practice of overcharging its customers for services on their trucks that are Penske's contractual responsibility. Penske's diagnosis and service of its customer's trucks routinely causes unreasonable and excessive downtime in the trucks' operations while the customers are required to continue paying for the trucks. Penske has abused its power through a series of practices that deprive its customers of the benefit of the bargain and advantages of full-service commercial truck leasing, including avoiding the costs of preventative maintenance and other service, and receiving timely and efficient service -- benefits for which customers have contracted in exchange for their continued monthly lease payments to Penske, says the suit. The Plaintiff, thus, brings this class action on behalf of Penske's full-service commercial truck leasing customers to finally hold Penske accountable.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Snyder, Esq. Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI BENDESKY P.C. One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 525-8221 Facsimile: (215) 496-0999 E-mail: jsnyder@smbb.com phoward@smbb.com - and - Katherine G. Treistman, Esq. Andrew D. Bergman, Esq. Will Coltzer, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 811 Main Street, Suite 1800 Houston, TX 77002–2755 Telephone: (713) 576-2400 Facsimile: (713) 576-2499 E-mail: Katherine.Treistman@arnoldporter.com Andrew.Bergman@arnoldporter.com Will.Coltzer@arnoldporter.com - and - Evan Rothstein, Esq. Patrick Hall, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 1144 Fifteenth Street, Suite 3100 Denver, CO 80202–2848 Telephone: (303) 863-1000 Facsimile: (303) 863-2301 E-mail: Evan.Rothstein@arnoldporter.com Patrick.Hall@arnoldporter.com - and - Natalie Steiert, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20001–3743 Telephone: (202) 942-5000 Facsimile: (202) 942-5999 E-mail: Natalie.Steiert@arnoldporter.com PETSMART LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Frost Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PetSmart LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-02122-PJS-LIB (D. Minn., April 1, 2026) arises because Defendant's Mobile Application (www.petsmart.com) is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations. The complaint relates that the Defendant's Mobile Application has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiffs full and equal access to important Mobile Application content. In addition to the claim under the ADA, Plaintiffs also assert a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) saying the Defendant has engaged in unfair discriminatory practices against Plaintiffs and others in that it has failed to ensure that Defendant's Mobile Application and online content is fully accessible to persons with disabilities on an independent and equal basis in violation of the MHRA and Minnesota Statute, notes the complaint. Against this backdrop, the Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota; damages, and a damage multiplier pursuant to Minnesota Statute. Plaintiffs Clarence and Tammy Frost are been legally blind individuals who have been residents of Minnesota. Defendant PetSmart LLC owns, operates, and/or controls its Mobile Application that offers pet supplies and accessories for sale including pet food, litter supplies, health and pharmacy supplies, cages and containment supplies, grooming services, training services, and more.[BN] The Plaintiffs are presented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: chad@throndselaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com POMARE LTD: Lewis Files Suit Over Unsolicited Sales Calls --------------------------------------------------------- ADAM LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. POMARE, LTD., Defendant, Case No. CACE-26-005552 (Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Fl., April 2, 2026) is a class action for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for violations of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA"). The complaint relates that in direct contravention of the Caller ID Rules, many callers, such as Defendant, make Telephonic Sales Calls a central part of their marketing strategy, and in doing so, intentionally transmit telephone numbers to recipient's Caller ID services that are not capable of receiving telephone calls. Specifically, Defendant made Text Message Sales Calls that promoted Hilo Hattie and violated the Caller ID Rules when it transmitted to the recipients' caller identification services a telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action for Defendant's violation of the FTSA' s Caller ID Rules. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, seeks liquidated damages for each violation and further seeks injunctive relief to ensure Defendant complies with the Caller ID Rules when it makes Hilo Hattie Text Message Sales Calls. Plaintiff Adam Lewis, a resident of Florida, received Defendant's telephonic sales calls. Defendant Pomare, LTD is registered as a Foreign Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. Social Justice Law Collective, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Telephone: (202) 709-5744 Facsimile: (866) 893-0416 E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com PREMIUM BRANDS: Hasselkus Seeks to Continue Class Cert Bid Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACQUELINE HASSELKUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PREMIUM BRANDS OPCO LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 5:25-cv-02730-SVW-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiff's Ex Parte application to continue class certification