260511.mbx

260511.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, May 11, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 93 Headlines AAA LIFE: Amador Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Arbitrage Fund Alleges Securities Law Breaches ALASKA AIR: Fails to Secure Private Info, Garcia Alleges ALTO PHARMACY: Bid for Class Certification Extended to June 1 ANAQUA INC: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Barry Says APMEX LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Ford Alleges ASC ORTHO: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Smith Says AUTOMATIC INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Keller Suit Due Oct. 12 BANK OF NEW YORK: Faces Class Suits over Certificates of Deposit BELLE TIRE: Class Settlement in Berry Suit Gets Initial Nod BLIND PELICAN: Tjan Sues Over Illegal Tip Pool Practices BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Faces Securities Suits, Derivative Action Stayed BURLINGTON COAT: Underpays Company Employees, Andrade Alleges CAMBIUM NETWORKS: Hamby Securities Suit Voluntarily Dismissed CAMDEN PROPERTY: Settlement in RealPage Antitrust MDL for Court OK CBOE GLOBAL: Davidson Suit Held in Abeyance Until July 15 CIGARS INC: Evans Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CIGNA CORP: Class Certification Bid Filing in Leung Due Oct. 15 CLEANCHOICE ENERGY: Snowball Sues Over Deceptive Pricing Practices COLUMBIA BANK: Jim Sues Over Data Security Failure CONCORA CREDIT: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due August 31 CONSERVICE LLC: Scheduling Order Vacated CONTEXT THERAPEUTICS: Securities Class Action to be Closed CORDISH COMPANIES: Amey Sues Over Private Data Breach EDITION MOTORS: Standing Order Entered in Gomez Class Action EI DUPONT DE NEMOURS: Class Settlement in Baker Gets Final Nod EMPOWER SERVICES: Halladay Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages EPOCH EVERLASTING: Jones Renewed Bid for Class Cert Tossed ERIC JAVITS: Blind Users Denied Equal Access to Website, Ford Says ESTEE LAUDER: Settlement Reached in Consolidated Securities Suit FOOTHILLS PROFESSIONAL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Freeland Extended GENERAC POWER: Dawson Suit Seeks Class Certification GLOBAL TEL LINK: Sencial et al. Sue Over Deceptive Practices GOOD FAITH: Faces Lasluisa Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. HALL GROUP: Underpays Company Employees, Lira Alleges HOME SERVICE: Bid to Certify Class in Gomez Terminated IDAHO: Edney Seeks to Certify Class Action IHG MANAGEMENT: Class Certification Order Entered in Carpio IKEA NORTH: Terrill & Perez Sue Over Unlawful Tariff Costs IMPACT TECH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Navas and Goodfellow Say INCYTE CORP: Faces Vrieze Class Suit Over Private Data Breach INSIGHT THERAPY: Abdullah Sues Over Illegal Tracking Technologies JIFFY ELITE: Faces Reina Suit Over Unpaid Wages and for Retaliation LINCOLN PROPERTY: Flint Files Suit Over Data Breach LSA INTERNATIONAL: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Bahena Says MARATHON PETROLEUM: Johnson Seeks Leave to File Supplement MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Can Modify Class Cert Briefing Schedule METROPOLITAN PEDIATRIC: Husman Sues Over Unprotected Private Info MIMI GREEN: Anderson Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MY GOALS: Bid for Class Certification in Brent Suit Due June 30 MYEYEDR OPTOMETRY: Espanol Suit Seeks FTSA Class Certification NEW YORK, NY: Class Cert. Filing in Miller Due March 22, 2027 NUTRIEN AG: Hatfield Sues Over Fertlizers' Price-Fixing Conspiracy OFD FOODS: Thorne Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website OFFICE DEPOT: Must File Class Cert Bid Response by May 15 ONE SOURCE MEDICAL: Bullard Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI OP PHARMACY: Russo Must File Supplement to Class Cert Bid OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend LCG Securities Suit OPTUMRX INC: Bid to Stay LDS Suit Partly OK'd Pending Arbitration OREGON: Plaintiffs Win Bid for Provisional Certification PETMED EXPRESS: Cobbs Seeks to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal PETMED EXPRESS: Seeks Clarification on Class Cert Order in Cobbs PRECIPIO INC: Ballard Sues Over Failure to Secure PII and PHI PROVIDENCE HOMEOWNERS: Class Cert. Hearing Set for June 8 RAC ENTERPRISES: Bowman Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website REDDIT INC: Faces Securities Class Actions in California RISINGER BROS: Class Cert Response in Contreras Extended to May 18 ROYALTON ON THE GREENS: Orgera Bid for Class Cert. Tossed RUNWAY BLUE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Fagnani Alleges SALIMETRICS LLC: Harris Sues Over Unsecured Sensitive Information SAMPSON BLADEN: Gbete Amended Bid for Class Cert. Tossed SHRINERS HOSPITAL: Fact Discovery Must be Completed by Nov. 30 SIGNATURE LANDSCAPE: Loses Bid to Decertify FLSA Collective SOUTHERN GLAZER'S: Snipes Suit Remanded to Alameda County SOUTHSTATE BANK: Settlement Reached in Cyber Incident Suit TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: UFCW Class Suit Transferred to E.D. Pa. TATE & KIRLIN: Fitch Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages TESLA INC: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Jackson Says TRANS UNION: Kaplan Wins Bid to Certify Class TRANSPERFECT TRANSLATIONS: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due April 5, 2027 TRINITY OPERATING: Fails to Pay Natural Gas Royalties, Sadie Says TRUIST FINANCIAL: Court Certifies Class in Overdraft Fee Suit TURNER MINING: Wood Sues Over Wage and Hour Law Violations UNITED STATES: Court Upholds ORR Sponsor Re-Vetting Policy UNITED STATES: Plaintiff Seeks to File Supplemental Brief USAA GENERAL: Class Settlement in Black Suit Gets Final Nod WILLIAM MONTGOMERY: Court Endorses Dismissal of Rowland Suit YAMAHA MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in Ellert Suit ZACH CONINE: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ZYMERGEN INC: Court Inclined to OK "Wang" Settlement ********* AAA LIFE: Amador Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN AMADOR; ELMA AMADOR, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AAA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-07826-PA-BFM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their application for leave to file under seal the following materials filed in support of their motion for class certification: Document Portions Sought to be Sealed The Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion The portions for Class Certification (including the redacted in the Memorandum of Points and Authorities) unsealed version on file with the Court. Declaration of Alfredo Torrijos in Support The portions of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class redacted in the Certification unsealed version on file with the Court. Exhibit B to the Declaration of Alfredo The entire Torrijos in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion document. for Class Certification (excerpts from the March 10, 2026 deposition transcript of Donald Salzer, AAA Life Insurance Company's Rule 30(b)(6) designee) The Defendant designated each of the foregoing materials "CONFIDENTIAL" pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order. The Plaintiffs are not the designating party. AAA offers life insurance, accident and annuity products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tBZR2O at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua H. Haffner, Esq. Alfredo Torrijos, Esq. Trevor Weinberg, Esq. HAFFNER LAW PC 15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1520 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (213) 514-5681 Facsimile: (213) 514-5682 E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com at@haffnerlawyers.com tw@haffnerlawyers.com ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Arbitrage Fund Alleges Securities Law Breaches ------------------------------------------------------------------- THE ARBITRAGE FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC., ROBERT KOTICK, and BRIAN KELLY, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00489-UNA (D. Del., April 27, 2026), seeks to remedy Defendants' violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On October 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Challenge to Confidential Treatment of certain pleadings and exhibits filed in the matter Sjunde APFonden v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., C.A. No. 2022-1001-KSJM, pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery. On November 18, 2025, Defendants agreed to produce certain confidential information sought in the Challenge in exchange for Plaintiff withdrawing the Challenge and entering into a negotiated Production, Confidentiality, and Non-Disclosure Agreement. Accordingly, Plaintiff now requests that the Court enter an Order: (1) granting Plaintiff leave to file the Complaint under seal; and (2) requiring Plaintiff to file a redacted version within seven days. Headquartered in Santa Monica, CA, Activision Blizzard, Inc. develops and manufactures electronic games. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas Curry, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 824 N. Market St., Suite 1003 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 485-0483 Facsimile: (888) 424-8566 E-mail: tcurry@saxenawhite.com - and - David J. Schwartz, Esq. Marco Dueñas, Esq. 10 Bank Street, Suite 882 White Plains, New York 10606 Telephone: (914) 437-8551 Facsimile: (888) 216-2220 E-mail: dschwartz@saxenawhite.com mduenas@saxenawhite.com - and - Vincent R. Cappucci, Esq. Robert N. Cappucci, Esq. Jonathan H. Beemer, Esq. Joshua K. Porter, Esq. Jessica A. Margulis, Esq. ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP 230 Park Avenue, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 894-7200 E-mail: vcappucci@entwistle-law.com rcappucci@entwistle-law.com jbeemer@entwistle-law.com jporter@entwistle-law.com jmargulis@entwistle-law.com - and - Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq. 500 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1900 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 710-5960 E-mail: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com ALASKA AIR: Fails to Secure Private Info, Garcia Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- JUAN GARCIA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALASKA AIR GROUP CREDIT UNION and ALASKA AIR GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-1433 (W.D. Wash., April 27, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiff's and/or Class Members' personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network, including, without limitation, account number, date of birth, driver's license number, passport number, Social Security number (SSN), tax identification number, and routing number (collectively "personally identifiable information" or "PII" or "Private Information"). The complaint relates that the Defendant received highly sensitive Private Information from Representative Plaintiff. This information was among the data accessed in the massive cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendant on March 5, 2026, by which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network and accessed the Private Information which was being kept there . While Defendant claims to have discovered the breach as early as March 5, 2026, Defendant did not begin informing victims of the Data Breach until April 16, 2026, and failed to inform victims when or for how long the Data Breach occurred, notes the complaint. Representative Plaintiff suffered lost time, annoyance, interference and inconvenience as a result of the Data Breach and has anxiety and increased concerns for the loss of privacy, as well as anxiety over the impact of cybercriminals accessing, using and selling Representative Plaintiff's Private Information, alleges the complaint. Representative Plaintiff suffered imminent and impending injury arising from the substantially increased risk of fraud, identity theft and misuse resulting from Representative Plaintiff's Private Information being placed in the hands of unauthorized third parties/criminals, it adds. Representative Plaintiff JUAN GARCIA is a victim of the Data Breach. Defendant ALASKA AIR GROUP CREDIT UNION and ALASKA AIR GROUP, INC. is a bank and serves the financial needs of Alaska Air Group employees, retirees, and their families.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark J. Hilliard, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF MARK J. HILLIARD 1233 Alpine Road Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (310) 709-9749 E-mail: mark.hilliard.esq@gmail.com - and - Laura Van Note, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 E-mail: lvn@colevannote.com ALTO PHARMACY: Bid for Class Certification Extended to June 1 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AFIYFAH MUHAMMAD, et al., v. ALTO PHARMACY LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-11315-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Parker entered a post-conference order as follows: On April 29, 2026, the parties appeared before the undersigned for a telephonic case management conference. As discussed on the record and set forth below: Defendant, with the compliance of "When I Work" is directed to transmit the requested data to the agreed upon vendor for filtering and have the filtered data-set produced to Plaintiffs, along with employee ID numbers by May 6, 2026. The previous deadlines set for Rule 23 briefing are extended by 30 days: the motion for class certification is now due June 1, 2026; the Defendant's opposition is due July 1, 2026; the Plaintiffs' reply is due July 15, 2026. The parties are directed to meet and confer in good faith to discuss the Plaintiffs' document production and to come to an agreement on deposition scheduling. The parties are further directed to file a joint letter by May 20, 2026, informing the Court as to the status of discovery. Alto operates as a pharmacy company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W97hJO at no extra charge.[CC] ANAQUA INC: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Barry Says ----------------------------------------------------- MARK BARRY, GEORGE DIAZ, and LONG NGUYEN, on behalf of themselves, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. ANAQUA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-11886 (D. Mass., April 27, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for damages and equitable relief based upon Defendant's egregious and willful violations committed against Plaintiffs' rights guaranteed to them by: (i) the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act; (ii) the interference provisions of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 ("FMLA"); (iii) the anti-retaliation provisions of the FMLA; (iv) the overtime provisions of the Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wages Law; (v) the wage payment provisions of the Massachusetts Wage Act; and (vi) any other cause(s) of action. The complaint relates that despite holding itself out as a technology leader serving sophisticated clients, Anaqua engaged in a systematic scheme to deny overtime compensation to its sales workforce by deliberately misclassifying them as exempt employees, forcing them to work long schedules of 50 to 80 hours per week from their home offices without paying a single penny in overtime. At the heart of this misclassification scheme are two distinct positions that Anaqua fraudulently classified as exempt: Sales Managers and Account Executives, notes the complaint. Plaintiffs Long Nguyen and George Diaz worked as "Sales Managers" whom Anaqua misclassified as outside sales employees exempt from overtime protections, while Plaintiff Mark Barry worked as an "Account Executive" whom Anaqua misclassified as an administrative employee. In reality, all three Plaintiffs performed identical traditional inside sales work from their home offices, conducting virtual product demonstrations, making discovery calls, building sales pipelines through email and phone outreach, and managing customer relationships. None possessed any meaningful managerial authority, supervisory responsibilities, or discretion over company operations that would justify exempt classification, adds the complaint. Through this action, Plaintiffs seek to vindicate their rights under the FLSA and FMLA and to hold Anaqua accountable for its systematic wage theft affecting a nationwide workforce of similarly situated employees, as well as its unlawful retaliation against an employee who dared to exercise his federally protected right to medical leave. Plaintiff Mark Barry was employed by Defendant in Massachusetts as an Account Executive, Law Firms, from December 13, 2021 through August 7, 2025. Plaintiff George Diaz was employed by Defendant in Texas as a Sales Manager from February 28, 2022 through October 2023. Plaintiff Long Nguyen was employed by Defendant as a Sales Manager beginning in May 9, 2022, until mid-August, 2023. Defendant Anaqua, Inc. is a software company with a national presence that provides intellectual property management software and services to law firms and corporations across the United States and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam G. Gutbezahl, Esq. Lauren B. Haskins, Esq. RUBERTO, ISRAEL & WEINER, P.C. 255 State Street, 7th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 742-4200 E-mail: agg@riw.com lbh@riw.com - and - Michael R. Minkoff STEVENSON MARINO LLP 2000 Deer Park Avenue Deer Park, NY 11729 Telephone: (212) 939-7231 E-mail: mminkoff@stevensonmarino.com APMEX LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Ford Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ SANDRA FORD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Apmex LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-4756 (N.D. Ill., April 27, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://www.apmex.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Ford and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Ford's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint relates that on April 1, 2026, while searching on Google, Ford came across the Website which appeared to be a well-known retailer offering gold, silver, platinum, and palladium products, including coins, bars, and other bullion items intended for investment and collection purposes. After reviewing the company's established reputation and customer feedback praising the quality, authenticity, and reliability of its products, she decided to explore the Website with the intention of making a purchase. However, Ford encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from completing the order. The Website thus contains access barriers that deny full and equal access to Ford. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Ford and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of the Website in violation of the ADA and/or its implementing regulations, says the suit. Ford seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff Sandra Ford is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Apmex LLC provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a range of precious metals and investment products, including gold, silver, platinum, and palladium in the form of coins, bars, rounds, and collectible items.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 718-554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law ASC ORTHO: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Smith Says ------------------------------------------------------- STACEY SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASC ORTHO MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC D/B/A ALIGNED ORTHOPEDIC PARTNERS, Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-01615 (D. Md., April 24, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI"), resulting in a devastating data breach. Defendant ASC Ortho Management Company, LLC d/b/a Aligned Orthopedic Partners is an orthopedic practice organization with locations in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C. Plaintiff Stacey Smith is a citizen of Walkersville, MD and a patient of the Defendant. As a condition of receiving healthcare services, Defendant requires that current and former patients entrust it with highly sensitive Private Information. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties it owed to them and knew or should have known that it was responsible for protecting Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information from unauthorized access and exfiltration, says the complaint. According to a Notice of Data Security Incident posted to Defendant's website, on December 8, 2025, Defendant identified unusual activity in its email environment. After an investigation, Defendant determined that an unknown actor gained unauthorized access to its email environment between November 16, 2025, and December 16, 2025 and potentially accessed certain emails and files (the "Data Breach" or "Breach"). According to Defendant, the following types of PII and PHI were compromised during the Breach: (i) names; (ii) dates of birth; (iii) Social Security numbers; (iv) driver's license or state identification numbers; (v) Medicaid or Medicare numbers; (vi) financial account numbers; (vii) medical dates of service; (viii) medical provider names; (ix) mental or physical condition; (x) medical treatment information; (xi) diagnosis or clinical information; (xii) prescription information; (xiii) health insurance information; (xiv) patient account numbers; and (xv) medical record numbers (collectively, "Private Information"). The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and are at an imminent, immediate, and continuing increased risk of suffering, ascertainable losses in the form of harm from identity theft and other fraudulent misuse of their Private Information, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, and potential out-of-pocket expenses to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and Class Members seek restitution and compensation from the Defendant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sonjay Singh, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 400 East Pratt Street 8th Floor - #16946751 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: 646-829-1389 E-mail: ssingh@sirillp.