260507.mbx

260507.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, May 7, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 91 Headlines 8AM LLC: Emerokwam Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Appeals Denied Arbitration & Dismissal Bid ABILITY RECOVERY: Underpays Debt Collector Specialists, Conway Says ABM AVIATION: Class Cert Bid Filing in McGee Suit Due Nov. 13 ACV AUCTIONS: Agrees to Settle Job Openings' Suit Up to $2.7-Mil. ACXIOM LLC: Roberson Appeals Case Dismissal to 4th Circuit AGC AMERICA: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Suit for $597,000 AKARA RESOURCES: To Compensate Damages From Gold Mine Operation ALLSTATE FIRE: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Sims Suit to 5th Cir. ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Jury Trial in Canchola Suit Set for Oct. 20 ALPHA BAKING: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $1.05MM ALPINE EAR: Data Breach Class Settlement Gets Initial Approval AMGEN INC: Appeals CareFirst Suit Dismissal Order to 4th Circuit BGIN BLOCKCHAIN: Continues to Defend Briones Securities Class Suit BGIN BLOCKCHAIN: Continues to Defend Johnson Securities Class Suit BLACK FISH: Faces Thorne Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BOOKING HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Contractual Parity Suits BREVILLE USA: Shaffer Sues Over Defective Espresso Machine BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Appeals Denied Dismissal Bid in Doherty Suit BUFFALO, NY: Franklin Appeals Reconsideration Order to 2nd Circuit CAKE INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Mitchell Due March 8, 2027 CAL-MAINE FOODS: Conspires to Fix Egg Prices, DenWest Suit Claims CAL-MAINE FOODS: DMSD Sues Over Conspiracy to Inflate Egg Prices CALGARY, AB: Judge OKs Payouts for More Than 50 Abused Students CALIFORNIA: Appeals Attorney Fees Order in Mirabelli Civil Suit CAREDX INC: Continues to Defend Edelman Derivative Suit in Calif. CENTENE CORP: Continues to Defend Franchi Derivative Suit in N.Y. CENTENE CORP: Continues to Defend Keippel Derivative Suit in N.Y. CENTENE CORP: Continues to Defend Lunstrum Fed. Securities Suit CERNER CORPORATION: Dossett Files Suit Over Data Breach CLEANCHOICE ENERGY: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Price Gouging COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Gershzon Suit CONSOLIDATED AIRCRAFT: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Deras Says CZAR MARKETING: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended Until July 29 DOLLAR AISLE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Booker Says DOVE HEALTHCARE: Class Settlement Received Preliminary Approval DRAFTKINGS INC: Macek Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 3rd Circuit EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Public Utilities Suit EMBER TECHNOLOGIES: See Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website EMERSON HOSPITAL: Doe Appeals Denied Alter Judgment Bid to 1st Cir. EMS LINQ: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit ENDUE SOFTWARE: Agress to Settle Data Breach Class Action Suit FASHION NOVA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Urgent Sale Emails FIRSTENERGY CORP: Continues to Defend Brighthouse Securities Suit FIRSTENERGY CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit FIRSTENERGY CORP: Continues to Defend MFS Series Securities Suit FLAGSTAR BANK: Seeks Briefing Schedule Approval in Solomon Suit FOOTHILLS PROF: Freeland Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. FRONTIER AIRLINES: Underpays Flight Attendants, Mendoza Says GENERAC POWER: Dawson Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Bid GLOBE LIFE: Miami General Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Memo GOOD DAY: Manipulates Missouri's Cannabis Market, Suit Says GOOGLE INC: Plaintiffs Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses GREENWORKS NORTH: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Tesch Claims GROCERY OUTLET: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 15 HASBRO INC: Fails to Secure Clients' Personal Info, Standing Says HEALTH FIRST: Seeks to File Class Cert Response Under Seal HEARTLAND AMBULANCE: Faces Howe Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Ind. INFINITE CAMPUS: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Helgeson Says INTERVET INC: Court Affirms Scheduling Order in Palmieri IT'S A NEW 10: Senior Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store JERSEY CENTRAL: Continues to Defend Los Angeles Securities Suit JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Faces Class Suit Over Dynamic Ticket Pricing KELLY GREEN: Siekert Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Landscaping Workers KIA AMERICA: Appeals Denied Arbitration & Dismissal Bid to 4th Cir. KISS PRODUCTS: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Senior Says KLOECKNER METALS: Gonzales Files Suit Over Data Breach LOVISA AMERICA: Cruz & Jalbert Seek Proper Wages for Store Managers M&T BANK: Jaroslawicz Appeals Final Judgment Order to 3rd Circuit MAINEHEALTH SERVICES: Bartholomew Balks at Breach of Fiduciary Duty MANAS EXPRESS: Hawthorne Sues Over Uniform Leasing, Unpaid Wages MARYLAND DEPARTMENT: Bangura Seeks Class Cert Briefing Extension NAVIENT CORPORATION: Ballard Allowed Leave to File Class Cert Reply NEOGENOMICS INC: Continues to Defend Goldenberg Securities Suit NEOGENOMICS INC: Continues to Defend Mellema Derivative Suit NEOGENOMICS INC: Continues to Defend Puskarich Derivative Suit NEOGENOMICS INC: Continues to Defend Wong Derivative Suit in N.Y. NEW YORK, NY: Raymond Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 2nd Circuit NORTHERN METAL: Cooper Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Unlawful Termination OLIN CORP: Landel Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 8th Circuit ORRICK HERRINGTON: Faces Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit OSHKOSH CORP: Faces Antitrust Class Action Suit in Fullerton, CA PANINI AMERICA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Battle Suit Says PARKCHESTER PRESERVATION: Underpays Company Employees, Cabrera Says PATAFOODS INC: Yuryeva Sues Over Smoothie Melts' "Yogurt" Labels PAWN AMERICA: Final Hearing of $3.185-Mil. Settlement Set Sept. 9 PENNEY OPCO: Lopez Sues Over Illegal Wage and Hour Practices PETMED EXPRESS: Cobbs Class Cert BId Tossed w/o Prejudice POET TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit POLARIS INC: Albright Rollover Protection Class Suit Stayed POWER SOLUTIONS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit PRISMA HEALTH: Becerra Sues Over Mismanagement of Savings Plans PROGRESSIVE CORP: Greene Appeals Suit Dismissal to 6th Circuit PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Brennan et al. Sue Over ERISA Breaches PURE OASIS: Pels Sues Over Failure to Make Timely Payments RAIN ONCOLOGY: Class Settlement in Thant Suit Gets Final Nod RE/MAX HOLDINGS: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Real Brokerage ROSEDALE, MS: Faces Rudd Suit Over Unlawful Seizure and Extortion ROVER GROUP: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, Apaydin Says SAN JOSE, CA: Tan Sues Over Flock Cameras' Civil Rights Violation SANTANDER CONSUMER: Young Suit Removed to W.D. Pa. SMITHFIELD FOODS: Discovery Proceeds in Wage-Fixing Class Suit SPORTRADAR GROUP: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims SUNDEK NATIONAL: Dillon Seeks Prelim OK of Settlement Deal SUZUKI MOTOR: Appeals Remand Order in Lopez Suit to 9th Circuit TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR: Yeh Sues Over Work Discrimination Practices TELCEL: Continues to Defend Wireless and Broadband Class Suit TRUBRIDGE INC: M&A Investigates Sale to Inventurus Knowledge TRUVIEW BSI: Fails to Protect Clients' Personal Info, Swint Says UNIQUE ON THE GO: Calderon and Carter Sue Over Labor Law Violations UNITED NETWORK: Appeals Class Certification Order in Randall Suit UNITED STATES: Correa Appeals Denied Reconsideration Bid in Suit UNITED STATES: Faces Singla Suit Over Denial of Access to Courts UNITED STATES: Farmers Sues Over Organic Dairy Program Payments UNITED STATES: Plaintiff Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Reply VIRGINIA HEALTH: ClassAction.org Investigates Potential Data Breach VIRGINIA: Lucinda Appeals Preliminary Injunction Order to 4th Cir. WALMART INC: Faces Class Suit Over Additives in Plant-Based Milk WEX INC: Case Management Scheduling Order Entered in Patterson WYZE LABS: Discloses Website Users' Info to 3rd Party, Wheeler Says ZEALTHY INC: Bid to Extend Filing for Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd ZENBUSINESS INC: Fails to Secure Private Info, Camacho Says ZULILY LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to May 29 ********* 8AM LLC: Emerokwam Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------- NGOZI EMEROKWAM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 8AM LLC, d/b/a DOCKETWISE, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00967 (W.D. Tex., April 17, 2026) arises out of the recent data breach involving Defendant. In or around October, 2025, the Defendant learned that credentials to one of its third-party partner repositories were accessed. On April 15, 2026, the Defendant began notifying affected individuals of the data breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this complaint against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including Plaintiff's and Class Members' name, Social Security number, non-numerical immigration info, governmental identification number and username and access information for a non financial account. The 8am LLC is an immigration and case management solution company based in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Angelica Gentile, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 540 Heights Boulevard, Ste 330-B Houston, TX 77007 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: agentile@shamisgentile.com ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Appeals Denied Arbitration & Dismissal Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- ABERCROMBIE & FITCH STORES, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to compel arbitration, motion to dismiss class claims, and motion to stay action in the lawsuit entitled Rebeka Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01890-JES-BJW, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The Plaintiff brings this action under California consumer protection law on behalf of herself and a putative class. On Aug. 26, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration, motion to dismiss class claims, and motion to stay action, which Judge James E. Simmons, Jr. denied on Mar. 30, 2026. The Court finds that the Plaintiff's claims are not subject to an enforceable arbitration agreement. Thus, the motion to dismiss class claims and to stay this action are denied. The appellate case is styled as Rodriguez v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., Case No. 26-2353, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 16, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on April 21, 2026; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on April 27, 2026; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on May 27, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on July 6, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on August 5, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee REBEKA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP 4100 Newport Place Drive, Suite 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Defendant-Appellant ABERCROMBIE & FITCH STORES, INC. is represented by: Aaron Thomas Winn, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 12830 El Camino Real, Suite 350 San Diego, CA 92130 - and - Meredith Slawe, Esq. Michael Wayne McTigue, Jr., Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP 1 Manhattan, W. New York, NY 10001 - and - Daniel Jones, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP 1440 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005 ABILITY RECOVERY: Underpays Debt Collector Specialists, Conway Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA CONWAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABILITY RECOVERY SERVICES LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01025-MEM (M.D. Pa., April 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a debt collector specialist in Pennsylvania. Ability Recovery Services LLC is a national debt collection agency based in Kingston, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mary Kramer, Esq. MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000 1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 273-1054 Facsimile: (215) 525-0210 Email: mkramer@phillyemploymentlawyer.com ABM AVIATION: Class Cert Bid Filing in McGee Suit Due Nov. 13 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REGINALD LAVON MCGEE JR, individually and for all others similarly situated, v. ABM AVIATION, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01691-GPG-TPO (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge O'Hara entered a scheduling order as follows: –- Deadline for joinder of Parties and amendment of pleadings: May 29, 2026 -- Discovery Cutoff: For phase one limited to the Named Plaintiff's claims and class certification issues, Oct. 14, 2026. -- Class certification motion deadline: Nov. 13, 2026. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant violated the Colorado Wage Claim Act by failing to provide or make available required rest periods and failing to compensate him and other class members for missed rest periods. The Plaintiff seeks to represent the following proposed class: "all of the Defendant's hourly employees who worked for the Defendant in Colorado from three years prior to the filing of this lawsuit through final judgment." ABM is a subsidiary of ABM Industries specializing in facility services, shuttle transportation, and terminal cleaning for the airline and airport industry. A copy of the Court's order dated April 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ellse4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Gonzales, Esq. BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC 2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201 Fort Collins, CO 80528 Telephone: (970) 214-0562 E-mail: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw. com - and - Alexander Hood, Esq. HOOD LAW OFFICE, PLLC 1312 Seventeenth Street # 1028 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (720) 381-4142 E-mail: Alex@HoodLawPLLC.com The Defendant is represented by: Jennifer S. Harpole, Esq. Lukasz Gilewski, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 1900 Sixteenth Street, Suite 800 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 629-6200 Facsimile: (303) 629-0200 E-mail: jharpole@littler.com lgilewski@littler.com ACV AUCTIONS: Agrees to Settle Job Openings' Suit Up to $2.7-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that individuals who applied for a job with ACV Auctions, ACV Capital or ACV Transportation in Washington between Jan. 1, 2023, and July 26, 2025, may be eligible to submit a claim for an estimated $1,722.43 to $5,000 from a class action settlement. The settlement class includes 1,080 applicants. ACV Auctions Inc., ACV Capital LLC and ACV Transportation LLC (collectively, "ACV") agreed to pay between $1,770,000 and $2,700,000 to settle a class action lawsuit alleging they posted job openings in Washington without including required wage and benefits information in violation of state law. Who can file a claim? Class members must meet the following criteria: -- They applied for a job with ACV Auctions, ACV Capital or ACV Transportation between Jan. 1, 2023, and July 26, 2025. -- The job they applied for was either a remote position listing Seattle and/or Washington among the locations or for an opening in the state of Washington. -- The job posting did not disclose a wage scale or salary range and/or a general description of benefits or other compensation. How much is the settlement payment? Pro rata cash payment: Class members can submit a claim to receive a cash payment estimated between $1,722.43 and $5,000. The settlement administrator will determine the final payment amount by the total number of valid claims filed. How to claim a class action rebate To receive a settlement payment, class members can file a claim online or complete and mail or email the claim form included in the settlement notice. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Hill v. ACV Auctions Inc., et al., c/o Simpluris, P.O. Box 26170 Santa Ana, CA 92799 Settlement administrator's email address: info@EPOASettlementACVACT.com The claim deadline is June 29, 2026. Required claim information To submit an online claim, class members must provide the notice ID and PIN from the settlement notice they received. Payout options -- Paper check mailed to the address provided Settlement fund breakdown The settlement fund of up to $2,700,000 will include: -- Settlement administration costs: Up to $20,000 -- Attorneys' fees: $796,500 -- Attorneys' expenses: $5,000 -- Service award to class representative: $20,000 -- Payments to eligible class members: Remaining settlement funds Important dates -- Deadline to file a claim: June 29, 2026 -- Deadline to request exclusion: June 29, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: Aug. 14, 2026 When is the ACV Auctions job posting payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments to approved claimants approximately 60 days after the court grants final approval of the settlement. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit alleged ACV Auctions Inc., ACV Capital LLC and ACV Transportation LLC posted job openings in Washington state without including the required wage scale, salary range or benefits information as mandated by state law. The companies deny the allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the risk and expense of continued litigation. Settlement Open for Claims Award: $1,722.43-$5,000 (estimated) Deadline: June 29, 2026 [GN] ACXIOM LLC: Roberson Appeals Case Dismissal to 4th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------- SHELBY ZELONIS ROBERSON, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Shelby Zelonis Roberson, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Acxiom LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00165-RDA-IDD, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The suit is brought against the Defendants for violations of Code of Virginia Sections 8.01-40 and 18.2-216.1. On Apr. 14, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which Judge Rossie D. Alston, Jr. granted on Mar. 25, 2026. The complaint is dismissed with prejudice. In sum, although Acxiom's alleged collection of data far exceeds the scope of a traditional mailing list, the Virginia statutes asserted here ultimately protect only a person's name, portrait, or picture, not any of this other data. And the Plaintiffs do not make any allegations regarding their portraits or pictures. Thus, the core of the issue here too is whether selling a list of names for other entities to later use for advertising purposes constitutes a "use" "for the purposes of trade" under Code of Virginia Sections 8.01-40 and 18.2-216.1. Accordingly, although the Court is troubled by the extensive allegations in the complaint, the Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege that these allegations constitute a violation of the specific statutes under which they have brought this action. The appellate case is styled as Shelby Roberson v. Acxiom LLC, Case No. 26-1446, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on April 15, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants SHELBY ZELONIS ROBERSON, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Andrew Sumner Levetown, Esq. LEVETOWN LAW LLP 717 D. Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (703) 618-2264 - and - Todd Stewart McClelland, Esq. STERLINGTON PLLC 1 World Trade Center New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 433-2993 - and - Steven Tobin Webster, Esq. WEBSTER BOOK, LLP 2300 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, VA 22201 Telephone: (888) 987-9991 - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 201 North Franklin Street Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 275-5272 Defendant-Appellee ACXIOM LLC is represented by: Timothy James St. George, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP P.O. Box 1122 Richmond, VA 23218 Telephone: (804) 697-1254 AGC AMERICA: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Suit for $597,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that AGC America has agreed to a $597,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the glass product manufacturer failed to protect current and former employees' sensitive information from a December 2023 data breach. The AGC America class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on March 17, 2026. The deal covers all United States residents who were sent a notice about the data breach indicating that their private information may have been impacted in the incident. Court documents state that approximately 20,951 current and former AGC America employees may have been impacted by the data breach. The court-approved website for the AGC America class action settlement can be found at AGCSettlement.com. According to the settlement agreement, class members who submit a timely, valid claim form can receive up to $2,500 for out-of-pocket losses incurred between December 14, 2023 and July 15, 2026 because of the data breach. This benefit covers monetary losses related to fraud or identity theft and costs to obtain credit reports, credit monitoring, replacement IDs, and more. Class members must submit documentation, such as receipts or bank statements, to receive a documented-loss payment. In lieu of a documented-loss payment, class members may instead submit a claim for an alternative cash payment of approximately $50. No proof is required to claim this benefit. The agreement notes that the final amount of the alternative cash payment may increase or decrease on a pro rata basis, depending on the total number of valid claims filed. Additionally, all class members may submit a claim form to receive two years of CyEx Financial Shield Complete, which includes fraud and identity theft monitoring and financial fraud insurance. To submit an AGC America settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the unique ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, fill out and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All AGC America settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by July 15, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant the AGC America class action settlement final approval following a hearing on July 21, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The AGC America class action lawsuit alleged that the glass product manufacturer failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to prevent a December 2023 data breach that compromised current and former employees' sensitive information. According to the filing, private information that may have been impacted in the breach included names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, financial account information associated with direct deposits, passports, payment card numbers, company network login credentials, or limited health insurance plan enrollment information for current and former health insurance plan participants. [GN] AKARA RESOURCES: To Compensate Damages From Gold Mine Operation --------------------------------------------------------------- IBA Southeast Asia reports that in March, a Thai court delivered its ruling in the country's first environmental class action lawsuit, finding that villagers from two provinces should be compensated for damage caused by the operation of a gold mine. The ruling, by the Bangkok Civil Court, follows a decade of legal action by the villagers and is set to change how companies operating in the region approach their obligations towards the environment and local people. The significance of the case is that the environmental action plans and other measures mandated by governments in the region for companies to follow are 'no longer necessarily sufficient,' says Aarta Alkarimi, Co-Chair of the IBA International Construction Projects Committee. The case was brought in 2016 against Akara Resources, a subsidiary of Australian company Kingsgate, with a class of almost 400 villagers from Thailand's Phichit and Phetchabun provinces. The villagers claimed that the company's Chatree gold mine, which began operations in 2001, had contaminated the surrounding land and water canals. Meanwhile, exposure to unsafe levels of arsenic, manganese and cyanide -- by-products of the mine's operation -- had affected the health of local people, according to blood tests taken a number of years ago. 'The facts established that there had been a leakage of heavy metals from tailings storage facility number one, which flowed southward onto adjacent land and into natural water sources. As a result, heavy metals were detected in the canals and in the bodies of local residents,' says Thai lawyer Punjaporn Kosolkitiwong. "It's much easier to comply and do some enhanced due diligence upfront to prevent environmental damage rather than to have to clean it up later" --Aarta Alkarimi Co-Chair, IBA International Construction Projects Committee Akara Resources and Kingsgate say they disagree with the Court's findings, arguing they are based on inconclusive evidence, and will appeal the judgment. They also didn't endorse the blood test results. The villagers will receive monetary compensation, with the amount depending on their age and level of contamination. The Court further ordered Akara Resources to rehabilitate the contaminated public canals and water sources and to treat affected soil in surrounding areas. It also ordered the closure of one of the tailings ponds, which contain mining waste products. 'We strongly hope to see the restoration of a healthy natural environment, and that we [the villagers] will be able to live good lives and in normal peace as we should,' says Pimkwan Sinthornthamat, one of the village leaders. The ruling is significant because it marks the first time a company has been held to account in Thailand for the damage caused by its operations to the environment. 'The judgment of the civil court marks a significant shift in the responsibilities of business operators that negatively impact the environment through their operations and use of natural resources,' says Kosolkitiwong. She believes the case will probably encourage others to file lawsuits to protect both their own rights and the environment. Akara Resources had in place an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), which is mandatory in Thailand for infrastructure projects, and it argued it was therefore compliant with the law. But the ruling indicates that an EIA alone no longer suffices in respect of a company's obligations to protect communities and the environment, says Alkarimi, a founding partner of Chrysalis International Legal Advisors in the UAE. Instead, construction companies in the region will now have to conduct climate risk assessments, implement pollution control measures and perform ongoing compliance, she says. This brings the country more in line with regulations in the EU and the US. Emilie Palamy Pradichit, Founder and Executive Director of Manushya Foundation, who represented the villagers in the case, says the claimants plan to take further legal and advocacy action at a national and an international level. 'This is a powerful step forward, but the fight is not over,' she says. The lawsuit is part of a growing trend of class action environmental litigation in Asia. The region has historically lagged behind Australia, Europe and the US because of a lack of resources, says Alkarimi. 'The US of course has more class actions because it's very discovery-heavy [with] lots of documents [and] lots of law firms that do it,' she says, 'whereas in Asia, the discovery is not as heavy, and there are not that many plaintiff law firms.' But this is changing as legal systems adapt to accommodate environmental justice. In 2015, a legal amendment allowed Thailand's court systems to hear such lawsuits. Alongside South Korea, Thailand is also one of the first Asian countries to begin the process of drafting corporate due diligence legislation, which will require companies to respect human rights. Elsewhere, claimants in other countries are looking to hold corporations accountable for the damage they allege has been inflicted on the environment. For instance, a group of typhoon survivors is pursuing a case against an oil company they accuse of playing a role in increasing the severity of weather events. Indonesia has upwards of 100 ongoing climate change litigation cases, with complaints relating to forest fires, illegal logging and peatland destruction, for example. The hope is that as such cases increase in number, companies will see the value in operating in a way that doesn't harm people or the planet. 'Hopefully victory in these cases can show the world that it's much easier to comply and do some enhanced due diligence upfront to prevent environmental damage rather than to have to clean it up later,' says Alkarimi. [GN] ALLSTATE FIRE: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Sims Suit to 5th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled James Sims, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:22-cv-580, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs allege the Allstate Defendants incorrectly calculated the initial actual cash value (ACV) payment by deducting depreciation for the anticipated labor cost. They contend the homeowner's policy language is ambiguous, by omission, by failing to define ACV specifically to disclose the Allstate Defendants' practice of calculating the ACV payment by deducting depreciation of anticipated labor costs. On Jan. 20, 2026, Judge Henry J. Bemporad filed a Report and Recommendations (R&R) suggesting to grant in part the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. On Mar. 25, 2026, Judge Jason K. Pulliam entered an Order adopting Magistrate Judge Bemporad's R&R. Upon de novo review, the Court finds Magistrate Judge Bemporad carefully analyzed each requirement for class certification under Federal Rule 23. Magistrate Judge Bemporad addresses each certification requirement in detail and explains why the Plaintiffs' claim present common legal and factual questions suitable for class treatment. The Court finds no error in Magistrate Judge Bemporad's legal conclusions or factual findings. The Court finds Magistrate Judge Bemporad correctly concluded the proposed class certification as modified is appropriate. The appellate case is captioned as Sims v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Co., Case No. 26-90010, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on April 16, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents JAMES SIMS, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Shaun Wesley Hodge, Esq. HODGE LAW FIRM, PLLC 1301 Market Street Galveston, TX 77550 Telephone: (409) 762-5000 - and - James Brandon McWherter, Esq. MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT, PLC 109 Westpark Drive Brentwood, TN 37027 Telephone: (615) 354-1144 - and - Thomas Joseph Snodgrass, Esq. SNODGRASS LAW, LLC 100 S. 5th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 339-1421 Defendants-Petitioners ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. are represented by: Cassie J. Dallas, Esq. THOMPSON, COE, COUSINS & IRONS, LLP 700 N. Pearl Street Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 871-8257 ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Jury Trial in Canchola Suit Set for Oct. 20 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jasibel Canchola et al., v. Allstate Insurance Company et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-00734-FWS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Slaughter entered an order regarding joint stipulation to amend case schedule. Jury Trial: Oct. 20, 2026 Final Pretrial Conference & Hearing on Sept. 17, 2026 Motions in Limine Last date to file motion for class June 20, 2024 certification: Last date to file opposition to motion Aug. 22, 2024 for class certification: In-Person Hearing on Motion for Class Oct. 31, 2024 Certification: Non-expert discovery cut-Off: Jan. 5, 2026 Allstate is an American insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j7j1tO at no extra charge.