motion deadline pursuant to the parties’ joint stipulation to extend discovery and class certification deadlines by 90 days. The Plaintiffs applies ex parte for an Order Continuing the Motion to Class Certification and Discovery Deadline Pursuant to the Joint Stipulation filed on March 13, 2026, in compliance with Local Rule 7-19 and Courtroom 10A Procedure No. 5. Extraordinary relief is necessary because the Court has not yet entered the Proposed Order for Parties' jointly requested extension, leaving the operative class certification deadline set for April 1, 2026, which is now just a week away. The Plaintiff has acted diligently throughout the litigation, including propounding discovery, engaging in meet-and-confer efforts, retaining experts, and preparing for mediation. The Plaintiff has continuously agreed to delay litigation pursuing formal discovery, in order to be able to compromise, and get to mediation. The parties have already agreed to prioritize mediation scheduled for May 12, 2026, including informal data exchange and targeted discovery to facilitate resolution, which would be undermined if Plaintiff is forced to proceed with class certification immediately. Without Court intervention, Plaintiff will be compelled to file a premature and incomplete class certification motion or, alternatively, pursue multiple motions to compel on an expedited basis, including ex parte applications for discovery. This would impose unnecessary and substantial litigation costs on Plaintiff, including expert analysis and motion practice, which may be entirely avoided if the matter resolves at mediation. The Plaintiff alleges multiple wage and hour violations under California law, including failures related to compensation, meal and rest periods, and other statutory protections afforded to non-exempt employees. Premium owns and operates retail stores under the Ann Taylor brand. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QEZkCB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel A. Wong, Esq. Kashif Haque, Esq. Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. Victoria L. Harp, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 379-6250 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 E-mail: vharp@aegislawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Carrie A. Gonell, Esq. David J. Rashe, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653 Telephone: (714) 830-0600 Facsimile: (714) 830-0700 E-mail: carrie.gonell@morganlewis.com david.rashe@morganlewis.com PREMIUM CATERING: 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 Premium Catering (Holdings) Limited (NASDAQ: PC) resulting from allegations that Premium Catering may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So what: If you purchased Premium Catering 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=59114 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: Rosen Law Firm is investigating potential civil securities claims. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. CONTACT: 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] PROMEDICA EMPLOYMENT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Lafaver Says --------------------------------------------------------------- KIM LAFAVER, individually and for others similarly situated v. PROMEDICA EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-02108 (E.D. Pa., March 31, 2026) arises from the Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law by failing to compensate Plaintiff and the other hourly employees at least one and a half times their regular rates of pay -- based on all remuneration -- for all hours worked in excess of 40 each workweek. According to the complaint, Plaintiff Lafaver and the other hourly employees regularly work more than 40 hours a workweek. But ProMedica does not pay Lafaver and the other hourly employees at least one and a half times their regular rates of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Instead, ProMedica pays Plaintiff and the other hourly employees non-discretionary bonuses, including sign on bonuses, that it fails to include in these employees' regular rates of pay for overtime purposes, says the suit. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a licensed practical nurse supervisor from approximately May 2025 until November 2025. ProMedica Employment Services, LLC is a medical provider headquartered in York, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edmund C. Celiesius, Esq. Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 5847 San Felipe St., Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 5847 San Felipe St., Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com PTL LTD: 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 PTL Ltd. (NASDAQ: PTLE) resulting from allegations that PTL Ltd. may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So what: If you purchased PTL Ltd. securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=59231 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: Rosen Law Firm is investigating potential civil securities claims. