260512.mbx

260512.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, May 12, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 94 Headlines AAA LIFE: Court Strikes Amador Bid for Class Certification ADT INC: Beckwith Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Johnson Files Labor Class Action in Calif. AUTOMATTIC INC: Class Cert Filing in Keller Extended to Oct. 12 BABYBJORN INC: Bowman Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BANK OF AMERICA: Lascelles Suit Removed to C.D. California CENTRAL MAINE: Class Cert. Bid in Gagnon Extended to August 28 CINCINNATI, OH: Parties in Kenney Suit Seek Final OK of Settlement CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Fails to Secure Private Info, Hennig Says CLEAN HARBORS: Case Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation COATING EXCELLENCE: Class Cert Bid Filing in Burton Due Oct. 30 COLLECTORS HOLDINGS: Standing Order in Rasmussen Suit Entered CONCEPTIONS REPRODUCTIVE: Court Partly Trims Data Breach Suit DAVID'S BRIDAL: Bennet Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wage GENTLEMAN SUPPLY: Barlow Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website GNL ENTERPRISES: Swift Seeks Approval of Notice to Employee Class GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Steve Seek to File Reply Under Seal GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Steve Seeks to Exclude Hildreth's Testimony GROW HOSS INC: Anderson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website KNOWBE4 INC: Lead Plaintiffs Seek to File Class Cert Under Seal KPC PROMISE: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Akata Modified to August 12 LASERSHIP INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Due July 24 LIBERTY MUTUAL: Adjournment of Class Certification Hearing Sought LUCID GROUP: Discovery in Federal Securities Class Suits Ongoing LUSH HANDMADE: Class Certification Bid Filing Extended to July 27 MAGNITE INC: Lewis Seeks Leave to File Documents Under Seal NEW YORK, NY: Class Settlement in Piney Suit Gets Final Nod NEW YORK, NY: Settlement in Piney Suit Gets Final Nod NUTRIEN AG: Conspires to Fix Fertilizer Prices, Patzkowsky Says PARTS AUTHORITY: Court Stays Rambharose Suit Pending Mediation PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Zantac Class Suit in Canada RESPIMAT PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Dec. 10 RICCELLI HOLDINGS: Sims Seeks Conditional Collective Certification RISCASSI: Wins Summary Judgment in Veteran Apparel Dispute SAZERAC COMPANY: Del Rosario Class Cert Bid Tossed as Moot SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Haselman Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty THERAPYMATCH INC: Underpays Sales Representatives, Galdamez Says TICKETMASTER LLC: Abbott Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Classes TRAJECTOR MEDICAL: Baker Suit Removed to N.D. Florida TU TIPICO DOMINICANO: Mena Suit Transferred to E.D. New York UNITED STATES: Diego Plaintiffs Lose Preliminary Injunction Bid UNITED STATES: Seeks Leave to File Opposition Class Sur-Reply UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Hill Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Soliz Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas VOLUSIA COUNTY, FL: Powell Seeks OK of Renewed Bid for Class Cert WALMART INC: Glase Seeks Refunds from Unlawful Tariffs WALT DISNEY: Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal WHALECO INC: Faces Pottish Suit Over Misleading Spam E-Mails ********* AAA LIFE: Court Strikes Amador Bid for Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Juan Amador et al., v. AAA Life Insurance Company et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-07826-PA-BFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anderson entered an order as follows: -- The Plaintiffs' renewed Application to File Documents Under Seal did not comply with the requirements of Local Rule 79- 5.2.2, and was stricken. -- The Court therefore strikes the Motion for Class Certification. -- The hearing calendared May 11, 2026 is vacated. On April 28, 2026, after plaintiffs Juan and Elma Almador had failed to cure the deficiencies in the Application to File Documents Under Seal they filed on April 13, 2026, the Court provided them with a final opportunity to cure those deficiencies. Specifically, the Court, allowed Plaintiffs to file a renewed and corrected Application to File Documents Under Seal by no later than 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 29, 2026. The Court warned that such a filing must strictly comply with requirements for under seal filings and that failure “to correctly file the Application to File Documents Under Seal by the deadline will result in the striking of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.” AAA offers life insurance, accident and annuity products. A copy of the Court's order dated April 28, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kyZBaz at no extra charge.[CC] ADT INC: Beckwith Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII --------------------------------------------------------------- Maurice Beckwith, on his own behalf and all others similarly situated v. ADT INC., Case 9:26-cv-80494-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 28, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personal identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information") of potentially 5.5 million individuals, including, but not limited to, name, address, email address, phone numbers, and in some cases date of birth, Social Security and Tax ID numbers. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Plaintiff's and Class members' PII, the Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. The Defendant admits that the unencrypted PII that was accessed and/or acquired by an unauthorized actor included name, social security number and/or financial account information, and other information such as phone number, address, and email address. The PII was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and the failure to protect the Plaintiff's and Class members' PII. The Defendant has also purposefully maintained secret the specific vulnerabilities and root causes of the breach and have not informed Plaintiff and Class Members of that information. Prior to receiving notification, Plaintiff and Class Members had no idea their PII 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, including the sharing and detrimental use of their sensitive information. The risk will remain for their respective lifetimes. The Defendant disregarded Plaintiff's and Class members' rights by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that Plaintiff's and Class members' PII was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent an unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, Plaintiff's and Class members' PII were compromised through disclosure to an unauthorized third party. Plaintiff and Class Members have a continuing interest in ensuring that their information is and remains safe, and they should be entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief, says the complaint. The Plaintiff's personal information was included in the Data Breach. ADT Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business located in Boca Raton, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL, 33131 Phone: (786) 206-9057 Email: mweekes@milberg.com AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Johnson Files Labor Class Action in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- SHANNON JOHNSON, on behalf of the general public as private attorney general, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV12527 (Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Cal., April 17, 2026) is a class action for recovery of penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, on behalf of the State of California and approximately 100,000 current and former aggrieved employees employed by Amazon in its California warehouses between October 3, 2024, and the conclusion of this action. The complaint relates that during the liability period, Amazon imposed productivity quotas requiring employees to stow a certain number of packages per hour, leaving workers seconds to unload each package. These quotas vary daily and are not clearly defined, leaving employees with little guidance beyond Amazon's requirement to meet unspecified hourly targets. Amazon's rapid pace results in packages frequently overflowing from conveyor belts, falling onto the floor, and creating tripping hazards that Plaintiff was often forced to warn others about. The work rate is unsafe from an ergonomic standpoint, and Plaintiff suffered back injuries on two separate occasions due to the demands of his job. In this case, Defendants violated various provisions of the California Labor Code. Defendants implemented policies and practices which led to the violation of the California Labor Code for: (1) failure to comply with occupational safety and health standards, (2) creating unsafe working conditions, and (3) failure to implement effective injury and illness prevention, says the suit. As a result, Plaintiff seeks penalties under the California Labor Code on behalf of the general public as private attorney general and all other aggrieved employees. Plaintiff SHANNON JOHNSON was employed by Amazon in October 2022 as a Non-Exempt Employee with the title of Tier 1 Sortation Associate at Defendant's Amazon California Delivery Station in Glendale, CA. Defendants AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC. is the primary operating entity for Amazon's e-commerce, logistics, and digital services, managing retail operations, fulfillment centers, and technology platforms. Amazon operates warehouses across the United States including in California. DOES 1-50 are the Defendants with fictitious names.