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Kennedy M. Brian, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 101 Park Avenue Suite 1300, #16982799 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: 929-677-5144 Telephone: 929-376-5170 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com E-mail: kbrian@sirillp.com - and - Philip Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue S., STE 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 E-mail: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com AUTOMATIC INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Keller Suit Due Oct. 12 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN KELLER and SHARON SCHANZER, individually and on behalf of their businesses, KELLER HOLDINGS LLC (DBA SecureSight) and RLDGROUP, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AUTOMATIC INC., a Delaware corporation, and MATTHEW CHARLES MULLENWEG, an individual, Case No. 3:25-cv-01892-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the case schedule through Class Certification by three months, as follows: Deadline Date Deadline for affirmative expert reports Aug. 10, 2026 for class certification: Close of fact discovery for class Aug. 17, 2026 certification (limited merits discovery permitted following class certification order, if necessary): Deadline for motion for class certification: Oct. 12, 2026 Deadline for opposition to motion for Nov. 9, 2026 class certification: Deadline for reply in support of motion Nov. 24, 2026 for class certification: The Parties have been diligently pursuing discovery, meeting and conferring as necessary to resolve any disputes, and are discussing the schedule for depositions. Given the pending motion, the indefiniteness of the Plaintiffs' claims, and the status of discovery, the Parties agree there is good cause to extend the case deadlines, including because they do not have sufficient information to finalize their affirmative expert reports that would otherwise be due next month. Automattic develops open-source blogging software. A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yyiu4k at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Amber L. Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 E-mail: aschubert@sjk.law - and - Sabita J. Soneji, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1970 Broadway, Suite 1070 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 254-6808 E-mail: ssoneji@tzlegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Kahn A. Scolnick, Esq. Andrew M. Kasabian, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: (213) 229.7000 E-mail: kscolnick@gibsondunn.com akasabian@gibsondunn.com BANK OF NEW YORK: Faces Class Suits over Certificates of Deposit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bank of New York Mellon 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 May 1, 2026, that the company and Stanford Group Co. is facing class action suits about its certificates of deposit. Alleged purchasers of Stanford International Bank certificates of deposit filed two putative class action proceedings against Pershing LLC, one in November 2009 in Texas federal court and one in May 2016 in New Jersey federal court. On November 5, 2021, the court dismissed the class action filed in New Jersey and that both of those matters have concluded. Three lawsuits remain pending against Pershing LLC in Louisiana and New Jersey federal courts, which were filed in January 2010, October 2015 and May 2016. Purchasers in those remaining lawsuits allege that Pershing LLC, as SGC's clearing firm, assisted R. Allen Stanford in a fraudulent scheme and assert contractual, statutory and common law claims. In March 2019 a group of investors filed a putative class action against The Bank of New York Mellon in New Jersey federal court making the same allegations as in the prior actions brought against Pershing LLC. On November 12, 2021, the court dismissed the class action against The Bank of New York Mellon and on December 15, 2022, an appeals court reversed that dismissal and returned the case to the trial court for further proceedings. On August 5, 2025, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On June 28, 2024, an unincorporated association claiming to represent the interests of Stanford investors filed a lawsuit in New Jersey federal court against The Bank of New York Mellon making the same allegations as the prior cases. Separately, that all of the cases that have been brought in federal court have been consolidated in Texas federal court for discovery purposes and that various alleged Stanford certificate of deposit purchasers asserted similar claims in Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (FINRA) arbitration proceedings, all of which have been resolved. Bank of New York Mellon Corp. is a global financial services company providing investment management, investment services and wealth management to institutions and individuals worldwide. The company operates through subsidiaries including The Bank of New York Mellon, offering asset servicing, custody, clearing and related financial solutions. It became a clearing firm for Stanford Group Co. (SGC) in late December 2005. BELLE TIRE: Class Settlement in Berry Suit Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Berry v. Belle Tire Distributors, Inc. (re Belle Tire Distributors, Inc. Data Breach Litigation), Case No. 2:24-cv-12966-MFL-CI (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Matthew Leitman entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement and providing notice. 1. The Court conditionally certifies the following class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) ("Settlement Class"): "All individuals whose Private Information was exposed to unauthorized third parties as a result of the Data Security Incident discovered by the Defendant on or before June 11, 2024." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) all Persons who timely and validly request exclusion from the Class; (ii) the judge assigned to evaluate the fairness of this settlement (including any members of the Court's staff assigned to this case); (iii) the Defendant's officers and directors, and (iv) any other Person found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be guilty under criminal law of initiating, causing, aiding or abetting the criminal activity occurrence of the Data Incident or who pleads nolo contendere to any such charge. 2. The Court provisionally appoints E. Powell Miller of The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Casondra R. Turner of Milberg, PLLC, and Scott Edward Cole of Cole & Van Note as Proposed Settlement Class Counsel, having determined that the requirements of Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are fully satisfied by this appointment. 3. The Court appoints Tabbitha Berry, Hamza Yaser Algharably, Zachary Loafman, Anthony Georges, and Zach Travis as the Class Representatives for settlement purposes only on behalf of the Settlement Class. The Defendant is an American regional chain of tire shops. A copy of the Court's order dated April 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NzXO24 at no extra charge.[CC] BLIND PELICAN: Tjan Sues Over Illegal Tip Pool Practices -------------------------------------------------------- KIARA TJAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE BLIND PELICAN SEAFOOD HOUSE LLC, J. ANDREW STAFFORD, and J. NICOLE STAFFORD, Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-267 (E.D.N.C., April 24, 2026) is a class and collective action against the Defendants due to their systemic, company-wide policy, pattern, or practice of requiring tipped employees at their restaurant to participate in an illegal mandatory tip pool that included an owner and manager of the restaurant and kitchen employees who did not customarily and regularly receive tips from customers. The complaint relates that the Defendants' illegal mandatory tip pool practices, resulted in Defendants' failure to pay their tipped employees the applicable minimum wage rate for all hours worked, the applicable overtime rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 each week, and all owed, earned, or promised wages, in violation of both the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act ("NCWHA"). This action is also brought individually for unlawful retaliation under the FLSA and the Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act ("REDA") due to Defendants' retaliatory conduct in directing Tjan not to return to work, removing Tjan from the employee scheduling application, and removing Tjan from the employee group communication platform due to Tjan's good faith complaints about Defendants' unlawful wage practices under the FLSA and the NCWHA. The Defendants acted in direct violation of the FLSA, NCWHA, and REDA. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek all unpaid wages, unpaid overtime compensation, illegally withheld and misappropriated tips, liquidated damages, treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other damages permitted by applicable law. Plaintiff Kiara Tjan was employed by the Defendants as a server and bartender from May 16, 2023, through January 24, 2025. Defendant The Blind Pelican Seafood House LLC owns and operates a seafood restaurant in Holly Springs, North Carolina. Defendants Andrew Stafford and Nikki Stafford are majority owners of The Blind Pelican and several other Triangle-area restaurants and bars.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael B. Cohen, Esq. COHEN EMPLOYMENT LAW 4801 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 269 Raleigh, NC 27612 Telephone: (919) 525-2700 E-mail: mcohen@cohenemploymentlaw.com BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Faces Securities Suits, Derivative Action Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------------- Boston Scientific 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 May 1, 2026, that a putative securities class action complaint was filed on March 5, 2026 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by purported Company shareholder John Rudolph Troike, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against the Company, Michael F. Mahoney, Jonathan R. Monson, Kenneth M. Stein, Joseph M. Fitzgerald, and Nicholas Spadea-Anello, stemming from the drop in the Company's stock price on February 4, 2026 following the release of the Company's fourth quarter and full year 2025 results, and alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the federal securities laws. Additionally, that on March 16, 2026, purported company shareholder Greg Valen (the Valen Derivative Complaint), and on April 23, 2026, purported Company shareholder Elliot Feder (the Feder Derivative Complaint), each filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company, Michael F. Mahoney, Jonathan R. Monson, Kenneth M. Stein, Joseph M. Fitzgerald, Nicholas Spadea-Anello, Yoshiaki Fujimori, David C. Habiger, Edward J. Ludwig, Jessica L. Mega, Susan E. Morano, Cheryl Pegus, John E. Sununu, David S. Wichmann, and Ellen M. Zane, each containing substantially the same set of factual allegations as those asserted in the related securities class action case, and that each complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages, unspecified equitable relief, and costs and expenses. On April 8, 2026, the court stayed the Valen Derivative Complaint until the final resolution of the anticipated motion to dismiss in the related securities class action case. Boston Scientific Corp is a global medical technology company that develops, manufactures, and markets devices and therapies for use in a broad range of interventional medical specialties. The company serves healthcare providers worldwide with products in areas including cardiology, endoscopy, urology, and neuromodulation. BURLINGTON COAT: Underpays Company Employees, Andrade Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- PEDRO ANDRADE, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved Employees, Plaintiffs vs. BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY OF TEXAS, INC., a Florida Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV13388 (Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Cal., April 27, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the California Labor Code. This is a Private Attorney General Action Complaint, pursuant to California Labor Code on behalf of REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFF and all other persons similarly situated who worked for DEFENDANTS in their California locations as non-exempt, hourly employees for violation of the labor laws, specifically, for failure to provide employment record; failure to pay overtime and double time; failure to provide rest and meal periods; failure to pay minimum wage; failure to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage statements; failure to pay reporting time wages; failure to pay split shift wages; failure to pay all wages earned on time; failure to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation; failure to pay all paid time off and vacation time owed upon separation; failure to reimburse necessary, business-related expenses; and failure to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual. The complaint alleges that the DEFENDANTS knowingly provided employees with records that do not meet the statutory requirements of truth and accuracy, because DEFENDANTS failed to truthfully and accurately document, among other things, employees off-the-clock work. As a result, DEFENDANTS failed to accurately list the correct amount of gross and/or net wages earned by REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFF and the other AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES, says the suit. REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFF, therefore, seeks to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to California Labor Code and any other applicable statute. Plaintiff PEDRO ANDRADE was employed by DEFENDANTS as Asset Protection Supervisor from March 2023 until December 5, 2025. Defendant BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY OF TEXAS, INC. operates a chain of clothing retail stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raffi Tapanian, Esq. TAPANIAN LAW, APC 611 N. Brand Blvd Suite 1300 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 433-4977 Facsimile: (818) 484-2654 E-mail: raffi@tapanianlaw.com CAMBIUM NETWORKS: Hamby Securities Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------- Cambium Networks Corp disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2026, that a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed on May 22, 2024, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, "Hamby v. Cambium Networks Corporation et al," Case No. 1:24-cv-04240, against the company and three of its current or former officers. The complaint purported to assert claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, on behalf of persons and entities who acquired the Companys ordinary shares between May 8, 2023, and January 18, 2024, or the Class Period. The complaint alleged that, during the Class Period, the Company and certain of its executive officers made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about its business, operations, and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiffs sought damages in an unspecified amount. On July 22, 2024, motions were filed on behalf of purported class member shareholders seeking to serve as lead plaintiff. On October 21, 2024, the court approved the appointment of lead plaintiff. On December 4, 2024, plaintiffs filed a voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice. Cambium Networks Corp is a provider of wireless broadband networking infrastructure solutions, offering fixed wireless and Wi-Fi products that connect people, places, and things across enterprise, industrial, and service provider markets worldwide. CAMDEN PROPERTY: Settlement in RealPage Antitrust MDL for Court OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ Camden Property Trust 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 May 1, 2026, that it has been named as a defendant in several cases alleging antitrust violations by RealPage, Inc., a seller of revenue management software, and owners and/or operators of multifamily housing, including the Company, which utilize this software. The complaints allege collusion among the defendants to fix rents in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has consolidated 43 cases, including those filed against the company, into a single action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, in a case captioned "In re: RealPage, Inc., Rental Software Antitrust Litigation (No. II)." On April 7, 2026, the company entered into a binding term sheet for settlement with the named plaintiffs in the Class Action Litigation. The company and the plaintiffs agreed to negotiate and execute a long-form settlement agreement on or before May 7, 2026, which will be subject to preliminary and final approval by the court. Under the term sheet, the company agreed to pay an aggregate of $53.0 million to settle all claims which have been asserted, or could have been asserted, against the company in the class action litigation, inclusive of class member recoveries, plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, and the costs of administering the settlement. The pending settlement payment will be payable in two equal installments of $26.5 million, with the first installment payable within 45 days of execution of a long-form settlement agreement and the second installment payable within four months of execution of a long-form settlement agreement. The pending settlement also includes certain prospective commitments regarding the company's business practices, including provisions relating to the disclosure and use of non-public data and the company's use of revenue management software, which the company believes will not require material changes to its operations. The execution of the term sheet and any subsequent settlement agreement do not constitute an admission of fault or liability, and the company does not admit wrongdoing. Camden Property Trust is a real estate investment trust focused on the ownership, management and development of multifamily apartment communities across the United States. The company is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange. CBOE GLOBAL: Davidson Suit Held in Abeyance Until July 15 --------------------------------------------------------- CBOE Global Markets, 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 May 1, 2026, that a putative class action was filed on April 16, 2024, captioned "Erik A. Davidson, John Restivo and National Center for Public Policy Research vs. Gary Gensler, SEC and CATLLC," in which CBOE and the participants in a national market system plan are not parties to the litigation. On July 7, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas granted the SEC's opposed motion to hold the case in abeyance and stay all deadlines until January 15, 2026. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the SEC engaged in unlawful agency action and violated multiple provisions of the U.S. Constitution when it promulgated Rule 613 in 2012 mandating the creation and funding of the CAT. Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and stay was denied. On January 15, 2026, the SEC filed a status report and an opposed Motion to Continue the Abeyance for an additional six months. On January 23, 2026, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On January 30, 2026, plaintiffs filed a Renewed Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. On February 4, 2026, the Texas Federal District Court granted the SEC's opposed Motion to Continue the Abeyance until July 15, 2026. Additionally, this challenge or any other challenge to the constitutionality of the audit trail of Consolidated Audit Trail, LLC may delay its assessment of CAT fees to recover a portion of CAT costs, as a result of which the plan participants may continue to incur additional significant costs and/or may not be able to collect on the promissory notes related to the funding of the implementation and operation of the CAT. CBOE Global Markets, Inc. is a leading provider of market infrastructure and tradable products, operating securities and derivatives exchanges, including the Chicago Board Options Exchange, and related clearing and market data services worldwide. The company offers trading, listing, market data and investment solutions across multiple asset classes and geographies. CIGARS INC: Evans Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES EVANS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Cigars Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-4320 (N.D. Ill., April 17, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://www.cigarplace.biz to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Evans and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Evans' rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The complaint relates that on March 27, 2026, Evans was searching online for cigars and wanted to find an online retailer offering a large inventory of well-known cigar brands. During his search, he came across the Defendant's website, Cigarplace.biz, an online retailer known for offering a wide range of premium cigars and related products. After reading customer feedback highlighting the Website's extensive selection and competitive pricing, Evans was encouraged to explore the Website further with the intent to make a purchase. However, Evans encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented him from completing the order. The Website thus contains access barriers that deny full and equal access to Evans, who would otherwise use the Website and who would otherwise be able to fully and equally enjoy the benefits and services of the Website in Illinois State and throughout the United States. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Evans and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of the Website in violation of ADA and/or its implementing regulations. Evans seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff James Evans is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Cigars Inc. provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase cigars, humidors, lighters, ashtrays, cutters, cigar gifts, and smoking accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 716-281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law CIGNA CORP: Class Certification Bid Filing in Leung Due Oct. 15 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kisting-Leung, et al., v. Cigna Corp., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-01477 (E.D. Cal., Filed July 24, 2023), the Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd entered an order as follows: -- Initial expert disclosures shall be completed by Oct. 15, 2026 -- The Plaintiffs shall file a motion for class certification by Oct. 15, 2026 -- The Defendants shall file an opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification by Dec. 23, 2026 -- The Plaintiffs shall file a reply brief in support of the motion for class certification by Feb. 24, 2027 -- All expert discovery shall be completed by March 25, 2027 -- All other dates and deadlines remain unchanged The parties are directed to re-notice their stipulation to modify dates regarding outstanding document production, privilege logs, and depositions before the assigned magistrate judge. The nature of suit states Contract -- Diversity-(Citizenship). Cigna Group is a major American multinational managed healthcare and insurance company.[CC] CLEANCHOICE ENERGY: Snowball Sues Over Deceptive Pricing Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUSAN SNOWBALL and DANIEL UPPERCO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CLEANCHOICE ENERGY, INC. and THOMAS MATZZIE, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-04550 (D.N.J., April 24, 2026) is a class action seeking to redress CleanChoice's deceptive and bad faith pricing practices that have caused tens of thousands of New Jersey residential and commercial customers to pay considerably more for their electricity than they should have paid. The complaint relates that the Defendants have taken advantage of the deregulation of New Jersey's retail electricity market by misrepresenting how their electricity rates are calculated. Among others, says the complaint, CleanChoice makes false and deceptive claims in the customer contracts and enrollment materials it provides to New Jersey customer like how its variable electricity rate is determined. In reality, CleanChoice's pricing methodology is focused on maximizing profits that produced exorbitant and unfair margins that only come to light when CleanChoice's costs and expenses are made apparent. In addition, CleanChoice abused the information asymmetry between it and its customers and omitted material information about its variable electricity rates from the materials provided to its New Jersey customers, in particular its form contract, FAQs, and its enrollment form, adds the complaint. As a result, tens of thousands of unsuspecting New Jersey customers have been, and continue to be, fleeced by CleanChoice out of millions of dollars in exorbitant electricity charges. Plaintiffs and other New Jersey CleanChoice customers have been injured by Defendants' unlawful and unauthorized practices, says the suit. The Plaintiffs and the Class therefore seek damages, restitution, statutory penalties, punitive damages, and declaratory and injunctive relief for CleanChoice's breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, violation of New Jersey consumer protection law, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff Susan Snowball and her partner Plaintiff Daniel Upperco signed up with CleanChoice in or around October 2020. Defendant CleanChoice Energy, Inc. is a third-party electric supplier (a "TPS") that sells residential and commercial electricity in New Jersey's deregulated retail electricity market.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kenneth Fromson, Esq. FINKELSTEIN & PARTNERS, LLP 1270 Route 300 Newburgh, NY 12551 Telephone: (845) 563-9459 E-mail: kfromson@lawampm.com - and - Daniel J. Brenner, Esq. WITTELS MCINTURFF PALIKOVIC 305 BROADWAY, 7TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10007 Telephone: (914) 775-8862 E-mail: djb@wittelslaw.com COLUMBIA BANK: Jim Sues Over Data Security Failure -------------------------------------------------- PATRICIA JIM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COLUMBIA BANKING SYSTEM, INC. and COLUMBIA BANK, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-05436 (W.D. Wash., April 27, 2026), arises out of the public exposure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information, which was in Defendant's possession during a cyberattack that was caused by Defendants' failure to adequately safeguard that private information. Although the data breach occurred between October 2, 2025, and December 22, 2025, Defendants failed to immediately notify and warn Plaintiff and Class Members, waiting nearly four months, until April 17, 2026, when Defendants disclosed the data breach to the California Attorney General. Accordingly, Plaintiff now brings four causes of action: negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. Headquartered in Roseburg, OR, Columbia Bank operates as a regional bank and serves the western United States with more than 350 locations across Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kaleigh N. Boyd, Esq. 600 University Street, Suite 2700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 467-1816 Facsimile: (206) 624-5128 E-mail: kboyd@mcnaul.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive - Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com CONCORA CREDIT: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due August 31 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Seals v. Concora Credit Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-00728 (D. Or., Filed May 1, 2025), the Hon. Judge Adrienne Nelson entered an order granting motion for Extension of Time as modified as follows to account for Court holidays: -- Expert disclosures in support of class certification are due by June 22, 2026. -- Expert disclosures in opposition to class certification are due by July 20, 2026. -- Rebuttal expert disclosures are due by August 10, 2026. -- Class certification motion filing is due by August 31, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Concora is a provider of credit programs for non-prime consumers.[CC] CONSERVICE LLC: Scheduling Order Vacated ---------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA JOLICOEUR-LOUIS, an individual, and SOPHIE PHILIPS, an individual, on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CONSERVICE, LLC, a Utah limited liability company, Case No. 2:24-cv-03253-HDV-BFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vera entered an order granting joint stipulation regarding scheduling order. 1. The Scheduling Order is vacated. 2. A status conference will be set after the Court issues its ruling on the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class to determine dates and deadlines for a new Scheduling Order. The Defendant is a utility management and billing company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WqbUkM at no extra charge.[CC] CONTEXT THERAPEUTICS: Securities Class Action to be Closed ---------------------------------------------------------- Context Therapeutics Inc. disclosed in a current report on Form 8-K, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2026, that on May 1, 2026, the company's insurance provider paid a Mootness Fee in full pursuant to the letter agreement, and the company stated that a securities class action it is facing will be closed after the court is informed that a quorum was achieved at the company's 2026 annual meeting of stockholders, scheduled for June 24, 2026. It had previously disclosed that, on March 11, 2026, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware approved a stipulation and proposed consent judgment regarding the stockholder class action complaint filed on February 4, 2026 by the Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust against Context Therapeutics Inc. The company and its directors, pursuant to which (i) Article V, Section 2 of the company's Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, as amended, which provides that the company's directors shall serve for a term of three years, and (ii) Article VI, Section 1 of the Charter, which provides that the directors of the company may be removed from office only for cause, were determined to be invalid and unenforceable. It further disclosed that, on March 11, 2026, the company filed a Certificate of Correction with the Delaware Secretary of State reflecting such provisions as invalid, unenforceable and no longer part of the charter, and that, pursuant to the Stipulated Judgment, the action was dismissed with prejudice as to plaintiff, while the court retained jurisdiction to address any mootness fee application. In addition, the company disclosed that, on April 30, 2026, it entered into a letter agreement with a third-party service provider, pursuant to which the provider agreed to pay in full, on behalf of the company, an $850,000 mootness fee and expense award (Mootness Fee) to plaintiff's counsel in the action. On the same date, the court granted a Stipulation and Proposed Order Closing the Case, which requires payment of the Mootness Fee. The court was not asked to review, and did not pass judgment on, entitlement to or the amount of the Mootness Fee. Context Therapeutics Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing innovative therapies for hormone-driven cancers. The company aims to improve outcomes for patients with cancer through targeted, small-molecule and other oncology drug candidates. CORDISH COMPANIES: Amey Sues Over Private Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------- CHENITA AMEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CORDISH COMPANIES, INC., PPE CASINO RESORTS MARYLAND, LLC d/b/a LIVE! CASINO, and LIVE! HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a LIVE!., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01640-CJC (D. Md., April 27, 2026) arises out of the recent data breach involving Defendants that compromised Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information. In or around April 2026, an unauthorized third party gained access to Defendants' inadequately secured systems and obtained files containing Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information. As a result of Defendants' ineffective and inadequate data security practices, the data breach, and the foreseeable consequences of private information ending up in the possession of criminals, the risk of identity theft to the Plaintiff and Class Members has materialized and is imminent. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings causes of action for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, and declaratory judgment. The Cordish Companies, Inc. is a gaming development and operations company headquartered in Baltimore, MD. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE First Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (786) 206-9057 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com EDITION MOTORS: Standing Order Entered in Gomez Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCELO GOMEZ, v. EDITION MOTORS LLC, et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-04534-PA-AYP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anderson entered a standing order as follows: The action has been assigned to the calendar of Judge Percy Anderson. Both the Court and the attorneys bear responsibility for the progress of litigation in the Federal Courts. To secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action, Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, all counsel are ordered to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Central District of California. The Plaintiff shall promptly serve the Complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant to Local Rule 5-3.1 within 10 days of service of the summons and complaint. All discovery matters have been referred to a United States Magistrate Judge, who will hear all discovery disputes. Notwithstanding any contrary provision in the Local Rules, and unless otherwise ordered by the Court, Judge Anderson does not require parties to provide Mandatory Chambers Copies of documents filed through the Court’s CM/ECF System. Motions shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule 7. This Court hears motions on Mondays, commencing at 1:30 p.m. No supplemental brief shall be filed without prior leave of Court. Edition Motors specializes in premium pre-owned vehicles and flexible financing options. A copy of the Court's order dated April 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0MV1PO at no extra charge.[CC] more EI DUPONT DE NEMOURS: Class Settlement in Baker Gets Final Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELE BAKER, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, Case No. 1:16-cv-00917-MAD-DJS (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mae A. D'Agostino entered an order granting final approval to the Settlement, and granting application for attorneys' fees, expenses, and service awards. The Court awards the Plaintiffs' counsel (i) $5,373,000 in attorneys' fees and (ii) $1,018,668.29 in reasonable litigation expenses. Upon applying the Goldberger factors, the Court finds that a fee of 19.9 percent of the Total Settlement Payment, or $5,373,000 is reasonable. The Court awards $25,000 to the following Class Representative Plaintiffs for their commendable work on achieving this significant Settlement: Michele Baker, Charles Carr, Angela Corbett, Pamela Forrest, Michael Hickey, Kathleen Main-Lingener, Kristin Miller, Jennifer Plouffe, Silvia Potter, and Daniel Schuttig. DuPont de Nemours is an American multinational chemical company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ARLX4j at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hadley E. Lundback, Esq. Stephen G. Schwarz, Esq. Joshua M. Mankoff, Esq. Teagan C. Dolan, Esq. FARACI LANGE, LLP 1882 South Winton Road, Suite 1 Rochester, NY 14618 E-mail: hadley@faraci.com sschwarz@faraci.com - and - James J. Bilsborrow, Esq. Robin L. Greenwald, Esq. Ellen Relkin, Esq. Emma Dietz, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C. 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com rgreenwald@weitzlux.com - and - Joseph Williams, Esq. WILLIAMS CEDAR LLC GERALD One South Broad Street Suite 1510 Philadelphia, PA 19107 The Defendant is represented by: Kristin L. Bryan, Esq. SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS LLP 1000 Key Tower 127 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44114 - and - Alexandra Von Stackelberg, Esq. Benjamin W. Hill, Esq. CAPEZZA HILL LLP 30 South Pearl Street, Suite P-110 Albany, NY 12207 - and - Andrew Calica, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1290 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10104 - and - Tammy Beth Webb, Esq. Andrew D. Carpenter, Esq. David Robert Erickson, Esq. Robert G. Rooney, Esq. Stacey E. Deere, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP One Kansas City Place 2555 Grand Boulevard Kansas City, MO 64108 - and - Clinton T. Speegle, Esq. Jeffrey P. Doss, Esq. John M. Johnson, Esq. Lana Alcorn Olson, Esq. Mary Elizabeth Harrison, Esq. Meghan S. Cole, Esq. LIGHTFOOT FRANKLIN WHITE 400 20th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 EMPOWER SERVICES: Halladay Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHANIE L. HALLADAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Plaintiff vs. EMPOWER SERVICES CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01209 (D.N.M., April 17, 2026) is a collective and class action to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The complaint relates that while employed by Empower, Plaintiff's job duties consisted of providing nursing and healthcare services to Empower's clients at their homes, doctors' offices or medical facilities. Throughout her employment, Plaintiff was subject to Empower's "PPV" or "pay per visit" payroll scheme. Plaintiff was paid a combination of a fee per visit and an hourly wage. In addition to the PPV payments, Plaintiff received her regular hourly rate for some, but not all, non-PPV work, which Defendant classified as "NVA" or "Non-Visit Activities" that included, but was not limited to, patient-related travel, participation in weekly meetings, mandatory continuing medical education, orientations, and quarterly meetings. Empower failed to pay Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective and the New Mexico Class their wages for off-the-clock activities such as receiving and responding to emails, texts, calls, charting, patient-to-patient travel, and patient-related visit activities that took longer than the allotted or estimated time for such service. Empower used the PPV designation and payroll policy to avoid counting all hours Plaintiff worked. The FLSA Collective and the New Mexico Class were also regularly scheduled to and did work more than forty (40) hours in a work week, and were subject to the same payroll practices, adds the complaint. Plaintiff STEPHANIE L. HALLADAY was employed by Empower as a registered nurse who provided home healthcare services from December 10, 2021, until she was terminated on February 20, 2026. Defendant EMPOWER SERVICES CORPORATION owns and operates a healthcare company that provides home health services such as hospice, nursing, and physical, speech and occupational therapy in New Mexico, Oklahoma, Georgia and Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Bohrer, Esq. Scott E. Brady, Esq. BOHRER BRADY, LLC 8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 925-5297 Facsimile: (225) 231-7000 E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com scott@bohrerbrady.com EPOCH EVERLASTING: Jones Renewed Bid for Class Cert Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIENE JACKSON-JONES et al., v. EPOCH EVERLASTING PLAY, LLC et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-02567-ODW-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis Wright, II entered an order denying Jackson-Jones's renewed motion for class certification. Denial is with prejudice, as Jackson-Jones has had ample notice and opportunity to remedy the deficiencies but has failed to do so. In sum, Jackson-Jones does not have standing to seek injunctive relief and, therefore, cannot adequately protect the interests of a class that includes members that do. Accordingly, Jackson-Jones cannot satisfy Rule 23's requirements and class certification is inappropriate. The Plaintiff initiated this putative class action against, asserting claims under California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") and for unjust enrichment. Jackson-Jones previously sought to certify a class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, or alternatively 23(b)(2), for injunctive relief and restitution. The Court granted the motion and certified a Rule 23(b)(3) class as Jackson-Jones proposed: "All persons in the State of California who purchased at least one of the Products, for personal use and not for re-sale, since Jan. 30, 2019." On remand, Jackson-Jones renews her motion to certify the same class as before. However, this time she seeks only restitutionary relief on behalf of the class under Rule 23(b)(3), due to her lack of standing to seek an injunction. The Defendants market, distribute, and sell Calico Critters, a brand of plastic, poseable animal figurines with a flocked exterior coated in soft, fuzzy fibers. A copy of the Court's order dated April 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fRTt8i at no extra charge.[CC] ERIC JAVITS: Blind Users Denied Equal Access to Website, Ford Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ SANDRA FORD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Eric Javits, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-4315 (N.D. Ill., April 17, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://ericjav its.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Ford and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Ford's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on February 25, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Starter Pack Bundle from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public; and that denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the goods, and services of the Website by being unable to purchase a Starter Pack Bundle, as well as other products available online and to ascertain information relating to Defendant's: water bottles, tumblers, and coffee mugs, as well as other types of goods, pricing, privacy policies and internet pricing specials. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and visually-impaired consumers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the goods, and services Defendant offers to the public on its Website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff Sandra Ford is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant RUNWAY BLUE, LLC operates the Owala Life online retail store, as well as the Owala Life interactive Website that provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's: water bottles, tumblers, and coffee mugs, as well as other types of goods, pricing, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and internet pricing specials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212.228.9795 Facsimile: 212.982.6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal ESTEE LAUDER: Settlement Reached in Consolidated Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Estee Lauder Companies 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 May 1, 2026, that on April 2, 2026, the parties in a consolidated securities class action litigation reached an agreement in principle to settle. On December 7, 2023 and January 22, 2024, purported securities class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and its then Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. The actions were consolidated on February 20, 2024 and on March 22, 2024, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on alleged materially false and misleading statements between February 3, 2022 and October 31, 2023. On March 31, 2025, the court denied defendants motion to dismiss. In light of these discussions, the company has recorded a loss contingency of $210 million relating to a potential settlement of the securities class action in Other accrued liabilities in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet and it maintains insurance coverage that will offset a portion of defense and settlement costs for this action. It recorded a loss contingency of $84 million, net of the estimated probable insurance recoveries, in the consolidated statements of earnings/loss relating to a potential settlement of the securities class action. Estee Lauder Companies Inc is a global manufacturer and marketer of skin care, makeup, fragrance and hair care products, selling its brands through department stores, specialty retailers, e-commerce and travel retail channels worldwide. FOOTHILLS PROFESSIONAL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Freeland Extended ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Hon. Judge Matthew Brann entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to enlarge the period for filing a motion for class certification. The deadline for the Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification pursuant to Local Rule 23.3 is enlarged and shall be set by the Court in connection with its entry of a case management order, the contents of which will be determined by future proceedings in this action. Foothills is a nationwide compounding pharmacy licensed in all 50 states and specializing in telemedicine fulfillment services. A copy of the Court's order dated April 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FF3D6g at no extra charge.[CC] GENERAC POWER: Dawson Suit Seeks Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES W. DAWSON, Jr., and EDMOND C. HILL, Jr., individually and on behalf of all other 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: -- Certifying a class, defined as follows: "All Florida residents who purchased a Generac home standby generator, models 22KW and 24 KW, between 2020 – 2024, designed with a rear airflow vent that failed to provide power during a hurricane or rain event" (the "Class Generators"); and -- Appointing the following attorneys as class counsel: Reginald J. Clyne and Kimare S. Dyer. In this situation there is no better way to obtain justice for the victims of Generac's breach of warranty. No individual plaintiff could afford the cost of the experts or pay an hourly rate to a law firm to prosecute their individual case, because the cost of the litigation far exceeds the cost of an individual generator. The damages sought by all the plaintiffs are the same. They want to be made whole and obtain reliable backup power. While the price of individual generators and installation may differ, this issue should not preclude predominance. On Oct. 18, 2024, the Plaintiffs initiated this products liability action against the Defendants, alleging the Plaintiffs suffered damages when they purchased defective home standby generators designed, manufactured, marketed, and distributed by the Defendants. On Dec. 29, 2025, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss in Part and denied the Motion to Dismiss in Part. The Court dismissed, with prejudice, all counts by the Florida plaintiffs with the exception of the count for Breach of Express Warranty. The Defendant designs, manufactures, and sells a wide range of generators. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FwyXwu at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Reginald J. Clyne, Esq. Kimare S. Dyer, Esq. Eddie L. Holiday III, 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 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 GLOBAL TEL LINK: Sencial et al. Sue Over Deceptive Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ Steven Sencial, Jeramie James, Thomas Fadden, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Global Tel Link Corp., d/b/a Viapath Technologies, Todd Stewart in official capacity, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00127-TBM-RPM (S.D. Miss., April 27, 2026) accuses violations of the Civil Rights Act. The Plaintiffs and class members have used money from their accounts to make phone calls via the wall phones and tablets. However, the Defendants committed unfair and deceptive practices by contracting for and allowing high rates and commissary charges for defective products they used for their inmate communication services. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek redress for Defendants' unlawful conduct and asserts several claims including unjust enrichment, unfair trade practices, and breach of contract. Global Tel Link is a California–based telecommunications company that provides Inmate Calling Services. [BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. GOOD FAITH: Faces Lasluisa Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------- CESAR ANIBAL MACAS LASLUISA, WALTER FABIAN QUISHPI GARCIA, MANUEL PALA TAPAY, DANILO I QUISHPI GARCIA, and EDWIN IVAN QUISHPI GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOOD FAITH BUILDERS LLC, and MUNDI BUSINESS AND RENTAL SERVICES, LLC, and PETER M. GHAZZAWI, and HUMBERTO PEIXOTO LOURENCO, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 7:26-cv-03175 (S.D.N.Y., April 17, 2026) seeks to recover damages for Defendants' egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to pay wages for all hours worked, failure to pay their wages owed on a weekly basis in which their wages were earned, failure to provide wage statements, and failure to furnish written wage notice. Plaintiff Lasluisa, residing in Brooklyn, New York, was employed by the Defendants from January 2025 until July 2025. Good Faith Builders LLC is a limited liability company with a principal executive office at 531 Ivy Avenue, Haworth, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 HALL GROUP: Underpays Company Employees, Lira Alleges ----------------------------------------------------- GILBERT LIRA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE HALL GROUP, INC., and HALL TANK COMPANY, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-00412-KGB (E.D. Ark., April 24, 2026) is a class and collective action against the Defendants for unlawfully denying wages for all hours worked and overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act ("AMWA"). The complaint relates that the Defendants violate the FLSA and the AMWA through unlawful timekeeping and payroll practices applied to non-exempt hourly employees, including: a) Failing to record and pay employees for all hours worked by crediting time based on scheduled shifts rather than actual clock-in and clock-out times, resulting in unpaid compensable pre-shift and post-shift work, and the suppression of straight-time and overtime hours through rounding, time-shaving, and time-editing practices; b) Failing to pay all overtime compensation owed by using practices that reduce or reallocate hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, including by "banking" hours worked in overtime weeks and later paying those hours at straight time rather than the required overtime premium; and c) Failing to maintain accurate time and payroll records and altering employee time entries, including through manual adjustments and payroll edits that reduce compensable time and conceal overtime owed. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated hourly-paid employees who elect to opt in to this action pursuant to the FLSA to recover unpaid overtime compensation unlawfully withheld by Defendants, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff also brings this action individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees, to recover unpaid straight-time and overtime wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as a result of Defendants' violations of the AMWA. Plaintiff GILBERT ALLEN LIRA has been employed by Defendants as an hourly-paid employee at Defendants' North Little Rock, Arkansas facility since at least July 2024, including in the role of Welder. Defendants operate manufacturing and fabrication facilities located in North Little Rock, Arkansas, where they produce industrial products, including fabricated tanks and related components.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Conlon, Esq. Michael Rinderman, Esq. BROWN,LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5279 E-mail: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com michael.rinderman@jtblawgroup.com HOME SERVICE: Bid to Certify Class in Gomez Terminated ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as GOMEZ v. HOME SERVICE NETWORK, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-16093 (D.N.J., Filed Sept. 29, 2025), the Hon. Judge Madeline Cox Arleo entered an order terminating Motion to Certify Class: By agreement of the parties as set forth in their April 27, 2026 letter, the Court will terminate the motion to certify without prejudice and stay formal proceedings, in order to allow the parties to pursue settlement. On or before June 29, 2026, the parties will file a joint status report concerning the progress of their settlement efforts. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Home Service is an authorized service provider for Samsung Electronics of America.[CC] IDAHO: Edney Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMILIE JACKSON-EDNEY, et al., v. RAUL LABRADOR, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Idaho, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-00261-AKB (D. Idaho), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The Plaintiffs have concurrently filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and provisional class certification, which references the class certification arguments advanced in the memorandum of law attached to this motion. The Plaintiffs ask that the Court consider the arguments in the accompanying memorandum in support of this motion when considering Plaintiffs' concurrently filed motion for a preliminary injunction and provisional class certification. Idaho is a northwestern U.S. state known for mountainous landscapes, and vast swaths of protected wilderness and outdoor recreation areas. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PgxchK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Emily Croston, Esq. Paul Southwick, Esq. ACLU OF IDAHO FOUNDATION Boise, ID 83701 Telephone: (208) 344-9750 E-mail: ecroston@acluidaho.org psouthwick@acluidaho.org - and - Barbara Schwabauer, Esq. Eleanor Matheson, Esq. Chase Strangio, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 915 15th Street N.W. Washington, DC 20005 E-mail: bschwabauer@aclu.org ematheson@aclu.org cstrangio@aclu.org - and - Samuel L. Linnet, Esq. ALTURAS LAW GROUP, PLLC 111 N 1st Avenue, Suite 2I, PO Box 2975 Hailey, ID 83333 Telephone: (208) 788-6688 E-mail: sam@alturaslawgroup.com - and - Peter C. Renn, Esq. Kell L. Olson, Esq. Tara L. Borelli, Esq. Pelecanos, Esq. A.D. Sean Lewis, Esq. Charlie Ferguson, Esq. LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, INC. 800 South Figueroa St., Suite 1260 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 382-7600 Facsimile: (855) 535-2236 E-mail: prenn@lambdalegal.org kolson@lambdalegal.org tborelli@lambdalegal.org pelecanos@lambdalegal.org alewis@lambdalegal.org cferguson@lambdalegal.org IHG MANAGEMENT: Class Certification Order Entered in Carpio ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AGUSTIN CARPIO, v. IHG MANAGEMENT MARYLAND LLC, et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-03208-FMO-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Olguin entered an order re motions for class certification. Any motion(s) for class certification shall comply with all Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules, as well as this Order. Please be advised that this Order contains requirements more specific than the Local Rules and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties shall work cooperatively to create a single, fully integrated joint brief covering each party's position, in which each issue (or sub-issue) raised by a party is immediately followed by the opposing party's/parties' response. IHG operates, manages, and provides services for various hotels. A copy of the Court's order dated April 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fO6SIL at no extra charge.[CC] IKEA NORTH: Terrill & Perez Sue Over Unlawful Tariff Costs ---------------------------------------------------------- PATRICK TERRILL and BRENDA PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. IKEA NORTH AMERICA SERVICES LLC, IKEA US RETAIL LLC, IKEA PROPERTY, INC., IKEA HOLDING US INC., INGKA HOLDING OVERSEAS B.V., and INGKA HOLDING B.V., Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02774-JS (E.D. Pa., April 27, 2026), concerns Defendants' practice of increasing consumer prices due to unlawful tariffs levied by the President pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants transferred unlawful IEEPA tariff costs onto them and the putative Class, causing them to pay inflated prices. Moreover, Plaintiffs seek to recover monetary damages for the unlawful tariff overcharges they paid pursuant to the illegal IEEPA tariffs. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek monetary damages in the amount of the unlawful IEEPA duties passed through to Plaintiffs and the putative Class in the form of elevated product prices. Headquartered in Conshohocken, PA, IKEA North America Services, LLC designs and sells ready-to-assemble furniture, household goods, and multiple various other related services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan Shub, Esq. Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. SHUB, JOHNS & HOLBROOK LLP Four Tower Bridge 200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 477-8380 E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com bjohns@shublawyer.com - and - Frederic S. Fox, Esq. Donald R. Hall, Esq. Hae Sung Nam, Esq. Aaron Schwartz, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 38th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 E-mail: FFox@kaplanfox.com DHall@kaplanfox.com HNam@kaplanfox.com ASchwartz@kaplanfox.com - and - Laurence D. King, Esq. 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1501 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 772-4700 Facsimile: (415) 772-4707 E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com IMPACT TECH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Navas and Goodfellow Say ---------------------------------------------------------------- NOAH NAVAS and JASON GOODFELLOW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. IMPACT TECH, INC., Defendant, Case No. CACE-26-006943 (Fla. Dist. Ct., 7th Judicial, Broward Cty., April 27, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs allege that Impact Tech misclassifies its account executives and business development representatives as exempt from the overtime pay provisions of the FLSA, not paying AES their overtime pay due for all hours in excess of 40 hours in any workweek, not compensating them for work performed during missed meal breaks, not providing meal and rest breaks, and failing to pay appropriate premiums. Headquartered in California, Impact Tech is an e-commerce and business operations software and services company. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alan L. Quiles, Esq. Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 622 Banyan Trail, Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447 E-mail: aquiles@shavitzlaw.com gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com INCYTE CORP: Faces Vrieze Class Suit Over Private Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- KATHERINE VRIEZE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INCYTE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00480-UNA (D. Del., April 27, 2026) arises out a recent data breach that has impacted thousands of Defendant's current and former employees as well as customers. The Defendant has not yet begun formal notification to class members, including to Plaintiff, despite the notorious ransomware cyberhacker, DragonForce, taking responsibility for the breach on or around April 23, 2026, and stating it would release all stolen information onto the dark web. Moreover, Defendant refused to tell its employees and customers how many people were impacted, how the breach happened, when it was discovered, or why Defendant delayed notifying victims that cybercriminals had gained access to their highly private information. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings five causes of action: negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and breach of fiduciary duty. Incyte Corporation is a biopharmaceutical company headquartered in Wilmington, DE. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dean R. Roland, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A. 1000 North West St., Suite 1500 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 984-3851 E-mail: droland@coochtaylor.com INSIGHT THERAPY: Abdullah Sues Over Illegal Tracking Technologies ----------------------------------------------------------------- XAVIER ABDULLAH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSIGHT THERAPY SOLUTIONS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04773 (N.D. Ill., April 27, 2026) arises out of Insight Therapy's unlawful use of third-party tracking technologies by AdTech companies such as Google LLC to surreptitiously intercept and disclose its patients' and prospective patients' highly sensitive protected health information and personally identifiable information to third parties without patients' knowledge or consent. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered numerous injuries, including: (i) invasion of medical privacy; (ii) lack of trust in communicating with medical providers; (iii) emotional distress and heightened concerns related to the release of sensitive health information to third parties, (iv) loss of benefit of the bargain; (v) diminution of value of the sensitive health information; (vi) statutory damages and (vii) continued and ongoing risk to their sensitive health information. Accordingly, Plaintiff now seeks to remedy these harms and asserts the following statutory and common law claims against Defendant: (i) violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act; (ii) Invasion of Privacy; (iii) Negligence; and (iv) Unjust Enrichment. Headquartered in Las Vegas, NV, Insight Therapy Solutions, LLC provides teletherapy and mental health services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David S. Almeida, Esq. Christopher M. Nienhaus, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (708) 529-5418 E-mail: david@almeidalawgroup.com chris@almeidalawgroup.com JIFFY ELITE: Faces Reina Suit Over Unpaid Wages and for Retaliation ------------------------------------------------------------------- YISEL REINA, on behalf of herself and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff v. JIFFY ELITE ENTERPRISES, LLC, d/b/a JIFFY ELITE MAIDS, CARLOS CASELY, individually, and DIANA CASELY, a/k/a DIANA GOMEZ, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-22666 (S.D. Fla., April 17, 2026) is an action against the Defendants to recover monetary damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages, and retaliation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. This cause of action is brought by Plaintiff as a collective action to recover from Defendants regular and overtime compensation, retaliatory discharge damages, liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of the FLSA, on behalf of Plaintiff and all other current and former employees similarly situated to Plaintiff, and who worked more than 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after March 2026, without being adequately compensated. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a non-exempt, full-time housekeeper and maintenance employee from approximately March 16, 2026 to March 30, 2026, or 2 weeks. She Jiffy Elite Enterprises, LLC is a maintenance and cleaning company offering residential cleaning, specialty cleaning and commercial cleaning services throughout South Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexis Mena-Glasgow, Esq. SIMPSON & MENA, P.A. 2250 SW Third Avenue, Suite 501 Miami, FL 33129 Telephone: (305) 912-7665 E-mail: alexis@simpsonmenalaw.com LINCOLN PROPERTY: Flint Files Suit Over Data Breach --------------------------------------------------- LAUREN FLINT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY COMMERCIAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01315-O (N.D. Tex., April 23, 2026) is a class action to hold Defendant responsible for disclosing Plaintiff's and Class Members sensitive, confidential personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information") to cybercriminals in a foreseeable, preventable data breach. The complaint relates that in exchange for receiving Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, Defendant promised to safeguard the sensitive, confidential data and use it only for authorized and legitimate purposes, and to delete such information from its systems once there was no longer a need to maintain it. On April 7, 2026, Defendant experienced a Data Breach, when the notorious ransomware gang "Incransom" gained access to its IT Network and extracted 800GB of data containing highly sensitive Private Information. As a result of Defendant's ineffective and inadequate data security practices, the resulting Data Breach, and the foreseeable consequences of their Private Information ending up in criminals' possession, the risk of identity theft to Plaintiff and Class Members has materialized and is imminent, and they have all sustained actual injuries and damages, including, without limitation, (a) invasion of privacy; (b) financial costs incurred mitigating the materialized risk and imminent threat of identity theft; (c) loss of time and loss of productivity incurred mitigating the materialized risk and imminent threat of identity theft; (d) financial costs incurred due to actual identity theft; (e) loss of time incurred due to actual identity theft; (f) deprivation of value of their Private Information; (g) loss of the benefit of their bargain with Defendant; (h) emotional distress including anxiety and stress in dealing with the Data Breach's aftermath; and (i) the continued risk to their sensitive Private Information, which remains in Defendant's possession and is subject to further unauthorized disclosures so long as Defendant fails to undertake appropriate and adequate measures to protect the Private Information it collects and maintains, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members seek damages and equitable relief requiring Defendant to (a) disclose the full nature of the Data Breach and types of Private Information exposed; (b) implement data security practices to reasonably guard against future breaches; and (c) provide, at Defendant's expense, all Data Breach victims with lifetime identity theft protection services. Plaintiff Lauren Flint is a former employee of Defendant. Defendant Lincoln Property Company Commercial, LLC is a global full-service real estate firm founded in 1965, specializing in investment, development, property management, and leasing for commercial and multifamily assets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 2626 Cole Avenue, Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: 305-479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com - and - Ken Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 65 Overhill Rd Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com LSA INTERNATIONAL: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Bahena Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY BAHENA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LSA INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-4755 (N.D. Ill., April 27, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://www.lsa-international.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Bahena and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Bahena's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bahena has made an attempt to complete a purchase on the Website on March 12, 2026. However, while navigating the Website using her screen reader software, she encountered multiple accessibility barriers that hindered her ability to complete the purchase. The Website contains access barriers that deny her full and equal access. As such, the Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Bahena and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of the Website in violation of the ADA and/or its implementing regulations, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff ASHLEY BAHENA is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant LSA INTERNATIONAL, INC. provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a wide selection of glassware, such as vases, drinking glasses, tumblers, planters, bowls, as well as other tableware and decorative interior accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 929-442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law MARATHON PETROLEUM: Johnson Seeks Leave to File Supplement ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STELLA JOHNSON, EDWENNIA PETTIGREW and SHAWN R. MOTON, v. MARATHON PETROLEUM CORPORATION, and MARATHON PETROLEUM COMPANY LP, Case No. 2:23-cv-04573-DJP-JVM (E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their ex parte motion for leave to supplement memorandum in support of motion for class certification only as it relates to the appointment of class counsel. Marathon is an American petroleum refining, marketing, and transportation company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JVPxWv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David W. Ardoin, Esq. Preston L. Hayes, Esq. Ryan P. Monsour, Esq. AMO TRIAL LAWYERS, LLC 3045 Ridgelake Dr. Metairie, LA 70002 Telephone: (985) 446-3333 Facsimile: (985) 446-3300 MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Can Modify Class Cert Briefing Schedule --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDA JONES, v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL INC., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01613-KKE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Evanson entered an order on motion to extend briefing schedule: 1) Finding good cause, the Court grants the Defendant's motion to modify the briefing schedule on class certification. 2) The deadlines for the Defendant to respond to the Plaintiff's class certification motion and for the Plaintiff to file a reply in support of its motion for class certification are vacated pending the Court's ruling on the Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint. The Court will re-set briefing deadlines on class certification upon ruling on the Plaintiff's motion to amend. 3) Though the Plaintiff filed a copy of her proposed amended complaint as an exhibit to her motion to amend, she does not provide a version that complies with this District's local rules. The Plaintiff is ordered to re-file a redlined version of the proposed amended complaint to the docket no later than May 5, 2026. Dated this 28th day of April, 2026. Marriott is a global hospitality company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pmvtTN at no extra charge.[CC] METROPOLITAN PEDIATRIC: Husman Sues Over Unprotected Private Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- RACHEL HUSMAN, on behalf of herself individually, and her minor child A.H., and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. METROPOLITAN PEDIATRIC SPECIALISTS P.A., Defendant., Case No. 27-CV-26-7058 (Minn. Dist. Ct., 4th Judicial, Hennepin Cty., April 27, 2026) arises out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant, which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information and protected health information. The ransomware group known as The Gentlemen claimed responsibility for a successful cyberattack on Defendant identified on April 8, 2026, during which threat actors infiltrated Defendant's systems and exfiltrated sensitive data. However, the Defendant failed to provide adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their private information was accessed by a third party. Moreover, the data breach has placed Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members at an increased risk of fraud and identity theft. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. Headquartered in Edina, MN, Metropolitan Pediatric Specialists P.A. provides pediatric healthcare. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 Facsimile: (612) 336-2940 E-mail: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Christopher E. Torres, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 E-mail: ctorres@eksm.com service@eksm.com MIMI GREEN: Anderson Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- LISA ANDERSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Mimi Green LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-4733 (N.D. Ill., April 27, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://www.shopmimigreen.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Anderson and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Anderson's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint relates that Anderson has made an attempt to complete a purchase on the Website on March 24, 2026. However, she encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from independently completing the order. The Website contains access barriers that deny full and equal access to Anderson. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Anderson and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of the Website in violation of the ADA and/or its implementing regulations, says the suit. Anderson seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff LISA ANDERSON is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Mimi Green LLC provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a wide variety of custom and handmade pet products, including personalized dog collars, martingale collars, leashes, harnesses, accessories such as bows and flowers, engraved nameplate and beaded collars, and dog tags.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N, Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 929-442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law MY GOALS: Bid for Class Certification in Brent Suit Due June 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brent v. My Goals Solutions Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-03584 (S.D.N.Y., Filed April 30, 2025), the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered an order as follows: -- The telephonic conference held on April 28, 2026, fact discovery is extended to May 29, 2026. -- Any applications relating to expert discovery are due May 29, 2026. -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification is due by June 30, 2026. -- Any opposition shall be filed by July 31, 2026. -- Any reply shall be filed by August 28, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). My Goals is the corporate entity behind Goals Aesthetics & Plastic Surgery, a cosmetic surgery provider with multiple locations.[CC] MYEYEDR OPTOMETRY: Espanol Suit Seeks FTSA Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BYRON ESPANOL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MYEYEDR. OPTOMETRY OF FLORIDA, LLC, Case No. 6:24-cv-01024-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order to: (1) certify a class under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA"), (2) appoint the Plaintiff as Class Representative; and (3) appoint the Plaintiff's counsel as Class Counsel. Upon the filing of this lawsuit and being confronted with its violations of the law, the Defendant pleaded ignorance. But the Defendant's purported ignorance does not negate that it repeatedly violated the law. Accordingly, the Plaintiff moves to certify the following Class of individuals who were sent Defendant's text message solicitations in violation of the FTSA: "All individuals in Florida who, since July 1, 2021, (1) received one or more "recall" text message from the Defendant; (2) that was sent utilizing the Braze, Inc. text messaging software; (3) after the individual requested to not receive text messages from the Defendant by responding with a "stop" or similar opt-out request; (4) where the "recall" messages were received by the individual more than 15 days after the opt-out request; and (5) where the person was re-subscribed to receive text messages via a rest application programming interface instruction to the Braze software after the opt-out request." The Plaintiff and the Class Members were subjected to the same "recall" text messages, and their claims rely on the same legal theory: that the Defendant violated the FTSA by continuing to send text message solicitations after they opted out. The Defendant operates over 862 optometry offices. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lcOxBW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 533-4092 E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com NEW YORK, NY: Class Cert. Filing in Miller Due March 22, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Miller, et al., v. City of New York, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00065 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Jan. 5, 2023), the Hon. Judge Pamela K. Chen entered an order on Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery: The deadline to initiate the anticipated class certification motion is March 22, 2027. The Plaintiffs shall serve their opening expert report(s) on the same date and shall confer with Defendants to set a reasonable expert discovery period. The parties are reminded that initiation of any dispositive motions, including the anticipated class certification motion, must be done in accordance with the individual rules of the assigned District Judge. The nature of suit states Civil Rights Act. New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean.[CC] NUTRIEN AG: Hatfield Sues Over Fertlizers' Price-Fixing Conspiracy ------------------------------------------------------------------ WALLACE HATFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC.; THE MOSAIC COMPANY; MOSAIC FERTILIZER, LLC; CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES NITROGEN, LLC; CF INDUSTRIES INC.; KOCH AG & ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER WEVER, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER BEATRICE, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER DODGE CITY, LLC; YARA NORTH AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1–20, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03233-KES-SKO (E.D. Cal., April 27, 2026), alleges that the Defendants conspired to fix the prices of fertilizers and limit their supply instead of competing fairly. The Plaintiff brings this action under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, on behalf of a class of American farmers and agricultural purchasers who directly purchased fertilizer products manufactured by Defendants at artificially inflated prices from January 1, 2021 through the present. Accordingly, the case seeks to hold Defendants accountable for the billions of dollars they unlawfully extracted from American agriculture, and to restore for the farmers the benefits of the competitive market conditions to which they are entitled under federal law. Headquartered in Loveland, CO, Nutrien Ag Solutions, Inc. is a subsidiary and the retail arm of Nutrien Ltd, a fertilizer manufacturing company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq. Carmen Medici, Esq. Daniel J. Brockwell, Esq. Bridget Fogarty Gramme, Esq. Heidi B. Weaver, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-4565 Facsimile: (619) 233-0508 E-mail: pcoughlin@scott-scott.com cmedici@scott-scott.com dbrockwell@scott-scott.com bgramme@scott-scott.com hweaver@scott-scott.com - and - Patrick McGahan, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 156 S Main Street P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Telephone: (860) 537-5537 Facsimile : (860) 537-4432 E-mail: pmcgahan@scott-scott.com - and - Christopher M. Burke, Esq. Amelia Burroughs, Esq. Yifan (Kate) Lv, Esq. Robin Stemen, Esq. BURKE LLP 402 West Broadway, Suite 1890 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 369-8244 E-mail: cburke@burke.law aburroughs@burke.law klv@burke.law rstemen@burke.law - and - Vincent Briganti, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com OFD FOODS: Thorne Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ BRAULIO THORNE, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. OFD FOODS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03423 (S.D.N.Y., April 25, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.mountainhouse.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on March 18, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Cheesy Beef Enchilada Bowl from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and visually-impaired consumers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the goods, and services Defendant offers to the public on its Website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff BRAULIO THORNE is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant, OFD FOODS, LLC, operates the Mountain House online retail store, as well as the Mountain House interactive Website that provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's: freeze dried foods, as well as other types of goods, pricing, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and internet pricing specials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212-228-9795 Facsimile: 212-982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.lega OFFICE DEPOT: Must File Class Cert Bid Response by May 15 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW JAMES MCGONIGLE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. OFFICE DEPOT, LLC, Case No. 9:25-cv-80069-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Dimitrouleas entered an order as follows: 1. The Defendant's motion for extension of time to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is granted. 2. The deadline for the Defendant to file a response is extended to May 15, 2026. The Defendant is an office supply retailer. A copy of the Court's order dated April 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CrXJGm at no extra charge.[CC] ONE SOURCE MEDICAL: Bullard Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI ----------------------------------------------------------------- Beatriz Bullard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ONE SOURCE MEDICAL GROUP, LLC, Case No. 8:26-cv-01247 (M.D. Fla., April 28, 2026), is brought on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI") (collectively "Private Information") that was impacted in a data breach (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"), arising 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 7, 2026, Defendant experienced unauthorized access to its IT Network that resulted in the exfiltration of data stored on the IT Network. The Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' Private Information secure. The Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. The Defendant, despite having the financial wherewithal and personnel necessary to prevent the Data Breach, nevertheless failed to use reasonable security procedures and practice appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information it maintained for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff's personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach. The Defendant is an ACHC-accredited supplier of durable medical equipment and supplies, specializing in diabetes management, enteral nutrition, and incontinence products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tonyia J. Johnson, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: tjohnson@shamisgentile.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com OP PHARMACY: Russo Must File Supplement to Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Russo v. OP Pharmacy, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00649-RGJ (W.D. Ky.), the Court entered an order that the Plaintiffs shall supplement their motion with additional briefing regarding the likelihood of class certification. The Plaintiffs have shown that the value of the proposed relief is likely adequate when compared to other settlements in the context of data breach class actions. Further, the Plaintiffs have provided further elaboration regarding the likelihood that the putative class would succeed on their claims. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have shown the proposed relief is likely adequate and thus this factor supports granting preliminary approval. The Settlement Agreement provides that OnePoint will pay $2,115,000 into a nonreversionary common fund. The Plaintiffs are individuals who allege that their private information was exposed in a data breach as a result of the Defendant failing to sufficiently protect their information. The Defendant is a Kentucky-based pharmacy and pharmacy benefits manager specializing in hospice care. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated April 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QhJEAA at no extra charge.