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. CONTACT: 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] QMMM HOLDINGS: 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 QMMM Holdings Limited (NASDAQ: QMMM) resulting from allegations that QMMM Holdings Limited may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So what: If you purchased QMMM 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=59027 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] RAMY BROOK: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Jenkins Says ------------------------------------------------------------- ANGEL JENKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RAMY BROOK, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02657 (S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2026) is a civil rights action brought pursuant to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the Declaratory Judgment Act, against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its commercial website, https://www.ramybrook.com in a manner that is fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Jenkins and other blind and visually impaired individuals who rely on screen-reading technology. On January 8, 2026, Ms. Jenkins visited Defendant's website using NVDA (Non-Visual Desktop Access) with the intent to purchase the Verona Embroidered Organza Mini Dress. Upon loading the product page, NVDA immediately failed to announce the page title because the document title was blank -- an error confirmed in a WAVE Web Accessibility Evaluation Report. The Report further confirms the website's inaccessibility, identifying 101 errors, 162 contrast errors, 2665 structural/ARIA issues, and an overall AIM accessibility score of 2.3 out of 10. These errors include: empty or missing alternative text, empty links and headings, unlabeled form controls, inaccessible interactive elements, and severe color-contrast failures. These barriers prevent blind users from perceiving product information, selecting sizes or colors, adding items to the cart, or completing purchases, says the suit. Ramy Brook, LLC is a fashion and apparel company headquartered in New York City that operates a nationwide direct-to-consumer e-commerce business through its website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG LLC 825 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 222-5700 E-mail: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com RICHMOND TRAFFIC: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Page Says ---------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN PAGE, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated Individuals, PLAINTIFFS v. RICHMOND TRAFFIC CONTROL, LLC F/K/A RICHMOND TRAFFIC CONTROL, INC., DEFENDANT, Case No. 1:26-cv-00844 (E.D. Va., March 27, 2026) is a class action seeking recovery of earned and unpaid wages, statutory damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, Virginia Overtime Wage Act, Virginia Wage Payment Act, and for Breach of Contract. The complaint relates that during the Class Period of about March 27, 2021, through December 2024, Defendant employed and paid Named Plaintiffs and Class Members to perform substantial and ongoing job duties facilitating and supporting work-zone traffic control services on road and highway projects within Fairfax County, Virginia, and Prince William County, Virginia. The Defendant paid Named Plaintiffs and Class Members on an hourly basis. The Defendant also implemented and carried out class-wide auto deduction policies that commonly and unlawfully deducted Named Plaintiffs and Class Members' compensable work hours for fictional meal or break periods not taken or enjoyed by Named Plaintiffs or Class Members, asserts the complaint. The Defendant's implementation and carrying out of class-wide auto deduction policies caused Defendant to deduct Named Plaintiffs and Class Members' compensable work hours and resulted in Defendant's knowing withholding and failure to pay Named Plaintiffs and Class Members all promised and earned wages due and owed each pay period, says the suit. Plaintiffs Kevin Page and Marcus Nelson are adult domiciliaries of the Commonwealth of Virginia and were employed by the Defendant. Defendant Richmond Traffic Control, LLC f/k/a Richmond Traffic Control operated as a de jure Virginia Corporation, providing work-zone traffic control services throughout Northern Virginia, Central Virginia, and Tidewater Virginia under the trade name Richmond Traffic Control.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER, & GREENBERG LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 E-mail: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.COM - and - Matthew T. Sutter, Esq. SUTTER & TERPAK, PLLC 7540 A Little River Turnpike, First Floor Annandale, VA 22003 Telephone: (703) 256-1800 E-mail: Matt@SutterAndTerpak.Com RWJBARNABAS HEALTH: Faces Suit Over Unlawful Tobacco Surcharge -------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL J. MOSCATIELLO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RWJBARNABAS HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-03406 (D.N.J., March 31, 2026) challenges Defendant's unlawful practice of charging a "tobacco surcharge" under the RWJBarnabas Health and Welfare Plan in a manner that violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the implementing regulations. According to the complaint, the Defendant's Plan does not clearly or consistently establish a reasonable alternative standard that informs participants in all Plan materials discussing the surcharge of all available avenues to avoid said surcharge. The Defendant fails to disclose in all Plan materials discussing the surcharge (i) the availability of an alternative standard that allows participants to have access to the full reward or (ii) that they have the right to a physician-directed alternative. In doing so, the Defendant withholds critical information from participants needed to properly assess their rights and, in effect, shift Plan costs onto employees based on a health factor without satisfying the requirements needed to take advantage of ERISA's safe harbor, says the suit. The Plaintiff is an employee of RWJBH who paid the unlawful tobacco surcharge to maintain health insurance coverage under the Plan. This