[BN] The Plaintiff is 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 AUTOMATTIC INC: Class Cert Filing in Keller Extended to 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. AUTOMATTIC INC., a Delaware corporation, and MATTHEW CHARLES MULLENWEG, an individual, Case No. 3:25-cv-01892-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín entered an order granting joint stipulation extending class certification and Daubert motion deadlines: 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: Automattic develops open-source blogging software. A copy of the Court's order dated April 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TQMPPc 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 BABYBJORN INC: Bowman Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Tanisia Bowman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. BabyBjorn Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-04846 (N.D. Ill., April 28, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://www.babybjorn.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 various infant-care products, including baby carriers and bouncers, complemented by specialized sleep, kitchen, and bathroom accessories, as well as curated product bundles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law BANK OF AMERICA: Lascelles Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Cynthia Lascelles, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 2026CUOE061542 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Ventura, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on April 28, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-04526. In the Complaint, Plaintiff brings a claim for the Bank's alleged failure to reimburse employees for employment-related expenditures. Plaintiff also alleges the Bank committed acts of unfair competition as defined by the California Unfair Business Practices Act. Based on the allegations in the Complaint and on behalf of herself and the putative class members, Plaintiff seeks injunctions, damages, restitution, penalties, and attorneys' fees, interest, and costs.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Adam P. Kohsweeney, Esq. Katie M. Loftus, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3823 Phone: 415-984-8912 Facsimile: 415-984-8701 Email: akohsweeney@omm.com kloftus@omm.com CENTRAL MAINE: Class Cert. Bid in Gagnon Extended to August 28 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GAGNON v. CENTRAL MAINE HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, Case No. 2:25-cv-00423 (D. Maine, Filed Aug. 20, 2025), the Hon. Judge Lance E. Walker entered an order granting Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. -- The Deadline for Plaintiff to serve written settlement demand is extended to July 9, 2026 -- The deadline for Defendant to serve response to settlement demand is extended to July 23, 2026 -- Deadline to complete Phase 1 of discovery is extended to July 27, 2023 -- Deadline for Plaintiff to designate expert witnesses is extended to July 27, 2023 -- Deadline for Defendant to designate expert witnesses is extended to July 27, 2023 -- Deadline for Plaintiff to file motion for class certification is extended to August 28, 2026 -- Deadline for Defendant to file response to motion for class certification is extended to September 29, 2026 -- Deadline for Plaintiff to file reply memorandum in support of motion for class certification is extended to Oct. 12, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendant is an integrated healthcare delivery system.[CC] CINCINNATI, OH: Parties in Kenney Suit Seek Final OK of Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAURICE KENNEY, et al., v. CITY OF CINCINNATI, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00295-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs and the Defendants ask the Court to enter a final order approving the class action settlement agreement and certifying the Class for Settlement purposes. In addition, the parties request that this Court enter a Final Judgment dismissing all claims with prejudice according to the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement and this Court's Orders. The Settlement will avoid further expense, uncertainty and delay for the Parties, and will bring a conclusive resolution to this litigation. Specifically, the Settlement will compensate the approximately 479 people who, between May 30, 2020, and June 8, 2020, were arrested, detained, and charged with misdemeanors, and had those charges dismissed, in connection with protests following the murder of George Floyd and the imposition of a citywide curfew in the City of Cincinnati. The proposed Settlement Class is comprised of a group of persons identified by counsel for the Plaintiffs and Defendants through a mutual review of police and prosecution-related records, each of whom were subjected to arrest and prosecution during the 2020 protests and curfew in Cincinnati, Ohio as alleged in the Complaint. In addition to the primary Settlement Class, the Settlement Agreement provides for a "Conditions of Confinement Subclass," comprised of a group of persons who were detained for more than five (5) hours in association with their arrests. The City and County shall collectively pay the total amount of Eight Million One Hundred and Forty Three Thousand Dollars ($8,143,000.00) into a qualified settlement fund ("QSF") account under Treasury Regulation 1.468B-1. A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oD7QQO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Robert Linneman, Esq. Brian P. O'Connor, Esq. H. Louis Sirkin, Esq. SANTEN & HUGHES 600 Vine Street, Suite 2700 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 721-4450 Facsimile: (513) 852-5994 E-mail: jrl@santenhughes.com bpo@santenhughes.com hls@santenhughes.com - and - Jacqueline Greene, Esq. Alphonse A. Gerhardstein, Esq. Sarah Gelsomino, Esq. Elizabeth Bonham, Esq. FG+G 35 East 7th Street, Ste. 201 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 572-4200 Facsimile: (216) 621-0427 E-mail: jacqueline@FGGfirm.com al@FGGfirm.com sarah@FGGfirm.com elizabeth@FGGfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Emily Smart Woerner, Esq. Katherine C. Baron, Esq. Matt Slovin, Esq. CITY OF CINCINNATI Room 214, City Hall 801 Plum Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 352-3326 Facsimile: (513) 352-1515 E-mail: Emily.Woerner@cincinnati-oh.gov Katherine.Baron@cincinnati-oh.gov Matt.Slovin@cincinnati-oh.gov - and - Kimberly A. Rutowski, Esq. LAZARUS LAW, LLC 525 Vine St., Suite 2210 Cincinnati, OH 45202-4322 Telephone: (513) 721-7300 Facsimile: (513) 721-7008 E-mail: krutowski@hllmlaw.com - and - Connie Pillich, Esq. Pamela J. Sears, Esq. THE HAMILTON COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 230 E. Ninth Street, Suite 4000 Cincinnati, OH 45202-2151 Telephone: (513) 946-3082 E-mail: Pam.Sears@HCPros.org CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Fails to Secure Private Info, Hennig Says ------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW HENNIG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITIZENS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. and CITIZENS BANK, N.A., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00246 (D.R.I., April 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to secure and safeguard personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information") that was entrusted to Citizens. The complaint relates that Plaintiff and the rest of the Class members received Citizens' financial services and/or employment, and, in so doing, entrusted Citizens with their extremely sensitive and highly valuable Private Information, which Citizens acquired from Plaintiff and the other Class members in the course of providing financial services and/or employment to them. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from Plaintiff and Class members' Private Information, Citizens assumed legal and equitable duties and knew or should have known that it was responsible for ensuring the safety and security of Plaintiff's and Class members' Private Information and for protecting such Private Information from unauthorized disclosure and exfiltration. On April 20, 2026, ransomware gang Everest publicly claimed responsibility for a cyberattack against Citizens. Everest confirmed that it acquired 3.4 million records during the Data Breach. This cyberattack resulted in a data breach, including the breach and/or compromise of certain files containing the Private Information of Plaintiff and at least hundreds of thousands of other individuals, including: names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and financial account information. The actions of Citizens related to this Data Breach are unconscionable, asserts the complaint. Citizens failed to implement practices and systems to mitigate against the risks posed by Citizens' negligent (if not reckless) IT practices. As a result of these failures, Plaintiff and Class members face a litany of harms that accompany data breaches of this magnitude and severity, says the suit. As such, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, brings this Action for restitution, actual damages, nominal damages, statutory damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, and all other relief that this Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff Andrew Hennig was a Branch Manager at a Citizens branch in Northfield, New Jersey, from December 2022 until December 2024. Plaintiff has had a home mortgage and home equity line of credit through Citizens since 2023. Citizens Financial Group, Inc. and Citizens Bank, N.A. (collectively, "Citizens" or "Defendant") is a Rhode Island-based national banking institution.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Damon P. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI LAW 5792 Post Road East Greenwich, RI 02818 Telephone: (401) 633-6339 E-mail: dborrelli@borrelli.law - and - Israel David, Esq. Adam M. Harris, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 60 Broad Street, Suite 2900 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 350-8850 E-mail: israel.david@davidllc.com adam.harris@davidllc.com - and - Mark A. Cianci, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 399 Boylston Street, Floor 6, Suite 23 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 295-7771 E-mail: mark.cianci@davidllc.com CLEAN HARBORS: Case Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Billy Case, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CLEAN HARBORS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-11925 (D. Mass., April 28, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, Defendant failed to properly calculate Plaintiff's prevailing wage pay and other non-discretionary remuneration into the regular rate for proper overtime calculation. The Plaintiff and all other Hourly Employees were entitled to overtime pay equal to 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. the Plaintiff and all other Hourly Employees regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week and were paid some overtime for those hours but at a rate that did not include Defendant's prevailing wage pay and other non-discretionary remuneration as required by the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from March 2023 through February 2026. The Defendant holds itself out as an "North America's leading provider of environmental and industrial services," providing "a broad range of services such as end-to-end hazardous waste management, emergency spill response, industrial cleaning and maintenance, and recycling services."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Knox Steffans, Esq. STEFFANS LEGAL PLLC 180 Elm Street, Suite I, Box 183 Pittsfield, MA 01201 Phone: (413) 418-4176 Email: bsteffans@steffanslegal.com - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 355-0300 COATING EXCELLENCE: Class Cert Bid Filing in Burton Due Oct. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Burton v. Coating Excellence International LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00898 (E.D. Wisc., Filed June 25, 2025), the Hon. Judge Byron B. Conway entered an order granting the unopposed motion for an extension of time. The plaintiff shall file any motion for court court-authorized notice under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) no later than July 30, 2026. The Plaintiff shall file any motion for class certification no later than October 30, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Coating Excellence manufactures flexible packaging and technical products. [CC] COLLECTORS HOLDINGS: Standing Order in Rasmussen Suit Entered ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL RASMUSSEN, v. COLLECTORS HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Case No. 8:26-cv-00897-JWH-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Holcomb entered a standing order as follows: The action has been assigned to the calendar of Judge John W. Holcomb. The Court and the litigants bear joint responsibility for the progress of litigation in the Federal Courts. To secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, all counsel are ordered to become familiar with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Central District of California. The Plaintiff shall serve the Complaint promptly in accordance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and shall file the proofs of service pursuant to L.R. 5-3.1. Any answers filed in state court must be re-filed in this Court, either as an exhibit to the Notice of Removal or as a separate filing. Any pending motions must be re-noticed in accordance with L.R. 6-1. Counsel are directed to review thoroughly Rule 7.1 and to comply strictly with its instruction to file a compliant Disclosure Statement. A party’s failure to file a timely and complete Disclosure Statement in accordance with Rule 7.1 is a basis for sanctions. Under 28 U.S.C. section 636, the parties may consent to have a Magistrate Judge preside over all proceedings. The Magistrate Judges who accept those designations are identified on the Central District’s website, which also contains the consent form. The Court uses an electronic filing system for documents. Information regarding the Court’s Electronic Case Filing system is available on the Court’s website at https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/e-filing /nextgen-cmecf. All doc Collectors provides commercial support solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated April 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=n4h3ty at no extra charge.[CC] CONCEPTIONS REPRODUCTIVE: Court Partly Trims Data Breach Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Jane Doe, Kimberly Gibson, Jason Markowitz, and Alexandra Kumor, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Conceptions Reproductive Associates, Inc. d/b/a Conceptions Reproductive Associates of Colorado, and IVI America, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No. 25-cv-00009-NYW-CYC (D. Colo.), Judge Nina Y. Wang of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted in part and denied in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated Class Action Complaint. Defendants provide fertility-related healthcare services to patients in Colorado. In mid-April 2024, cybercriminals hacked Defendants' computer systems and accessed the personal identifying information (PII) and personal health information (PHI) of thousands of current and former patients. Defendants first notified affected patients of the data breach on November 6, 2024. Plaintiffs allege that the notice letter misleadingly downplayed the severity of the breach because, at that time, their PII and PHI was already published on the dark web. Plaintiffs seek to represent a proposed class of individuals whose PII and PHI was compromised in the breach. They bring eight claims: (1) negligence; (2) negligence per se; (3) breach of implied contract; (4) invasion of privacy; (5) unjust enrichment; (6) breach of fiduciary duty; (7) violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA); and (8) declaratory judgment. The Court finds that only Plaintiff Markowitz plausibly