[CC] ALPHA BAKING: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $1.05MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Alpha Baking Co. has agreed to a $1,050,000 settlement to wrap up a class action lawsuit that alleged the baked goods distributor failed to protect confidential information stored on its systems from a January 2025 data breach. The Alpha Baking Co. class action settlement received preliminary court approval on March 9, 2026. The deal covers all individuals who were sent notice by Alpha Baking Co. that their private information was impacted in the data breach. The court-approved website for the Alpha Baking Co. class action settlement can be found at AlphaBakingSettlement.com. Class members who submit a timely, valid claim form can receive up to $4,000 for documented out-of-pocket losses incurred between January 23, 2025 and June 22, 2026 due to the data breach. This benefit covers losses related to identity theft and fraud and expenses for replacement IDs, buying credit monitoring, freezing and/or unfreezing credit, postage to contact banks by mail, and more. Class members must submit third-party documentation, such as receipts or bank statements, to receive a documented-loss payment. In lieu of a documented-loss payment, class members may instead submit a claim form to receive an alternative cash payment of approximately $75. No proof is required to claim this benefit. Further, all class members can submit a claim form to receive two years of CyEx Financial Shield Complete, which includes fraud and identity theft monitoring and financial fraud insurance. To submit an Alpha Baking Co. settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the unique ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, complete and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Alpha Baking Co. settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked no later than June 22, 2026. Finally, as part of the settlement, Alpha Baking Co. has agreed to implement certain business practice changes to mitigate the risk of a future data breach. The court will determine whether to grant the Alpha Baking Co. settlement final approval following a hearing on July 21, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Alpha Baking Co. class action lawsuit alleges that the Illinois-based bakery failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to protect employee information stored on its systems from a data breach discovered on January 23, 2025. Per the case, sensitive information that may have been compromised in the breach included names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, financial account information, and protected health information. [GN] ALPINE EAR: Data Breach Class Settlement Gets Initial Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Alpine Ear, Nose & Throat has agreed to a settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the medical provider failed to protect confidential patient information from a data breach in October 2024. The Alpine Ear, Nose & Throat class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on March 26, 2026. The deal covers all United States residents whose private information was or may have been involved in the data breach, including those who received notice of the incident. Court documents state that the private information of approximately 65,630 people was compromised in the data breach. The court-approved website for the Alpine Ear, Nose & Throat data breach settlement can be found at AENTDataSettlement.com. According to the settlement agreement, class members who submit a timely, valid claim form can receive up to $5,000 for out-of-pocket losses incurred between October 9, 2024 and July 23, 2026 due to the Alpine Ear, Nose & Throat data breach. Class members must submit third-party documentation, such as receipts, to receive a documented-loss payment. This settlement benefit covers losses related to fraud or identity theft and expenses for credit reports, credit monitoring, ID replacement, and more. Class members may also submit a claim form for up to four hours of lost time spent responding to the data breach, at a rate of $20 per hour, for a maximum payout of $80. To claim this benefit, class members must submit a written explanation of how this time was spent on tasks related to the data breach, such as changing passwords or investigating suspicious account activity. In lieu of a documented-loss and/or lost-time payment, class members may instead file a claim form to receive an alternative cash payment of $50. No proof is required to claim this benefit. Finally, all class members may elect on their claim form to receive two years of CyEx Medical Shield Complete, which includes medical identity theft insurance and monitoring for health insurance ID and medical record number exposure. To submit an Alpine Ear, Nose & Throat settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the login ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, complete and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Alpine Ear, Nose & Throat settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked no later than July 23, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant the Alpine Ear, Nose & Throat settlement final approval following a hearing on August 11, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Alpine Ear, Nose & Throat class action lawsuit alleged that the Colorado-based healthcare provider failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to protect patients' personally identifying and protected health information from a data breach that began on October 9, 2024. [GN] AMGEN INC: Appeals CareFirst Suit Dismissal Order to 4th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- AMGEN INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled CareFirst of Maryland, Inc., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Amgen Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00484-AWA-LRL, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit which was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, is brought against Amgen for unlawfully delaying competition for its blockbuster drug, Enbrel (etanercept). On Jan. 8, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen granted in part and denied in part on Sept. 30, 2025. On Oct. 20, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion for certification under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) regarding the Sept. 30 Order. Mar. 18, 2026, Judge Wright Allen entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion for certification. The Court certifies its Sept. 30 Order for interlocutory appeal. The appellate case is captioned as CareFirst of Maryland, Inc., et al. v. Amgen Inc., et al., Case No. 26-1473, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on April 20, 2026. [BN] BGIN BLOCKCHAIN: Continues to Defend Briones Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ BGIN Blockchain Ltd disclosed in its annual report on Form 20-F, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Briones securities class suit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. A putative class action complaints was filed on April 13, 2026, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, captioned Briones et al. v. Syla Technologies Co., Ltd. et al. (Index No. 154747/2026). The Class Action was filed by The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on behalf of putative classes of investors who purchased securities of certain issuer defendants in connection with their respective initial public offerings. The Company is named as one of numerous issuer defendants in each of the Class Actions. The complaints allege violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, arising from alleged material misstatements and omissions in the registration statements and prospectuses issued in connection with the relevant initial public offerings, and assert that the offerings were susceptible to coordinated social media-driven pump-and-dump schemes. As of the date of this annual report, the Company has not been served with either complaint. The Company intends to evaluate its legal position upon service and will defend itself vigorously against any claims asserted. The Company does not believe that the outcome of the Class Actions, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. In addition to the Class Action, as of the date of this annual report, the Company has not reported any related shareholder derivative actions, government investigations, or other consolidated proceedings arising from the same alleged conduct beyond the Class Actions themselves. BGIN Blockchain Ltd is a blockchain-focused technology company engaged in developing distributed ledger solutions and related digital asset infrastructure for global clients. The company offers platforms and services designed to facilitate secure, transparent, and efficient blockchain-based transactions and applications. BGIN BLOCKCHAIN: Continues to Defend Johnson Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ BGIN Blockchain Ltd. disclosed in its annual report on Form 20-F, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Johnson securities class suit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. A putative class action complaints was filed on March 24, 2026 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, captioned Johnson et al. v. Syla Technologies Co., Ltd. et al. (Index No. Unassigned). The Class Action was filed by The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on behalf of putative classes of investors who purchased securities of certain issuer defendants in connection with their respective initial public offerings. The Company is named as one of numerous issuer defendants in each of the Class Actions. The complaints allege violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, arising from alleged material misstatements and omissions in the registration statements and prospectuses issued in connection with the relevant initial public offerings, and assert that the offerings were susceptible to coordinated social media-driven pump-and-dump schemes. As of the date of this annual report, the Company has not been served with either complaint. The Company intends to evaluate its legal position upon service and will defend itself vigorously against any claims asserted. The Company does not believe that the outcome of the Class Actions, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. In addition to the Class Action, as of the date of this annual report, the Company has not reported any related shareholder derivative actions, government investigations, or other consolidated proceedings arising from the same alleged conduct beyond the Class Actions themselves. BGIN Blockchain Ltd. is a blockchain-focused technology company engaged in developing distributed ledger solutions and related digital asset infrastructure for global clients. The company offers platforms and services designed to facilitate secure, transparent, and efficient blockchain-based transactions and applications. BLACK FISH: Faces Thorne Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- BRAULIO THORNE, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLACK FISH MEDIA, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03188 (S.D.N.Y., April 18, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The complaint alleges that Defendant failed to make its website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, depriving blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. Based in Laurel, MT, Black Fish Media, LLC. owns and operates the website, https://shop.performancegolf.com, which offers golf products and training aids for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal BOOKING HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Contractual Parity Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Booking Holdings Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2026, that hotels, hotel associations, consumer associations, and law firms in various jurisdictions, including in Spain, France, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands, have promoted or filed parity-related and class action claims against Booking.com and Agoda on behalf of European hotels and consumers relating to the historical use of contractual parity provisions and allegedly misleading practices. The Company has defended against and intends to continue to defend itself against such claims. However, class action and mass claim litigation, whether related to competition, consumer, privacy, or other claims, can be time-consuming, costly, and unpredictable, regardless of merit. Booking Holdings Inc. is a global provider of online travel and related services, operating well-known travel brands including Booking.com, Priceline, Agoda, KAYAK, Rentalcars.com, and OpenTable, and facilitating reservations for accommodations, rental cars, flights, restaurant bookings, and vacation packages worldwide. BREVILLE USA: Shaffer Sues Over Defective Espresso Machine ---------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM SHAFFER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. BREVILLE USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-03367 (N.D. Cal., April 21, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling the Breville Oracle Touch Espresso Machine, without disclosing to purchasers that the product's control board has a propensity to malfunction, resulting in various operability issues. The complaint alleges that the Defendant is aware of the Defect. Despite numerous customer complaints, including those directly posted on Defendant's own website, Defendant has refused to take action in the form of a recall or refund of the full purchase price. The Defendant breached implied warranties and engaged in unfair, deceptive and/or fraudulent business practices, asserts the complaint. As a result of Defendant's conduct, owners of the Product, including Plaintiff, have suffered an ascertainable loss of money, and/or property, and/or loss in value. Consumers impacted by the Defect are forced to expend time to furnish the Product for repair and lose the use of the Product while it is being repaired, says the suit. The Plaintiff, therefore, demands that Defendant accept responsibility for the Defect by refunding the full purchase price. In addition, or alternatively, Defendant should be required to buy back the Product. Plaintiff William Shaffer is a resident of Sausalito, California, who purchased the Product during the relevant time period. Defendant Breville USA, Inc. designs, manufactures, markets, advertises, distributes, and sells high-end appliances to consumers throughout the United States from its U.S. headquarters located in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Mackey, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT MACKEY 16320 Murphy Road Sonora, CA 95370 Telephone: (412) 370-9110 E-mail: bobmackeyesq@aol.com - and - Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Migliaccio & Rathod LLP 412 H Street NE Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com jrathod@classlawdc.com - and - Scott David Hirsch, Esq. SCOTT HIRSCH LAW GROUP PLLC 1 Research Court, Suite 450 Rockville, MD 20850 Telephone: (301) 569-1339 E-mail: scott@scotthirschlawgroup.com BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Appeals Denied Dismissal Bid in Doherty Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part their motions to dismiss in the lawsuit entitled Charles Doherty, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-6628, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs bring this action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary and co-fiduciary duties, knowing participation in a fiduciary breach related to an insurance annuity, and prohibited transaction under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. On Jan. 15, 2025, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint, which Judge Margaret M. Garnett granted in part and denied in part on Sept. 29, 2025. The motions to dismiss are granted as to Counts V, VI, and VII. The motions are denied in all other respects. The appellate case is styled as Doherty v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Case No. 26-1021, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 20, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees CHARLES DOHERTY, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Cyril Smith, III, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 100 East Pratt Street, Suite 2440 Baltimore, MD 21202 Defendants-Appellants BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, et al. are represented by: Laura Flahive Wu, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One CityCenter 850, Tenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 - and - James Fleckner, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 100 Northern Avenue Boston, MA 02210 BUFFALO, NY: Franklin Appeals Reconsideration Order to 2nd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ DORETHEA FRANKLIN, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their renewed motion to certify class and motion to intervene in the lawsuit entitled Dorethea Franklin, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. City of Buffalo, NY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00719, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. The suit challenges the well-documented and ongoing use of racially discriminatory traffic enforcement practices by the City of Buffalos police department. These practices include crime suppression checkpoints targeted at Black and Latino neighborhoods, multiple tinted-windows ticketing of Black and Latino drivers, and rampant racial profiling during traffic enforcement. The Plaintiffs allege violations of the Equal Protection and Due Process provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as well as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On May 29, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Christina Clair Reiss granted in part and denied in part on April 22, 2025. On July 11, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to intervene Markel Nance and Thomas Christopher Williams, Jr. as Plaintiffs and Representatives of the Traffic Enforcement Class. On same day, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of (1) the denial of the motion to certify the Traffic Enforcement Class pursuant to Rule 54(b) or, in the alternative, (2) to renew the motion to certify pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C). On Mar. 27, 2026, Judge Reiss reaffirmed the earlier determination that the Plaintiffs lacked standing because their risk of future harm was speculative. The Court also explicitly stated for the first time that the Class could not be certified because it was unascertainable and because the Plaintiffs sought an "obey the law" injunction. The appellate case is captioned as Dorethea Franklin, et al. v. City of Buffalo, NY, et al., Case No. 26-968, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 14, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners DORETHEA FRANKLIN, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Philip A. Irwin, Esq. Jordan S. Joachim, Esq. Christine A. Nelson, Esq. Jacob T. Stark, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 30 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 841-1000 - and - Claudia Wilmer, Esq. NATIONAL CENTER FOR LAW AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE 50 Broadway, Suite 1500 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 633-6967 - and - Matthew Alan Parham, Esq. WESTERN NEW YORK LAW CENTER Cathedral Park Tower 37 Franklin Street, Suite 210 Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 828-8415 - and - Baker Azmy, Esq. A. Chinyere Ezie, Esq. CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 666 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10012 Telephone: (212) 614-6464 CAKE INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Mitchell Due March 8, 2027 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WAYNE MITCHELL, v. HELLO CAKE, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-00241-DJC-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Calabretta entered a scheduling order as follows: -- All parties appearing shall make initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(a)(1) no later than May 21, 2026. -- All fact discovery shall be completed no later than Nov. 5, 2027. -- The parties shall disclose initial experts and produce reports in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) by no later than Dec. 10, 2027. -- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed, and disclosure of class certification experts shall be completed on or before Mar. 8, 2027 and shall be noticed for hearing before Judge Calabretta no later than July 8, 2027 at 1:30 p.m. Opposition to class certification shall be filed, and disclosure of rebuttal class certification experts shall be completed no later than May 7, 2027. The Plaintiff's reply in support of class certification shall be filed no later than June 21, 2027. -- The final pretrial conference is set for Sept. 14, 2028 at 1:30 p.m. Hello Cake is a sexual health and wellness brand that offers a line of prescription medication, supplements, lubricants, and devices. A copy of the Court's order dated April 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AwNZdK at no extra charge.[CC] CAL-MAINE FOODS: Conspires to Fix Egg Prices, DenWest Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- DENWEST RESTAURANTS, INC., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAL-MAINE FOODS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 8:26-cv-00949 (C.D. Cal., April 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged coordinated effort to restrict and stabilize the supply of conventional eggs and to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the prices of conventional eggs in the Urner Barry Market. According to the complaint, the Defendants orchestrated a coordinated scheme to inflate and sustain the Urner Barry benchmark by simultaneously (1) restricting output of conventional eggs and (2) manipulating the information on which Urner Barry's daily assessments are based. Because nearly all large producers price their eggs through formula contracts tied directly to the Urner Barry benchmark, coordinated conduct affecting the benchmark results in immediate, automatic, and uniform price increases across the market, suit says. DenWest Restaurants, Inc. is a restaurant company based in Fullerton, California. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. is an egg producer based in Ridgeland, Mississippi. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sophia M. Rios, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 8241 La Mesa Blvd., Suite A La Mesa, CA 91942 Telephone: (619) 489-0300 Email: srios@bergermontague.com - and - Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. Candice J. Enders, Esq. Zachary D. Caplan, Esq. Jeremy Gradwohl, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Email: mdellangelo@bergermontague.com cenders@bergermontague.com zcaplan@bergermontague.com jgradwohl@bergermontague.com - and - Joshua H. Grabar, Esq. GRABAR LAW OFFICE One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 507-6085 Email: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com CAL-MAINE FOODS: DMSD Sues Over Conspiracy to Inflate Egg Prices ---------------------------------------------------------------- DMSD RESTAURANTS, INC., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAL-MAINE FOODS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-04204 (C.D. Cal., April 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged coordinated effort to restrict and stabilize the supply of conventional eggs and to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the prices of conventional eggs in the Urner Barry Market. According to the complaint, the Defendants orchestrated a coordinated scheme to inflate and sustain the Urner Barry benchmark by simultaneously (1) restricting output of conventional eggs and (2) manipulating the information on which Urner Barry's daily assessments are based. Because nearly all large producers price their eggs through formula contracts tied directly to the Urner Barry benchmark, coordinated conduct affecting the benchmark results in immediate, automatic, and uniform price increases across the market, suit says. DMSD Restaurants, Inc. is a restaurant company based in San Diego, California. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. is an egg producer based in Ridgeland, Mississippi. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sophia M. Rios, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 8241 La Mesa Blvd., Suite A La Mesa, CA 91942 Telephone: (619) 489-0300 Email: srios@bergermontague.com - and - Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. Candice J. Enders, Esq. Zachary D. Caplan, Esq. Jeremy Gradwohl, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Email: mdellangelo@bergermontague.com cenders@bergermontague.com zcaplan@bergermontague.com jgradwohl@bergermontague.com - and - Joshua H. Grabar, Esq. GRABAR LAW OFFICE One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 507-6085 Email: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com CALGARY, AB: Judge OKs Payouts for More Than 50 Abused Students --------------------------------------------------------------- Meghan Grant, writing for CBC News, reports that a Calgary judge has approved payouts for more than 50 students who were abused by two former teachers at a local junior high school as the final step in a class-action lawsuit. The lawsuit, filed in 2024, named the Calgary Board of Education and the teachers at John Ware Junior High. It alleged Michael Gregory and Fred Archer sexually, physically and psychologically abused the students between 1988 and 2004. On Wednesday, Calgary Court of King's Bench Justice Michele Hollins accepted the payouts for the plaintiffs -- who each fall into one of seven classes -- ranging from a maximum of $422,000 to a minimum of $24,000. Those funds will be paid to the victims by May 17. The lawsuit alleged that school staff knew of the abuse and "failed to respond properly to the many disclosures" made by students against both Gregory and Archer. Gregory taught at John Ware for 20 years, from 1986 to 2006. He is accused of sexually abusing female students and physically abusing male students in various locations -- including at school, at his rural acreage and during unofficial "scouting trips." The former teacher took his own life in 2021, days after Calgary police charged him with 17 counts of sexual assault and sexual exploitation against former students. Archer worked at the school in the 1990s. He is accused of sexually and physically abusing male students at John Ware School. New criminal charges The 81-year-old faces new criminal charges alleging he sexually assaulted former students at the junior high school. Archer previously served a three-year prison sentence for sexually assaulting former students at a different school. The lawsuit alleged the two men worked together to assist each other in abusing children and, according to the lawyers for the plaintiffs, "provided cover for each other with parents and teachers." [GN] CALIFORNIA: Appeals Attorney Fees Order in Mirabelli Civil Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- ROB BONTA, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees in the lawsuit entitled Elizabeth Mirabelli, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Rob Bonta, in his official capacity as Attorney General of California, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00768-BAS-VET, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The Plaintiffs bring this suit against the Defendants for violation of Civil Rights Act. On Feb. 2, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for attorney fees, which Judge Roger T. Benitez granted on Mar. 30, 2026. The appellate case is styled as Mirabelli, et al. v. Bonta, et al., Case No. 26-2334, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 15, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees ELIZABETH MIRABELLI, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Charles S LiMandri, Esq. Jeffrey M. Trissell, Esq. Paul Michael Jonna, Esq. LIMANDRI & JONNA, LLP P.O. Box 9120 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 - and - Peter Breen, Esq. THOMAS MORE SOCIETY 309 W. Washington Street, Suite 1250 Chicago, IL 60606 Defendants-Appellants ROB BONTA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of California, et al. are represented by: Darrell W. Spence, Esq. Kevin Lee Quade, Esq. OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL 1300 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814 - and - Jennifer Ann Bunshoft, Esq. Julie Veroff, Esq. OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL 455 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 CAREDX INC: Continues to Defend Edelman Derivative Suit in Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- CareDx, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2026 that the Company continues to defend itself from the Edelman derivative suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs in a previously-dismissed consolidated derivative action initiated a new action on February 26, 2025, captioned Edelman v. Bickerstaff, 3:25-c-02036 (N.D. Cal. filed Feb. 26, 2025), purporting to reinstate their claims and updating and amending their prior complaint (the "Edelman Derivative Action"). The Edelman Derivative Action asserts claims against the Company as nominal defendant and Drs. Seeto and Maag and Mr. Dhingra, and other current and former members of the Company's Board of Directors alleging, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duty and various state and federal claims based on the factual allegations of the Securities Class Action. On March 19, 2025, the parties to the Edelman Derivative Action and the Securities Class Action filed an administrative motion to consider whether the Edelman Derivative Action should be related to the Securities Class Action, and on April 1, 2025, the Court granted the motion. Separately, on March 10, 2025, the parties to the Burns Derivative Action filed an amended stipulation and proposed order to continue the stay in that action, which was so-ordered by the Court on the same day. On April 1, 2025, a mediation was held between the parties to the Burns Derivative Action with the assistance of Phillips ADR Enterprises, but no settlement was reached. On June 9, 2025, in accordance with the Court's March 10, 2025 order, the parties submitted a joint status report informing the Court that, subject to Court approval, the Securities Class Action has been settled and that settlement discussions in the Burns and Edelman Derivative Actions were ongoing. CareDx, Inc. is a precision medicine company focused on the discovery, development and commercialization of clinically differentiated, high-value diagnostic solutions for transplant patients. The company provides testing services, products and digital health solutions used by transplant centers and patients worldwide. CENTENE CORP: Continues to Defend Franchi Derivative Suit in N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Centene Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated April 27, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Franchi derivative suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. A derivative lawsuit was filed: Franchi v. London, et al. (filed July 31, 2025) in the Southern District of New York against the Company, as nominal defendant, members of the board of directors, and certain officers. The plaintiffs in the Derivative Actions allege that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties and committed other alleged misconduct in connection with the statements at issue in the Securities Action. The Company denies any wrongdoing and is vigorously defending itself against the claims in the Derivative Action. Nevertheless, these matters are subject to many uncertainties and the Company cannot predict how long these lawsuits will last, whether additional litigation will be filed with similar claims, or what the ultimate outcome will be, and an adverse outcome in any of these matters could potentially have a materially adverse impact on the Company's financial position and results of operations, cash flow or liquidity. Centene Corp. is a diversified, multi-national health care enterprise that provides a portfolio of services to government-sponsored and commercial health care programs, focusing on under-insured and uninsured individuals. The Company operates local health plans and offers a range of health solutions, including managed care, behavioral health, pharmacy, and specialty services. CENTENE CORP: Continues to Defend Keippel Derivative Suit in N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Centene Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated April 27, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Keippel derivative suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. A derivative lawsuit was filed: Keippel v. London, et al. (filed August 14, 2025) in the Southern District of New York against the Company, as nominal defendant, members of the board of directors, and certain officers. The plaintiffs in the Derivative Actions allege that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties and committed other alleged misconduct in connection with the statements at issue in the Securities Action. The Company denies any wrongdoing and is vigorously defending itself against the claims in the Derivative Action. Nevertheless, these matters are subject to many uncertainties and the Company cannot predict how long these lawsuits will last, whether additional litigation will be filed with similar claims, or what the ultimate outcome will be, and an adverse outcome in any of these matters could potentially have a materially adverse impact on the Company's financial position and results of operations, cash flow or liquidity. Centene Corp. is a diversified, multi-national health care enterprise that provides a portfolio of services to government-sponsored and commercial health care programs, focusing on under-insured and uninsured individuals. The Company operates local health plans and offers a range of health solutions, including managed care, behavioral health, pharmacy, and specialty services. CENTENE CORP: Continues to Defend Lunstrum Fed. Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Centene Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated April 27, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Lunstrum federal securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. A putative federal securities class action, Brock Lunstrum v. Centene Corp., et al. (the Securities Action), was filed against the Company and certain of its executives in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on July 9, 2025. The plaintiffs in the Securities Action allege that the Company made false and misleading statements with respect to the Company's 2025 earnings guidance in violation of federal securities laws. The Company denies any wrongdoing and is vigorously defending itself against the claims in the Securities Action. Nevertheless, the Securities Action is subject to many uncertainties and the Company cannot predict how long this lawsuit will last, whether additional litigation will be filed with similar claims, or what the ultimate outcome will be, and an adverse outcome in this matter could potentially have a materially adverse impact on the Company's financial position and results of operations, cash flow or liquidity. Centene Corp. is a diversified, multi-national health care enterprise that provides a portfolio of services to government-sponsored and commercial health care programs, focusing on under-insured and uninsured individuals. The Company operates local health plans and offers a range of health solutions, including managed care, behavioral health, pharmacy, and specialty services. CERNER CORPORATION: Dossett Files Suit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------- KATHERINE DOSSETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CERNER CORPORATION d/b/a ORACLE HEALTH, CAMPBELL COUNTY HMA, LLC d/b/a TENNOVA HEALTHCARE - LAFOLLETTE MEDICAL CENTER, and CHS/COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-00334-JAM (W.D. Mo., April 21, 2026) arises from a recent cyberattack resulting in a data breach of information in the possession and custody and/or control of Defendants. The complaint relates that the Data Breach occurred as early as January 22, 2025. Following an internal investigation, Defendants learned the Data Breach resulted in unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration, and theft of current and former patients' personally identifying information ("PII") including names, Social Security number as we as well as personal health information, "(PHI"), including patient medical records, medical record numbers, doctors, diagnosis, medicines, test results, images, care, and treatment. The Defendants continue to fail to promptly inform Class Members even though Plaintiff and thousands of Class Members had their most sensitive personal information accessed, exfiltrated, and stolen, causing them to suffer ascertainable losses in the form of the loss of the benefit of their bargain and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack, adds the complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated individuals, bring this lawsuit seeking injunctive relief, damages, and restitution, together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. Plaintiff Katherine Dossett received medical care from Defendant Tennova Lafollette, maintained patient relationships with Tennova Lafollette, and suffered harm as victims of the Data Breach. Defendant Cerner Corporation d/b/a Oracle Health Inc. is a healthcare software-as-a-service (SaaS) company offering electronic health record and business operations systems to hospitals and healthcare organizations, lost control over its affiliated entity and client's patients' highly sensitive personal information, including Tennova Lafollette. Defendant Campbell County HMA, LLC d/b/a Tennova Healthcare - Lafollette Medical Center is a Tennessee Limited Liability Company which chose to allow Oracle Health access and control over its patients' highly sensitive personal and health information. Defendant CHS/Community Health Systems, Inc. owns and operates Tennova Lafollette. CHS's principal place of business is at 4000 Meridian Blvd, Franklin, Tennessee 37067.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman E. Siegel, Esq. Barrett J. Vahle, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64113 Telephone: (816) 714-7112 E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com vahle@stuevesiegel.com - and - Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. Andrew J. Fuller, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY LLP 1809 7th Ave., Ste. 1610 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 802-1272 E-mail: tloeser@cpmlegal.com afuller@cpmlegal.com - and - Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL, LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Suite #300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: thudson@wcllp.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com athomas@cohenmalad.com - and - John F. Garvey, Esq. Colleen Garvey, Esq. Ellen A. Thomas, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC Peabody Plaza 701 Market Street, Suite 1510 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 390-6750 E-mail: jgarvey@stranchlaw.com cgarvey@stranchlaw.com ethomas@stranchlaw.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells (MO 73068) STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com CLEANCHOICE ENERGY: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Price Gouging --------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that CleanChoice Energy has been hit with a class action lawsuit alleging that the alternative energy supplier charges "exorbitant" energy rates and unlawfully misrepresents how such rates are calculated. The 44-page CleanChoice Energy lawsuit claims that the alternative retail energy supplier (ARES), which claims to provide "100% renewable energy," makes false and misleading claims to consumers that its energy prices are based on factors such as costs to purchase renewable energy certificates (RECs), state and local taxes, generation and transmission charges, and other market conditions. However, the case alleges that CleanChoice's pricing methodology is instead based on "maximizing profits" and is "untethered" from the factors the company claims its prices are based upon. Per the suit, CleanChoice has "fleeced" consumers by charging "exorbitant" rates as a result of "unbridled price gouging." According to the false advertising lawsuit, ARES such as CleanChoice -- third-party electricity suppliers that purchase electricity from companies that produce energy and sell it to end-user consumers -- compete with local utilities, purportedly utilizing "innovative purchasing strategies" to reduce wholesale energy acquisition costs and pass the savings along to consumers. However, the filing alleges that CleanChoice has "lulled" consumers into switching to its energy supply by omitting its actual methods of calculating energy rates, which are "consistently and substantially higher" than those of other ARES and local utilities in Illinois and completely divorced from its actual costs. The factors that ostensibly inform CleanChoice's energy rates cannot explain its high prices, the case says. Per the lawsuit, CleanChoice's costs to obtain RECs are minimal; similarly, other wholesale costs that purportedly affect its prices and might explain its high rates, such as local taxes or transmission charges, are "relatively insignificant" in terms of the overall costs incurred by ARES and tend not to fluctuate. Variable energy rates for CleanChoice are among the highest offered by ARES in Illinois, with the company charging an average of 13.409 cents per kilowatt hour, as opposed to the average rate of 9.714 cents per kilowatt hour offered by 33 comparable ARES from 2017 to 2024, the filing states. Moreover, when compared to contemporaneous data from ComEd, a public utility, CleanChoice's exorbitant energy rates were more than double ComEd's rates for eight out of 12 billing periods, the case conveys. The lawsuit says that CleanChoice's rates defy logic and are a classic example of price gouging. No reasonable consumers would expect ARES variable rates to be "artificially inflated beyond any resemblance to the local utility's costs," the filing asserts. CleanChoice's "oppressive" pricing scheme harms vulnerable consumers and has "devastating" consequences for families who struggle to pay their bills, per the complaint. The case says that when families must choose between paying their monthly electricity bills and basic needs such as food, medical care and transportation, their health and well-being are detrimentally impacted. The suit says that after receiving a solicitation in the mail, the plaintiff switched from a public utility to CleanChoice, believing the energy supplier would provide clean, renewable energy at rates based on factors like costs for RECs, applicable state and local taxes, generation and transmission charges and market conditions. Instead, CleanChoice added "exorbitant and fluctuating" markups, resulting in the plaintiff's energy rate being, on average, 67 percent higher than market supply costs, the case relays. Notably, CleanChoice Energy has a "long record" of using deceptive practices, the case says; in 2016, the company entered an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance with the Illinois Attorney General stemming from allegedly false representations that it used green energy when it simply purchased RECs to offset its non-renewable energy sources, the complaint relays. The action also alleged that CleanChoice falsely claimed its prices were comparable to the local utility when they were typically over five percent more. Additionally, in 2023, CleanChoice paid $600,000 in a settlement with the Illinois Commerce Commission and two consumer advocacy groups that alleged the energy company charged consumers premium prices for energy offset with RECs, but failed to provide "critical" information about what type of RECs were offered, where they were generated and sufficient information to compare prices, leaving consumers unable to evaluate the costs and benefits of the company's offers, per the complaint. The CleanChoice Energy class action lawsuit looks to cover all Illinois consumers who were charged for electricity services by CleanChoice from the earliest allowable date through the date of judgment. [GN] COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Gershzon Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Mikhail Gershzon, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Colgate-Palmolive Company, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-04086-JCS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs bring a false advertising case against the Defendant, alleging that Colgate's labeling of its toothpaste tubes as "recyclable" is misleading and amounts to "greenwashing." On May 22, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Joseph C. Spero granted on April 1, 2026. The Court certifies the following class and subclasses under Rule 23(b)(3): Class: "All persons who purchased, in the State of California, a Colgate or Tom's of Maine brand toothpaste products with the language "Recyclable Tube" on the outer package ("Products") between Aug. 29, 2019, and the date of notice of pendency, except the Excluded Products." The Excluded Products are defined as MaxFresh 6 oz. (UPC No. 35000764522); MaxFresh 6.3 oz. (UPC No. 35000996671); and Tom's of Maine Sensitive Rapid Relief Toothpaste Fresh Mint Fluoride (UPC No. 77326835623). Subclass 1: "All Class Members who purchased Products with a "Recyclable Tube" claim or chasing arrows with an asterisk on the front panel of the outer package, and without "check locally" stated on the outer package." Subclass 2: "All Class Members who purchased Products with a "Recyclable Tube" claim on the back and/or side panel of the outer package, with no such claim appearing on the front panel, and without "check locally" stated on the outer package." Subclass 3: "All Class Members who purchased Products with a "Recyclable Tube" claim on the back and/or side panel of the outer package, with no such claim appearing on the front panel, and with "check locally" stated on the outer package." Subclass 4: "All Class Members who purchased Products with a "Recyclable Tube" claim or chasing arrows with an asterisk on the front panel of the outer package and with "check locally" stated on the outer package." The Court appoints Mikhail Gershzon, Kristin Della, and Jill Lienhard as class representatives. The Court appoints Gutride Safier LLP as Class Counsel. The appellate case is captioned as Mikhail Gershzon, et al. v. Colgate-Palmolive Company, Case No. 26-2360, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 16, 2026. [BN] Defendant-Petitioner COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY is represented by: Kate T. Spelman, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (213) 239-6900 Facsimile: (213) 239-5199 Email: kspelman@jenner.com - and - Kristen L. Green, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 515 South Flower Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-6900 Facsimile: (213) 239-5199 Email: kgreen@jenner.com - and - Dean N. Panos, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 353 North Clark St. Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 222-9350 Facsimile: (312) 527-0484 Email: dpanos@jenner.com CONSOLIDATED AIRCRAFT: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Deras Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID DERAS, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiff and the Class, Plaintiff v. CONSOLIDATED AIRCRAFT SUPPLY CO., INC., and GARY MATZA, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02355 (2:26-cv-2355, April 21, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for their unlawful discriminatory practice under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants utilized a rounding policy that unilaterally rounded in 30-minute increments in the Defendant's favor, i.e. rounding up to the nearest half-hour when clocking in, and rounding down to the nearest half hour when clocking out. Defendants only compensated FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class members based upon the rounded time, and not the unrounded time. The Defendants' corporate-wide policies affected all Class Members similarly, and Defendants benefited from the same type of unfair and/or wrongful acts as to each Class member, notes the complaint. Plaintiff and other Class Members sustained similar losses, injuries, and damages arising from the same unlawful policies, practices, and procedures, it says. The Plaintiff alleges, pursuant to the FLSA, that he and others similarly situated are entitled to recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid wages, including overtime wages, due to time rounding, (2) liquidated damages, (3) attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff further alleges, pursuant to NYLL, that he and others similarly situated are entitled to recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid wages, including overtime wages, due to time rounding, (2) statutory penalties, (3) liquidated damages, and (4) attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff DAVID DERAS was hired by Defendants to work as an aviation technician from October 2022 to November 29, 2025. Defendant Consolidated Aircraft Supply Co., Inc. is a corporation that provides maintenance, repair, and overhaul services, as well as exchange/loan, outright sale, and aircraft on ground services for aircraft accessories and rotables. Defendant Gary Matza is an owner and Vice President and Chief Inspector at Defendant Consolidated.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul A. Bartels, Esq. BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC 116 Jackson Avenue Syosset, NY 11791 Telephone: (516) 280-3008 E-mail: Paul@Belllg.com CZAR MARKETING: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended Until July 29 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUSTIN GRAMPS, v. CZAR MARKETING GROUP LLC, et al., Case No. Case 5:25-cv-00373-CEM-PRL (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Lammens entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for a 90 day extension of the class certification deadline. The class certification deadline is extended until July 29, 2026. All other deadlines established by the Case Management and Scheduling Order remain in full force and effect. As an initial matter, the Plaintiff admits that it misread the Scheduling Order and thought the deadline was April 30, 2027—not 2026. The Court is satisfied that the Plaintiff has shown good cause to support the requested extension, particularly since the requested extension will not impact any other case deadlines. CZAR is a marketing company specializing in affordable vacation packages. A copy of the Court's order dated April 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bNSdj6 at no extra charge.[CC] DOLLAR AISLE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Booker Says -------------------------------------------------------------- MARTRELL DESAMONTA BOOKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Dollar Aisle, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04319 (N.D. Ill., April 17, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.ledmyplace.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. Despite readily available accessible technology, the Defendant has chosen to rely on an exclusively visual interface that provides no meaningful accommodations for screen reading software users such as Plaintiff. Moreover, the Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its discriminatory conduct, says the suit. Dollar Aisle LLC owns and operates the website which offers LED lighting products and specialized electrical accessories for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 (716) 281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law DOVE HEALTHCARE: Class Settlement Received Preliminary Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Alder of The HIPAA Journal reports that settlements have received preliminary approval from the courts to resolve class action data breach lawsuits against Dove Healthcare Management Services and Blackstone Valley Community Health Care over the exposure of plaintiffs' private information in 2023 and 2024 hacking incidents. Dove Healthcare Management Services Data Breach Settlement Dove Healthcare Management Services, a provider of nursing and rehabilitation care, assisted living, and palliative care services, has agreed to a settlement to resolve litigation over a July 2024 cyberattack that exposed the private information of patients and employees. Cybercriminals breached its information systems on or around July 6, 2024, exposing names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, full face photographs, health information, and health insurance information. The affected individuals began receiving notifications about the incident on March 18, 2025. The first class action lawsuit was filed on March 26, 2025, followed by several similar lawsuits. The complaints were consolidated into a single action in the Circuit Court of Eau Claire County, Wisconsin. The consolidated lawsuit -- Miranda Meredith, et al. v. Dove Healthcare Management Services, LLC -- alleged that the defendant was to blame for the intrusion and data exposure and could have prevented it if industry-standard cybersecurity measures had been implemented. The defendant denies all claims in the lawsuit, including claims of wrongdoing, fault, and liability. After several months, all parties agreed on the material terms of a settlement to bring the litigation to an end, with no admission of wrongdoing or liability by the defendant. The settlement has now been finalized and has received preliminary approval from the court. Settlement Benefits: Two years of complimentary credit monitoring and identity theft protection services, plus one of the following cash payments: -- Reimbursement of documented, unreimbursed losses up to a maximum of $3,000 per class member, which may include up to three hours of lost time at $20 per hour, or -- A pro rata alternative cash payment, estimated to be approximately $50 The cash benefits are subject to a $150,000 cap. The alternative cash payments will be paid from the remainder of the $150,000 fund after claims have been paid, and are subject to a pro rata decrease, depending on the number of claims received. In addition to those benefits, the defendant has agreed to make cybersecurity enhancements, the cost of which will be paid by the defendant in addition to the settlement costs. The objection and exclusion deadline is June 22, 2026. The deadline for submitting a claim is July 7, 2026, and the final fairness hearing has been scheduled for July 20, 2026. Blackstone Valley Community Health Care Data Breach Settlement Blackstone Valley Community Health Care, a federally funded community health center in Rhode Island, has settled a class action lawsuit filed by plaintiff Alba Peralta Perez, who was affected by a 2023 data incident. The defendant identified suspicious activity within its network on November 11, 2023, and confirmed that an unauthorized third party had access to patients' names and Social Security numbers. The lawsuit -- Perez v. Blackstone Valley Community Health Care, Inc. -- was filed in the District Court for the District of Rhode Island. After being briefed on the defendant's motion to dismiss, the federal action was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff without prejudice due to questions over the federal court's jurisdiction. The action was subsequently refiled in the Superior Court of Providence County, Rhode Island. All parties agreed to settle the lawsuit to avoid the costs and risks associated with a trial, with no admission of wrongdoing or liability by the defendant. Settlement Benefits: Class members are entitled to enroll in three years of credit monitoring services and may also claim one of the following two cash benefits, the cap for which is set at $525,000. Should that cap be exceeded, claims will be paid pro rata. -- Reimbursement for documented ordinary expenses -- Reimbursement for documented extraordinary expenses (losses from identity theft or fraud). -- Reimbursement for lost time -- Up to four hours at $20 per hour The objection, exclusion, and claims deadline is June 1, 2026. The final fairness hearing has been scheduled for June 23, 2026. [GN] DRAFTKINGS INC: Macek Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 3rd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH MACEK, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Kenneth Macek, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DraftKings Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-1995-JFL, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The suit alleges that DraftKings is earning amounts of revenue by misleading the Plaintiffs and other customers into signing up for and repeatedly engaging with a known addictive product through its online casino and sportsbook. On July 15, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on July 29, 2025. On Mar. 23, 2026, Judge Joseph F. Leeson, Jr. entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The case is dismissed with prejudice. The appellate case is styled as Kenneth Macek, et al. v. DraftKings Inc., et al., Case No. 26-1903, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on April 21, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants KENNETH MACEK, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Mike Kanovitz, Esq. Scott Rauscher, Esq. Isaac Green, Esq. Aaron Tucek, Esq. LOEVY & LOEVY 311 N. Aberdeen St. Chicago, IL 60607 Telephone: (312) 243-5900 Email: green@loevy.com - and - Amelia Maxfied, Esq. LOEVY & LOEVY 1712 N. Street NW, Suite 401 Washington, DC 2011 Telephone: (312) 243-5900 EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Public Utilities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Edison International disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a public utilities and health and safety codes violations class suit in Ventura, Santa Barbara. As of April 21, 2026, aware of 10 pending unsettled lawsuits representing 22 individual plaintiffs related to the Thomas and Koenigstein Fires and the Montecito Mudslides naming SCE as a defendant. Four of the ten lawsuits also name Edison International as a defendant based on its ownership and alleged control of SCE, that one of the lawsuits was filed as a purported class action, that the court has denied class certification in the one lawsuit that was filed as a purported class action and that plaintiffs have appealed the denial, that the lawsuits, which have been filed in the superior courts of Ventura, Santa Barbara and Los Angeles Counties, allege, among other things, negligence, inverse condemnation, trespass, private nuisance, and violations of the public utilities and health and safety codes, that SCE and certain of the individual plaintiffs in the Thomas and Koenigstein Fire litigation have been pursuing settlements of claims under a mediation program adopted to promote an efficient and orderly settlement process, and that, as of April 21, 2026, seven opt-in plaintiff households damages-only trials are scheduled in 2026 and 2027. Edison International is the parent holding company of Southern California Edison, one of the largest electric utilities in the United States, serving millions of customers across central, coastal and Southern California. The company focuses on the transmission and distribution of electric power and investment in cleaner energy resources. EMBER TECHNOLOGIES: See Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- AARON SEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EMBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00742-TWP-MKK (S.D. Ind., April 15, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://ember.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Ember Technologies, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in Indiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason B. Marshall, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N. Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 Email: jmarshall@ealg.law EMERSON HOSPITAL: Doe Appeals Denied Alter Judgment Bid to 1st Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN DOE, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to alter judgment in the lawsuit entitled John Doe, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Emerson Hospital, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13631-RGS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The suit, which was removed from the Superior Court of Massachusetts, Essex County, to the United States District of Massachusetts, alleges that Emerson Hospital disclosed the Plaintiffs' personal health information (PHI) to third-party advertisers, such as Google and Facebook. On Jan. 30, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Class Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial ("FAC"). On Nov. 3, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, which added new Doe Plaintiffs and new claims, including a claim under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. On Jan. 7, 2026, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' SAC, which Judge Richard G. Stearns granted on Feb. 11, 2026. The Court agreed with the Defendant that the SAC failed to plausibly allege sufficient factual support to withstand a motion to dismiss. On Mar. 11, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to alter judgment, which Judge Stearns denied on Mar. 12, 2026. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have not shown that the Court made any manifest error of law. Their argument on the merits of whether they satisfied the generous pleading standard of Rule 12(b)(6) merely attempts to relitigate an argument already decided against them, and their argument that the Court should have declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims could -- and should -- have been raised during the substantive briefing and thus is waived. Nonetheless, the Court clarifies that its previous dismissal for insufficient pleading was without prejudice. The Plaintiffs remain free to re-file their claims in state court, provided they correct for the pleading deficiencies identified by the court in its order. The appellate case is styled as Doe, et al. v. Emerson Hospital, Case No. 26-1395, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on April 21, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants JOHN DOE, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Joe Ahmad, Esq. Nathan Campbell, Esq. Foster Calhoun Johnson, Esq. Justin C. Kenney, Esq. David Warden, Esq. AHMAD ZAVITSANOS & MENSING PLLC 1221 McKinney St., Ste. 2500 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 655-1101 - and - Brett R. Corson, Esq. Ryan M. Hawkins, Esq. Erin Elizabeth McHugh, Esq. Jonathan Tucker Merrigan, Esq. Thomas T. Merrigan, Esq. SWEENEY MERRIGAN LAW LLP 268 Summer St. Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 391-9001 - and - Alex Dravillas, Esq. Seth Meyer, Esq. KELLER POSTMAN LLC 150 N. Riverside Plz. Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 741-5220 Defendant-Appellee EMERSON HOSPITAL is represented by: Avery M. Epstein, Esq. Tara D. Kennedy, Esq. Jad Sheikali, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP 111 S. Wacker Dr., Ste. 4700 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 704-7700 - and - Tammy B. Webb, Esq. SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP 555 Mission St. San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 544-1900 - and - Lisa Oliver White, Esq. SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP 1 Federal St., Ste. 2620 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 275-8762 EMS LINQ: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that EMS LINQ agreed to a class action settlement to resolve claims that it failed to prevent a data breach that compromised sensitive employee and student data. The LINQ class action settlement benefits individuals who received a written notification that their personal information was potentially accessed, viewed and/or obtained as a result of the EMS LINQ data breach between Sept. 12, 2023, and May 13, 2024. The LINQ data breach allegedly compromised sensitive employee and student data, such as names, addresses, dates of birth, bank account information and Social Security numbers, according to a class action lawsuit against EMS LINQ. EMS LINQ is a data management company that provides services to school districts and other organizations. EMS LINQ has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to resolve the class action lawsuit against it. Under the terms of the LINQ settlement, class members can receive up to $500 for documented ordinary losses, such as bank fees, communication charges and travel expenses. Class members can also receive up to $2,500 for documented extraordinary losses, such as unreimbursed fraudulent charges and identity theft losses. Class members who do not have documented losses can receive a $50 alternative cash payment. All class members are eligible for one year of free three-bureau credit monitoring. The deadline for exclusion and objection is May 29, 2026. The final approval hearing for the EMS LINQ data breach settlement is scheduled for June 23, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by June 29, 2026. Who's Eligible The class action settlement benefits individuals who were sent written notification that their personal information was potentially accessed, viewed or obtained as a result of the EMS LINQ data breach between Sept. 12, 2023, and May 13, 2024. Potential Award Up to $2,500 in extraordinary losses and $500 in ordinary losses, or a $50 alternative payment Proof of Purchase Documentation of losses, such as bank statements, phone bills, postage receipts and gas receipts. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 06/29/2026 Case Name Connor Law v. EMS LINQ LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01533-DAE, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division Final Hearing 06/23/2026 Settlement Website LINQDataIncident.com Claims Administrator LINQ Data Security Incident Settlement c/o Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 25226 Santa Ana, CA 92799-9958 info@LINQDataIncident.com844-341-1254 Class Counsel Jarrett L. Ellzey Leigh S. Montgomery EKSM LLP Defense Counsel Michelle R. Gomez BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP [GN] ENDUE SOFTWARE: Agress to Settle Data Breach Class Action Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Endue Software has agreed to a class action settlement to resolve a lawsuit that alleged the healthcare technology platform failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to prevent a February 2025 data breach. The Endue class action settlement received preliminary court approval on March 27, 2026. The deal covers all United States residents whose private information may have been impacted by the Endue Software data breach. According to court documents, the private information of approximately 118,000 people was potentially impacted by the Endue data breach. The court-approved website for the Endue class action settlement can be found at EndueSoftwareDataSettlement.com. According to the website, Endue Software class members who submit a timely, valid claim form can receive up to $2,500 for out-of-pocket losses arising from the data breach. The website states that the data breach-related losses must have been incurred between February 16, 2025 and June 30, 2026. This settlement benefit covers losses related to identity theft, fraud, falsified tax returns or other misuse of information. Class members must provide third-party documentation, such as receipts or invoices, to claim an out-of-pocket-loss payment. In lieu of a documented-loss payment, class members may instead submit a claim form to receive an estimated $65 alternative cash payment. No proof is required to claim this benefit. Court documents state that the final amount of each class member’s cash payout may increase or decrease on a pro rata basis, depending on the total number of valid claims filed. The cash payout is subject to a $260,000 cap on the total amount of alternative payments distributed to class members. In addition to either form of monetary relief, all class members may submit a claim form to receive two years of CyEx Medical Shield Complete, which includes credit monitoring and medical identity theft insurance. Lastly, as part of the settlement, Endue Software has purged all private information associated with class members. To submit an Endue Software settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the login ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, complete and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Endue Software settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by June 30, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Endue Software class action settlement following a hearing on July 15, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Endue Software class action lawsuit alleged that the healthcare technology firm, which assists clients with managing rheumatology and infusion care, failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to prevent a targeted cyberattack on February 16, 2025. Per the case, sensitive information that may have been compromised in the data breach included personally identifying information and protected health information. [GN] FASHION NOVA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Urgent Sale Emails ---------------------------------------------------------------- Monique Merrill, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a class of shoppers is accusing fast-fashion retail giant Fashion Nova of violating a Washington state law curbing spam emails by sending repeated emails. According to plaintiff Karina Revenko, Fashion Nova is violating the Commercial Electronic Mail Act by sending emails with subject lines that create a false sense of urgency. For instance, Revenko claims the company repeatedly sent her and other Washington residents emails telling them sales were ending immediately, but then extended those sales as they were set to expire. Revenko said she has received these emails from Fashion Nova ever since she purchased from the website in 2024. "The false sense of urgency entices consumers to engage with defendant's marketing with repeated false notifications that there is only a limited time to take advantage of sales-based savings," Revenko wrote in the 21-page complaint. The Commercial Electronic Mail Act, passed by Washington lawmakers in 1998, bars anyone from sending an email to state residents that "contains false or misleading information in the subject line." Revenko pointed to a 2022 report from the Federal Trade Commission about digital "dark practices" in online marketing in which companies manipulate users into making choices they otherwise may not have made. The report described false limited-time messages as a "dark practice." "Fashion Nova frequently engages in sending emails with false or misleading subject lines, particularly emails with false time-limited sales information," Revenko wrote. For example, Revenko offered an email from Fashion Nova in which the company advertised a sitewide sale and another from hours later with the subject line "!! 40% OFF SITEWIDE IS ENDING!!" "The 40% off sitewide sale was not, in fact, ending," Revenko wrote. "The very next day, Fashion Nova announced that the sale had been extended, sending an email with a subject line that read: 'EXTENDED 40% Off Sitewide!'" Similarly, Revenko offered a series of emails from Fashion Nova advertising its Black Friday sales until those same sales were repackaged as Cyber Monday deals. "Even the 'Cyber Monday' sale did not end on Cyber Monday," Revenko wrote, describing that it was extended by several days. "Fashion Nova has created a false sense of urgency to customers on numerous occasions by acting as if its 'sales' were ending or in its final days and hours, but -- as evidenced by the fact that Fashion Nova continually extends these 'sales' knowing that these email subjects would create a false sense of urgency because the sale was actually not ending." Further, Revenko claims the company knowingly sent the falsely urgent emails to Washington residents based on its retention of their email addresses and access to IP addresses. "Fashion Nova has knowledge, or at the very least should know, that its emails are being sent to residents of the state of Washington," Revenko wrote. Revenko seeks to represent all Washington residents who received promotional emails from Fashion Nova with falsely urgent subject lines over the last four years. Washington's anti-spam email law doesn't require that consumers show actual damages -- the injury is receiving any email that violates the regulations. The consumer also accuses the fast-fashion company of violating Washington's Consumer Protection Act, as a violation of the spam email law constitutes a per se violation of the consumer protection law. Revenko, represented by Emery Reddy, filed the complaint in Clark County Superior Court on Friday, April 24. Neither party responded to a request for comment before press time. [GN] FIRSTENERGY CORP: Continues to Defend Brighthouse Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- FirstEnergy Corp disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Brighthouse Funds securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. In Brighthouse Funds II - MFS Value Portfolio, et al. v. FirstEnergy Corp., et al. (S.D. Ohio), on February 21, 2022, purported stockholders of FE filed complaints against FE, certain current and former officers, and certain then-current and former officers of Energy Harbor Corp. The complaints allege that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by issuing alleged misrepresentations or omissions regarding FE's business and its results of operations, and seek the same relief as the In re FirstEnergy Corp. Securities Litigation. FirstEnergy Corp is a publicly traded energy company headquartered in Ohio, engaged in the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity through its utility subsidiaries in the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest regions of the United States. FIRSTENERGY CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ FirstEnergy Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. In re FirstEnergy Corp. Securities Litigation (S.D. Ohio), on July 28, 2020, and August 21, 2020, purported stockholders of FE filed putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of the federal securities laws. Those actions have been consolidated and a lead plaintiff, the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association, has been appointed by the court. A consolidated complaint was filed on February 26, 2021. The consolidated complaint alleges, on behalf of a proposed class of persons who purchased FE securities between February 21, 2017 and July 21, 2020, that FE and certain current or former FE officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by issuing alleged misrepresentations or omissions concerning FE's business and results of operations. The consolidated complaint also alleges that FE, certain current or former FE officers and directors, and a group of underwriters violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act as a result of alleged misrepresentations or omissions in connection with offerings of senior notes by FE in February and June 2020. On March 30, 2023, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On April 14, 2023, FE filed a petition in the Sixth Circuit seeking to appeal that order. On August 13, 2025, the Sixth Circuit vacated the S.D. Ohio's order granting class certification. On November 6, 2025, the S.D. Ohio held oral argument to further consider class certification in light of the Sixth Circuit's decision. FE believes that it is probable that it will incur a loss in connection with the resolution of this lawsuit. Given the ongoing nature and complexity of such litigation, FE cannot yet reasonably estimate a loss or range of loss. FirstEnergy Corp. is a publicly traded energy company headquartered in Ohio, engaged in the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity through its utility subsidiaries in the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest regions of the United States. FIRSTENERGY CORP: Continues to Defend MFS Series Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- FirstEnergy Corp disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the MFS Series securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. In MFS Series Trust I, et al. v. FirstEnergy Corp., et al. S.D. Ohio), on December 17, 2021, purported stockholders of FE filed complaints against FE, certain current and former officers, and certain then-current and former officers of Energy Harbor Corp. The complaints allege that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by issuing alleged misrepresentations or omissions regarding FE's business and its results of operations, and seek the same relief as the In re FirstEnergy Corp. Securities Litigation. FirstEnergy Corp is a publicly traded energy company headquartered in Ohio, engaged in the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity through its utility subsidiaries in the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest regions of the United States. FLAGSTAR BANK: Seeks Briefing Schedule Approval in Solomon Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TUNNY SOLOMON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FLAGSTAR BANK, N.A., Case No. 1:24-cv-24482-RKA (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff and the Defendant ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for briefing schedule. The parties believe that a 21-day response deadline for the opposition brief and a 14-day response deadline for the reply brief will allow the parties more time to properly and efficiently brief the issues. Event Deadline Flagstar Opp to Class Cert: May 13, 2026 Plaintiff's Reply Brief: May 27, 2026 Flagstar is an American commercial bank. A copy of the Plaintiff's and the Defendant's motion dated April 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Tez8N7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq. SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A. 1212 SE Third Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 467-8800 E-mail: jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Daniel Cardenal, Esq. Jason E. Manning, Esq. Mary C. Zinsner, Esq. Kathleen M. Hutchenreuther, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP 777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 215, East Tower West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (786) 475-6998 E-mail: daniel.cardenal@troutman.com jason.manning@troutman.com mary.zinsner@troutman.com Kathleen.hutchenreuther@troutman.com FOOTHILLS PROF: Freeland Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CYNTHIA FREELAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FOOTHILLS PROFESSIONAL PHARMACY, LTD., AVOCADO HEALTH TECHNOLOGY, INC., SAJAD ZALZALA, M.D., TELERX PROVIDERS, P.C., and DOES 1-5. Case No. 4:26-cv-00263-MWB (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order enlarging the period within which the Plaintiff must file a motion for class certification pursuant to Local Rule 23.3. The Plaintiff requests that the Court enter an order enlarging the period within which Plaintiff must file her motion for class certification to a date that the Court will set in connection with its entry of a case management order the contents of which will be determined by future proceedings in this action. No Defendant has yet answered the Complaint. Briefing on the pending Motion to Dismiss and the anticipated responsive filings from the non Foothills Defendants will not be complete until June 3, 2026. The pleadings are therefore not yet closed, and the scope of the claims and defenses has not been fully defined. Requiring the Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification before the pleadings are settled—and before any discovery has been conducted—would be inconsistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(A), which requires that the Court have sufficient information to support an informed decision on certification. Plaintiff filed her Class Action Complaint on February 3, 2026. Foothills is a full-service 503A compounding pharmacy. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3Dlvjj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly M. Donaldson-Smith, Esq. Alex M. Kashurba, Esq. Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq. Dylan D. Altland, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP 361 West Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 Facsimile: (610) 649-3633 E-mail: amk@chimicles.com nec@chimicles.com kds@chimicles.com dda@chimicles.com FRONTIER AIRLINES: Underpays Flight Attendants, Mendoza Says ------------------------------------------------------------ ARNALDO MENDOZA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 26-cv-4196 (D.N.J., April 21, 2026) seeks redress for Defendant's systematic failure to compensate Plaintiff and flight attendants for all hours worked. The complaint relates that the Defendant maintains a uniform corporate policy and practice of paying Flight Attendants on an hourly basis only for work performed during "Block Time," which is defined as the time from when the pilot releases the aircraft's parking brake prior to departure to the time when the parking brake is set at the arriving destination at the conclusion of the flight. As a result, Defendant fails to pay Flight Attendants for a multitude of principal work activities that are routinely performed outside of Block Time, including: (i) appearing and checking in at the airport at least one hour before a scheduled flight for domestic flights and one hour and fifteen minutes before a scheduled flight for international flights; (ii) completing pre-flight documentation and tasks, including prepping for catering, conducting security checks, inspecting oxygen tanks, performing jump seat inspections, and preparing the aircraft for passengers; (iii) waiting at the gate before boarding the flight; (iv) participating in pre-flight staff meetings; (v) checking safety equipment and inventory; (vi) boarding passengers onto the plane; (vii) providing customer service to passengers before the aircraft parking brake is released and the plane begins its departure; (viii) assisting passengers in exiting the plane, including deplaning; and (ix) traveling between gates and preparing for subsequent flights, including immediately beginning pre-boarding activities for additional flights. The Defendant's illegal and improper wage practices, which are uniform throughout Defendant's facilities and have been known to Defendant for years, have deprived Flight Attendants of millions of dollars in wages and overtime compensation, says the suit. The Plaintiff, therefore, brings this action on behalf of himself and other Flight Attendants to recover unpaid wages, overtime compensation, damages, penalties, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law. Plaintiff Arnaldo Mendoza is a resident of New Jersey and is a current Flight Attendant for Defendant. Defendant Frontier Airlines, Inc. is one of the largest airlines in the United States, operating extensive domestic and international routes across the United States, central America, and the Caribbean.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chester R. Ostrowski, Esq. Lee S. Shalov, Esq. Brett R. Gallaway Esq. Jason S. Giaimo, Esq. McLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP 1 Elm Street, Suite 2 Westfield, NJ 07090 Telephone: (908) 894-6001 E-mail: costrowski@mclaughlinstern.com GENERAC POWER: Dawson Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES W. DAWSON, JR. and EDMOND C. HILL, JR., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC., a Wisconsin Corporation, Case No. 8:24-cv-02412-KKM-LSG (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for an extension of time to file their class certification and extending the current deadline by 60 days from the date the Defendant fully complies with the Court's April 13, 2026, discovery Order, or alternatively set a new class certification deadline. On Jan. 13, 2026, the Court entered an amended case management and scheduling order. On March 9, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel better discovery responses and documents. Generac is a corporation that designs, manufactures, markets, and sells commercial and residential generators and power supply products. A copy the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DrxFUg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Reginald J. Clyne, Esq. Kimare S. Dyer, Esq. Markenson Pierre, Esq. QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER, P.A. 9300 South Dadeland Blvd., 4th Floor Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 670-1101 Facsimile: (305) 670-1161 E-mail: reginald.clyne@qpwblaw.com kimare.dyer@qpwblaw.com markenson.pierre@qpwblaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Janelly Crespo, Esq. Jose M. Espinosa, Esq. Matthew Goldberg, Esq. Timothy Pfenninger, Esq. Joseph Baker, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2500 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 423-8504 E-mail: janelly.crespo@us.dlapiper.com jose.espinosa@us.dlapiper.com matthew.goldberg@us.dlapiper.com timothy.pfenninger@us.dlapiper.com joseph.baker@us.dlapiper.com GLOBE LIFE: Miami General Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Memo ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF MIAMI GENERAL EMPLOYEES' & SANITATION EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT TRUST, on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. GLOBE LIFE INC. f/k/a TORCHMARK CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-00376-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion for leave to file a 25-page memorandum in support of their motion for class certification, which is due on May 15, 2026. The additional pages are necessary to address the issues raised at class certification in a complex securities fraud class action. Lead Plaintiffs will attempt to keep the memorandum as succinct as possible, but given the nature of the case, Lead Plaintiffs believe additional pages will ensure the issues are addressed thoroughly. Globe Life is an insurance provider. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VseRI5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: William S. Norton, Esq. Joshua C. Littlejohn, Esq. Christopher F. Moriarty, Esq. Gregg S. Levin, Esq. Vanessa A. Davis, Esq. Marie Celeste Anderson, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 28 Bridgeside Boulevard Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 216-9000 Facsimile: (843) 216-9450 E-mail: bnorton@motleyrice.com jlittlejohn@motleyrice.com cmoriarty@motleyrice.com glevin@motleyrice.com vdavis@motleyrice.com mcanderson@motleyrice.com - and - Spencer A. Burkholz, Esq. Robert R. Henssler, Esq. Laura Andracchio, Esq. Megan M. Sonney, Esq. Olivia A. Rambo, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: spenceb@rgrdlaw.com bhenssler@rgrdlaw.com landracchio@rgrdlaw.com msonney@rgrdlaw.com orambo@rgrdlaw.com - and - Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com GOOD DAY: Manipulates Missouri's Cannabis Market, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------- CPC of Missouri-Smithville, LLC and GF Saint Mary LLC, Missouri-licensed cannabis cultivators and manufacturers, filed a class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Jackson County on behalf of independent wholesalers alleging they have been harmed by a deliberate, coordinated, and unconstitutional scheme by Good Day Farm (GDF) and the network of companies and investors with which it conspired. The complaint alleges the "GDF Cartel" owns, controls, or manages an illegally high share of the state's dispensary licenses and uses this market power to manipulate Missouri's $1.52 billion cannabis market for its own gain. GDF and its co-conspirators allegedly built the Cartel by arranging for third parties to invest in limited liability companies (LLCs) that then acquire additional dispensary, cultivation, and processing facilities, all of which are owned, managed, or controlled by GDF. The result: the alleged Cartel currently exercises effective control over at least 61 dispensaries—nearly triple the 22 permitted under the Missouri Constitution's requirement that no more than 10% of dispensary licenses be under "substantially common control, ownership or management." With 224 dispensaries currently licensed statewide, the alleged GDF Cartel controls more than one in four dispensary licenses in Missouri. But its impact is even greater as the alleged Cartel's dispensaries account for upwards of 40% of wholesale cannabis purchased in the state, giving it enormous—and illegal—leverage over every independent cultivator and manufacturer forced to sell through its network. To circumvent the 10% licensing cap in the Missouri Constitution and evade regulatory oversight, the alleged Cartel operates under five different brand names: -- Good Day Farm (21 dispensaries), -- CODES (20 dispensaries), -- Greenlight (10 dispensaries), -- Fresh Karma (6 dispensaries), and -- 3Fifteen Primo (4 dispensaries). But they are all part of a single coordinated operation that the complaint alleges consistently colludes to: -- Purchase cannabis products from non-Cartel wholesalers at artificially depressed prices; -- Stock their 61 dispensaries with substantially the same products—primarily those produced by the Cartel's cultivators—to the substantial exclusion of products from independent wholesalers; -- Compel independent wholesalers who also operate dispensaries to purchase the Cartel's finished products as a condition of getting their own wholesale products onto the Cartel's dispensary shelves; and -- Boycott non-Cartel wholesalers that refuse to agree to the Cartel's anticompetitive demands. Bob Hoffman, one of the lawyers leading the litigation, said: "The GDF Cartel is suppressing competition in the wholesale cannabis market and enriching itself with illegal profits through an unconstitutional and clandestine business conspiracy. Missouri's cultivators and manufacturers have been suffering under this scheme for too long—many of them know something is wrong but don't realize the scope of the Cartel's market manipulation. We filed this suit to restore the fair, competitive marketplace that Missourians voted for when they approved recreational cannabis in 2022. Missouri-licensed cannabis companies who have experienced these practices should join us, as they may be entitled to significant damages." The complaint alleges the financial toll the Cartel has inflicted: since the Cartel began its illicit price fixing, it has used its collective market power to depress wholesale prices by more than 20%, and it continues to squeeze wholesalers and threaten the viability of their operations. The antitrust complaint alleges that GDF knew that its cartel-building scheme could pose legal risks to the company under the Constitution's 10% licensing cap. The complaint quotes from a document GDF provided to potential investors that states: "Assurances cannot be made that the Missouri Department of Cannabis Regulation will not take issue with the number of marijuana dispensaries operated or supervised by the Manager or its affiliates . . . " This action is brought on behalf of a putative class that includes all independent Missouri-licensed wholesalers who are not members of the alleged GDF Cartel for purposes of injunctive relief. Wholesalers who believe they have been financially harmed by the alleged Cartel's practices should join the case as they may be entitled to significant damages. The putative class is represented by the law firms of Feuerstein Kulick LLP and Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP. [GN] GOOGLE INC: Plaintiffs Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation, Case No. 5:23-cv-03440-EKL (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Feb. 4, 2026 at 10:00 a.m., will move the Court for certification of the following Classes pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(2), 23(b)(3), 23(c)(4), and 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Books Class: "All legal or beneficial owners of registered copyrights for any work possessing an International Standard Book Number (ISBN) which Google downloaded and/or ingested to develop its GLaM, LaMDA, PaLM, ULM/PaLM 2, Imagen, or Gemini base models ("At-Issue Models") or their descendants." For purposes of this definition, copyrighted works are limited to those registered with the United States Copyright Office within five years of the work's publication before being trained on by Google, or within three months of publication. Google Books Library Project Subclass: "All legal or beneficial owners of a registered copyright for any work possessing an ISBN, which Google acquired via the Google Books Library Project and was used by Google to develop its At-Issue Models or their descendants." For purposes of this definition, copyrighted works are limited to those registered with the United States Copyright Office within five years of the work's publication before being trained on by Google, or within three months of publication. Google Books Partner Program Subclass: "All legal or beneficial owners of a registered copyright for any work possessing an ISBN, which Google acquired via the Google Books Partner Program and was used by Google to develop its At-Issue Models or their descendants. For purposes of this definition, these copyrighted works are limited to those registered with the United States Copyright Office within five years of the work’s publication before being trained on by Google, or within three months of publication. Pirated Books Subclass: "All legal or beneficial owners of a registered copyright for any work possessing an ISBN, that reflect URL provenance from Shadow Libraries, used by Google to develop its At-Issue Models or their descendants." For purposes of this definition, these copyrighted works are limited to those registered with the United States Copyright Office within five years of the work’s publication before being trained on by Google, or within three months of publication. B. Images Class: "All legal or beneficial owners of a registered copyright for any two-dimensional image, drawing, painting, photograph, whether analog or digital, used by Google to develop its Imagen and Gemini base models or their descendants." For purposes of this definition, these copyrighted works are limited to those registered with the United States Copyright Office within five years of the work’s publication before being trained on by Google, or within three months of publication. In the alternative, the Plaintiffs seek to certify a class pursuant to 23(c)(4). The issues Plaintiffs seek to certify include the elements of the copyright claim. Excluded from the Class and Subclasses are the works of any legal or beneficial owners of registered copyrighted works that are the subject of express and restricted license agreements with Google permitting it to use those works with respect to Google's "artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies" products and services. Also excluded are Defendant Google LLC; any of Google's co-conspirators; any of Google's parent companies, subsidiaries, and affiliates, including but not limited to Alphabet; any of Google's and its parents' officers, directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, affiliates, or agents; and the judges and chambers staff in this case, as well as members of their immediate families. The Plaintiffs request that the Court appoint them as Class representatives; Joseph R. Saveri of Joseph Saveri Law Firm, LLP and Lesley E. Weaver of Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP as Co-Lead Counsel, with Brian Clark of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, and Ryan Clarkson of the Clarkson Law Firm, P.C. as Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs' copyright claim is well-suited for class certification pursuant to Rule 23. Each requirement of Rule 23(a) is satisfied, and there is an overwhelming predominance of common questions of law and fact under Rule 23(b). The Plaintiffs are authors and artists. Each owns copyrights registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, and each book authored by Named Plaintiffs has an ISBN. Each Plaintiff asserts claims under the Copyright Act for Google's unauthorized copying of their works to train its Generative AI Models. Google provides search engines, mapping and navigation applications, email services, office suites, online video platforms, photo and cloud. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yRJmYv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lesley E. Weaver, Esq. Anne K. Davis, Esq. Joshua D. Samra, Esq. Gregory S. Mullens, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 1111 Broadway, Suite 300 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (341) 217-0550 E-mail: lweaver@stranchlaw.com adavis@stranchlaw.com jsamra@stranchlaw.com gmullens@stranchlaw.com - and - Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Cadio Zirpoli, Esq. Christopher K.L. Young, Esq. Elissa A. Buchanan, Esq. Evan A. Creutz, Esq. Aaron Cera, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1505 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com czirpoli@saverilawfirm.com cyoung@saverilawfirm.com eabuchanan@saverilawfirm.com ecreutz@saverilawfirm.com acera@saverilawfirm.com - and - Brian D. Clark, Esq. Laura M. Matson, Esq. Arielle S. Wagner, Esq. Consuela Abotsi-Kowu, Esq. Stephen J. Teti, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: bdclark@locklaw.com lmmatson@locklaw.com aswagner@locklaw.com cmabotsi-kowo@locklaw.com sjteti@locklaw.com - and - Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Yana Hart, Esq. Mark I. Richards, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com mrichards@clarksonlawfirm.com - and - Matthew Butterick, Esq. BUTTERICK LAW 1920 Hillhurst Avenue, #406 Los Angeles, CA 90027 Telephone: (323) 968-2632 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: mb@buttericklaw.com GREENWORKS NORTH: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Tesch Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY TESCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREENWORKS NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00497 (N.D. Ind., April 15, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.greenworkstools.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, ambiguous link texts, inaccessible contact information, changing of content without advance warning, lack of alt-text on graphics, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Greenworks North America, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in Indiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason B. Marshall, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N. Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 Email: jmarshall@ealg.law GROCERY OUTLET: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 15 -------------------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises Grocery Outlet Holding Corp., ("Grocery Outlet" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: GO) investors off a class action on behalf of investors that bought securities between August 5, 2025 and March 4, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Grocery Outlet investors have until May 15, 2026 to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, by phone 310-692-8883 or email: lesley@portnoylaw.com, to discuss their legal rights, or join the case via http://portnoylaw.com/grocery-outlet-holding-corp.The Portnoy Law Firm can provide a complimentary case evaluation and discuss investors' options for pursuing claims to recover their losses. Grocery Outlet operates as a retailer of consumables and fresh products sold through independently operated stores. The Grocery Outlet class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Grocery Outlet had "expanded too quickly" into new stores; (ii) Grocery Outlet's purportedly strong financial and operational growth was being artificially supported by excessive, rapid store expansion; (iii) as a result, Grocery Outlet was unable to achieve the sustainable growth required to meet its previously set guidance; and (iv) Grocery Outlet's Restructuring Plan would require further optimization to achieve its operational goals, including significant store closures and asset write-downs. The Grocery Outlet class action lawsuit further alleges that on March 4, 2026, Grocery Outlet announced results for the fourth quarter and full fiscal year 2025, revealing Grocery Outlet's full year financial results which missed guidance on nearly every major financial metric. Grocery Outlet allegedly reported full year 2025 adjusted EBITDA of $254.3 million (missing prior guidance of $258 at the low end); net sales of $4.69 billion (missing prior guidance of $4.70 billion at the low end); comparable store sales which increased by 0.5% on a 52-week basis (missing prior guidance of 0.6% to 0.9%); and diluted adjusted earnings per share of $0.76 (missing prior guidance of $0.78 at the low end). The complaint also alleges Grocery Outlet revealed it was adding an additional "optimization plan" on top of its "restructuring plan," and "reshaping [its] new store growth strategy" including the "closure of 36 financially underperforming stores." Further, Grocery Outlet allegedly also "determined that the long-lived assets of the Closure Stores were impaired, and recognized $110 million of non-cash charges in Impairment of long-lived assets on the condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income (loss)." Finally, the Grocery Outlet class action lawsuit alleges that Grocery Outlet stated that it estimates "between $14 million and $25 million in net total restructuring charges in fiscal 2026, including between $51 million and $63 million of estimated cash expenditures primarily for lease termination fees, and between $11 million and $14 million of bad debt expense, partially offset by net non-cash write-off of right-of-use assets and lease liabilities associated with these leases of between $(48) million and $(52) million." On this news, the price of Grocery Outlet stock fell nearly 28%, according to the complaint. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. (310) 692-8883 lesley@portnoylaw.com www.portnoylaw.com [GN] HASBRO INC: Fails to Secure Clients' Personal Info, Standing Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- SHEILA STANDING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HASBRO, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00219-MSM-AEM (D.R.I., April 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, Invasion of Privacy, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on March 28, 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Hasbro, Inc. is a games and toy company headquartered in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK 1307 Chalkstone Ave. Providence, RI 02908 Telephone: (401) 831-7730 Facsimile: (401) 861-6064 Email: pnwlaw@aol.com HEALTH FIRST: Seeks to File Class Cert Response Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURA POWERS and CHRISTINA ROSEAN, v. HEALTH FIRST, INC., Case No. 6:23-cv-00375-JSS-RMN (M.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion to file under seal its response to "Plaintiffs' motion and memorandum for reconsideration of class certification opinion and order." The Response, including its exhibits, will be filed publicly in redacted form, and which is attached without redactions hereto because it contains both highly commercially sensitive and HIPAA-protected information. The Response refers to and contains descriptions of the medical services and the related billing information Plaintiffs Laura Powers and Christina Rosean each allege to be the basis for their allegations in this case. The Response also contains descriptions of certain insurance payer contracts with Health First, which contain commercially sensitive information (such as confidential pricing information and contract terms) the contracting parties wish to maintain confidential from both competitors and the public. Sealing this item is necessary to protect certain HIPAA-protected information and to protect certain commercially sensitive information from public disclosure, including to the competitors of the insurers, in accordance with designations of those documents as Confidential and Confidential – Attorneys Eyes Only. The Defendant is a fully integrated health system. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kg39j1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen Berry, Esq. BERRY LAW LLC 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 296-1212 E-mail: Sberry@berrylawpllc.com - and - Tucker H. Byrd, Esq. BYRD CAMPBELL, P.A. 180 Park Avenue North, Ste 2A Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 392-2285 E-mail: Tbyrd@byrdcampbell.com - and - Ronald G. Meyer, Esq. MEYER, BLOHM AND POWELL, P.A. Tallahassee, FL 32302 Telephone: (850) 878-5212 E-mail: rmeyer@meyerblohmlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Elizabeth B. Honkonen, Esq. Richard Alan Arnold, Esq. Allison G. Margolies, Esq. Campbell Haynes, Esq. Maria Vita Passo, Esq. SPERLING KENNY NACHWALTER, LLC Four Seasons Tower - Suite 1100 1441 Brickell Avenue Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 373-1000 E-mail: ebh@sperlingkenny.com rarnold@sperlingkenny.com amargolies@sperlingkenny.com chaynes@sperlingkenny.com mpasso@sperlingkenny.com HEARTLAND AMBULANCE: Faces Howe Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Ind. --------------------------------------------------------------- DUSTIN HOWE and LUCAS SCHUTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HEARTLAND AMBULANCE SERVICE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00777-JMS-MJD (S.D. Ind., April 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiffs worked in an ambulance for the Defendant. Heartland Ambulance Service, LLC is a provider of ambulance service, headquartered in Muncie, Indiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald E. Weldy, Esq. WELDY LAW 11268 Governors Lane Fishers, IN 46037 Telephone: (317) 842-6600 Email: rweldy@weldylegal.com INFINITE CAMPUS: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Helgeson Says --------------------------------------------------------------- CASSIE HELGESON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INFINITE CAMPUS, INC., a Minnesota corporation, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-02306 (D. Minn., April 21, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. On March 18, 2026, an unauthorized third-party gained access to Defendant's IT Network, specifically an employee's Salesforce account used as Defendant's internal case management and ticketing system. In response, Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. Defendant has publicly acknowledged that the target of the unauthorized access was the Infinite Campus Salesforce instance, which contained names and contact information for school staff. Since the Data Breach occurred, the notorious data extortion group "ShinyHunters" has claimed responsibility for the Data Breach and has threatened to publicly release all stolen data. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for: negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract. Plaintiff seeks actual and putative damages, with attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, and appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief. Plaintiff Cassie Helgeson is a parent of a student at a school that uses Defendant's services. Defendant Infinite Campus, Inc. is a provider of a district-wide student information system designed to manage attendance, grades, and test scores, and serves as a critical repository for the contact and identifying information of school staff across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. David A. Goodwin, Esq. Michael J. Warkel, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 So. Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com mwarkel@gustafsongluek.com INTERVET INC: Court Affirms Scheduling Order in Palmieri -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VALERIE PALMIERI, et al., v. INTERVET, INC. d/b/a MERCK ANIMAL HEALTH, Case No. 2:19-cv-22024-JXN-AME (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Neals entered an order affirming Judge Espinosa's Scheduling Order. Judge Espinosa's scheduling order was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. First, nothing in the record gives the Court a "firm and definite conviction" that Judge Espinosa made a mistake. Second, Judge Espinosa did not act contrary to law. Defendant incorrectly argues that Judge Espinosa misapplied Federal Rules of Civil Procedure1 23 and 56 because neither rule "includes any exception to a defendant's right to make a motion for summary judgment after the close of fact discovery. " After fact discovery in this case ended, the parties could not agree on a motion schedule. Following oral argument on Sept. 16, 2025, and Oct. 1, 2025, Magistrate Judge Espinosa entered a Scheduling Order prohibiting Defendant from moving for summary judgment until after this Court ruled on class certification. Defendant appealed. The Defendant delivers advanced animal health products and import/export services for livestock and companion animals. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated April 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MJXL4r at no extra charge.[CC] IT'S A NEW 10: Senior Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store --------------------------------------------------------------- MILAGROS SENIOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IT'S A NEW 10, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03110 (S.D.N.Y., April 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://itsa10haircare.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. It's A New 10, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal JERSEY CENTRAL: Continues to Defend Los Angeles Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Jersey Central Power & Light Co disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association securities class suit. The Company is involved in In re FirstEnergy Corp. Securities Litigation (S.D. Ohio). On July 28, 2020, and August 21, 2020, purported stockholders of FE filed putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of the federal securities laws. Those actions have been consolidated and a lead plaintiff, the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association, has been appointed by the court. A consolidated complaint was filed on February 26, 2021. The consolidated complaint alleges, on behalf of a proposed class of persons who purchased FE securities between February 21, 2017 and July 21, 2020, that FE and certain current or former FE officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by issuing alleged misrepresentations or omissions concerning FE's business and results of operations. The consolidated complaint also alleges that FE, certain current or former FE officers and directors, and a group of underwriters violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act as a result of alleged misrepresentations or omissions in connection with offerings of senior notes by FE in February and June 2020. On March 30, 2023, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On April 14, 2023, FE filed a petition in the Sixth Circuit seeking to appeal that order. On August 13, 2025, the Sixth Circuit vacated the S.D. Ohio's order granting class certification. On November 6, 2025, the S.D. Ohio held oral argument to further consider class certification in light of the Sixth Circuit's decision. FE believes that it is probable that it will incur a loss in connection with the resolution of this lawsuit, but given the ongoing nature and complexity of such litigation, FE cannot yet reasonably estimate a loss or range of loss. Jersey Central Power & Light Co is an electric utility company providing regulated electric transmission and distribution services to residential, commercial and industrial customers in New Jersey. The company operates as part of the FirstEnergy Corp. family of utilities, delivering power and maintaining electric infrastructure across its service territory. JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Faces Class Suit Over Dynamic Ticket Pricing ------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that JetBlue faces a proposed class action lawsuit that alleges the airline does not disclose its use of online tracking technology to gather travelers' data for the purpose of using the information to set ticket prices, a practice called "dynamic surveillance pricing." The 45-page lawsuit claims that JetBlue Airways, rather than protect consumers' data, employs tracking tools on its website to collect, retain and use travelers' information without consent. According to the case, JetBlue fails to disclose not only that the online trackers are used to set ticket pricing (for instance, when a consumer looks for tickets, closes the window, and later comes back), but that the trackers are used for behavioral analytics that also allow the airline to set prices dynamically, as opposed to setting static ticket prices. JetBlue also fails to disclose that it shares consumer data with third parties for the purpose of setting prices, the suit alleges. The class action lawsuit argues that JetBlue effectively admitted in a since-deleted social media post in April 2026 that it uses so-called dynamic surveillance pricing. After a consumer complained about a $230 increase in ticket prices, the case says, the company recommended on X, formerly known as Twitter, that they "[t]ry clearing your cache and cookies or booking with an incognito window," suggesting that consumer activity on JetBlue's website is "closely" monitored. "Sharing information with third parties and allowing them to secretly collect this information makes this possible," the filing states. The lawsuit says that travelers looking to buy tickets online have a reasonable expectation of privacy because of the sensitive nature of the information they must share. The suit stresses that consumers must provide a "significant" amount of personal data to buy plane tickets and should "have the very same privacy rights as those who physically walk up to an airline ticketing counter." Although JetBlue has since denied that its website uses dynamic surveillance pricing, the case says that other public statements, the de facto social media admission, and even the website's back-end code "say otherwise." "Consumers should not have to have their privacy rights violated to participate in Defendant's digital rat race for airline tickets which should cost the same for each similarly seated passenger," the complaint scathes. The lawsuit says that JetBlue seems to understand the "critical" nature of protecting traveler information but "immediately contradicts itself" by noting in its privacy policy that aspects of the airline's website will not function properly unless a consumer accepts all cookies and tracking technologies. Traveler information input into the JetBlue website is transmitted to two third-party companies, PROS Holdings, Inc. and FullStory, Inc., which collect and analyze consumers' behavioral information, with PROS using an algorithm to set prices based on consumer behavior, the case claims. This creates a problem, given that consumer information is "commonly weaponized" by companies as a surreptitious way to ascertain someone's socioeconomic status and geographic location, the suit says. With this much information, a company can adjust prices based on a consumer's zip code or presumed socioeconomic class, the lawsuit relays. The case contends that dynamic surveillance pricing is "highly concerning" in that JetBlue uses the trackers to "make as much money as they can" from airline tickets that are priced differently for different consumers while "blatantly" invading their privacy rights. While surveillance pricing is not illegal, "secretly" collecting consumer data without consent is, the case argues. The plaintiff and proposed class members "[d]id not anticipate, invite, or adequately consent to the presence of other third-party corporations looking over their digital shoulders as they transact business with [JetBlue]," the lawsuit claims. The JetBlue dynamic pricing class action lawsuit looks to cover all natural individuals in the United States who used JetBlue's website and/or mobile application and whose communications and/or data were shared with third parties during the applicable statutory period. [GN] KELLY GREEN: Siekert Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Landscaping Workers ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSHUA SIEKERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KELLY GREEN LAWN CARE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00644-BBC (E.D. Wis., April 15, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an hourly-paid, nonexempt employee in the position of Lead in Wisconsin from October 2022 until November 2025. Kelly Green Lawn Care LLC is a landscaping company, with a principal office address in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 1200 N. Mayfair Road, Suite 270 Wauwatosa, WI 53226 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com KIA AMERICA: Appeals Denied Arbitration & Dismissal Bid to 4th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- KIA AMERICA, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to compel arbitration and denying in part its motion to dismiss in the lawsuit entitled Rachel Langerhans, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kia America, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02994-SAG, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The Plaintiff brings this action against Kia Corporation and Kia America, Inc. based on an alleged defect in a vehicle that they design. On Feb. 19, 2025, Plaintiffs Rachel Langerhans and Andrew Langerhans filed an amended complaint. On Mar. 26, 2025, Kia America, Inc. filed a motion to compel arbitration and motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended complaint. On Mar. 17, 2026, Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher entered an Order denying Kia America's motion to compel arbitration and denying in part its motion to dismiss. The appellate case is captioned as Rachel Langerhans v. Kia America, Inc., Case No. 26-1441, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on April 15, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees RACHEL LANGERHANS, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Nicholas Elia, Esq. Daniel C. Levin, Esq. LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 - and - Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Bruno Ortega-Toledo, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD, LLP 412 H. Street, NE Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 (202) 618-7392 Defendants-Appellants KIA AMERICA, INC., et al. are represented by: Joan R. Camagong, Esq. Amir M. Nassihi, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP 555 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 544-1900 (415) 544-1949 - and - Nalani Crisologo, Esq. Michael L. Mallow, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 285-8330 KISS PRODUCTS: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Senior Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MILAGROS SENIOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KISS PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03068 (S.D.N.Y., April 15, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.impressbeauty.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Kiss Products, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal KLOECKNER METALS: Gonzales Files Suit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------ MARK GONZALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KLOECKNER METALS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02163-VMC (N.D. Ga., April 2`, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive and personally identifying information ("PII" or "Private Information"), which, as a result, was targeted, accessed, and stolen from Defendant's care in a foreseeable, preventable, data breach. On February 23, 2026, Defendant detected unusual activity on its IT Network. In response, Defendant began an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. Defendant's investigation determined that an unauthorized third-party gained access to its IT Network between February 17, 2026, and February 23, 2026. The following types of Private Information were compromised as a result of the Data Breach: name and Social Security number. On April 10, 2026, Defendant began issuing notice letters to impacted individuals. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's breach of its implied contracts with Plaintiff and Class Members and the attendant Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injuries and damages as set forth herein and have been irreparably harmed, as well as suffering and the loss of the benefit of the bargains they struck with Defendant, says the suit. To recover from Defendant for these harms, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class, brings claims for negligence/negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information in its custody and Defendant's failure to provide timely or adequate notice to Plaintiff and Class Members that their information was compromised in the Data Breach. Plaintiff and Class Members seek compensatory damages, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief requiring Defendant to (a) disclose, expeditiously, the full nature of the Data Breach and the types of Private Information exposed; (b) implement improved data security practices to reasonably guard against future breaches of Private Information in Defendant's possession; and (c) provide, at Defendant's own expense, all impacted Data Breach victims with lifetime identity theft protection services. Plaintiff Mark Gonzales is a former employee of Defendant who entrusted his Private Information to Defendant as a condition of obtaining employment services. Defendant Kloeckner Metals Corporation is a leading producer-independent distributor of steel and metal products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street, NW Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (771) 772-3086 E-mail: cturner@milberg.com LOVISA AMERICA: Cruz & Jalbert Seek Proper Wages for Store Managers ------------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY CRUZ and STEPHANIE JALBERT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LOVISA AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00466-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, April 17, 2026) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs worked for Defendant as non-exempt, hourly-paid store managers. The Defendant, however, does not pay store managers for all work they actually perform. Moreover, the Defendant required Plaintiffs to perform work off the clock without compensation. In addition, the Defendant did not keep accurate records of all time worked by Plaintiffs. Headquartered in Grove City, Franklin County, Ohio, Lovisa America, LLC. operates as jewelry retailer with over 200 stores across the United States, including in California, Massachusetts, Ohio and Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Camar R. Jones, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 622 Banyan Trail, Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com cjones@shavitzlaw.com M&T BANK: Jaroslawicz Appeals Final Judgment Order to 3rd Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID JAROSLAWICZ is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled David Jaroslawicz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. M&T Bank Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-00897-EJW, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case arises out of the 2015 merger of consumer banks Hudson and M&T. According to former Hudson shareholders, the banks violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9 of the Securities Exchange Commission, by omitting several facts concerning M&T's regulatory compliance from their joint proxy materials. The alleged omissions concerned two non-compliant practices: (1) M&T's having advertised no-fee checking accounts but later switching those accounts to fee-based accounts (the "consumer violations"); and (2) deficiencies in M&T's Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money laundering compliance program, particularly its "Know Your Customer" program ("BSA/AML deficiencies"). On Mar. 21, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which Judge Evan J. Wallach granted on Mar. 24, 2026. Summary judgment in favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiffs is granted on all remaining issues in this case. On same day, final judgment is entered in favor of the Defendants. The case is closed. The appellate case is captioned as David Jaroslawicz v. M&T Bank Corporation, et al., Case No. 26-1865, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on April 20, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant DAVID JAROSLAWICZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Francis J. Murphy, Jr., Esq. MURPHY & LANDON 1011 Centre Road, Suite 210 Wilmington, DE 19805 Telephone: (302) 472-8100 Email: fmurphy@msllaw.com - and - Steven M. Coren, Esq. Benjamin M. Mather, Esq. Matthew R. Williams, Esq. COREN & RESS, PC 2001 Market Street, Suite 3900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8700 Email: scoren@kcr-law.com bmather@kcr-law.com mwilliams@kcr-law.com Defendants-Appellees M&T BANK CORPORATION, et al. are represented by: Brian M. Rostocki, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 1201 Market Street, Suite 1500 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 778-7500 Email: brostocki@reedsmith.com - and - Jonathan K. Youngwood, Esq. Janet A. Gochman, Esq. V. Noah Gimbel, Esq. Katherine A. Hardiman, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 455-2000 Email: jyoungwood@stblaw.com jgochman@stblaw.com noah.gimbel@stblaw.com katherine.hardiman@stblaw.com - and - Kevin R. Shannon, Esq. POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP Hercules Plaza 1313 N. Market Street, 6th Floor Wilmington, DE 19899 Telephone: (302) 984-6000 Email: kshannon@potteranderson.com - and - Tracy Richelle High, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 558-4000 Email: hight@sullcrom.com MAINEHEALTH SERVICES: Bartholomew Balks at Breach of Fiduciary Duty ------------------------------------------------------------------- MEGAN BARTHOLOMEW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAINEHEALTH SERVICES, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MAINEHEALTH SERVICES, MAINEHEALTH RETIREMENT PLAN COMMITTEE, AND MAINEHEALTH INVESTMENT SUB-COMMITTEE, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00224-KFW (D. Me., April 17, 2026) accuses the Defendants of breaching their fiduciary duties in the management, operation, and administration of the MaineHealth 403(b) Retirement Plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of current and former participants in an ERISA-defined contribution retirement plan sponsored by MaineHealth to recover losses due to mismanagement of the MaineHealth 403(b) Retirement Plan, including the selection and retention of imprudent investment options and engagement in prohibited transactions with a party in interest. Headquartered in Portland, ME, MaineHealth Services is an integrated health system that includes a Level 1 trauma medical center, eight licensed hospitals, comprehensive pediatric care services, a behavioral health care network, diagnostic services, as well as home health, hospice, and senior care services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 8241 La Mesa Blvd., Suite A La Mesa, CA 91942 Telephone: (215) 875-3063 Facsimile: (215) 875-4620 E-mail: apiazza@bergermontague.com - and - Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Natalie Lesser, Esq. Olivia S. Lanctot, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: scarson@bergermontague.com nlesser@bergermontague.com olanctot@bergermontague.com MANAS EXPRESS: Hawthorne Sues Over Uniform Leasing, Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- EZEKIEL HAWTHORNE and JOHN HAWTHORNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MANAS EXPRESS CORP. f/k/a MANAS EXPRESS INC., and TMS TRANSPORT, LLC, and related entities, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-04395 (N.D. Ill., April 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of contract, violations under the Truth-in-Leasing Regulations and its corresponding regulations, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' uniform leasing, compensation, deduction, escrow, and record-disclosure practices imposed on owner-operator truck drivers who leased equipment and provided driving services to the Defendants while hauling freight under their motor carrier authority. Moreover, the Plaintiffs allege the Defendants of unlawful deductions, failure to pay all earned and agreed compensation, and violations relating to final compensation, final accounting, and the timely return of withheld funds. Manas Express Corp., formerly known as Manas Express Inc., is an authorized carrier, with its principal place of business in Harvey, Illinois. TMS Transport, LLC is an authorized carrier with its principal place of business in Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 237-2281 Facsimile: (407) 245-3383 Email: kimd@forthepeople.com MARYLAND DEPARTMENT: Bangura Seeks Class Cert Briefing Extension ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALPHEAUS BANGURA, et al., v. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, Case No. 1:23-cv-02728-JKB (D. Md.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to extend the class certification briefing schedule. The Plaintiffs seek an extension of the briefing schedule by approximately 2 weeks as follows: Event Deadline The Plaintiffs' motion for class May 13, 2026 certification The Defendant's opposition to motion July 1, 2026 for class certification: The Plaintiffs' reply in support of July 17, 2026 class certification: The requested approximately two-week extension will enable the Plaintiffs' expert to review the necessary materials to provide his opinion. While the parties have worked collaboratively regarding discovery issues, several questions arose during the expert's analysis that required consultation between the parties and delayed his final report. It is counsel's understanding that because of this, the report will not be done before April 29, 2026, which does not provide counsel sufficient time to finalize the motion for class certification without an extension of time. The Defendant protects the public, its employees, and detainees and offenders under its supervision. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SakVyY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edith K. Thomas, Esq. Jeremy P. Monteiro, Esq. Thomas J. Eiler, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Ave., Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 (ph) E-mail: ethomas@zagfirm.com jmonteiro@zagfirm.com teiler@zagfirm.com NAVIENT CORPORATION: Ballard Allowed Leave to File Class Cert Reply ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JILL BALLARD, REBECCA VARNO, and MARK POKORNI, on behalf of themselves and the class members described herein, v. NAVIENT CORPORATION, NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, INC., AND NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-00121-JFS-PJC (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Caraballo entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file reply in support of motion for class certification. Navient is an American financial services company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CgRmBB at no extra charge.[CC] NEOGENOMICS INC: Continues to Defend Goldenberg Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- NeoGenomics Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2026, that that the Company continues to defend itself from the Goldenberg securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact were alleged in the Companys public disclosures in a purported shareholder class action captioned Daniel Goldenberg v. NeoGenomics, Inc., Douglas VanOort, Mark Mallon, Kathryn McKenzie, and William Bonello, filed on December 16, 2022 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which was brought on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Companys securities between February 27, 2020 and April 26, 2022, asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 relating to statements regarding the Companys menu of tests, business operations, and compliance with health care laws and regulations, and sought unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorneys fees and expert fees. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Goldenberg Matter on February 5, 2024, the plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion on March 21, 2024, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order on March 13, 2026 dismissing the Goldenberg Matter with prejudice, and the plaintiff appealed the judgment and order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on April 10, 2026. The Company believes it has valid defenses to the claims alleged but there is no guarantee that the Company will prevail and, as of the filing of this report with the SEC, the outcome of these matters is not estimable or probable. NeoGenomics Inc. is a cancer diagnostics company that provides genetic and molecular testing services to pathologists, oncologists, academic centers and pharmaceutical companies. The company offers a broad menu of oncology-focused tests and specializes in hematologic and solid tumor oncology. NEOGENOMICS INC: Continues to Defend Mellema Derivative Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ NeoGenomics Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2026, that that the Company continues to defend itself from the Mellema derivative suit in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On April 27, 2023, shareholder derivative actions was subsequently filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of the Company captioned Mellema v. VanOort, et al., naming certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors as defendants, that the allegations in this action are substantially similar to the allegations asserted in the Goldenberg Matter. The Company believes it has valid defenses to the claims alleged but there is no guarantee that the Company will prevail and, as of the filing of this report with the SEC, the outcome of these matters is not estimable or probable. The Company believes it has valid defenses to the claims alleged but there is no guarantee that the Company will prevail and, as of the filing of this report with the SEC, the outcome of these matters is not estimable or probable. NeoGenomics Inc. is a cancer diagnostics company that provides genetic and molecular testing services to pathologists, oncologists, academic centers and pharmaceutical companies. The company offers a broad menu of oncology-focused tests and specializes in hematologic and solid tumor oncology. NEOGENOMICS INC: Continues to Defend Puskarich Derivative Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- NeoGenomics Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2026, that that the Company continues to defend itself from the Puskarich shareholder derivative suit in Lee County, Florida. On April 27, 2023, a shareholder of the Company filed a shareholder derivative action on behalf of the Company captioned Puskarich v. VanOort, et al. in Clark County, Nevada, naming certain of the Companys current and former officers and directors as defendants, that the allegations in this action are substantially similar to the allegations asserted in the Goldenberg Matter. The Company believes it has valid defenses to the claims alleged but there is no guarantee that the Company will prevail and, as of the filing of this report with the SEC, the outcome of these matters is not estimable or probable. NeoGenomics Inc. is a cancer diagnostics company that provides genetic and molecular testing services to pathologists, oncologists, academic centers and pharmaceutical companies. The company offers a broad menu of oncology-focused tests and specializes in hematologic and solid tumor oncology. NEOGENOMICS INC: Continues to Defend Wong Derivative Suit in N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------------- NeoGenomics Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2026, that that the Company continues to defend itself from the Wong derivative suit in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On April 27, 2023, shareholder derivative actions was subsequently filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of the Company captioned Wong v. VanOort, et al., naming certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors as defendants, that the allegations in this action are substantially similar to the allegations asserted in the Goldenberg Matter. The Company believes it has valid defenses to the claims alleged but there is no guarantee that the Company will prevail and, as of the filing of this report with the SEC, the outcome of these matters is not estimable or probable. NeoGenomics Inc. is a cancer diagnostics company that provides genetic and molecular testing services to pathologists, oncologists, academic centers and pharmaceutical companies. The company offers a broad menu of oncology-focused tests and specializes in hematologic and solid tumor oncology. NEW YORK, NY: Raymond Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 2nd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- EDREWEENE RAYMOND, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Marianne T. O'Toole, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The City of New York, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-6885, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Plaintiffs bring this civil rights action against the Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. sections 1981, 1983, and 1985; the New York State Human Rights Law, New York Executive Law sections 290 and 296; and the New York City Human Rights Law, the New York City Local Law 59 of 1986 as amended by Local Rule 39 of 1991, section 8-101 et seq. On May 17, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted in part and denied in part on July 7, 2022. The motion is denied to the extent the Defendants seek summary judgment as to Plaintiff Pedro Serrano's First Amendment retaliation claim (and parallel state and local law claims) stemming from Officer Serrano's testimony in Floyd, and as to Plaintiff Sandy Gonzalez's First Amendment retaliation claim (and parallel state and local law claims) against Commissioner Bratton and the City. The motion is further denied to the extent the Defendants seek dismissal with prejudice of each Plaintiff's state and local law discrimination claims (and of Plaintiff Raymond's state and local law retaliation claims), of which the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and which the Court dismisses without prejudice to litigation in another forum of competent jurisdiction. The motion is granted in all other respects. The appellate case is styled as Marianne T. O'Toole v. The City of New York, Case No. 26-986, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 16, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants EDREWEENE RAYMOND, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: John Andrew Scola, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JOHN A. SCOLA, PLLC 30 Broad Street, Suite 1424 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (917) 423-1445 Defendants-Appellees CITY OF NEW YORK, et al. are represented by: Steven Banks, Esq. NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-2500 NORTHERN METAL: Cooper Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Unlawful Termination ------------------------------------------------------------------- ERIC COOPER, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHERN METAL FAB. INC., JEFFREY JACOBSON, AND JOHN FELIX, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00355-jdp (W.D. Wis., April 17, 2026) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, the Wisconsin Minimum Wage Law, and the Wisconsin Mini-Warn Act (known as the Wisconsin Business Closing and Mass Layoff Law). Allegedly, the Defendants abruptly terminated, unilaterally and without proper notice to employees or staff at least 58 employees, including Plaintiff, who represent at least 33% of active employees and reported to the Facility. Prior to Plaintiff's termination, the Plaintiff worked for approximately two to three weeks without pay. Accordingly, the Plaintiff also brings individual claims related to Defendants' failure to pay him due and owing wages and benefits. Headquartered in Baldwin, WI, Northern Metal Fab. Inc. manufactures sheet metal, heavy plate steel, stainless steel, aluminum parts, weldments, and assemblies. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan E. DeLadurantey, Esq. 136 E. Saint Paul Ave. Waukesha, WI 53189 Telephone: (414) 377-0515 E-mail: nathan@dela-law.com - and - Mariah S. England, Esq. STRANCH JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com mengland@stranchlaw.com OLIN CORP: Landel Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 8th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- LOU ANN LANDEL, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Lou Ann Landel, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Olin Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00096-CMS, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The suit is brought against the Defendants who unlawfully shortchanging retirees of the Olin Corporation Employees' Pension Plan (the "Plan") by millions of dollars through their use of outdated formulas to determine certain types of pension benefits in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). On May 19, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on June 6, 2025. On Mar. 20, 2026, Judge Cristian M. Stevens entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs' amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice. The appellate case is styled as Lou Ann Landel, et al. v. Olin Corporation, et al., Case No. 26-1729, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on April 20, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appendix is due on June 1, 2026; -- Appellant's brief is due on June 1, 2026; and -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants LOU ANN LANDEL, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD 100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (772) 783-8436 Defendants-Appellees OLIN CORPORATION, et al. are represented by: Melissa Zigler Baris, Esq. HUSCH & BLACKWELL 8001 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1500 Saint Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 480-1500 ORRICK HERRINGTON: Faces Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- Westlaw Today reports that Law firm Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP failed to prevent a January data breach that exposed sensitive data belonging to clients, employees and litigants, a proposed class-action lawsuit alleges. Casillas v. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, No. 26-cv-3493, complaint filed (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2026). Former employee Joseph Casillas filed the complaint April 24 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the firm, which has more than 25 offices worldwide. The organization behind the Jan. 20 attack -- the Silent Ransom Group -- leaked the stolen personally identifiable information and protected health information on its dark web site Feb. 23 after Orrick's ransom negotiation attempts failed, the suit says. Impostor IT support employees? The breach exposed names, Social Security numbers, and financial and medical data, the suit says. A screenshot included in the complaint shows a post on the Silent Ransom Group's site that says the stolen PII and PHI has been downloaded more than 5,100 times. The lawsuit calls the incident part of Orrick's "pattern of negligent data security," pointing to a separate data breach the firm experienced in March 2023 that exposed the PII of more than 638,000 people. Orrick failed in its duty to safeguard the sensitive PII and PHI it collects from employees, clients and litigants, the complaint says. The firm also failed to follow industry standards and Federal Trade Commission guidelines concerning cybersecurity, the suit says. The firm should have been aware of the threat, the complaint notes, citing a May 2025 FBI warning about the Silent Ransom Group. The FBI said the group specifically targets law firms by using social engineering calls and sending impostor IT support employees to offices to physically insert storage devices into computers to steal data. Casillas, represented by Andrew G. Gunem and Carly M. Roman of Strauss Borrelli PLLC, claims that as a result of the breach, he has suffered from anxiety and faces an ongoing, increased risk of fraud and identity theft. The suit asserts claims including negligence and breach of implied contract, as well as violation of California's unfair competition law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200. Casillas seeks to represent a nationwide class of those whose data was compromised in the breach and is asking for damages, attorney fees and costs. [GN] OSHKOSH CORP: Faces Antitrust Class Action Suit in Fullerton, CA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mona Darwish of The Orange County Register reports that the city of Fullerton has filed a federal class action lawsuit against three major fire apparatus manufacturers in the United States and dozens of their dealers, alleging they are violating antitrust laws to monopolize the market, which has pushed up the cost of firefighting equipment and slowed delivery. The complaint, filed April 21 against Oshkosh Corp., REV Group, Inc., Boise Mobile Equipment Inc. and others, seeks restitution of profits the companies may have reaped through unlawful business practices, reimbursing Fullerton and other class members for the overcharges. The lawsuit opens by painting the image of Altadena resident Victor Shaw, who was found dead with his fingers curled around a garden hose outside his home during the January 2025 Eaton fire. His death, the suit alleges, was preventable: Shaw's neighborhood did not lack water or firefighters, but fire apparatus. More than 100 of the Los Angeles Fire Department's 183 fire trucks were out of service during the fires, with many kept past their prime because the cost of replacing them was "astronomic." The lawsuit argues, "fires are often thought of as natural disasters, but these were failures born of equipment shortages and pricing that placed critical lifesaving vehicles out of reach." The lawsuit argues Oshkosh and REV control roughly 76% of the fire apparatus industry, with Oshkosh dominating more than 50%, and that market concentration, the complaint alleges, has allowed them to monopolize business, place a chokehold on production through a "coordinated and deliberate restriction of supply," eliminate competition by "absorbing (other companies) in a series of private equity roll-ups and strategic acquisitions," and enforce digital price fixing. Representatives for Oshkosh could not be immediately reached for comment; in response to a similar federal lawsuit filed by the city of La Crosse, Wisconsin, last year, both REV Group and Oshkosh Corporation called the lawsuit "meritless," according to Wisconsin Public Radio. The court's online system showed no response to the Fullerton suit. Fullerton filed a complaint with the California attorney general's office in September, citing concerns over anti-competitive practices in the fire apparatus industry resulting in escalating costs, equipment shortages and significant delivery delays. The International Association of Fire Fighters separately called on federal officials to investigate the industry, warning that the cost of fire trucks has reportedly doubled over the past decade. "Our firefighters depend on reliable, modern equipment to respond to emergencies quickly and effectively," Fullerton Fire Chief Adam Loeser said in a statement. "Extended delays and excessive costs for essential apparatus place unnecessary strain on our department's operations and can affect our ability to plan for the future." City officials said a $2.2 million "quint" fire apparatus, which is both an engine and a ladder truck, ordered in 2023, has yet to be delivered. "When unlawful practices drive up costs and delay critical public safety equipment," Fullerton Mayor Fred Jung said in a statement, "it impacts every resident we serve. We are taking action to protect our community and demand accountability." [GN] PANINI AMERICA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Battle Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE BATTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Panini America, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04348 (N.D. Ill., April 17, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. Despite readily available accessible technology, Defendant has chosen to rely on an exclusively visual interface in which only the sighted customers can independently browse, select, and buy online without the assistance of others. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the American with Disabilities Act of 1990. Headquartered in Irving, TX, Panini America, Inc. owns and operates the website, https://www.paniniamerica.net, which offers hobby boxes, retail boxes, trading card packs, limited edition releases, autograph cards, memorabilia cards, and collectible card sets for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com PARKCHESTER PRESERVATION: Underpays Company Employees, Cabrera Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS CARLOS CABRERA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PARKCHESTER PRESERVATION MANAGEMENT LLC (d/b/a PARKCHESTER PPM CONTRACTORS), THE PARKCHESTER SOUTH CONDOMINIUM, INC. (d/b/a THE PARKCHESTER SOUTH CONDOMINIUM), RICKY PIZARRO, JEREMIAH W. O'CONNOR JR., MORTON L. OLSHAN, and DANIEL VASQUEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03133 (S.D.N.Y., April 16, 2026) is a collective action against the Defendants for willfully disregarding and purposefully evading recordkeeping requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to maintain accurate and complete timesheets and payroll record. According to the Complaint, the Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff Cabrera and other employees to work an excess of 40 hours per week without providing the overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations. Defendants also failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Cabrera appropriately for any hours worked in a week. Plaintiff Cabrera now brings this action on behalf of himself, and other similarly situated individuals, for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the FLSA, and for violations of the NYLL, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff Cabrera seeks certification of this action as a collective action on behalf of himself, individually, and all other similarly situated employees and former employees of Defendants pursuant to FLSA. Plaintiff Luis Carlos Cabrera is a former employee of Defendants who was employed as a lead remover. Defendants own, operate, or control a Construction subcontractor, located at 200 E. Tremont Avenue, The Bronx, New York 10462 under the name Parkchester Preservation Management LLC (d/b/a Parkchester PPM contractors), and perform all their work for The Parkchester South Condominium, Inc. (d/b/a The Parkchester South Condominium) located at 200 E. Tremont Ave., The Bronx, New York, 10462.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 PATAFOODS INC: Yuryeva Sues Over Smoothie Melts' "Yogurt" Labels ---------------------------------------------------------------- RUFFINA YURYEVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PATAFOODS, INC. d/b/a AMARA ORGANIC FOODS, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-04037 (C.D. Cal., April 15, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, and the False Advertising Law. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its food products called Amara Organic Smoothie Melts. According to the complaint, the Defendant represents and markets the products as "Plant-Based Yogurt," "Non-Dairy Yogurt," and/or "Yogurt" smoothie melts. In reality, the products are not cultured with yogurt cultures and do not contain yogurt cultures or probiotic ingredients of the kind reasonable consumers associate with yogurt. Had the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers known the truth, they would not have purchased the products or would have paid less for them, says the suit. PataFoods, Inc., doing business as Amara Organic Foods, is a food technology company based in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leon Ozeran, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF LEON OZERAN Whitsett Ave., Suite 212 Valley Village, CA 91607 Telephone: (310) 461-3730 Email: leon@ozeranlaw.com PAWN AMERICA: Final Hearing of $3.185-Mil. Settlement Set Sept. 9 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Pawn America has agreed to a $3.185 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that it failed to prevent a 2021 data breach that compromised consumer information. The Pawn America settlement benefits individuals whose information was compromised in the Pawn America data breach in September 2021. Pawn America is a Minnesota-based pawn shop chain that offers loans and purchases for a variety of items. In September 2021, Pawn America was the victim of a data breach that compromised sensitive consumer information. According to a class action lawsuit against Pawn America, the pawn shop could have prevented the data breach with reasonable cybersecurity measures. The Pawn America data breach could have been prevented if Pawn America had "implemented reasonable cybersecurity protocols and practices," the data breach class action lawsuit contends. Pawn America has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $3.185 million to resolve the allegations in this class action settlement. Under the terms of the Pawn America settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the type of claim they submit. Class members can receive up to $5,000 for documented losses resulting from the Pawn America data breach. These losses can include fraudulent charges, identity theft, professional fees, credit expenses and more. Documentation such as receipts and account statements must be provided with these claims. All class members can receive a classwide cash payment, which is initially valued at $30. No documentation is required for these payments. California class members can receive an additional cash payment, which is initially valued at $50. No documentation is required for these payments. Payments may be adjusted proportionally depending on the number of valid claims filed with the settlement. The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 5, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Pawn America settlement is scheduled for Sept. 9, 2026. To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by July 6, 2026. Who's Eligible This settlement benefits individuals who were living in the United States at the time of the September 2021 data breach and whose personal information was potentially compromised as a result of the data breach, including those who received a data breach notification from Pawn America. Potential Award Up to $5,000 in documented expenses, or a $30 payout and $50 for California residents Proof of Purchase Notification of the Data Incident from Pawn America Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 07/06/2026 Case Name In re: Pawn America Consumer Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 21-cv-02554-PJS-DTS, in the United States District Court District Of Minnesota Final Hearing 09/09/2026 Settlement Website PawnAmericaSettlement.com Claims Administrator Pawn America Data Breach Litigation Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 301132 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1132 info@pawnamericasettlement.com (888) 266-7074 Class Counsel Bryan L. Bleichner CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE P.A. Nathan D. Prosser HELLMUTH & JOHNSON PLLC Defense Counsel Thomas W. Hayde Shawn Tuma SPENCER FANE LLP [GN] PENNEY OPCO: Lopez Sues Over Illegal Wage and Hour Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ ELIZABETH HERNANDEZ LOPEZ, on behalf of herself and current and former aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. PENNEY OPCO LLC; JCPENNEY; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV12432 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 17, 2026) arises from Defendants' illegal wage and hour practices or policies. The Plaintiff on behalf of the State of California, herself and other current and former aggrieved employees of Defendants who worked as hourly non-exempt employees in California during the relevant time period seeking civil penalties associated with Defendants' violation of the California Labor Code. Penney Opco LLC operates a department store chain under the name JCPenney. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq. Alexander J. Curry, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com vgranberry@lelawfirm.com jklein@lelawfirm.com acurry@lelawfirm.com PETMED EXPRESS: Cobbs Class Cert BId Tossed w/o Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cobbs, et al., v. PetMed Express, Inc., Case No. 9:25-cv-80458 (S.D. Fla., Filed April 10, 2025), the Hon. Judge Aileen M. Cannon entered an order as follows: -- denying without prejudice Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class; -- denying without prejudice Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Seal; -- Striking Notices of Exhibits in Support of Class Certification in light of the Court's Notice of Court Practices on Sealing/Redaction; and -- Temporarily staying deadlines. The Plaintiffs' deadline to refile for class certification is temporarily stayed pending resolution of any forthcoming Motion to Seal, to be filed on or before April 29, 2026. Any such Motion shall justify any proposed redaction(s) or sealing and, in the case of requests to seal exhibits entirely, shall justify why the lesser remedy of limited redaction would not be sufficient to assuage the concerns expressed in the Motion. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Personal Property Damage. PetMed is an online pet pharmacy.[CC] POET TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- EQUITY ALERT: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit on Behalf of POET Technologies Inc. Investors -- POET Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of POET Technologies Inc. (NASDAQ: POET) between April 1, 2026 and 08:57 AM ET on April 27, 2026, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Poet Technologies investors under the federal securities laws. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) POET Technologies misrepresented its tax status due to it likely being deemed a passive foreign investment company (or "PFIC") under U.S. tax laws which, if not properly reported by each U.S. stockholder, would have negative tax implications for those U.S. stockholders; (2) the foregoing tax issue would, if discovered, make POET Technologies a less attractive investment than it would otherwise be, thus threatening POET Technologies' valuation; (3) Defendant Thomas Mika, despite affirming that he was not violating a non-disclosure agreement, in fact violated a business agreement by speaking about POET Technologies' business agreements in a public interview, thus endangering POET Technologies' business prospects, and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about POET Technologies' business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 29, 2026. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=62524 or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at case@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN 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. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. 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. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. [GN] POLARIS INC: Albright Rollover Protection Class Suit Stayed ----------------------------------------------------------- Polaris Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2026, that the state court of California stayed the Albright rollover protection class suit pending a decision on class certification in federal court in the Guzman case. it is party to certain class action and putative class action lawsuits brought by the same plaintiffs counsel and largely repeating the same allegations regarding various state consumer protection laws focused on rollover protection structures certifications for various Polaris off-road vehicles sold in California. The first case brought in federal court in California related to this matter, Guzman/Albright, was first reported in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2020. The district court granted summary judgment against both plaintiffs claims, which the plaintiffs appealed. The Ninth Circuit issued two rulings in September 2022 that reversed the district court's summary judgment rulings and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss one plaintiff's claims without prejudice. The plaintiff whose claims were dismissed without prejudice refiled the putative class action in California state court under the name Albright. In June 2023, the Albright court granted the parties stipulation to stay that case pending a decision on class certification in federal court in the Guzman case. On September 27, 2023, the district court in Guzman entered an order granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's motion for class certification. The district court certified a California class for plaintiff's claim seeking money damages under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act but denied class certification on plaintiff's claim seeking injunctive relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). On October 11, 2023, Polaris filed a petition to appeal the portion of the district court's order granting class certification. On December 14, 2023, the Ninth Circuit denied Polaris's petition. On January 16, 2026, the state court in Albright entered an order setting a hearing for March 24, 2026 to review the stay of proceedings in that case. On March 19, 2026, the state court in Albright entered an order that continued the stay and rescheduled the status conference for May 20, 2026 to review the stay of proceedings in that case. POWER SOLUTIONS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ Bernstein Liebhard LLP announces that a shareholder has filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of investors (the "Class") who purchased or acquired the securities of Power Solutions International, Inc. (NASDAQ: PSIX) ("Power Solutions" or the "Company") between May 8, 2025 and March 2, 2026, inclusive. Should You Join The Power Solutions Class Action Lawsuit? -- Do you, or did you, own shares of Power Solutions International, Inc. (NASDAQ: PSIX)? -- Did you purchase your shares between May 8, 2025 and March 2, 2026, inclusive? -- Did you lose money in your investment in Power Solutions International, Inc.? What To Do Next: If you purchased or acquired Power Solutions securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Power Solutions, Inc. Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Investor Relations Manager Peter Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the Class, you must file papers by May 19, 2026. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on other class members' behalf in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About The Lawsuit: According to the lawsuit, Defendants made misrepresentations concerning its ability to capture sales demand for its power systems solutions, particularly within the data center market. About Bernstein Liebhard: Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for sixteen consecutive years. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2026 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. Contact Information: Peter Allocco, Esq. Bernstein Liebhard LLP Phone: (212) 951-2030 pallocco@bernlieb.com https://www.bernlieb.com[GN] PRISMA HEALTH: Becerra Sues Over Mismanagement of Savings Plans --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHELE BECERRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRISMA HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 6:26-cv-01639-JDA (D.S.C., April 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of duty of prudence and prohibited transactions with a party-in-interest pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. According to the complaint, the Defendant breached the duties it owed to the Prisma Health 401(a) Plan and the Prisma Health Retirement Savings Plan, to the Plaintiff, and to the other participants of the Plans by selecting and retaining higher-cost share retail classes of mutual funds instead of lower-cost institutional shares of the same funds, choosing retail shares of mutual funds that kicked back excessive revenue-sharing fees to the Plans' recordkeeper while causing participants to bear unnecessary costs, and failing to evaluate returns and risks against meaningful benchmarks and peers with similar aims and characteristics. As a result of the Defendant's mismanagement of the Plans, the Plaintiff and similarly situated participants and beneficiaries suffered financial losses. Prisma Health is a non-profit corporation based in Greenville, South Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth E. Norsworthy, Esq. NORSWORTHY LAW, LTD CO. 16 Whitsett St. Greenville, SC 29601 Telephone: (864) 320-6212 Email: ken@norsworthyfirm.com - and - James R. DeMay, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY, PLLC 900 West Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (704) 941-4648 Email: jdemay@brysonpllc.com - and - Jimmy W. Mintz, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 879-8200 Email: jmintz@brysonpllc.com - and - Lee Melchionni, Esq. LRJ LAW GROUP, LLP 1100 H. Street NW, Ste. 840 Washington, DC 20005 Email: lee@lrj401k.com PROGRESSIVE CORP: Greene Appeals Suit Dismissal to 6th Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREA D. GREENE, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Andrea D. Greene, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Progressive Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01890, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. On Feb. 10, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which Judge David A. Ruiz granted on Mar. 20, 2026. The Court concludes that the complaint fails to state an actionable claim. The case is dismissed in its entirety. The appellate case is styled as Andrea Greene, et al. v. Progressive Corporation, Case No. 26-3351, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on April 22, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants ANDREA D. GREENE, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD 100 Pearl Street 14th Floor #16946876 Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (772) 783-8436 Defendant-Appellee PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION is represented by: Deborah Shannon Davidson, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS 110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 324-1000 PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Brennan et al. Sue Over ERISA Breaches --------------------------------------------------------- PETER BRENNAN, JANEE EVANS, COREY MORIYAMA, STEPHANIE SCHAEFER, and PAM WARREN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, on Behalf of the PROVIDENCE HEALTH 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN and the ST. JOSEPH AND COVENANT HEALTH SYSTEMS 401(K) PLAN, Plaintiffs v. PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES; ST. JOSEPH HEALTH SYSTEM; BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF PROVIDENCE ST. JOSEPH HEALTH, and its members; PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES TOTAL REWARDS MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE, and its members; INVESTMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE OF PROVIDENCE ST. JOSEPH HEALTH, and its members, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-01324 (W.D. Wash., April 17, 2026) arises out of Defendants' alleged breach of fiduciary duties and other violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants breached their duties by: (1) retaining an underperforming investment option--the Invesco Diversified Dividend Fund R5--for the defined contribution retirement plans between 2020 and 2025, despite more suitable large value/dividend strategy funds having been readily available; and (2) failing to monitor the fiduciaries responsible for administration and management of the Plans' actions in retaining the imprudent Invesco Diversified Dividend Fund R5 for the retirement plans. Providence Health & Services, a Washington nonprofit corporation headquartered in Renton, WA, is a Catholic healthcare system operating across the western United States. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roger M. Townsend, Esq. 380 Winslow Way, Suite 200 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Telephone: (206) 761-2480 Facsimile: (206) 455-9555 E-mail: roger@townsendlegal.com - and - Melinda A. Nicholson, Esq. Michael J. Palestina, Esq. John A. Carriel, Esq. Gina M. Palermo, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 960 New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: (504) 648-1842 Facsimile: (504) 455-1498 E-mail: melinda.nicholson@ksfcounsel.com michael.palestina@ksfcounsel.com john.carriel@ksfcounsel.com gina.palermo@ksfcounsel.com PURE OASIS: Pels Sues Over Failure to Make Timely Payments ---------------------------------------------------------- SOPHIE PELS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PURE OASIS LLC, PURE OASIS VENTURES LLC, KOBIE EVANS, and KEVIN HART, Defendants, Case No. _______ (Mass. Comm., April 15, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to make timely payments in violation of Massachusetts General Laws. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from February 4, 2025 until April 8, 2026. Pure Oasis LLC is a marijuana dispensary based in Boston, Massachusetts. Pure Oasis Ventures LLC is a marijuana dispensary based in Boston, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Gardner, Esq. Nicholas J. Rosenberg, Esq. Ashleigh Bell, Esq. GARDNER & ROSENBERG PC One State Street, Fourth Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 390-7570 Email: josh@gardnerrosenberg.com RAIN ONCOLOGY: Class Settlement in Thant Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MYO THANT, et al., v. RAIN ONCOLOGY INC., et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-03518-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Davila entered an order granting motion for settlement final approval; granting motion for attorneys' fees, expenses, and service awards as modified. Accordingly, the Court finds that the terms of the Settlement Agreement are fair, adequate, and reasonable; that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) and the fairness and adequacy factors are satisfied; and that the Settlement Agreement should be approved and implemented. The Motion for Final Approval is accordingly granted. Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Service Awards is also granted as modified. Class Counsel is awarded $1,812,500.00 in attorneys' fees and $72,918.50 in litigation expenses. Lead Plaintiff Thant is granted a service award of $7,500 and Additional Named Plaintiff Schenkhuizen is granted a service award of $5,000. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants participated in a fraudulent scheme that deceived purchasers of Defendants' securities by disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts, causing the Plaintiffs to pay more for the securities than they would have in the absence of the Defendants' alleged conduct. Under the Settlement Agreement, the Settlement Class is defined as: (i) all Persons who purchased Rain common stock between April 23, 2021 to May 19, 2023, inclusive, and were damaged thereby, and (ii) all Persons who purchased Rain common stock pursuant or traceable to Rain's registration statement filed in conjunction with Rain's initial public offering on April 23, 2021, and were damaged thereby. Excluded from the Class are: Rain, the Director Defendants, Dismissed Defendants, and each of their immediate family members, legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in which any of the Defendants or Dismissed Defendants have or had a controlling interest. Rain operates as a biotechnology company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=76MBgS at no extra charge.[CC] RE/MAX HOLDINGS: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Real Brokerage ----------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2025 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. The firm is headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and is investigating RE/MAX Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: RMAX) related to its sale to The Real Brokerage Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, RE/MAX shareholders are expected to receive either 5.152 shares of the combined company or $13.80 in cash per share. Is it a fair deal? Click here for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/re-max-holdings-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] ROSEDALE, MS: Faces Rudd Suit Over Unlawful Seizure and Extortion ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY RUDD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WILLIE DAWSON, individually and in his official capacity as a police officer of the City of Rosedale and CITY OF ROSEDALE, MISSISSIPPI, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-00054-SA-DAS (N.D. Miss., April 15, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for unlawful seizure and extortion, denial of procedural due process, and municipal liability. According to the complaint, Officer Dawson stopped the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals without legal justification, then compelled the payment of money under threat of unlawful enforcement action. The Plaintiff and the Class suffered economic loss, humiliation, and a violation of their constitutional rights. City of Rosedale is a municipal corporation in Mississippi. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kyle Stoner, Esq. STONER LAW PLLC P.O. Box 34-511 Cherry St. Helena, AR 72342 Telephone: (870) 228-9792 Email: kyle@kylestonerlaw.com ROVER GROUP: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, Apaydin Says ------------------------------------------------------------- NICKI APAYDIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. ROVER GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-04215 (C.D. Cal., April 21, 2026) is a class action to hold Rover accountable for its unlawful practices, to secure statutory and equitable relief for those similarly affected, and to vindicate the privacy rights of all users whose sensitive information was improperly disclosed through Defendant's use of tracking technologies. The complaint relates that Rover, through an App, collects and discloses users' Sensitive Information including, but not limited to, the specific services a user solicits and when the user solicits that service. In order to position itself as one of the foremost providers of pet services in the world as well as to acquire huge amounts of personal data and Sensitive Information, Rover has made numerous promises and representations regarding its data privacy and security practices. However, contravening its duties and promises, Rover embeds software including Google Analytics and Google Ads/DoubleClick (the "Tracking Technologies") throughout the App. These Tracking Technologies capture and transmit users' Sensitive Information, including page views and search queries, user identifiers, device information, location data, search histories for pet care services, viewing patterns of caregiver profiles, messaging activity indicators, booking histories, and other behavioral metadata, to third-party marketing and analytics entities for behavioral profiling and ad targeting. The Plaintiff, therefore, asserts individual and representative claims for, among other things, violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act; violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act; violations of California's Unfair Competition Law; breach of implied contract; unjust enrichment; and violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. They further seek declaratory relief under CCPA, and declaratory relief under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act. Plaintiff Nicki Apaydin is an adult citizen who has resided in Thousand Oaks, California at all times relevant hereto. Defendant Rover Group, Inc. is an American company which operates an online marketplace for people to buy and sell pet care services including pet sitting, dog boarding, and dog walking.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Victor J. Sandoval, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1121 Los Angeles, CA 90034 Telephone: (562) 534-5907 E-mail: victor@almeidalawgroup.com - and - Raphael Janove, Esq. JANOVE PLLC 115 Broadway, 5th Fl. New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (646) 347-3940 E-mail: raphael@janove.law SAN JOSE, CA: Tan Sues Over Flock Cameras' Civil Rights Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- ZHAOCHENG ANTHONY TAN, SCOTT WEST, and COLIN WOLFSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF SAN JOSE; SAN JOSE POLICE DEPARTMENT; and PAUL JOSEPH, in his official capacity as San Jose Chief of Police, Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-03181 (N.D. Cal., April 15, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The case arises from the Defendants' use of Flock Safety's automatic license plate reader cameras which violates the Fourth Amendment rights of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated residents in the City of San Jose, California. According to the complaint, the use of surveillance cameras in the city which track people's daily movements and then store them in a government database is an unreasonable "search," which violates the Fourth Amendment. The Plaintiffs and similarly situated residents seek to permanently enjoin the Defendants from operating the Flock cameras. City of San Jose is a California charter city. San Jose Police Department is a government agency in San Jose, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anna M. Barvir, Esq. Joshua Robert Dale, Esq. MICHEL & ASSOCIATES, PC 180 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 200 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 216-4444 Email: abarvir@michellawyers.com jdale@michellawyers.com - and - Michael B. Soyfer, Esq. Robert Frommer, Esq. INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE 901 North Glebe Road, Suite 900 Arlington, VA 22203 Telephone: (703) 682-9320 Email: msoyfer@ij.org rfrommer@ij.org - and - Daniel Woislaw, Esq. INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE 816 Congress Avenue, Suite 970 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 480-5936 Email: dwoislaw@ij.org SANTANDER CONSUMER: Young Suit Removed to W.D. Pa. -------------------------------------------------- The case DEVIN YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., Case No. GD-26-002211, was removed from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on April 15, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00655 to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, the Loan Interest and Protection Law, and unjust enrichment. Santander Consumer USA, Inc. is an automotive financing firm based in Dallas, Texas. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Kevin P. Allen, Esq. Thomas E. Sanchez, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 625 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1000 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 497-1000 Email: KPAllen@duanemorris.com TESanchez@duanemorris.com SMITHFIELD FOODS: Discovery Proceeds in Wage-Fixing Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Smithfield Foods Inc disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 29, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2026, that the Smithfield Foods, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary, Smithfield Packaged Meats Corp., were named on November 11, 2022, as two of numerous defendants in a purported class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado alleging wage-fixing violations in the red meat industry. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants, most of whom operate beef or pork processing plants, conspired to suppress wages paid to plant workers in the U.S. in violation of the antitrust laws. The plaintiffs sought damages on behalf of all employees of defendants and their subsidiaries from January 1, 2014, to the present, as well as treble damages and attorneys fees. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint, which were largely denied by the court on September 27, 2023. The plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint, adding additional defendants, including the wholly owned subsidiary Murphy-Brown of Missouri, LLC (which has been dismissed voluntarily), and expanding the class period back to 2000. In addition, on April 5, 2024, the non-settled defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 26, 2025, the court granted in part defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint and held that certain of plaintiffs' new allegations are barred by the statute of limitations. The Company filed its answers to the amended complaint on May 9, 2025. The parties have commenced discovery and all defendants other than the Smithfield defendants have now settled. It intends to vigorously defend against these claims. Smithfield Foods Inc is a U.S.-based food company and one of the world's largest pork processors and hog producers, supplying fresh and packaged meat products to retail, foodservice and industrial customers. The company operates production and processing facilities across the United States and internationally. SPORTRADAR GROUP: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Sportradar Group AG (NASDAQ: SRAD) resulting from allegations that Sportradar may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Sportradar 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=63096 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On April 22, 2026, Muddy Waters Research published a report titled, "Sportradar AG: Putting the BET into Aiding and Abetting". According to the report, Sportradar knowingly served customers operating in jurisdictions where online gambling was illegal. The report also stated that Muddy Waters experts analyzed Sportradar's system architecture and code and "found evidence of direct connections between numerous illegal and nefarious operators and [Sportradar]." On this news, Sportradar stock fell 22.6% on April 22, 2026. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. 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] SUNDEK NATIONAL: Dillon Seeks Prelim OK of Settlement Deal ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dillon, et al., v. Sundek National Accounts et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-04410-JD (D.S.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to certify a settlement class, preliminarily approve the settlement agreements, authorize notice to the class and to schedule a fairness hearing. The Plaintiffs request that the Court review and approve the terms of the proposed settlement as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiffs also request the Court to approve the proposed apportionment of the settlement proceeds, after conducting a hearing on fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the proposed settlement. Sundek is a specialized company, primarily focusing on decorative concrete coatings and resurfacing. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8mYuMw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert L. Wylie, IV, Esq. James L. Hills, Jr., Esq. Alicia E. Thompson, Esq. MULLEN WYLIE SC, LLC Myrtle Beach, SC 29578 Telephone: (843) 449-4800 Facsimile: (843) 497-0449 E-mail: rwylie@mullenwylie.com/jhills@mullenwylie.com aethompson@mullenwylie.com - and - Robert E. Lee, Esq. ROBERT E. LEE, LLC Marion, SC 29571 Telephone: (843) 423-1313 Facsimile: (843) 423-1397 E-mail: rel@rellawfirm.com SUZUKI MOTOR: Appeals Remand Order in Lopez Suit to 9th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- SUZUKI MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to remand in the lawsuit entitled Alex Lopez, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Suzuki Motor of America, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-07808, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit, which was removed from the Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, is brought against the Defendant for fraud allegation. On Jan. 23, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to Los Angeles Superior Court, which Judge Fred W. Slaughter granted on Apr. 8, 2026. The court remands this case to Los Angeles Superior Court as Case No. 25STCV07961. The appellate case is styled as Lopez, et al. v. Suzuki Motor of America, Inc., Case No. 26-2442, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 20, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents ALEX LOPEZ, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Glenn Danas, Esq. Ryan Clarkson, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, PC 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 - and - Leslie E. Hurst, Esq. Paula R. Brown, Esq. Timothy G. Blood, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 1490 San Diego, CA 92101 Defendant-Petitioner SUZUKI MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. is represented by: Dominic Draye, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, PA 2375 E. Camelback Road, Suite 800 Phoenix, AZ 85016 - and - Robert James Herrington, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, PA 1840 Century Park, E Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR: Yeh Sues Over Work Discrimination Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- YI-NUNG YEH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING CO. LTD., TSMC NORTH AMERICA, TSMC TECHNOLOGY, INC., TSMC ARIZONA CORPORATION, and TSMC WASHINGTON, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-05388-JHC (W.D. Wash., April 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Washington Law Against Discrimination. The case arises from TSMC's intentional pattern and practice of employment discrimination against women, and in favor of men, including discrimination in hiring, staffing, termination, promotion, and compensation decisions. The Plaintiff seeks, on her own behalf, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief, compensatory and punitive damages, including pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, and costs to redress TSMC's pervasive pattern and practice of sex discrimination. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd. is a semiconductor manufacturing corporation headquartered in Hsinchu, Taiwan. TSMC North America is a subsidiary of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd. based in San Jose, California. TSMC Technology, Inc. is a subsidiary of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd. based in San Jose, California. TSMC Arizona Corporation is a subsidiary of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd. based in Phoenix, Arizona. TSMC Washington, LLC is a subsidiary of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd. based in Camas, Washington. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Kotchen, Esq. KOTCHEN & LOW LLP 1918 New Hampshire Avenue NW Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 471-1995 Email: dkotchen@kotchen.com - and - Carl Marquardt, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CARL J. MARQUARDT, PLLC 1126 34th Avenue, Suite 311 Seattle, WA 98122 Telephone: (206) 388-4498 Email: carl@cjmpllc.com TELCEL: Continues to Defend Wireless and Broadband Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- America Movil SAB de CV disclosed in its annual report on Form 20-F, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2026, that the Company's subsidiary, Telcel, continues to defend itself from a wireless and broadband class suit. A class action lawsuit was filed against Telcel by customers allegedly affected by Telcel's quality of service and wireless and broadband rates, which continues in process. At this stage, the Company cannot assess whether this class action lawsuit could have an adverse effect on the Company's business and results of operations in the event that it is resolved against Telcel, due to uncertainty about the factual and legal claims underlying this proceeding. Consequently, the Company has not established a provision in the accompanying consolidated financial statements for an eventual loss arising from this proceeding. America Movil SAB de CV is a leading telecommunications company in Latin America, providing wireless, fixed-line, broadband, and pay television services through various brands, including Telcel in Mexico. The Company operates across multiple countries, offering integrated communications solutions to residential, business, and wholesale customers. TRUBRIDGE INC: M&A Investigates Sale to Inventurus Knowledge ------------------------------------------------------------ Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2025 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and are investigating TruBridge, Inc. (NASDAQ: TBRG) related to its sale to Inventurus Knowledge Solutions, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, TruBridge shareholders are expected to receive $26.25 per share in cash. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/trubridge-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. UniFirst Corporation (NYSE: UNF) related to its sale to Cintas Corporation. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, UniFirst shareholders will be entitled to receive $155.00 in cash and 0.7720 shares of Cintas stock for each UniFirst share. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/unifirst-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Mister Car Wash, Inc. (NASDAQ: MCW) related to its sale to MCW Parent, LP. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Mister Car Wash shareholders will receive $7.00 per share in cash. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/mister-car-wash-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Esquire Financial Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: ESQ) related to its merger with Signature Bancorporation. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/esquire-financial-holdings-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] TRUVIEW BSI: Fails to Protect Clients' Personal Info, Swint Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM SWINT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRUVIEW BSI, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02214 (E.D.N.Y., April 15, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence/negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach between July 18, 2024, and August 15, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. TruView BSI, LLC is a provider of comprehensive background screening, investigative services, and business intelligence based in Melville, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Courtney Maccarone, Esq. Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: maccarone@kolawyers.com ostrow@kolawyers.com UNIQUE ON THE GO: Calderon and Carter Sue Over Labor Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERTO CARLOS CALDERON and SAMANTA CARTER, on behalf of themselves, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. UNIQUE ON THE GO CORP. d/b/a UNIQUE ON THE GO, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-11807-DJC (D. Mass., April 17, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, the Rhode Island Payment of Wages Act, and the Rhode Island Work on Holidays and Sundays Law. Plaintiff Calderon worked for Defendant as a vehicle detailer in Jamaica, NY, from in or around March 2022 until December 5, 2025. Plaintiff Carter worked for Defendant as a car rental agent in Warwick, RI, from in or around August 2023 until in or around November 2023, and in supervisory roles thereafter until March 19, 2026. Accordingly, Plaintiffs now allege that the Defendant failed to pay them proper overtime and minimum wages. Headquartered in Lynn, MA, Unique on the Go Corp. provides labor staffing, fleet services, and logistics solutions throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Katherine Skubecz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF KATHERINE SKUBECZ 1 Broadway, 14th Floor Cambridge, MA 02142 Telephone: (617) 682-0824 E-mail: kate@ks2law.com - and - Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (212) 248-5550 Facsimile: (212) 248-6027 UNITED NETWORK: Appeals Class Certification Order in Randall Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED NETWORK FOR ORGAN SHARING, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting in part the Plaintiff's motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Anthony Randall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. United Network for Organ Sharing, et al., Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-02576-MEMF-MAA, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Unruh Civil Rights Act of the California Civil Code, the California's Unfair Competition Law, and breach of fiduciary duty. On Dec. 2, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong granted in part on Mar. 25, 2026. Accordingly, the Court certifies both California and Cedars Classes, but with modifications to align with the complaint, in particular, to exclude members bringing certain individual actions, and to limit the bond class to clarify that class members experienced a delay in their accrual of wait time, attributable to the race-conscious coefficient. The appellate case is styled as Randall v. United Network for Organ Sharing, et al., Case No. 26-2325, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 15, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent ANTHONY RANDALL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: Matthew L. Venezia, Esq. Christopher Arledge, Esq. George Laiolo, Esq. ELLIS GEORGE, LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, 30th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 - and - Daniel Parke Mensher, Esq. David J. Ko, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK, LLP 1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 Defendants-Petitioners UNITED NETWORK FOR ORGAN SHARING, et al. are represented by: Daniel M. Blouin, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 300 N. LaSalle Dr. Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 558-5600 - and - Jon Peter Kardassakis, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP 633 W. 5th Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071 UNITED STATES: Correa Appeals Denied Reconsideration Bid in Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR SERRANO CORREA is taking an appeal from a court order denying his motion for reconsideration in the lawsuit entitled Victor Serrano Correa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. United States of America, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02913-UNA, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violation of Civil Rights Act. On Dec. 17, 2025, Judge Ana C. Reyes entered an Order dismissing the case without prejudice. On Jan. 13, 2026, the Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, which Judge Loren L. AliKhan denied on Feb. 19, 2026. The appellate case is styled as Victor Correa v. USA, et al., Case No. 26-5122, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on April 16, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant VICTOR SERRANO CORREA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, appears pro se. Defendants-Appellees UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al. are represented by: Johnny Hillary Walker, III, Esq. U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 601 D. Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 252-2500 UNITED STATES: Faces Singla Suit Over Denial of Access to Courts ---------------------------------------------------------------- DIPESH SINGLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; PAM BONDI, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the United States; THE LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION; and THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-04102-SLD-RLH (C.D. Ill., April 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, violation of due process and equal protection under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, violation of the right of access to courts under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and deprivation of civil rights. The suit is brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of all others similarly situated individuals who have been, are being, or will be denied meaningful access to the courts and effective legal representation in civil proceedings due to indigence and the systemic barriers. According to the complaint, these barriers include prohibitive costs of legal representation, the absence of a civil right to counsel, the restrictive attorney licensing regime that prevents qualified foreign legal professionals from providing affordable representation, and the systemic failure of existing pro bono, legal, aid, and some court-assistance programs to provide meaningful access to justice. The Plaintiff asks the Court to give this action serious consideration that the magnitude of the justice crises demands, to afford him every opportunity to cure any procedural deficiency, and to allow this case to proceed to the merits so that the fundamental question of access to justice in America can be adjudicated. The Legal Services Corporation is a nonpartisan nonprofit corporation in the U.S. The American Bar Association is a professional association of lawyers and law students in the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. UNITED STATES: Farmers Sues Over Organic Dairy Program Payments --------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo Finance reports that the organic dairy industry has filed suits against the U.S. government seeking two remedies: an exemption for organic dairy from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) program and compensation for farmers required to pay into a pool that doesn't serve them. Specifically, three federal court filings from members of the Coalition for Organic Dairy Exemption (CODE) challenge the constitutionality of organic dairy's forced participation in the FMMO program. Additionally, a class action takings claim brought by organic dairy farmers seeks compensation for six years of wrongfully collected payments into the system. "The federal government has locked in an updated dairy pricing regulation that actively harms organic dairy farmers. It systematically siphons revenue generated from organic dairy sales and redistributes it to non-organic dairy producers and their partners," said Elvin Ranck, an organic dairy farmer plaintiff from Pennsylvania. "This is effectively a government taking. CROPP Cooperative, of which I am an owner-member, pays millions of dollars each year into the Federal Milk Marketing Order pools, yet those dollars never return to organic farmers like me, and under the current system, they never will. At some point, we have to stand up for ourselves." Over 10 percent of U.S. dairy farms are certified organic, and they serve a consumer market that has grown from 1.9 percent of all fluid milk sales in 2006 to 7.0 percent in 2025. The current FMMO structure works directly against that demand, pulling resources out of organic dairy that could otherwise support expanded production. As a result, the federal government is undermining the resources base that would support organic dairy farmers and a growing marketplace. "USDA, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, has spent more than a decade protecting a Depression-era pricing system that forces organic dairy to subsidize conventional products, while refusing every administrative avenue that might have resolved the dispute without litigation," said CODE members. "There is a growing movement in this country, across party lines, that wants to know where food comes from and how it's produced. Organic farmers help make that possible. The federal government should not be making it harder for us to survive, and it has had every opportunity to fix this." It is important to note that the litigation does not seek to dismantle the FMMO program. Instead, it narrowly asks USDA to exclude organic dairy from a pricing system that was never intended for it. Every Day We Wait, Organic Dairy Farmers Lose More Money These legal actions are the result of a deliberate, years-long effort to resolve this through the administrative process. The organic dairy industry submitted proposals in 2015 that USDA refused to advance, presented organic-specific proposals at the 2023 national FMMO hearing that USDA refused to consider, raised objections in post-hearing briefing in 2024 that went unaddressed in the final rule, and filed administrative challenges in May 2025 that USDA has opposed. A System Built for a Different Era and a Different Industry In the 1930s, Congress instructed USDA to create the FMMO program to ensure sufficient supplies of milk and stabilize the conventional dairy industry, before organic dairy even existed. Today, organic milk accounts for 3 percent of total U.S. milk production, but it represents about 7 percent of fluid milk, the most heavily impacted segment under the FMMO program. The FMMO program has never been updated to reflect that organic and conventional dairy are not the same. It treats organic and conventional milk identically in pooling and pricing structures that only work if participating milk is interchangeable. But under USDA's own regulations, conventional milk cannot be substituted for or intermingled with organic milk. And organic dairy operates entirely distinct supply chains from conventional dairy that require continuous investment — costs that the FMMO system compounds rather than offsets. Organic dairy farmers also face higher feed and other production costs, and organic processors face greater segregation costs as well as stricter federal regulations in the manufacturing of organic dairy products. "Federal law already recognizes organic as different. USDA's own organic standards treat our milk as a distinct product with distinct requirements," said the CODE members. "We are not asking to tear down the FMMOs. We are asking that FMMOs to reflect a distinction that the law already makes – and that consumers already understand." About the Coalition for Organic Dairy Exemption The Coalition for Organic Dairy Exemption (CODE) is comprised of Aurora Organic Dairy, Horizon Organic Dairy, and CROPP Cooperative/Organic Valley. For over 30 years, CODE companies have sold organic milk products from thousands of certified organic dairies across the country. [GN] UNITED STATES: Plaintiff Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Reply ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEFINA DOE; ISABELA DOE; COMMOR JEROME WELCH; FELIPE NIOMAR MARTINEZ ORTIZ; and JOSE DOE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; and THE AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE, IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROGRAM, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00259-SLH-PLD (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for leave to file reply in support of motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs seek leave to file a reply in order to respond to the Defendants' arguments under the current landscape; the Defendants' Opposition was filed more than nineteen months after the original motion for class certification. In the intervening time, both Magistrate Judge Dodge and District Judge Haines have issued opinions and orders that consider issues raised in Defendants' Opposition, and which the Plaintiffs seek the opportunity to address on reply. A limited reply will assist the Court in resolving the pending motion, while accounting for the factual and legal determinations this Court has already reached. On Sept. 11, 2024, the Plaintiffs initiated this litigation by filing a Complaint and Motion for Class Certification in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On Oct. 31, 2024, this matter was transferred from the District of New Jersey to this Court. The Defendants include U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT ("ICE"); MARKWAYNE MULLEN, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, in her official capacity; TODD LYONS, Acting Director of ICE, in his official capacity; MARCOS CHARLES, Acting Executive Associate Director of ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations, in his official capacity; BRIAN MCSHANE, Acting Field Office Director for the ICE Philadelphia Field Office, in his official capacity; and FRANCIS KEMP, Assistant Field Office Director for the ICE Philadelphia Field Office, in his official capacity, The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is the US federal executive department responsible for public security. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7nCp1Q at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gavin J. Rooney, Esq. Alexander Shalom, Esq. Natalie J. Kraner, Esq. Naomi D. Barrowclough, Esq. Noemi S. Schor, Esq. Anish Patel, Esq. Ruth Zimmerman, Esq. LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP One Lowenstein Drive Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 422-6446 E-mail: grooney@lowenstein.com - and - Shira Wisotsky, Esq. Raquiba Huq, Esq. LEGAL SERVICES OF NEW JERSEY 100 Metroplex Dr Ste 101. Edison, NJ 08817-2684 VIRGINIA HEALTH: ClassAction.org Investigates Potential Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Virginia Health Services data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who may have had their information exposed in the reported incident, including current and former Virginia Health Services patients. Virginia Health Services Security Incident: What Happened? Virginia Health Services, which manages senior living homes, provides home health care, and offers a range of other elder care services throughout southeastern Virginia, has reportedly experienced a data breach. The incident was uncovered by websites monitoring the dark web, including Ransomware.Live, on April 23, 2026. Ransomware.Live identified threat actor WorldLeaks as having taken credit for the potential cyberattack. On April 27, DataBreach.com released a database purporting to index the information compromised in the possible Virginia Health Services data breach, which allows people to search whether they may be among the potentially impacted individuals. The 227,194 lines of potentially breached information include Social Security numbers, birthdays, email addresses, phone numbers, names, and street addresses, according to the post. Virginia Health Services has not yet confirmed the possible data breach. What You Can Do After the Potential Virginia Health Services Data Breach If your information may have been exposed in the possible Virginia Health Services data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Virginia Health Services to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] VIRGINIA: Lucinda Appeals Preliminary Injunction Order to 4th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ LUCINDA LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion for preliminary injunction in the lawsuit entitled Lucinda LLC, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Jay Jones, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Virginia, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00252-MSN-WBP, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Plaintiffs Lucinda LC and June Wheatley filed this class action against the Defendant officials responsible for the enforcement of Virginia's Fair Housing Law (VFHL) and specifically the "source of funds" nondiscrimination provisions at issue in this case. On Mar. 9, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction and a motion to certify class. On Apr. 10, 2026, Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff entered an Order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. The Court reserves ruling on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification until after the resolution of any motions to dismiss in this matter. The appellate case is styled as Lucinda LLC v. Jay Som, Case No. 26-1442, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on April 15, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants LUCINDA LLC, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Jerome Peyser Friedlander, II, Esq. FRIEDLANDER, FRIEDLANDER & EARMAN, PC 1364 Beverly Road McLean, VA 22101 Telephone: (703) 893-9600 - and - Naomi King, Esq. HAMILTON LINCOLN LAW INSTITUTE 1440 West Taylor Street Chicago, IL 60607 - and - Adam Ezra Schulman, Esq. HAMILTON LINCOLN LAW INSTITUTE 1629 K. Street NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (610) 457-0856 Defendants-Appellees JAY SOM, in his official capacity as Member of the Virginia Fair Housing Board, et al. are represented by: Nicholas J. Abbott, Esq. Michael Gerhart Allen, Esq. Reed Colfax, Esq. Rebecca Jane Livengood, Esq. RELMAN COLFAX PLLC 1225 19th Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 728-1888 WALMART INC: Faces Class Suit Over Additives in Plant-Based Milk ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Christina Bauer filed a class action lawsuit against Walmart Inc. and Walmart Apollo LLC. Why: Bauer claims Walmart misled consumers by labeling its Bettergoods brand almond, oat and soy milk as "plant-based" despite containing non-plant additives. Where: The Walmart class action lawsuit was filed in Florida federal court. AA new class action lawsuit claims Walmart misled consumers by labeling its Bettergoods brand almond, oat and soy milk as "Plant-Based" despite the products containing ingredients that do not come from plants. Plaintiff Christina Bauer filed the class action complaint against Walmart and Walmart Apollo on April 8 in Florida federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the class action lawsuit, Walmart prominently marketed its Bettergoods milk products as "plant-based," leading consumers to believe the products contained only plant-derived ingredients. However, Bauer claims the milk products actually contain ingredients like calcium carbonate, dipotassium phosphate and vitamin A palmitate, which do not come from plants. Bauer argues that Walmart's labeling was designed to capitalize on the growing demand for plant-based foods, which are often perceived as healthier and more environmentally friendly. "Defendants' prominent and conspicuous labeling deliberately led reasonable consumers, including [Bauer], to incorrectly believe that the products are composed of only ingredients that come from plants," the Walmart class action lawsuit alleges. Walmart 'plant-based' milk sells at premium price, class action claims Bauer says she and other consumers paid a premium for the "plant-based" milk, believing they were purchasing a product that aligned with their dietary preferences. The class action lawsuit alleges Walmart's actions constitute a breach of warranty and violate Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Bauer is looking to represent anyone in Florida who purchased the Bettergoods milk products in the past four years and anyone in the United States who purchased the products in the same time period. She is suing for breach of implied and express warranty, unjust enrichment and violations of Florida's consumer protection laws. She is seeking certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. Last year, Walmart was also sued over allegations it falsely advertised its Great Value Macaroni & Cheese Original Microwavable Cup as free of artificial flavors and preservatives. What do you think of the allegations made in this Walmart class action lawsuit? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiff is represented by Bryan J. Geiger of Seraph Legal P.A. The Walmart class action lawsuit is Bauer v. Walmart Inc., et al., Case No. 8:26-cv-01021, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. [GN] WEX INC: Case Management Scheduling Order Entered in Patterson -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES PATTERSON, v. WEX, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-08557-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered a case management scheduling order as follows: -- The deadline to amend the pleadings without seeking leave from the Court shall be June 1, 2026. -- On or before October 2, 2026, all non-expert discovery shall be completed by the parties. -- On or before March 26, 2027, all discovery of expert witnesses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4) shall be completed. -- On or before Dec. 18, 2026, the Plaintiff will file a motion for class certification. On or before Feb. 19, 2027, the Defendant will file its opposition to class certification. On or before March 26, 2027, the Plaintiff will file any reply, if any, to the defendant's opposition. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be heard on April 15, 2027, at 1:30 PM. The Defendant is a provider of payment processing and information management services to the United States commercial and government vehicle fleet industry. A copy of the Court's order dated April 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=59trHc at no extra charge.[CC] WYZE LABS: Discloses Website Users' Info to 3rd Party, Wheeler Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- ROSS WHEELER and OSCAR SKJERVEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WYZE LABS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01319 (W.D. Wash., April 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Federal Wiretap Act, California's Invasion of Privacy Act, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law, intrusion upon seclusion, fraud and deceit, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's disclosure of the personal information of its website visitors to third parties without consent. According to the complaint, the Defendant embedded tracking technologies on its website, https://www.wyze.com/, to collect and transmit a person's browsing activity, website interactions, and device identifiers to third parties. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful practice, the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals suffered damages. Wyze Labs, Inc. is a manufacturer of smart home and connected technology products based in Kirkland, Washington. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kim D. Stephens, Esq. Rebecca L. Solomon, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 Facsimile: (206) 682-2992 Email: kstephens@tousley.com rsolomon@tousley.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: mreich@zlk.com ZEALTHY INC: Bid to Extend Filing for Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIE BROWN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ZEALTHY, INC., Case No. 4:26-cv-00386-MWB (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Brann entered an order that: 1. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), the Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint adding FitRX, LLC as a party defendant within 14 days of the date of this Order; 2. The Plaintiff's motion for leave to conduct class certification and damages discovery has been withdrawn and is therefore denied, as moot; and 3. The Motion of the Plaintiff for enlargement of time to file motion for class certification is granted in part. The Plaintiff shall file her motion for class certification on a date to be determined by this Court and set forth in any forthcoming Case Management Order issued by this Court. The Defendant is a telehealth company connecting patients with US-licensed professionals entirely online. A copy of the Court's order dated April 24, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RA97Tz at no extra charge.[CC] ZENBUSINESS INC: Fails to Secure Private Info, Camacho Says ----------------------------------------------------------- JOHN CAMACHO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZENBUSINESS INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01037 (W.D. Tex., April 21, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. On March 26, 2026, Defendant became aware that a cybercriminal group known as ShinyHunters claimed that it had accessed several terabytes of data from Defendant's IT Network. Defendant launched an investigation that determined that ShinyHunters accessed data through systems associated with third-party platforms including Salesforce, Mixpanel, and Snowflake, and issued a ransom demand with a response deadline of March 30, 2026. The following types of Private Information may have been compromised in the Data Breach: names, Social Security numbers, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses. To date, Defendant has yet to issue any public disclosure about the Data Breach. According to the complaint, the Defendant had numerous statutory, regulatory, contractual, and common law duties and obligations, including those based on its affirmative representations to Plaintiff and Class Members, to keep their Private Information confidential, safe, secure, and protected from unauthorized disclosure or access. However, as a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries, including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for: negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment; breach of implied contract; and breach of confidence. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons whose Private Information was compromised and stolen. Plaintiff John Camacho is a citizen of Claremont, California and is a Data Breach victim. Defendant ZenBusiness Inc. provides business formation and compliance services to entrepreneurs and small businesses, supporting hundreds of thousands of clients in starting and managing their companies. Defendant is headquartered in Austin, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick Yarborough, Esq. FOSTER YARBOROUGH KILLINGSWORTH PLLC 440 Louisiana, Suite 1800 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: 713-331- 5254 E-mail: patrick@fyktriallaw.com -and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. Tyler A. Litke, Esq. Melissa G. Meyer, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: mreich@zlk.com E-mail: tlitke@zlk.com E-mail: mmeyer@zlk.com ZULILY LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to May 29 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JITTANIA SMITH, et al., v. ZULILY, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01480-KKE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Evanson entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to extend certain case deadlines related to class certification. The pre-certification discovery deadline is extended to May 17, 2026, and the deadline by which the Plaintiffs must move for class certification is extended to May 29, 2026. Zulily is an American e-commerce website. A copy of the Court's order dated April 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6ZWmzH at no extra charge.[CC] ********* 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 ***