surcharge imposed an additional financial burden on Plaintiff and his family and continues to impose such a burden on those similarly situated, notes the complaint. RWJBarnabas Health is a non-profit health system organized under the laws of New Jersey, with its principal place of business in West Orange, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William H. Payne, IV, Esq. Oren Faircloth, Esq. James T. Catania, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: wpayne@sirillp.com ofaircloth@sirillp.com jcatania@sirillp.com SAGE MESA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Unsafe Drinking Water ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tiffany Goodwein, writing for CBC News, reports that a proposed class-action lawsuit has been filed over the safety of a drinking water system near Penticton, B.C., as residents of the rural area voted on whether to foot the $33-million loan needed to repair it. The Sage Mesa water system, which serves about 250 properties, is privately owned, but has been under the control of the provincial comptroller since 1990. In recent years, the system has failed to meet basic water treatment guidelines set out by Interior Health, and approximately 60 homes are under a permanent boil water advisory. The Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen, which has been contracted out to run the system since 2009, said it has been approached by the private owner to take over the system fully, but it would require a referendum to authorize the loan to cover the cost of repairs. In the regional district's FAQ about the proposal, it estimates that federal and provincial grants could cover up to 75 per cent of the costs, but also note it has no sense of how likely it is those grants would be received. If no grant money is received, residents estimate ratepayers would have to shell out around $1,200 a month each over three decades to pay off the loan. "The $33 million divided by 242 people, borrowed and amortized over 30 years is just too much to handle. I mean, we will lose our house," resident Nicole Clark said. She filed a proposed class-action lawsuit in B.C. Supreme Court against the owner, Sage Mesa Co., and the province of British Columbia at the end of March. The lawsuit alleges the defendants have known about issues with the water system since at least 2012, and that failing to provide safe water breaches B.C.'s Drinking Water Protection Act. Clark told CBC News the potential cost to residents is so great, she's delayed her retirement. "I'll be 65 [next year], my husband will be 70, we both will be continuing to work because without that employment income, after the mortgage payment and water bills, we will have about $600 a month for gas, groceries, dog food, all the things." She's the sole plaintiff listed so far, and the class action has yet to be certified. Clark said she doesn't feel like she has any good options heading into the vote. She said emotions from residents range from anger and frustration to fear and uncertainty. The lawyer representing the plaintiffs, Aden Thompson-Klein, said the province's response has been that it won't fund the repairs. "They have a duty to repair it, they have a duty to provide clean drinking water for users, but their approach has simply been that they won't do it and they are hoping someone else will," he said. The province told CBC News it could not comment on the situation as the matter is now before the courts. The regional district said preliminary results of the referendum will be revealed after 8 p.m. the day of, on its website and social media. Official results will be declared on April 15. [GN] SAMFINE CREATION: 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 Samfine Creation Holdings Group Ltd. (NASDAQ: SFHG) resulting from allegations that Samfine Creation Holdings may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So what: If you purchased Samfine Creation Holdings 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=59218 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. [GN] SUTTER HEALTH: Uses AI to Record Patients' Conversations, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- Will McCurdy of All About AI reports that two major healthcare providers, Sutter Health and MemorialCare, have been hit with a class-action lawsuit in California over allegations that they used AI to record and transcribe patient conversations without their consent. The suit, first spotted by Ars Technica, claims that the companies used software developed by Abridge AI, sometimes dubbed an "ambient clinical documentation" system. This technology was allegedly used during patient encounters to capture and transcribe physician-patient conversations, using microphone-enabled devices in examination rooms. Abridge's software allegedly transmitted the audio of the clinical encounters to external servers for automated transcription and analysis, and generated draft clinical notes that were added to the patients' health records, including personal data about health conditions. Plaintiffs claim they did not receive clear notice that their medical conversations would be recorded, transmitted outside the clinical setting, or processed through third-party systems, in violation of California privacy laws. Sutter tells Ars Technica that "Technology used in our clinical settings is carefully evaluated and implemented in accordance with applicable laws and regulations." A spokesperson for MemorialCare declined to comment. AI transcription has been at the crux of several recent lawsuits in California, invoking the state's privacy legislation. In April, AI transcription software firm Otter was hit with a case accusing