alleged a cognizable injury — out-of-pocket credit monitoring expenses exceeding $100 annually — sufficient to sustain negligence claims under Colorado law. Counts One and Two are dismissed as to all other Plaintiffs. Allegations of emotional distress are conclusory and unsupported, lost time standing alone is too speculative, and bare allegations of diminished data value are insufficient. The Court further dismisses Count Two insofar as it is premised on violations of the Colorado Security Breach Notification Act and the FTC Act, concluding that the FTC Act's general prohibition on unfair practices cannot support a negligence per se claim. The Court denies dismissal of Count Three. Plaintiffs plausibly alleged the existence of an implied contract for Defendants to adequately protect their PII and PHI. Plaintiffs' payments served as consideration for both a promise of medical services and a promise to secure their data. Because Colorado law permits recovery of nominal damages for breach of contract even absent actual damages, the Court allows this count to proceed. The intrusion upon seclusion theory is dismissed. Plaintiffs did not plausibly allege that Defendants knew or believed the theft and disclosure of their data was substantially certain to occur. However, the disclosure of private facts theory survives. Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that Defendants recklessly initiated the process leading to disclosure by failing to follow applicable data security standards, satisfying the recklessness standard under Colorado law. Count Five is dismissed. Plaintiffs failed to allege a distinct benefit conferred on Defendants specifically for data security. Conclusory allegations that a portion of treatment fees covered cybersecurity, without factual support tying payment to data protection, are insufficient. The Court denies dismissal of Count Six. Defendants required Plaintiffs to disclose highly intimate reproductive and financial information as a prerequisite to fertility treatment, placing only Defendants in a position to safeguard that information. At this early stage, it is plausible that the parties formed a fiduciary relationship that included a duty to act in Plaintiffs' best interests when handling their PII and PHI. Count Seven is dismissed only insofar as it relies on alleged deceptive conduct occurring after the data breach, as no causal link exists between post-breach conduct and Plaintiffs' pre-breach injuries. The remainder of Count Seven survives, as Plaintiffs adequately alleged, with particularity, that Defendants made knowing or reckless false representations regarding their data security practices. The Court declined to dismiss Count Eight, finding that Plaintiffs seek forward-looking relief not available through their other claims. Plaintiffs' prayer for punitive damages is dismissed without prejudice. Colorado law bars punitive damages in an initial pleading; Plaintiffs may renew the request after completing initial discovery disclosures and establishing prima facie proof of a triable issue. A copy of the Court's decision dated April 28 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UnQYun from PacerMonitor.com DAVID'S BRIDAL: Bennet Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wage ------------------------------------------------------------ Lauren Bennet, as an individual and on the behalf of similarly situated persons v. DAVID'S BRIDAL, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-04816 (N.D. Ill., April 28, 2026), is brought arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL") for Defendant' failure to pay minimum wage for all hours worked to the Plaintiff for Defendant' retaliation against Plaintiff for engaging in protected activity under the FLSA. The Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff an hourly rate of $17.25 per hour, and her compensation was to include both hourly wages and commissions based on sales. At the start of Plaintiff's employment, Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff 4% of her sales as commission. However, Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff with written documentation outlining the commission structure, and Plaintiff was never given access to any records detailing her sales or commissions. Although Plaintiff began her employment in early January 2026, she did not receive her first paycheck until on or about February 20, 2026, despite working throughout January and February. The Plaintiff only received compensation for her hourly wages, with no payment for commissions on sales. As a result of these violations, Plaintiff lost money working for Defendant, exacerbating the financial strain she was already experiencing as a result of not being paid her complete compensation, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant as a part-time Bridal Stylist since January 7, 2026. David's Bridal, Inc., was a corporation doing business located in Orland Park, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yasmeen Elagha, Esq. Mohammed Badwan, Esq. Kelly Dean Pearce, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 Fax: (630) 575-8188 Email: yelagha@atlaslawcenter.com mbadwan@atlaslawcenter.com dpearce@atlaslawcenter.com GENTLEMAN SUPPLY: Barlow Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Barlow, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Gentleman Supply Co. LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-04811 (N.D. Ill., April 28, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://happygentleman.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 wide range of men's formalwear, including suits, blazers, waistcoats, trousers, overcoats, leather jackets, formal footwear, and accessories such as ties, hats, belts, gloves, and caps, along with vintage-inspired style clothing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Phone: 844-731-3343 Direct: 718-554-0237 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law GNL ENTERPRISES: Swift Seeks Approval of Notice to Employee Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAWNA M. SWIFT, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, v. GNL ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, GIANNI LICARI, an individual, Case No. 1:25-cv-00798-JMB-PJG (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks that the Court: A. Authorize the issuance of court-supervised notice to all current and former servers and bartenders employed by GNL and Licari during the three years prior to the filing of the Complaint; B. Order GNL and Licari to produce, within 21 days, a list of all potential collective members, including their names, last known addresses, email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of employment, and social security numbers (in a secure format); C. Approve Swift's proposed notice and consent forms attached to the brief in support; D. Authorize a 90-day notice period for potential collective members to opt in to this action; and E. Toll the statute of limitations for similarly situated employees from the filing of this motion. Swift's Complaint alleges that GNL and Licari violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Michigan Improved Workforce Opportunity Wage Act ("MiWOWA"), by implementing improper tip-pooling practices, and failing to pay minimum wages to servers and bartenders The potential collective consists of: "All current and former servers and bartenders who worked for the Defendants during the three years prior to the filing of the Complaint, and who were subject to GNL and Licari's tip-pooling policies." A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0hvGnO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert M. Howard, Esq. Bradley K. Glazier, Esq. CUNNINGHAM DALMAN PC 321 Settlers Road Holland, MI 49422 Telephone: (616) 392-1821 E-mail: robert@cunninghamdalman.com The Defendants are represented by: Hannah K. Reisdorff, Esq. Gregory N. Longworth, Esq. CLARK HILL PLC 500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 3500 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 965-8300 E-mail: hreisdorff@clarkhill.com glongworth@clarkhill.com GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Steve Seek to File Reply Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE CHING INSURANCE, INC., et al., v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-03033-PX (D. Md.