[CC] OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend LCG Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Oppenheimer 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 May 1, 2026, that it is involved in a putative class action entitled "Liberty Capital Group, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Oppenheimer Holdings Inc., Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., and Oppenheimer Asset Management Inc.," filed on June 6, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff's complaint purports to represent customers who had cash deposits or balances in the Advantage Bank Deposit (ABD) program and alleges that the company paid customers unreasonably low interest rates in the ABD program, seeking unspecified damages. The plaintiff alleges breaches of the terms and conditions of the ABD program and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duties, violation of New York General Business Law (GBL), negligence, negligent misrepresentations and unjust enrichment. On August 8, 2025, Oppenheimer filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on a number of grounds. On October 4, 2025, the court issued an order dismissing Oppenheimer Holdings Inc. and Oppenheimer Asset Management Inc. from the case, and granting in part and denying in part Oppenheimer's motion to dismiss. Specifically, Oppenheimer's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty for non-advisory clients, unjust enrichment, negligence and negligent misrepresentation was granted, while the motion to dismiss causes of action for breach of the terms and conditions and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty for advisory clients and violation of the GBL was denied. On October 21, 2025, the plaintiff moved for class certification, which Oppenheimer opposed. On December 8, 2025, the court issued its decision granting class certification on the plaintiff's causes of action for breach of the terms and conditions and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the GBL, holding that the plaintiff did not have standing to assert a class claim for breach of fiduciary duty but granting the plaintiff leave to amend the complaint by December 22, 2025 to include a plaintiff with standing. The plaintiff did not amend its complaint. On December 22, 2025, Oppenheimer filed a petition for permission to appeal the decision granting class certification with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which petition is currently pending. On March 30, 2026, Oppenheimer and the plaintiff each filed a motion for summary judgment, which motions are currently pending. The case was scheduled for trial commencing in June 2026, and both the petition for permission to appeal and the motions for summary judgment are being held in abeyance by the Court of Appeals and the District Court respectively, pending the approval of a settlement of the class action cash sweep litigation. The company has recorded a $70 million pre-tax legal accrual related to the settlement of this previously disclosed class action cash sweep litigation, and non-compensation expenses significantly increased from the prior year quarter primarily due to higher legal costs associated with the settlement of this cash sweep class action litigation. It has also presented certain non-GAAP financial measures that adjust net income and earnings per share to exclude the expense associated with the settlement of the class action cash sweep litigation because management does not view this as ordinary-course litigation for the company given the nature of the claims and the manner in which the action was brought. Oppenheimer Holdings Inc. is a middle-market investment bank and full-service broker-dealer that provides a range of wealth management, securities brokerage, and investment banking services. The company serves retail, high-net-worth, institutional, and corporate clients primarily in the United States. OPTUMRX INC: Bid to Stay LDS Suit Partly OK'd Pending Arbitration ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LACKIE DRUG STORE, INC., V. OPTUMRX, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-01515-JM (E.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge James Moody Jr. entered an order as follows: -- granting Lackie Drug Store's motion to compel, -- granting in part and denying in part OptumRx's motion to stay pending arbitration and to deny class certification, -- denying Lackie's motion for sanctions, -- denying OptumRx's motion to compel discovery responses, and -- denying Lackie's motion to dismiss Counts IV and V of the third amended complaint Lackie's motion to compel and enforce subpoena is moot. The motion to quash filed by Peter J. Kounelis is moot. The Court will enter a new scheduling order setting the trial date for September of 2027. The Court finds that the motion to dismiss must be denied. Rule 41(a) is applicable only to the voluntary dismissal of all claims against the defendant. Further, the Plaintiff has failed to provide any reason for the dismissal or explanation as to how the dismissal will ensure substantial justice to both parties. The Defendant operates as a pharmacy management company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JgP6YJ at no extra charge.[CC] OREGON: Plaintiffs Win Bid for Provisional Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as S.D. and J.F., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. MIKE REES; RYAN LEGORE; JEREMY WAGNER; MARK NOOTH; AARON REYES; JOHN DOES 1-5; and STATE OF OREGON, by and through the Oregon Department of Corrections, Case No. 6:25-cv-01726-CL (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Clarke entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for provisional certification of a Rule 23 class and motion for preliminary injunction. The preliminary injunction shall remain in place for 90 days, and it may be renewed on a motion by the Plaintiffs. The Defendants shall immediately begin implementing the class-wide relief, re-assessing the housing placements of every transgender AIC currently in custody, as well as those entering ODOC custody from this date forward. The parties shall confer about the implementation of this Order, and a Joint Status Report is due every 30 days, updating the Court as to the progress being made towards implementation. The Clerk shall schedule a telephonic status conference with the parties for the purpose of scheduling an in-person evidentiary hearing and setting further case deadlines The Plaintiffs do not seek any specific, individual housing placement. They seek class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief that will govern ODOC's treatment of all transgender women in its custody by requiring individualized housing and safety assessments, presumptively gender consistent placement, access to safe, non-punitive alternatives; and implementation of basic PREA and gender-affirming safeguards. The case is brought by Plaintiffs, S.D. and J.F., individually and on behalf of a putative class of all current and future transgender women in Oregon Department of Corrections ("ODOC") custody. The Plaintiffs assert that ODOC has failed to protect transgender women in its custody from sexual and physical violence, and the threat of such violence, and Plaintiffs attribute this failure to ODOC's practice of housing transgender women in men's prisons under conditions that are dangerous, degrading, and inconsistent with their legal gender. Oregon is a state in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated April 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hJI50N at no extra charge.[CC] PETMED EXPRESS: Cobbs Seeks to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTIN COBBS and LYNNE KAWAMINAMI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PETMED EXPRESS, INC., Case No. 9:25-cv-80458-AMC (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs and the Defendant ask the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiffs leave to file under seal the unredacted version of the motion for class certification and the exhibits. The Plaintiffs intend to attach their expert report as an exhibit to their forthcoming motion for class certification. In arriving at his conclusions, the Plaintiffs' expert, Nathan Good, cites and quotes presentations and email correspondences discussing the way in which PetMeds has configured its website. Because the report addresses many of the same types of information discussed in this Motion, and because Plaintiffs intend to rely upon those portions of the report, the report should be filed under seal. The Plaintiffs also intend to attach a document, PETMEDS-TWM-004390, as an exhibit to its forthcoming motion for class certification. This document reflects the way in which PetMeds manages tracking technologies, including those unrelated to this litigation. In order to maintain the confidentiality of this document in the least restrictive way possible, the Parties propose redacting reference to technology not at issue in this case. On Nov. 3, 2025, the Court granted in part and denied in part PetMeds' motion for a stipulated protective order. The Defendant is a direct-to-consumer pet pharmacy. A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=E3feOG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher R. Reilly, Esq. Michael A. Pineiro, Esq. MARCUS RASHBAUM PINEIRO & MEYER LLP One Biscayne Tower 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 2530 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 400-4260 E-mail: creilly@mrpfirm.com mpineiro@mrpfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Jennifer A. McLoone, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. Citigroup Center, Suite 3200 201 South Biscayne Blvd. Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 358-5171 E-mail: jmcloone@shb.com PETMED EXPRESS: Seeks Clarification on Class Cert Order in Cobbs ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTIN COBBS, LYNNE KAWAMINAMI, and LORETTA SCHWEINSBURG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PETMED EXPRESS, INC., Case No. 9:25-cv-80458-AMC (S.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion for clarification as to the effect of the Court's paperless Order relating to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. PetMeds seeks clarification as to whether the Court's paperless Order was intended to allow the Plaintiffs an opportunity to substantively revise and amend their motion for class Certification including the addition of new and different exhibits. PetMeds seeks clarification of this issue now so that the Parties and the Court do not unnecessarily expend resources in either preparing a response to a Motion that will be amended, or in ruling on sealing the Plaintiffs' new exhibits if such were not contemplated by the Court. The Plaintiffs have brought the present class action lawsuit against PetMeds for alleged injuries the Plaintiffs suffered as a result of certain ubiquitous analytics and advertising technology allegedly installed on PetMeds’ website, 1800petmeds.com. The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification in redacted form at midnight on April 22, 2026. The Defendant is a direct-to-consumer pet pharmacy. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=L2XxXp at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Jennifer A. McLoone, Esq. Melissa N. Madsen, Esq. Ara K. Ayvazian, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. Citigroup Center, Suite 3200 201 South Biscayne Blvd. Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 358-5171 E-mail: jmcloone@shb.com mmadsen@shb.com aayvazian@shb.com PRECIPIO INC: Ballard Sues Over Failure to Secure PII and PHI ------------------------------------------------------------- Karen Ballard, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. PRECIPIO, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-00656 (DD. Conn., April 28, 2026), is brought against Precipio for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI"), including their names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, medical record numbers, patient account numbers, medical information, prescription information, health insurance information, addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses (collectively, "Private Information"), from criminal hackers, resulting in a massive and preventable data breach. Based on the Notice sent to Plaintiff and Class Members, unusual activity was detected on some of its cloud-based storage systems. In response, Defendant launched an investigation. Precipio's investigation revealed that an unauthorized party had access to certain files that contained sensitive patient information, and that such access took place on or around November 23, 2025 (the "Data Breach"). Yet, Precipio waited approximately 5 months to notify the victims that they were at risk. As a result of this delayed response, Plaintiff and Class Members had no idea for months that their Private Information had been compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. The risk will remain for their respective lifetimes. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit to address Precipio's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that it collected and maintained, and its failure to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and Class Members of the types of information that were accessed, and that such information was subject to unauthorized access by cybercriminals, says the complaint. The Plaintiff received a Notice from Defendant informing her that her Private Information was compromised in the Data Breach. Precipio, based in New Haven, Connecticut, is a hematopathology diagnostics laboratory that serves hundreds of patients in multiple states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 100 Pearl Street 14th Floor - #16946876 Hartford, CT 06103 Phone: (929) 677-5181 Email: ofaircloth@sirillp.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Kennedy M. Brian, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 101 Park Ave. Suite 1300, #16982799 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Phone: (929) 677-5144 Phone: (929) 376-5170 Email: tbean@sirillp.com kbrian@sirillp.com - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE First Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, Florida 33132 Phone: 917-628-5842 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com PROVIDENCE HOMEOWNERS: Class Cert. Hearing Set for June 8 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEWANNA JOHNSON, ET AL. V. PROVIDENCE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, ET AL., Case No. 4:25-cv-00418-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Amos Mazzant entered an order setting the Class Certification Hearing case for 1:30 p.m. on Monday, June 8, 2026, at the Paul Brown United States Courthouse, 101 E. Pecan Street, Sherman, TX 75090. Providence governs over 2,250 homes in the town of Providence Village, a suburb about an hour north of Dallas. A copy of the Court's order dated April 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VQ8ReJ at no extra charge.[CC] RAC ENTERPRISES: Bowman Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Tanisia Bowman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Rac Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-04796 (N.D. Ill., April 28, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://www.worldwidestereo.com/ (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website") to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Wood and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the Website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a range of home theater receivers and amplifiers, speakers and subwoofers, turntables and vinyl accessories, headphones and portable audio, televisions and projectors, car and marine audio systems, and related cables, mounts, and furniture.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 4903 Avenue N, Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 929-442-2154 Email: Achan@ealg.law REDDIT INC: Faces Securities Class Actions in California -------------------------------------------------------- Reddit, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated April 30, 2026 and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2026, that in June 2025, the company and certain of its officers and directors were named as defendants in a securities class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers or acquirers of its securities, alleging that Reddit made false or misleading statements and omissions concerning the impact of Google Search and its AI Overviews feature on its business. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. Additionally, shareholder derivative complaints with similar allegations were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, its directors, and members of its senior management. No responses to these complaints have been filed. Reddit, Inc. operates a global social media and online community platform organized around user-generated content, discussion forums, and interest-based communities, generating revenue primarily through advertising and emerging data and licensing partnerships. RISINGER BROS: Class Cert Response in Contreras Extended to May 18 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Contreras v. Risinger Bros Transfer Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01441 (C.D. Ill., Filed Oct. 27, 2025), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered an order granting Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re Motion to Certify Class. -- Responses due by May 18, 2026 The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendant transports refrigerated, food grade, and dry goods freight.[CC] ROYALTON ON THE GREENS: Orgera Bid for Class Cert. Tossed --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Orgera v. Royalton on the Greens, LLC et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00590 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Feb. 3, 2025), the Hon. Judge Steven Tiscione entered an order on motion for extension of time to file order on motion to certify class. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied for failure to comply with this Court's individual rules. Specifically, Rule III(3), this Court's bundling rule, states "No motion papers may be filed until the motion has been fully briefed. The initial movant is responsible for filing all of the motion and cross-motion papers on the date the reply brief is scheduled to be filed or the return date in the approved briefing schedule, whichever is later." Accordingly, Plaintiff is directed to re-file the motion once it has been fully briefed in compliance with Rule III(3). Plaintiff is further reminded to provide this Court with courtesy copies in compliance with Individual Rule III(4) once the fully briefed motion has been filed. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Royalton is a country club wedding venue in Melville, New York.[CC] RUNWAY BLUE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Fagnani Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- MYKAYLA FAGNANI, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. RUNWAY BLUE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03143 (S.D.N.Y., April 17, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.owalalife.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on February 25, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Starter Pack Bundle from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public; and that denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the goods, and services of the Website by being unable to purchase a Starter Pack Bundle, as well as other products available online and to ascertain information relating to Defendant's: water bottles, tumblers, and coffee mugs, as well as other types of goods, pricing, privacy policies and internet pricing specials. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and visually-impaired consumers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the goods, and services Defendant offers to the public on its Website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff MYKAYLA FAGNANI is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant RUNWAY BLUE, LLC operates the Owala Life online retail store, as well as the Owala Life interactive Website that provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's: water bottles, tumblers, and coffee mugs, as well as other types of goods, pricing, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and internet pricing specials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212.228.9795 Facsimile: 212.982.6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal SALIMETRICS LLC: Harris Sues Over Unsecured Sensitive Information ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANGELIQUE HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SALIMETRICS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-01101-MWB (M.D. Pa., April 27, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information and protected health information, resulting in a devastating data breach. In or around April 2026, the Defendant's computer systems were reportedly compromised by Akira ransomware group, resulting in the theft and exfiltration of highly sensitive PII and PHI. The Defendant has failed to individually notify victims of the data breach that their private information has been compromised by the said ransomware group. Moreover, the Defendant has not offered an assurance that all personal data or copies of data have been recovered or destroyed, or that Defendant has adequately enhanced its data security practices sufficiently to avoid a similar breach of its network in the future. Salimetrics, LLC is a biotechnology research company headquartered in State College, PA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com SAMPSON BLADEN: Gbete Amended Bid for Class Cert. Tossed -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEANNE L YLIANE GBETE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, V. SAMPSON BLADEN OIL COMPANY, INC. d/b/a/ Han-Dee Hugo's, Case No. 5:23-cv-00355-BO-KS (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Boyle entered an order denying the plaintiff's amended motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel. The Plaintiff seeks certification of a class with the following class definitions: Proposed Misclassified Store Manager Class: "All individuals who were, are, or will be employed at the Defendant SBOC or Han-Dee Hugo's North Carolina gas stations and/or convenience stores who worked as store managers or in similar positions within the past two (2) years preceding June 26, 2023 through the date of judgment or final disposition in this action, who were mis-classified as salaried, overtime-exempt, because they had no hiring/firing authority or were subject to deductions for short days worked thereby treated as hourly employees, during at least one (1) workweek within two (2) years prior to the commencement of this action, through the present." Proposed Overtime Shaving Class (Misclassified Store Managers): "All individuals who were, are, or will be employed at the Defendant SBOC or Han-Dee Hugo's North Carolina gas stations and/or convenience stores who worked as store managers or in similar positions within the past two (2) years preceding June 26, 2023 through the date of judgment or final disposition in this action, who were misclassified as salaried overtime-exempt because they had no hiring/firing authority or were subject to deductions for short days worked thereby treated as hourly employees, and time records through February 2022 demonstrate they worked in excess of 40 hours per week but pay records demonstrate they were not paid earned and accruing promised overtime wages consistent with the Defendant's handbook (for non-exempt hourly employees) during at least one (1) workweek within two (2) years prior to the commencement of this action, through the present." Proposed Overtime Off the Clock ("OTC") Class (Misclassified Store Managers): "All individuals who were, are, or will be employed at the Defendant SBOC or Han-Dee Hugo's North Carolina gas stations and/or convenience stores who worked as store managers within the past two (2) years preceding June 26, 2023 through the date of judgment or final disposition in this action, who were misclassified as salaried overtime-exempt because they had no hiring/firing authority or were subject to deductions for short days worked thereby treated as hourly employees, and who work(ed) a minimum of 45 hours per week consistent with the Defendant's handbook but were/are not allowed to clock in and clock out to report their actual hours worked post-February 2022 and thus not paid their earned and accruing promised overtime wages consistent with Defendant's handbook during at least one (1) workweek within two (2) years prior to the commencement of this action, through the present." Proposed Straight-Time Shaving Class (Misclassified Store Managers): "All individuals who were, are, or will be employed at the Defendant SBOC or Han-Dee Hugo's North Carolina gas stations and/or convenience stores who worked as store managers within the past two (2) years preceding June 26, 2023 through the date of judgment or final disposition in this action, who were misclassified as salaried overtime-exempt because they had no hiring/firing authority or were subject to deductions for short days worked thereby treated as hourly employees, and during pre and post February 2022, pay records demonstrate they were not paid earned and accruing promised straight-time wages for hour worked either up to or in excess of 40 hours per week consistent with the Defendant's handbook (non-exempt hourly employees) during at least one (1) workweek within two (2) years prior to the commencement of this action, through the present." Sampson is a family owned full-line petroleum & petrochemical marketer. A copy of the Court's order dated April 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a9lJCP at no extra charge.[CC] SHRINERS HOSPITAL: Fact Discovery Must be Completed by Nov. 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERNESTO MARTINEZ, SR., v. SHRINERS HOSPITAL FOR CHILDREN, Case No. 2:25-cv-02355-DC-CSK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dena Coggins entered an amended scheduling order as follows: -- All fact discovery shall be completed no later than Nov. 30, 2026. -- All expert discovery shall be completed no later than March 1, 2027. -- The Plaintiff's anticipated motion for class certification shall be filed on or before Jan. 4, 2027. Any opposition by the Defendant shall be filed no later than Feb. 15, 2027. The Plaintiff may file a reply in support of his motion for class certification by no later than March 15, 2027. The Defendant is a network of non-profit children's hospitals and other pediatric medical facilities across North America. A copy of the Court's order dated April 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ICOjSu at no extra charge.[CC] SIGNATURE LANDSCAPE: Loses Bid to Decertify FLSA Collective ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROGELIO GARCIA VALDEZ, ET AL., v. SIGNATURE LANDSCAPE, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-02276-TC (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Toby Crouse entered an order as follows: 1. Signature's motion to decertify the FLSA Collective is denied. 2. The plaintiffs' motion for Rule 23 Class Certification is granted. The following class is certified under Rule 23(b)(3): "All landscape laborers who performed work in Missouri for Signature Landscape, LLC and were not paid overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek during the class period." The class period extends three years prior to the filing of Doc. 217. Valdez is appointed as class representative. Brendan Donelon (Donelon, P.C.) and Ashley Atwell-Soler (Holman Schiavone LLC) are appointed as class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g). Class notice shall issue in accordance with Rule 23(c)(2)(B). The parties shall meet and confer and submit a proposed notice plan within 21 days of this Memorandum and Order. 3. The plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on QuasiEstoppel is denied. 4. Signature's motion for summary judgment is denied in its entirety. 5. By no later than May 5, 2026, counsel for the parties should contact Chambers to discuss scheduling of a status conference the impact of this Memorandum and Order on the forthcoming trial. The Defendant is a family-owned landscaping and snow removal service provider. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated April 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=L2qyxb at no extra charge.[CC] SOUTHERN GLAZER'S: Snipes Suit Remanded to Alameda County --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANANIAS SNIPES, v. SOUTHERN GLAZER'S WINE AND SPIRITS, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-10692-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick entered an order that SGWS's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted as to plaintiffs' PAGA claim for failure to timely pay wages, but denied as to the rest: -- The Plaintiffs' motion to remand is granted. -- The case is remanded to the Alameda County Superior Court. -- All case deadlines and hearings are vacated. -- The Clerk is instructed to remand this file. Because the statute expressly differs from the pay schedule set forth in the CBA, I will DISMISS plaintiffs' PAGA claim under Section 204. In light of Renteria-Hinojosa, SGWS’s argument that the grievance and arbitration procedures preclude consideration of plaintiffs’ complaint is unavailing. I DECLINE to dismiss the complaint on these ground Snipes originally filed this putative class action in Alameda County Superior Court on October 23, 2025, alleging various violations of California’s Labor and Business Code. The Defendant is a distributor for wines, spirits, beer, and non-alcoholic products in the U.S. and Canada. A copy of the Court's order dated April 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZuoZSe at no extra charge.[CC] SOUTHSTATE BANK: Settlement Reached in Cyber Incident Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- SouthState Bank 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 May 1, 2026, that the parties agreed to a settlement of a putative class action lawsuit, subject to court approval, under which the company has agreed to fund documented losses, pay attorneys' fees and administration costs, and pay credit monitoring fees, and the settlement is expected to be paid from the company's cyber insurance coverage. Action was filed against the SouthState on April 3, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, purportedly on behalf of a class consisting of those persons impacted by a cybersecurity incident that was detected on February 6, 2024 and previously reported in a Form 8-K filed with the SEC on February 9, 2024. The plaintiff asserted a variety of common law and statutory claims seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief, and other related relief related to the potential unauthorized access by third parties to personally identifiable information. While the Original Suit was voluntarily dismissed, the same plaintiffs, as well as additional plaintiffs, initiated litigation that names the Bank as a defendant. These cases have been consolidated into one putative class action, which, as of March 31, 2026, remains pending against the Bank in the Circuit Court for Polk County, Florida. SouthState Bank Corp is a financial holding company and bank headquartered in the Southeastern United States, providing a range of retail, commercial, and wealth management banking services to consumers and businesses. TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: UFCW Class Suit Transferred to E.D. Pa. --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as UFCW LOCAL 1500 WELFARE FUND, et al., v., TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-10030-JHR-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Moses entered an order granting Takeda's motion to transfer venue. The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1404(a). I have found that four factors weigh in favor of transfer to the EDPA – trial efficiency; the locus of the operative facts; the convenience of witnesses; and the availability of process to compel unwilling witnesses – while all of the other factors are neutral. On balance, therefore, I conclude that "transfer is appropriate." The Plaintiffs allege that Takeda, which sells the name-brand gout medication Colcrys, conspired with three generic manufacturers, including defendant Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC (Amneal), to coordinate the timing of the generic manufacturers' market entry, restrict the supply of generic alternatives, and thereby preserve the drug's high prices. As a result of this alleged anti-competitive scheme, the TPPs paid artificially inflated prices for both the name-brand drug and its generic alternatives. Takeda provides pharmaceutical services. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated April 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=f6mxvm at no extra charge.[CC] TATE & KIRLIN: Fitch Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages -------------------------------------------------------- KAREEM FITCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. TATE & KIRLIN ASSOCIATES INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03158 (S.D.N.Y., April 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for damages resulting from Tate & Kirlin Associates Inc.'s placement of debt collection text messages to Plaintiff's cellular phone after Plaintiff notified Defendant in writing that he wished Defendant to cease further communications with Plaintiff, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The complaint relates that as part of its debt collection operations, Defendant sends consumers multiple debt collection text messages in an attempt to collect alleged debts, even after consumers have communicated in writing that they do not wish to receive further communications. After receiving a series of debt collection messages from Defendant attempting to collect alleged debts owed to a third party, Plaintiff notified Defendant in writing that he wished Defendant to cease further debt collection text messages. Nonetheless, Defendant continued to send Plaintiff debt collection text messages after Plaintiff communicated his desire to cease further communications, says the suit. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of Plaintiff and the Class members. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Plaintiff seeks relief for himself, and all others similarly situated for Defendant's unlawful behavior. Plaintiff KAREEM FITCH is one of the Defendant's consumers. Defendant Tate & Kirlin Associates Inc. is a nationwide debt collector.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com TESLA INC: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Jackson Says ------------------------------------------------------ DIONNE JACKSON and JONATHAN LUIS LOPEZ, on behalf of the general public as private attorney general, Plaintiffs v. TESLA, INC., a Texas Corporation; MANPOWERGROUP US INC., a Wisconsin Corporation, MANPOWERGROUP TALENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26CV183054 (Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Cal., April 17, 2026) is a class action for recovery of penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"). The complaint relates that as Defendants' employee, Plaintiffs, and all other aggrieved employees were regularly required to and subsequently suffered: a) to perform work subject to the control of the employer without being compensated all wages including overtime, all in violation of California labor laws, regulations, and the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order ("IWC"); b) not provided first and second meal periods nor paid premium wages; c) not provided rest periods nor paid premium wages; d) subjected to unlawful deduction of wages; e) not paid sick pay; f) not provided suitable seating; g) not provided safe warehouse conditions; h) not paid timely upon separation; i) not paid reimbursement for necessary business expenses; j) not paid timely during employment; k) and not provided accurate itemized wage statements. The Defendants willfully failed to pay all earned wages to its Non-Exempt Employees and members of the Representative Group; nor have Defendants returned to Plaintiffs or members of the Representative Group, upon or after separation from employment with Defendants, all wages earned and owing. In this case, Defendants violated various provisions of the California Labor Code. The Defendants implemented policies and practices which led to unpaid wages resulting from Defendant's: (a) failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, (b) failure to provide meal periods, (c) failure to provide rest periods, (d) failure to pay wages timely during employment, (e) failure to pay wages timely upon separation, (f) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, (g) failure to accurately pay and record sick pay, (h) failure to provide suitable seating, (i) unlawful deduction of wages, (j) failure to provide safe ware house conditions in compliance with wage order 15, and (k) failure to reimburse necessary business expenses, says the suit. As a result Plaintiffs seeks penalties under Labor Code on behalf of the general public as private attorney general and all other aggrieved employees. Plaintiff DIONNE JACKSON was employed by Defendants during 2022 as a Non-Exempt Employee with the title of Forklift Driver and Material Handler and worked during the liability period for Defendants, at Defendants' Fremont, California location until Plaintiff's separation from Defendants' employ in January 2026. Plaintiff JONATHAN LUIS LOPEZ was employed by Defendants during December 2014 as a Non-Exempt Employee with the title of Equipment Maintenance Technician and worked during the liability period for Defendants, at Defendants' Lathrop, California location until Plaintiff's separation from Defendants' employ in October 2025. Defendant TESLA, INC., is a Texas Corporation that operates as an automotive and clean energy company. Defendant operates nationwide. Defendant MANPOWERGROUP US INC. is a Wisconsin Corporation that operates as a staffing company. Defendant, MANPOWERGROUP TALENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, is a Delaware Limited Liability Company that operates as a staffing company. DOES 1 through 5 are the fictitiously named Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Gregory Mauro, Esq. Michael Calvo, Esq. Lauren Falk, Esq. Ava Issary, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-7200 Facsimile: (949) 387-6676 E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com E-mail: Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com E-mail: Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com E-mail: Lauren@jameshawkinsaplc.com E-mail: Ava@jameshawkinsaplc.com TRANS UNION: Kaplan Wins Bid to Certify Class --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESLEY KAPLAN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02438-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Beetlestone entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify class. The following class is certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: "All consumers in the United States and its Territories to whom the Defendant sent a "Letter 775," similar in form to the one it sent the Plaintiff on Oct. 14, 2023 denying her block request, from two years before filing of the Complaint until the date of any class certification Order in this matter." The Plaintiff Lesley Kaplan shall serve as the class representative; and the law firm of Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C. shall serve as class counsel. The Court further entered an order that the parties are to meet and confer and submit a proposed form of notice for the Court's approval within 14 days upon entry of this order so that the best practicable notice under the circumstances may be given to the class members. The Defendant is a global credit reporting agency and information insights company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=leN6We at no extra charge.[CC] TRANSPERFECT TRANSLATIONS: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due April 5, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HANIEH IRAVANIAN, behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. TRANSPERFECT TRANSLATIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-09157-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Tigar entered an order adopting the proposed schedule: Fact discovery cut-off: March 1, 2027 Class certification motion and the April 5, 2027 Plaintiffs' expert disclosures due: Class certification opposition and the May 19, 2027 Defendants’ expert disclosures due: Expert discovery cut-off: Aug. 6, 2027 Class certification reply due: June 30, 2027 TransPerfect is an American translation and language services company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UNCIvL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Grainne Callan, Esq. GRAINNE CALLAN, ESQ. 1030 E. El Camino Real #374 Sunnyvale, CA 94087 Telephone: (408) 982-6224 - and - Hunter Pyle, Esq. Katie Fiester, Esq. Daniel Brome, Esq. HUNTER PYLE LAW, PC 505 14th Street, Suite 600 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 444-4400 Facsimile: (510) 444-4410 E-mail: hunter@hunterpylelaw.com; kfiester@hunterpylelaw.com dbrome@hunterpylelaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Steve L. Hernández, Esq. Robert R. Yap, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 2000 Avenue of the Stars Suite 400, North Tower Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 595-3000 Facsimile: (310) 595-3300 E-mail: steve.hernandez@us.dlapiper.com robert.yap@us.dlapiper.com TRINITY OPERATING: Fails to Pay Natural Gas Royalties, Sadie Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sadie Wilkes LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Trinity Operating (USG), LLC; and WSGP Gas Producing, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 6:26-cv-00124-JAR (E.D. Okla., April 24, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants concerning Defendants' actual, knowing, and willful underpayment or non-payment of royalties on natural gas and constituent products, including natural gas liquids, through improper accounting methods and by failing to account for and pay royalties as required by the applicable agreements and Oklahoma law. Defendants are in the business of producing and marketing natural gas and constituent products, including natural gas liquids, from oil-and-gas wells operated by Trinity in Oklahoma. Plaintiff Sadie Wilkes LLC owns royalty interests in Trinity-operated oil-and-gas wells located in Hughes County, Oklahoma. The complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff the required royalty on gas and its constituents, and misrepresented information on check stubs. The Defendants breached the terms of the leases by their actions in underpaying royalty or not paying royalty on all products sold from the gas stream, including as a result of gathering, compressing, dehydrating, transporting, and processing and the failure to completely compensate Subclass members for gas used as fuel off the lease premises. As a result of Defendants' breaches, Plaintiff has been damaged through underpayment of the actual amounts due, says the suit. The Plaintiff, is therefore, entitled to the actual damages caused by Defendants' breaches, and as well as statutory interest and other allowable damages imposed by Oklahoma law.