it of "deceptively and surreptitiously" recording private conversations without getting necessary permission from meeting attendees. The case concerned its Note Taker product, which can automatically create meeting notes via its integration with Zoom and Microsoft Teams. [GN] SYNGENTA CROP: Landa Sues Over Defective Paraquat Herbicide ----------------------------------------------------------- SANTOS TAPIA LANDA, Plaintiff v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-432 PQT (Del. Super., March 23, 2026) is a class action seeking to recover for the damages caused by Defendants' negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of products containing the herbicide Paraquat, which causes Parkinson's disease in humans. The Plaintiff maintains that Defendants' Paraquat products are defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings three causes of action: strict products liability design defect, strict products liability failure to warn, and negligence. Headquartered in Delaware, Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC produces and sells crop protection chemical products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com SYNGENTA CROP: Looney Sues Over Paraquat's Health Hazards --------------------------------------------------------- JAMIE LOONEY, Plaintiff v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-421 PQT (Del. Super., March 23, 2026) is a class action seeking to recover for the damages caused by Defendants' negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of products containing the herbicide Paraquat, which causes Parkinson’s disease in humans. The Plaintiff maintains that Defendants' Paraquat products are defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings three causes of action: strict products liability design defect, strict products liability failure to warn, and negligence. Headquartered in Delaware, Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC produces and sells crop protection chemical products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com SYNGENTA CROP: Merrill Sues Over Unsafe Paraquat Herbicide ---------------------------------------------------------- RALPH MERRILL, Plaintiff v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Defendants, Case No. N26C-03-433 PQT (Del. Super., March 23, 2026) is a class action seeking to recover for the damages caused by Defendants' negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of products containing the herbicide Paraquat, which causes Parkinson's disease in humans. The Plaintiff maintains that Defendants' Paraquat products are defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings three causes of action: strict products liability design defect, strict products liability failure to warn, and negligence. Headquartered in Delaware, Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC produces and sells crop protection chemical products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Emily T. Acosta, Esq. Madison Donaldson, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 E-mail: eacosta@wagstafflawfirm.com mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com TRIDENT DIGITAL: Rosen Laws 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 Trident Digital Tech Holdings Ltd. (NASDAQ: TDTH) resulting from allegations that Trident Digital may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So what: If you purchased Trident Digital 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=59092 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: Rosen Law Firm is investigating potential civil securities claims. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. CONTACT: 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 HOMES: Faces Class Suit Over Securities' Law Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP ("GPWR") announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Kadiyam v. United Homes Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-02989, on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired United Homes Group, Inc. ("United Homes" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: UHG) securities between May 19, 2025 and February 22, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. IF YOU SUFFERED A LOSS ON YOUR UNITED HOMES INVESTMENTS, visit https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/United-Homes-Group-Inc/ TO INQUIRE ABOUT POTENTIALLY PURSUING CLAIMS TO RECOVER YOUR LOSS UNDER THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS. What Happened? On May 19, 2025, the Company announced its Board of Directors had "appointed a special committee comprised solely of independent directors and initiated a review of strategic alternatives in order to explore ways to maximize shareholder value" including "a sale of the Company, a sale of assets, and a refinancing of existing indebtedness, among others." Then, on October 20, 2025, before the market opened, the Company announced the outcome of the special committee review. The special committee, in conjunction with its legal and financial advisors, "unanimously determined" that "continuing to execute on the Company's strategic plan as an independent, public company is in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders at this time." However, the Company also disclosed that the entire Board of Directors, except for the Company's founder, Michael Nieri, was prepared to resign unless "the Company's existing management team was fully empowered to execute on the Company's strategic plan" and "Mr. Nieri stepped down from his position as Executive Chairman of the Company and agreed to forego any remaining cash compensation to which he would be