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for leave to file under seal their unredacted reply to the Defendants' opposition to class certification, and its accompanying Exhibits. The Plaintiff's reply materials include information that has been designated confidential by the Defendants under the Stipulated Order regarding Confidentiality. The Plaintiff has filed public versions of the reply materials that redact information designated as confidential by the Defendants where possible or filed a "placeholder" document bearing the label "UNDER SEAL" where redactions would be too voluminous or impossible. Alternatives to sealing are not available because revealing the information contained in the Plaintiff's materials would result in a disclosure of information designated confidential by the Defendants under the Protective Order. In seeking to file under seal, the Plaintiff does not concede that the Defendants' designations are appropriate and reserve all rights to contest the Defendants' designations. The Defendant is an American vehicle insurance company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=63ezuv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam J. Levitt, Esq. John E. Tangren, Esq. Daniel R. Schwartz, Esq. Eaghan S. Davis, Esq. Diandra S. Debrosse Zimmerman, Esq. Eli Hare, Esq. Kenneth P. Abbarno, Esq. Justin J. Hawal, Esq. Eviealle J. Dawkins, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 10 North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com jtangren@dicellolevitt.com dschwartz@dicellolevitt.com edavis@dicellolevitt.com fu@dicellolevitt.com ehare@dicellolevitt.com kabbarno@dicellolevitt.com jhawal@dicellolevitt.com edawkins@dicellolevitt.com akeller@dicellolevitt.com - and - Benjamin Crump, Esq. Gabrielle Higgins, Esq. Brendan H. Chandonnet, Esq. BEN CRUMP LAW, PLLC 122 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Telephone: (800) 691-7111 E-mail: ben@bencrump.com gabrielle@bencrump.com brendan@bencrump.com The Defendants are represented by: Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq. Jennifer A. Riley, Esq. Justin Donoho, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 190 S. LaSalle St., Suite 3700 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 499-6700 Facsimile: (312) 499-6701 E-mail: gmaatman@duanemorris.com jariley@duanemorris.com jrdonoho@duanemorris.com GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Steve Seeks to Exclude Hildreth's Testimony ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE CHING INSURANCE, INC., v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-03033-PX (D. Md.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion to exclude the expert opinions and testimony of the Defendants' expert, Andrew K.G. Hildreth, Ph.D., as set forth in (1) the declaration of Andrew Hildreth dated Jan. 30, 2026; (2) the second declaration of Andrew Hildreth dated Mar. 31, 2026; and (3) Dr. Hildreth's deposition taken on April 8, 2026. The Plaintiff requests that the Court enter an order excluding the expert testimony of Dr. Hildreth in its entirety, or, in the alternative, excluding paragraphs 6, 13, 27 through 37, 47, 53, and 58 through 62 of his declaration and any opinions and testimony dependent thereon. Dr. Hildreth's central opinion—that the Cox proportional hazards model proposed by the Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Branko Jovanovic, is unreliable for the data at issue—rests entirely on a comparative claim about whose underlying materials have been destroyed and which Dr. Hildreth admits he reconstructed. The opinion is unsupported ipse dixit of the kind Rule 702 forbids. The Defendants cannot satisfy their burden under Rule 702 (as amended in 2023) to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Dr. Hildreth's testimony is based on sufficient facts or data, is the product of reliable principles and methods, or reflects a reliable application of those principles and methods to the facts of the case. The Defendant is an American vehicle insurance company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6lKtfe at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam J. Levitt, Esq. John E. Tangren, Esq. Daniel R. Schwartz, Esq. Eaghan S. Davis, Esq. Diandra S. Debrosse Zimmerman, Esq. Eli Hare, Esq. Kenneth P. Abbarno, Esq. Justin J. Hawal, Esq. Eviealle J. Dawkins, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 10 North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com jtangren@dicellolevitt.com dschwartz@dicellolevitt.com edavis@dicellolevitt.com fu@dicellolevitt.com ehare@dicellolevitt.com kabbarno@dicellolevitt.com jhawal@dicellolevitt.com edawkins@dicellolevitt.com - and - Benjamin Crump, Esq. Gabrielle Higgins, Esq. Brendan H. Chandonnet, Esq. BEN CRUMP LAW, PLLC 122 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Telephone: (800) 691-7111 E-mail: ben@bencrump.com gabrielle@bencrump.com brendan@bencrump.com GROW HOSS INC: Anderson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Lisa Anderson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Grow Hoss, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-04803 (N.D. Ill., April 28, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://growhoss.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 gardening and food growing products, including vegetable and herb seeds, live plants, garden starter kits, irrigation systems, watering tools, fertilizers, soil amendments, pest control solutions.[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 KNOWBE4 INC: Lead Plaintiffs Seek to File Class Cert Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned re KnowBe4, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:25-cv-22574-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to file under seal their motion for class certification, appointment of class representatives, and appointment of class counsel and incorporated memorandum of law in support thereof. Vista produced a document bearing the bates label Vista_00025703 with a Highly Confidential designation. KKR produced a document bearing the bates label KB4_KKR_00003888 through KB4_KKR_00003909 with a Highly Confidential designation. See KB4_KKR_00003888-3909. Lead Plaintiffs rely on Vista's document Vista_00025703 in their Motion. Specifically, Lead Plaintiffs’ Motion summarizes the document Vista_00025703 and attaches Vista_00025703 as an exhibit to the Motion. Lead Plaintiffs likewise rely on portions of KKR’s document KB4_KKR_00003888-3909 in their Motion. Specifically, Lead Plaintiffs’ Motion summarizes the document and attaches an excerpt of the document, consisting of KB4_KKR_00003888-3890 and KB4_KKR_00003898-9, to the Motion. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BvXDKH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin J. Widlanski, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 372-1800 E-mail: bwidlanski@kttlaw.com - and - Vincent R. Cappucci, Esq. Robert N. Cappucci, Esq. Brendan J. Brodeur, Esq. Andrew M. Sher, Esq. Andrew J. Entwistle, 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 bbrodeur@entwistle-law.com asher@entwistle-law.com aentwistle@entwistle-law.com - and - Adam Warden, Esq. Jonathan Lamet, Esq. David J. Schwartz, Esq. Thomas Curry, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 7777 Glades Road, Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33434 Telephone: (561) 394-3399 E-mail: awarden@saxenawhite.com jlamet@saxenawhite.com dschwartz@saxenawhite.com tcurry@saxenawhite.com KPC PROMISE: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Akata Modified to August 12 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY LEBRUN OBOT AKATA, et al., v. KPC PROMISE HEALTHCARE LLC, et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-01893-SRM-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Murillo entered an order granting leave to file second amended complaint and cross complaint, and modify class certification dates, as follows: Before the Court is the parties' joint stipulation to file a Second Amended Complaint, file a Cross Complaint, and modify certain portions of the scheduling order regarding class certification. Having considered the parties' stipulation and finding good cause, the Court grants Plaintiffs leave to file a SAC. The SAC must include the names of new parties and shall be filed on or before May 13, 2026. Additionally, the Court grants Defendants leave to file a Cross Complaint. The Defendants may do so in their answer to the SAC. If the Plaintiffs fail to timely file the SAC, Defendants must file the Cross Complaint on or before May 27, 2026. The Scheduling Order is modified below. However, considering the age of this case, the Court warns the parties that it is not inclined to grant further modifications of the Scheduling Order. Event Deadline Last day to file a class certification Aug. 12, 2026 motion: Last day to file opposition to any Sept. 16, 2026 class certification motion: Last day to file reply in support of class Oct. 14, 2026 certification motion: Class certification motion hearing date: Oct. 28, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. Expert discovery cut-Off: Jan. 20, 2027 KPC is a specialty hospital post-acute care health system. A copy of the Court's order dated April 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=T3ilfY at no extra charge.