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reagan E. Bradford, Esq. Ryan K. Wilson, Esq. BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC 431 W. Main Street, Suite D Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 698-2770 E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com ryan@bradwil.com TRUIST FINANCIAL: Court Certifies Class in Overdraft Fee Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Truist Financial 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 May 1, 2026, that a class action case was filed in Fulton County State Court on July 12, 2010, and an amended complaint was filed on August 9, 2010. Plaintiff alleged that all overdraft fees charged to his account which related to debit card and ATM transactions are actually interest charges and therefore subject to the usury laws of Georgia. The amended complaint asserts claims for violations of civil and criminal usury laws, conversion, and money had and received, and seeks damages on a class-wide basis, including refunds of challenged overdraft fees and pre-judgment interest. On October 6, 2017, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification and defined the class as every Georgia citizen who had or has one or more accounts with SunTrust Bank and who, from July 12, 2006, to October 6, 2017, (i) had at least one overdraft of $500.00 or less resulting from an ATM or debit card transaction (the Transaction), (ii) paid any overdraft fees as a result of the Transaction, and (iii) did not receive a refund of those fees, and the granting of a certified class was affirmed on appeal. The class sought a return of up to $452 million in paid overdraft fees plus prejudgment interest, which based on this amount of claimed fees would have been estimated at approximately $470 million as of March 31, 2026. Truist Financial Corp is a U.S.-based financial services company formed through the merger of BB&T and SunTrust, providing retail and commercial banking, wealth management, insurance, and other financial services to consumers and businesses. The company operates through a network of branches, ATMs, and digital platforms across the United States. TURNER MINING: Wood Sues Over Wage and Hour Law Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- SHEENA WOOD, individually and for others similarly situated v. TURNER MINING GROUP, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00834-RLY-MJD (S.D. Ind., April 27, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arizona Wage Act. The Defendant employed Plaintiff Wood as a heavy equipment operator from approximately August 2025 to April 2026 at its client's Mineral Park Mine in Arizona. Throughout her employment, the Plaintiff typically worked approximately 12 hours a day and four to five days a week on the clock. However, the Defendant did not pay Plaintiff for all her hours worked. Instead, the Defendant subjected Plaintiff to its pre-shift off the clock policy. In addition, Defendant subjects Plaintiff and its other hourly employees to its rounding policy. Headquartered in Bloomington, IN, Turner Mining Group, LLC provides mining services across North America. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington St., Ste 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 Facsimile: (312) 419-1025 E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 5847 San Felipe St, Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch* BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 5847 San Felipe St, Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com UNITED STATES: Court Upholds ORR Sponsor Re-Vetting Policy ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Diego N. et al., Plaintiffs, v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-00577 (CJN) (D.D.C.), Judge Carl J. Nichols of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to stop the Government from requiring previously approved sponsors to restart the sponsorship application process for re-referred unaccompanied alien children. Federal law requires that unaccompanied children arriving at the United States border be transferred to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. ORR must balance two competing priorities: promptly transferring unaccompanied minors to relatives or suitable custodians, while verifying that potential caregivers will not endanger children entrusted to them. Plaintiffs are unaccompanied minors who were previously released by ORR to approved sponsors, subsequently re-transferred to ORR custody as required by federal law, and are awaiting re-release. They argued that because their sponsors were previously approved, the Government cannot detain them without justification. The Government countered that it treats re-referred alien children the same as those entering ORR custody for the first time, and that ORR is complying with its statutory and regulatory mandate to properly vet sponsors. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction enjoining ORR from enforcing its blanket reapplication policy and requiring ORR to provide class members with a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker within seven days of re-referral. The court applied the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test on Plaintiffs' due process claim. While acknowledging that Plaintiffs assert legitimate liberty interests, including the right to live with family and freedom from unwarranted imprisonment, the court found those interests are limited by their status as both children and aliens. The Government's interest in making custody determinations in the best interests of the child, through a rigorous, multi-factored assessment of safety and well-being, is both statutory and legitimate. Requiring updated application materials is consistent with ORR's obligations, especially where significant time has elapsed since a sponsor's initial approval. Three of the four named plaintiffs were readmitted to ORR custody roughly two years after their initial release. The court also noted that Plaintiffs have an alternative avenue for relief through habeas petitions, and that ORR had already processed and granted some sponsor applications, including releasing Diego N. to his father in March 2026. On the APA claims, the court found them likely barred at the threshold because individual habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 provide an adequate alternative remedy in court. On the merits, the court found that the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act is silent as to what should happen when an unaccompanied alien child is re-referred to ORR custody. Requiring sponsors to submit new applications may err more on the side of protection at the expense of promptness, but in the context of ORR's competing statutory obligations, that is the agency's choice to make. The court further found that by requiring each sponsor to submit up-to-date information, ORR is attempting to ensure that transferring custody now, in some cases years after the initial determination of suitability, would serve the best interest of the child in the present. Plaintiffs therefore failed to establish that the re-application policy is contrary to law or arbitrary and capricious. On the equitable factors, the court acknowledged that family separation and prolonged detention qualify as irreparable injuries, but found those harms are largely remediable through individual habeas relief and thus not beyond remediation absent a preliminary injunction. The balance of equities and the public interest did not favor granting the injunction. Accordingly, the court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. A Copy of the Court's decision dated April 30 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Og6wXx from PacerMonitor.com UNITED STATES: Plaintiff Seeks to File Supplemental Brief --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELICA S., et al., v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01405-DLF (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for leave to: -- File a supplemental brief regarding their motion for class certification, to add Lorenzo V., Esmeralda C., and Brian G. as additional proposed class representatives, and -- Submit evidence that members of the provisionally certified class remain in Office of Refugee Resettlement ("ORR")custody and would be harmed if the preliminary injunction is not converted to a permanent injunction or vacatur. Each of the newly added Plaintiffs entered ORR custody after April 22, 2025, and their inclusion as class representatives would address the Court's mootness concerns as articulated at the hearing on the Parties' cross-motions for summary judgment and the telephonic hearing that followed. Similarly, the Plaintiffs offer additional evidence regarding members of the provisionally certified class to further address the Court's mootness concerns. US Department of Health protects the health of the US people and provides essential human services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WX2TIi at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rebecca Ruth Wolozin, Esq. Mishan Wroe, Esq. Diane de Gramont, Esq. NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW 818 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 425 Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 868-4792 E-mail: bwolozin@youthlaw.org mwroe@youthlaw.org ddegramont@youthlaw.org - and - Cynthia Liao, Esq. Joel McElvain, Esq. Skye L. Perryman, Esq. DEMOCRACY FORWARD FOUNDATION Washington, DC 20043 Telephone: (202) 448-9090 E-mail: cliao@democracyforward.org jmcelvain@democracyforward.org sperryman@democracyforward.org USAA GENERAL: Class Settlement in Black Suit Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WALTER BLACK, et al., v. USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, et al., Case No. 8:21-cv-01581-LKG (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby entered an order as follows: (1) Granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of class action settlement; (2) Approving the parties' settlement agreement; (3) Granting-in-part the Plaintiffs' motion for award of attorneys' fees, costs and service awards; and (4) Awarding the Plaintiff Walter Black III a service award in the amount of $7,500.00 and Plaintiffs Keith Barr, Wayne Best and David Fant, Sr. a service award in the amount of 3,500.00, respectively. The Court affirms its conditional certification of the Settlement Class in its Preliminary Approval Order and approves the maintenance of the Action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) with the Settlement Class being defined as: "All individuals who, per the Consent Order, received late fees refunds." Excluded from the class are the Honorable Lydia Kay Griggsby, and any and all court staff who would otherwise qualify as the putative class members, Plaintiffs' Counsel who would otherwise qualify as the putative class members, and Defendants’ Counsel who would otherwise qualify as the putative class members. The Court confirms its prior appointment of Tycko & Zavareei LLP, Timoney Knox, LLP, and Kagan Stern Marinello & Beard, LLC as Class Counsel. The Court dismisses the Complaint and the Action against the Defendants with prejudice. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants illegally collected certain late fees from more than 127,000 Maryland insurance policyholders, including the Plaintiffs, during the period June 27, 2011, and September 30, 2019, in violation of Maryland Insurance Code section 27-216(b)(3)(i) and (b)(3)(ii)(2). USAA is a key property and casualty insurer. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated April 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QzDDBC at no extra charge.[CC] WILLIAM MONTGOMERY: Court Endorses Dismissal of Rowland Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN ROWLAND, et. al, v. WILLIAM MONTGOMERY, III, Case No. 1:25-cv-01035-BKS-PJE (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Evangelista entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court recommended, that plaintiffs' complaint be dismissed with prejudice and without opportunity to amend for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiffs pro se John Rowland and Curtis Dijon Fisher commenced this action on Aug. 4, 2025, by filing a complaint. The Plaintiffs' complaint seeks to commence a class action and to certify a class to include all of Montgomery's former clients and "anyone this man has harmed and not done his job properly and caused injury." The Plaintiffs seek monetary damages of $4,000,000. A copy of the Court's order dated April 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AG9NiR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. YAMAHA MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in Ellert Suit ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES ELLERT, TOSIN ADESINA, AARON DOMBECK, GEORGE DOUKAS, and CHAD WHITAKER, v. YAMAHA MOTOR CORPORATION, U.S.A., INC., Case No. 6:25-cv-01588-JSS-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Sneed entered an order that 1. The Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part as follows: a. Counts II–V and VII are dismissed without prejudice. b. The motion to dismiss is otherwise denied. 2. The Plaintiffs' motion is denied. 3. The Plaintiffs's claims against Defendant are dismissed without prejudice. 4. The Clerk is directed to terminate Adesina, Dombeck, Doukas, and Whitaker as parties in this case. 5. On or before May 21, 2026, the Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint that fully complies with this order. None of the other Plaintiffs' claims arise out of or relate to the Defendant's contacts with Florida. Accordingly, because Plaintiffs Adesina, Dombeck, Doukas, and Whitaker allege no connection between their claims, the Defendant, and Florida—a point the Plaintiffs do not dispute—the court lacks specific jurisdiction over the Defendant as to the claims brought by the nonresident Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs are five consumers who allegedly bought the Defendant's e-bikes. Yamaha is a Japanese multinational conglomerate mobility manufacturer. A copy of the Court's order dated April 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qo9G8V at no extra charge.[CC] ZACH CONINE: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN RAYMOND, KYONG 'GINA' RAYMOND, and CHASE HYON, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. ZACH CONINE, in his official capacity as NEVADA STATE TREASURER and ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NEVADA UNCLAIMED PROPERTY PROGRAM, NEVADA STATE TREASURER’S OFFICE, and DANIELLE ANTHONY, in her official capacities as DEPUTY TREASURER OF UNCLAIMED PROPERTY, NEVADA STATE TREASURER'S OFFICE, Case No. 2:23-cv-01195-CDS-MDC (D. Nev.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for State Defendants to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion and memorandum in support of class certification by 14-days, to May 13, 2026. Finally, an attorney involved in this matter recently left employment with the Office of the Attorney General. Thus, additional time is needed to accommodate this staffing change, as well as prepare the fulsome response that will most assist this Court in resolving this matter. The Plaintiffs filed their Class Certification Motion on April 15, 2026. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5iS2qZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Aaron D. Ford, Esq. Jessica E. Whelan, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 1 State of Nevada Way, Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89119 Telephone: (702) 486-3420 Facsimile: (702) 486-3773 E-mail: jwhelan@ag.nv.gov ZYMERGEN INC: Court Inclined to OK "Wang" Settlement ---------------------------------------------------- Judge P. Casey Pitts of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an indicative ruling in the case captioned Biao Wang, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Zymergen Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-06028-PCP (N.D. Cal.), indicating that the Court is inclined to grant Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of a proposed class action settlement. The Joint Motion was submitted by Lead Plaintiff and the VC Defendants -- True Ventures IV, L.P., True Ventures Select I, L.P., True Ventures Select II, L.P., True Ventures Select III, L.P., True Ventures Select IV, L.P., True Venture Management, L.L.C., SVF Excalibur (Cayman) Limited, SVF Endurance (Cayman) Limited, SoftBank Vision Fund (AIV M1) L.P., SB Investment Advisors (US) Inc., Data Collective II, L.P., DCVC Opportunity Fund, L.P., and DCVC Management Co, LLC -- in connection with the Preliminary Approval Motion, filed to effectuate the Court's review of a proposed full and final settlement. The settlement was reached between all parties while an appeal was pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit of the Court's March 6, 2025 minute order, which in effect granted certification as to claims against the VC Defendants. The initial complaint was filed on August 4, 2021. On December 20, 2021, the Court appointed Biao Wang as Lead Plaintiff and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Lead Counsel. On February 24, 2022, Lead Plaintiff filed the first amended complaint alleging violations under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 for a false and misleading prospectus and Form S-1 against Zymergen, the Individual Defendants, and the Underwriter Defendants, and control person violations under Section 15 of the Securities Act against the Individual Defendants and the VC Funds. On November 29, 2022, the Court denied Defendants' motions with respect to the Section 11 claims and the Section 15 claims against the Individual Defendants, but granted the VC Funds' motion to dismiss the Section 15 claims against them. On August 11, 2023, Judge Vince Chhabria granted Lead Plaintiff's motion and certified a class of Zymergen investors. Notice of the pendency of the litigation was provided to over 9,200 potential class members and nominees; no potential class member elected to opt out. On December 21, 2023, Lead Plaintiff sought leave to file a second amended class action complaint making additional allegations in support of the previously dismissed Section 15 claims against the VC Funds, and adding True Venture Management, L.L.C., DCVC Management Co, LLC, and SB Investment Advisors (US) Inc. as defendants. On February 26, 2024, the Court granted Lead Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend. On March 6, 2025, the Court denied the VC Defendants' motion to set a briefing schedule for a second class certification motion. The VC Defendants filed a petition seeking Rule 23(f) review, which the Ninth Circuit granted on June 18, 2025. On August 4, 2025, the Court stayed the case as to the VC Defendants only. On November 25, 2025, the parties informed the Court that they reached a settlement in principle. To avoid any argument that the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a motion to approve the settlement -- on the theory that the Court may not address matters that are the subject of, or inextricably intertwined with, the order under appellate review -- the parties requested an indicative ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1 that the Court is inclined to grant the Preliminary Approval Motion. If the Court issues the indicative ruling, the parties will jointly ask the Ninth Circuit for a limited remand pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.1, allowing the Court to convert the indicative ruling into an actual ruling. The Ninth Circuit retains jurisdiction unless it expressly dismisses the appeal. The Court noted the overriding public interest in settling and quieting litigation and that settlement agreements conserve judicial time and limit expensive litigation, particularly in complex class action matters. The Court also noted that courts should defer to the private consensual decision of the settling parties, particularly where the parties are represented by experienced counsel and negotiation has been facilitated by a neutral party. The Court found that the proposed settlement is entitled to a presumption of fairness. On April 30, 2026, Judge Pitts issued an indicative ruling stating that if the case is remanded by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Court will grant the relief requested. A copy of the Court's Order dated April 30, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QhqSGq from PacerMonitor.com Plaintiff Biao Wang is represented by: Shawn A. Williams, Esq. Daniel J. Pfefferbaum, Esq. Alex N. Jilizian, Esq. Ellen Gusikoff Stewart, Esq. Juan Carlos Sanchez, Esq. Patton L. Johnson, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Email: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com dpfefferbaum@rgrdlaw.com ajilizian@rgrdlaw.com elleng@rgrdlaw.com jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com pjohnson@rgrdlaw.com Defendants True Ventures IV, L.P., True Ventures Select I, L.P., True Ventures Select II, L.P., True Ventures Select III, L.P., True Ventures Select IV, L.P., and True Venture Management, L.L.C. are represented by: Jonathan A. Shapiro, Esq. Daniel Roeser, Esq. Valerie A. Haggans, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP Email: jshapiro@goodwinlaw.com droeser@goodwinlaw.com vhaggans@goodwinlaw.com Defendants Data Collective II, L.P., DCVC Opportunity Fund, L.P., and DCVC Management Co., LLC are represented by: Michael D. Celio, Esq. Zaneta J. Kim, Esq. Michael J. Kahn, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP Email: mcelio@gibsondunn.com zkim@gibsondunn.com mjkahn@gibsondunn.com Defendants SVF Endurance (Cayman) Ltd., SVF Excalibur (Cayman) Ltd., SoftBank Vision Fund (AIV M1) L.P., and SB Investment Advisers (US) Inc. are represented by: Linda J. Brewer, Esq. Harry A. Olivar, Jr., Esq. Robert E. Allen, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Email: lindabrewer@quinnemanuel.com harryolivar@quinnemanuel.com robertallen@quinnemanuel.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2026. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***