entitled under his existing employment agreement, in furtherance of Company cost-saving initiatives." The Company reported that Nieri did not agree, and thus, six of the Company's seven board members resigned and only Nieri remained on the Board. On this news, United Homes' stock price fell $2.23 per share, or 52.46%, to close at $2.03 per share on October 20, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. Next, on November 6, 2025, before the market opened, United Homes issued a press release announcing its financial results for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2025. The press release revealed that, following the Company's announcement of the special committee's findings and the majority of the Board's resignations, "the Company has been engaged in discussions with various key counterparties, including its lenders, land banking partners, and insurers, regarding, among other things, the pressing need to identify replacement directors, maintaining compliance with loan covenants, and planning for the ongoing operations of the Company." The press release further revealed the Company had only closed 262 homes, a decrease of 29% year over year, resulting in $90.8 million in revenue, a decrease of 23% year over year. On this news, United Homes' stock price fell $0.11 per share, or 7.6%, to close at $1.34 per share on November 6, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. Finally, on February 23, 2026, before the market opened, United Homes announced that it had agreed to become a wholly owned subsidiary of Stanley Martin Homes, LLC in an all-cash transaction that represents an enterprise value of approximately $221 million, cashing out all stockholders for consideration of $1.18 per share. On the last trading day preceding the announcement, United Homes' stock closed at a price of $2.38. The deal price thus represents an over 50% discount on the preceding trading price. The transaction is expected to close in the second quarter of 2026, subject to customary closing conditions. On this news, United Homes' stock price fell $1.23 per share, or 51.68%, to close at $1.15 per share on February 23, 2026, on unusually heavy trading volume. What Is The Lawsuit About? The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company's controlling shareholder, Nieri, intended to force a sale of the Company; (2) that Nieri was taking actions to devalue the Company and its financial condition; (3) that Nieri leveraged his controlling interest to effectuate that sale, including by effectively forcing the dissident directors to resign; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Nieri was not acting in the best interests of the Company and public investors. If you purchased or otherwise acquired United Homes securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact us: Charles Linehan, Esq. Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Email: shareholders@glancylaw.com Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Toll-Free: (888) 773-9224 Website: www.glancylaw.com [GN] UNITED STATES: Ex-FBI Employees File Suit for Unlawful Termination ------------------------------------------------------------------ JAMIE GARMAN, BLAIRE TOLEMAN, and MICHELLE BALL, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KASHYAP P. PATEL, in his official capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; PAMELA J. BONDI, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the United States; and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01086 (D.D.C., March 31, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of all similarly situated former Federal Bureau of Investigation employees, seeking redress for Defendants' unconstitutional decimation of non-partisan law enforcement and preventing Defendants from further debasing an institution Plaintiffs believe in. The Plaintiffs are a proposed class of former career FBI employees who have served the country. According to the complaint, the Defendants, the current Director of the FBI, Kashyap P. Patel, and Attorney General Pamela J. Bondi, have, since the beginning of 2025, embarked on a public campaign to oust Plaintiffs from federal service because Defendants perceived them to be political opponents. The Plaintiffs seek to represent this proposed class: All FBI employees who have been terminated since January 1, 2025, or who will be terminated, by Defendants on the basis of perceived political affiliation, without being afforded due process. Kashyap P. Patel is sued in his official capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a federal agency and subordinate component of the United States Department of Justice.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew G. Celli, Jr., Esq. Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, Esq. Daniel M. Eisenberg, Esq. Rachael Wyant, Esq. EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF ABADY WARD & MAAZEL LLP One Rockefeller Plaza, 8th Floor New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 763-5000 E-mail: acelli@ecbawm.com mbrinckerhoff@ecbawm.com deisenberg@ecbawm.com rwyant@ecbawm.com - and - Mark G. Peters, Esq. Lesley Allison Brovner, Esq. PETERS BROVNER LLP 139 Fulton St., Suite 132 New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (917) 639-3270 E-mail: mpeters@petersbrovner.com lbrovner@petersbrovner.com UPSTART HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Misleading Company Statements --------------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims against Upstart Holdings, Inc. ("Upstart" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: UPST) and reminds investors of the June 8, 2026 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company. Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading national securities law firm with offices in New York, Pennsylvania, California and Georgia. The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors since its founding in 1995. See www.faruqilaw.com. As detailed below, the complaint alleges that the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1) Model 22 frequently overreacted to negative macroeconomic signals in performing its risk-separation processes; (2) accordingly, Model 22's overall accuracy and propensity to increase loan approval rates was overstated; (3) 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; and (4) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. The truth began to emerge on November 4, 2025, when Upstart issued a press release reporting its financial results for the third quarter ("Q3") of 2025. Upstart reported, inter alia, Q3 2025 revenue of $277 million, missing its previously issued Q3 2025 revenue guidance of approximately $280 million, as well as consensus estimates by $2.62 million. Upstart also reported that it expected to generate revenue of only $288 million in the fourth quarter ("Q4") of 2025, significantly below consensus estimates of $303.7 million. Further, Upstart negatively revised its FY 2025 revenue guidance to approximately $1.035 billion, versus the $1.06 billion consensus estimate and its prior guidance of approximately $1.055 billion, as well as its expected FY 2025 revenue from fees, which it reduced to approximately $946 million from its prior outlook of approximately $990 million. The same day, during a related earnings call, Defendants blamed Upstart's disappointing results on Model 22, which they revealed had "overreact[ed]" to macroeconomic signals in the quarter, reducing borrower approvals and conversion rates. Defendants 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's negatively revised FY 2025 financial guidance. Following these disclosures, Upstart's stock price fell $4.49 per share, or 9.71%, to close at $41.75 per share on November 5, 2025. The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead plaintiff or not. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding Upstart's conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. To learn more about the Upstart class action, go to www.faruqilaw.com/UPST or call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). [GN] ZODIAC POOL SYSTEMS: Gadson-Rush Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Stefan Gadson-Rush, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. ZODIAC POOL SYSTEMS LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2600516 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 3, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-01637. The Complaint seeks recovery of monetary damages, penalties under the California Labor Code, and other relief against Zodiac in connection with the following purported causes of action: failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to pay all wages; knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions; failure to timely pay wages due at termination; failure to timely pay employees; failure to reimburse for business expenses; failure to provide one day's rest therefrom seven; violation of Labor Code sections 212(a)(2) and 213; failure to provide suitable seating; failure to pay for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked; and violation of Business and Professions Code Section 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Tristan Kirk, Esq. Sean Sadler, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 333 S. Grand Avenue, 38th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543 Phone: (213) 615-1700 Facsimile: (213) 615-1750 Email: ssadler@winston.com tkirk@winston.com ZYNGA INC: Dougherty Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Cheryll Dougherty, Delia Camargo, and Lawrence Garcia, individually, as private attorneys general, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ZYNGA INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-04051 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on April 3, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-02772-PAE to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property Damage. Zynga Inc. -- https://www.zynga.com/ -- is an American video game developer and publisher known for its social video game services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raphael Janove, Esq. JANOVE PLLC 500 7th Avenue, 8th Fl. New York, NY 10018 Phone: (646) 347-3940 Email: raphael@janove.law - and - Liana Roza Vitale, Esq. JANOVE PLLC 979 Osos St., Ste. A5 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: (805) 505-9550 Email: liana@janove.law The Defendant is represented by: Jason David Strabo, Esq. MCDERMOTT WILL & SCHULTE LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 277-4110 - and - Andrew B. Kratenstein, Esq. MCDERMOTT WILL & SCHULTE LLP One Vanderbilt Avenue New York, NY 10017-5404 Phone: (212) 547-5695 Fax: (212) 547-5444 Email: akratenstein@mcdermottlaw.com - and - Emilie E O'Toole, Esq. MCDERMOTT WILL & SCHULTE LLP 444 W. Lake Street Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 984-7782 - and - William Christopher Combs, Esq. MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY One Vanderbilt Avenue New York, NY 10017 Phone: (501) 690-5775 Email: ccombs@mwe.com - and - William P. Donovan, Jr., Esq. DECHERT, LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 4900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 808-5767 Fax: (213) 808-5760 Email: Bill.Donovan@dechert.com ********* 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 ***