[CC] LASERSHIP INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Due July 24 ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Limas v. LaserShip, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-11046 (D. Mass., Filed April 21, 2025), the Hon. Judge Patti B. Saris entered an order allowing Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and Amend Briefing Schedule. -- Discovery to be completed by June 25, 2026 -- Motions for class certification due by July 24, 2026 -- Oppositions to class certification due by Aug 24, 2026 -- Dispositive motions due by Nov. 20, 2026 -- Opposition to dispositive motions due by Dec. 23, 2026 -- Replies to dispositive motions due by Jan. 15, 2027 The nature of suit states Labor Litigation. LaserShip is a logistics company that offers last-mile delivery services primarily to businesses and e-commerce retailers.[CC] LIBERTY MUTUAL: Adjournment of Class Certification Hearing Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADAM WARD, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:24-cv-10526-BEM (D. Mass.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order adjourning the scheduled class certification hearing due to a long-standing conflict of Liberty's counsel. On April 10, 2026, the Court scheduled a hearing on Ward's Motion for May 21, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. Counsel for Liberty has a prior-existing conflict that cannot be rescheduled. Counsel for Liberty and Ward conferred and agreed to request an adjournment of the May 21st hearing date and offer June 4th, June 5th, June 10th, or June 11th as potential new hearing dates for this Motion, if the Court is available. Ward filed his motion for class certification on Jan. 23, 2026. Liberty is a nationwide insurance company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fRj9qf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig Thor Kimmel, Esq. Jacob U. Ginsburg, Esq. KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C. 30 East Butler Avenue Ambler, PA 19002 Telephone: (215) 540-8888 ext. 148 Facsimile: (877) 788-2864 E-mail: kimmel@creditlaw.com jginsburg@creditlaw.com teamkimmel@creditlaw.com - and - Max S. Morgan, Esq. THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC 1515 Market Street Ste #1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 587-6240 Facsimile: (215) 689-0875 E-mail: Max.Morgan@theweitzfirm.com - and - Alexander H. Burke, Esq. BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC 909 Davis Street, Suite 500 Evanston, IL 60201 Telephone: (312) 729-5288 E-mail: ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com The Defendant is represented by: Patrick S. Tracey, Esq. James A. Morsch, Esq. SAUL EWING LLP 131 Dartmouth St., Suite 501 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 912-0947 E-mail: patrick.tracey@saul.com Jim.Morsch@saul.com LUCID GROUP: Discovery in Federal Securities Class Suits Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lucid Group, 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 5, 2026, that discovery is ongoing for the consolidated federal securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On April 1, 2022, and May 31, 2022, two alleged shareholders filed putative class actions under the federal securities laws in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain officers of the Company relating to alleged statements, updated projections and guidance provided from late 2021 to early 2022. The two matters were consolidated as In re Lucid Group, Inc. Securities Litigation. The consolidated complaint named the Company and the Company's former chief executive officer and former chief financial officer as defendants, and generally alleged that defendants purportedly made false or misleading statements regarding delivery and revenue projections and related matters between November 15, 2021 and August 3, 2022. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on February 23, 2023. On August 8, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. On September 20, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint, which named the Company and its former chief executive officer as defendants. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Consolidated Complaint, in part, on December 6, 2024. On May 22, 2025, the court issued a ruling granting in part and denying in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. On July 10, 2025, the court issued a Case Management Scheduling Order. On July 25, 2025, Defendants filed an Answer to Plaintiffs' Amended Compliant. The parties are currently engaged in discovery in this litigation. Lucid Group, Inc. is an electric vehicle manufacturer focused on the design, engineering, and production of luxury electric cars and related energy storage solutions. The company is headquartered in Newark, California. LUSH HANDMADE: Class Certification Bid Filing Extended to July 27 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY KESKINEN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. LUSH HANDMADE COSMETICS LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; LUSH HANDMADE COSMETICS LTD, a Canadian corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 2:24-cv-08860-HDV-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vera entered an order continuing certain pretrial deadlines in case management: Event Dates Fact discovery cutoff: Oct. 13, 2026 File class certification motion: July 27, 2026 File opposition to class certification Aug. 24, 2026 motion: Expert discovery cutoff: Dec. 17, 2026 Motion hearing cutoff: Jan. 14, 2027 Lush produces and sells creams, soaps, shampoos, shower gels, lotions, moisturisers, scrubs, masks, and other cosmetics for the face and hair. A copy of the Court's order dated April 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k4g4ZW at no extra charge.[CC] MAGNITE INC: Lewis Seeks Leave to File Documents Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD LEWIS, et al., individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, v. MAGNITE, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-03448-MWC-SSC (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order permitting them to file under seal the following documents: 1. The Defendant Magnite, Inc.'s responses to the Plaintiffs' first set of interrogatories, marked as Exhibit 6 to the declaration of Thomas M. Hanson in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Attachment A to this Exhibit has been marked as confidential by the Defendant, and describes in detail Magnite's business practices as they relate to the issues in this case. As set forth in the accompanying declaration in support of this application, Magnite's counsel will provide a declaration by Monday, May 4, 2026 as to which portions, if any, may be filed publicly in redacted form. 2. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and memorandum of points and authorities in support contains several references to Exhibit 6 to the declaration of Thomas M. Hanson, which is a confidential document containing details of confidential business practices. The Defendant is an American online advertising technology firm. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZxI6zF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas M. Hanson, Esq. David B. Owens, Esq. Jon Loevy, Esq. Mike Kanovitz, Esq. Julia Quinn, Esq. LOEVY & LOEVY 311 N. Aberdeen, 3rd Floor Chicago, IL 60607 Telephone: (312) 243-5900 Facsimile: (312) 243-5902 E-mail: hanson@loevy.com david@loevy.com jon@loevy.com mike@loevy.com jquinn@loevy.com NEW YORK, NY: Class Settlement in Piney Suit Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALBERT PINEY, et al., v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00671-DEH-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Cave entered an order granting final approval of the settlement, class certification, award of attorneys' fees, expenses and service payment. -- Pursuant to FRCP 23, the Court certifies, for settlement purposes only, a Class consisting of: "all current and former NYPD Officers, Detectives, Sergeants, Lieutenants, Captains, and Inspectors who worked for Empire Force in New York State, through the Paid Detail Program (the "PDP"), at any time from Jan. 23, 2019 through June 6, 2025." -- The Court appoints the Plaintiff Dawkins to represent the Class, finding that he meets all the requirements for class certification under FRCP 23(a) and (b)(3). -- The Court finds that a service payment of $500.00 to the Plaintiff Dawkins is reasonable. -- For settlement purposes only, the Court also grants final certification of the FLSA collective action consisting of: "all current and former NYPD Officers, Detectives, Sergeants, Lieutenants, Captains, and Inspectors who worked for Empire Force in New York State, through the PDP, at any time from Jan. 23, 2022 through June 6, 2025." -- The Court appoints Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP as Class Counsel, finding that they meet all the requirements under the FRCP 23(g). -- The Court grants Class Counsel's requested fees of $1,783.33 and reimbursement of litigation expenses of $500.00. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close Dkt. No. 656. New York comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated April 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dTuu6z at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK, NY: Settlement in Piney Suit Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALBERT PINEY, et al., v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00671-DEH-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting final approval of the settlement, class certification, award of attorneys' fees, expenses and service payment. -- Pursuant to FRCP 23, the Court certifies, for settlement purposes only, a Class consisting of: "all current and former NYPD Officers, Detectives, Sergeants, Lieutenants, Captains, and Inspectors who worked for Lauren B in New York State, through the Paid Detail Program (the "PDP"), at any time from Jan. 23, 2019 through May 8, 2025." -- The Court appoints Plaintiff Dawkins to represent the Class, finding that he meets all the requirements for class certification under FRCP 23(a) and (b)(3). -- The Court finds that a service payment of $500.00 to the Plaintiff Dawkins is reasonable. -- For settlement purposes only, the Court also grants final certification of the FLSA collective action consisting of: "all current and former NYPD Officers, Detectives, Sergeants, Lieutenants, Captains, and Inspectors who worked for Lauren B in New York State, through the PDP, at any time from Jan. 23, 2022 through May 8, 2025." -- The Court grants Class Counsel's requested fees of $8,775.00 and reimbursement of litigation expenses of $600.00. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close Dkt. No. 669. New York comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated April 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oAly0p at no extra charge.[CC] NUTRIEN AG: Conspires to Fix Fertilizer Prices, Patzkowsky Says --------------------------------------------------------------- RUDY PATZKOWSKY, 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. 3:26-cv-00392 (W.D. Wis., April 27, 2026) is brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, on behalf of the Plaintiff and 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. According to the complaint, the Defendants in the case collectively control the American fertilizer supply chain from mine to farm gate. For example, Nutrien and Mosaic together account for more than 90% of North American phosphate and potash production capacity, and CF Industries, Koch, Nutrien, and Yara control 82% of domestic production of nitrogen. Beginning in or around 2021 and continuing through the present, Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix, raise, and maintain fertilizer prices at supracompetitive levels and to restrict supply in order to sustain those prices, asserts the complaint. The result was predictable and documented: fertilizer prices tripled, quadrupled, and in some products quintupled from their 2020 baseline, generating record profits for each Defendant while imposing catastrophic input cost increases on American farmers, says the suit. The Plaintiff 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. Nutrien AG Solutions, Inc. operates as a major retail agricultural network, distributing fertilizers, seed, and crop protection products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher M. Burke, Esq. John Chisholm, Esq. BURKE LLP 402 West Broadway, Suite 1890 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 369-8244 E-mail: cburke@burke.law john.chisholm@burke.law - 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 - 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 PARTS AUTHORITY: Court Stays Rambharose Suit Pending Mediation -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Khumar Rambharose v. Parts Authority, LLC et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-10643-JAV-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Figueredo entered an order granting request for a stay pending mediation. The conference scheduled for May 18, 2026 is adjourned. The parties are directed to provide a status update by June 30, 2026 and may re-raise any disputes at that time if the case does not settle. Accordingly, the parties request the Court stay all deadlines for 60 days, including all scheduled depositions and motions (the motion for conditional certification and letter-briefs regarding Plaintiff’s deposition prior to the motion) until the parties complete mediation, after which time the parties will advise the Court whether the case has been resolved. If not, the parties will resume discovery, with all dates in the Scheduling Order extended 60 days. Parts Authority operates as a distributor of automotive and truck parts to the aftermarket auto parts industry. A copy of the Court's order dated April 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qbpjjs at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey Brecher, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 666 Third Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10017. Telephone: (631) 247-4652 E-mail: jeffrey.brecher@jacksonlewis.com PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Zantac Class Suit in Canada ----------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 29, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from Zantac class suits in Canada. Pfizer has received service of Canadian class action complaints naming Pfizer and other defendants and seeking compensatory and punitive damages for personal injury and economic loss allegedly arising from the defendants' sale of Zantac in Canada. Pfizer Inc. is a global biopharmaceutical company engaged in the discovery, development, manufacture and marketing of medicines and vaccines across a broad range of therapeutic areas. The company collaborates with health care providers, governments and communities worldwide to expand access to innovative treatments. RESPIMAT PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Dec. 10 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit RE: Respimat Pharmaceuticals Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:25-md-03154 (D. Mass., Filed Aug. 11, 2025), the Hon. Judge Denise J. Casper entered an order adopting the following schedule: -- Deadline for substantial completion of document production: June 30, 2026 -- Deadline for production of otherwise privileged documents related to the regulatory mandate defense: June 30, 2026 -- Deadline for deposition of named plaintiff: July 14, 2026 -- The Plaintiff to file a motion for leave to amend, joinder, substitution of Named Plaintiff: August 14, 2026 -- Deadline to serve final privilege log: August 31, 2026 -- Close of fact discovery: October 29, 2026 -- Motion for class certification/Plaintiff's opening expert report (on both class certification and merits): December 10, 2026 -- Opposition to Motions for Class certification, Defendants' Daubert motions and opposition expert reports (on both class certification and merits): March 31, 2027 -- Reply in support of motions for class certification, reply expert reports and Plaintiffs' Daubert motions: May 28, 2027 -- Deadline for Defendants' opposition to Daubert motions and replies in support of defense Daubert motions: July 23, 2027 -- Deadline for Plaintiffs reply in support of Daubert motions: August 20, 2027 The nature of suit states Antitrust Litigation.[CC] RICCELLI HOLDINGS: Sims Seeks Conditional Collective Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DILLON SIMS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RICCELLI HOLDINGS, INC., RICCELLI ENTERPRISES, INC., RICCELLI ENTERPRISES, LLC, and RICCELLI NORTHERN, LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-01554-ECC-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) Conditionally certifying a collective of: "all current and former drivers who worked for Riccelli Holdings, Inc., Riccelli Enterprises, Inc., Riccelli Enterprises, LLC, and Riccelli Northern, LLC anywhere in the United States in the past three years through the present" pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b); (2) Approving the form of the Plaintiff's proposed Notice; (3) Setting a sixty-day notice period; (4) Authorizing the Plaintiff's counsel to mail, e-mail, and text-message the Notice at the beginning of the 60 notice period; and (5) Authorizing the Plaintiff's counsel to send a reminder Notice 30 days prior to the notice deadline. Riccelli provides trucking transportation services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PDqaVC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com - and - Michael C. Conway, Esq. CONWAY, DONOVAN & MANLEY, PLLC 50 State Street, 2nd Floor Albany, NY Telephone: (518) 436-1661 Facsimile: (518) 432-1996 E-mail: mconway@lawcdm.com RISCASSI: Wins Summary Judgment in Veteran Apparel Dispute ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Johnny Fuselier, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. John S. RisCassi, in his official capacity as the Chief Operating Officer of the Armed Forces Retirement Home, Defendant, Civil No. 1:25-cv-268-HSO-BWR (S.D. Miss.), Chief Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, in a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated May 1, 2026, granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, dismissing Plaintiff's claims with prejudice. Plaintiff Johnny Fuselier is a Vietnam War veteran and long-term resident of the Armed Forces Retirement Home-Gulfport (AFRH-G), a gated, guarded, all-inclusive residential retirement home located on the shores of the Gulf of America. Created by Congress under 24 U.S.C. Section 411(a), the AFRH's purpose is to provide residences and related services for certain retired and former members of the Armed Forces. Defendant John S. RisCassi serves as its Chief Operating Officer. The AFRH-G is operated by federal employees, including active-duty military personnel. The AFRH-G Resident Guide prohibits conduct and dress in common areas deemed inappropriate. Signs and apparel bearing racial, sexual, political, or ethnic slogans are not permitted. As a passionate supporter of President Donald Trump and other Republican political candidates and officials, Fuselier wished to wear apparel bearing slogans such as "Trump 2024 Save America Again!" and to display signs on his orthopedic walker in common areas. After the AFRH-G circulated bulletins in June and July 2023 reminding residents that clothing or signs in support of or against a current political candidate are not allowed, Fuselier affixed political signs to his walker in common areas. The Resident Officer ordered him to remove the signs, warning that refusal could result in an administrative hearing and possible eviction. Fuselier complied and filed suit in August 2025, seeking a preliminary injunction and a declaration that the prohibition on political speech violates the First Amendment. The court examined whether the AFRH-G's common areas constitute designated public fora subject to strict scrutiny, or limited public fora subject to the less exacting reasonableness standard. Applying a two-factor test -- the government's intent with respect to the forum, and the nature of the forum and its compatibility with the speech at issue -- the court found the common areas to be limited public or non-public fora. The court determined that neither the practice nor the policy of the AFRH-G was consistent with an intent to open common areas for political expression. The AFRH-G's purpose is to provide residences and related services to veterans, not to facilitate speech. The court also rejected Plaintiff's comparison to university campuses, finding that the mere physical characteristics of the property cannot dictate forum analysis. Unlike public universities, the AFRH-G is a gated, guarded federal facility employing active-duty military personnel, making it incompatible with unrestricted political speech. Because the common areas constitute limited or non-public fora, the restriction on political apparel needed only to be reasonable in light of the forum's purpose and viewpoint neutral. The court found both conditions satisfied. The regulation bans all political apparel without distinction based on the speaker's political persuasion. The Government also has a legitimate and reasonable interest in promoting harmony among residents, visitors, and employees, particularly given the presence of active-duty military personnel and the AFRH-G's congressional mandate of providing health and residential services to veterans. The court further found that, while the Resident Guide itself does not state an explicit limiting principle, the Government provided one through weekly bulletins interpreting the policy to cover clothing or signs in support of or against a current political candidate -- a standard the court found sufficient under governing precedent. Plaintiff's facial overbreadth and vagueness challenges also failed. The court determined that the ratio of unlawful-to-lawful applications is not lopsided enough to justify facial invalidation, and that the Government's clarifying bulletins provided a workable standard sufficient to prevent arbitrary enforcement. Accordingly, the court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment, denied Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, and dismissed Plaintiff's claims with prejudice. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yMBGfv from PacerMonitor.com SAZERAC COMPANY: Del Rosario Class Cert Bid Tossed as Moot ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Del Rosario v. Sazerac Company, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01060 (S.D.N.Y., Filed Feb. 8, 2023), the Hon. Judge Arun Subramanian entered an order denying as moot Motion for Class Certification due to filing of amended motion. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. Sazerac is a privately held American alcoholic beverage company.[CC] SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Haselman Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty ------------------------------------------------------------------- James Haselman and Dale Moon, individually, and as representatives of a Class of Participants and Beneficiaries of the Schlumberger Technology Corporation Savings and Retirement Plan, Plaintiffs v. Schlumberger Technology Corporation, and The Administrative Committee of the Schlumberger Technology Corporation Savings and Retirement Plan, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-3121 (S.D. Tex., April 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for 1) failing to act in accordance with the plan documents, 2) breaching their fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence, and 3) allowing assets of the Plan to inure to the benefit of Defendant Schlumberger, in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). The complaint relates that the Defendants are fiduciaries of the Plan. Pursuant to the ERISA, Defendants were required to discharge their duties to the Plan "solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries" and "for the exclusive purpose of: (i) providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries; and (ii) defraying reasonable expenses of administering the plan." Since 2020, Defendants have repeatedly breached their duty of loyalty with respect to their control and management of the Plan's assets by invariably choosing to use the Plan's forfeited funds for the benefit of Schlumberger rather than solely in the interest of the participants and their beneficiaries, asserts the complaint. Instead of using forfeited funds in the interest of participants by reducing or eliminating the expenses charged to their individual accounts or by reallocating these funds to eligible participants, Defendants chose to use these Plan assets for the purpose of reducing Schlumberger's own contributions to the Plan, saving the Company millions of dollars each year at the Plan's and its participants' expense, it adds. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' fiduciary breaches, the Plan's assets were decreased, and its participants and their beneficiaries either incurred avoidable expense deductions to their individual accounts or received no additional allocation of those forfeited amounts to their accounts, alleges the complaint. These injuries caused the Plan to suffer losses in the amount of the Plan assets that were substituted for Schlumberger's obligated employer contributions to the Plan and the lost investment returns on those assets. Moerover, each Defendant knowingly participated in the other Defendant's breach, knowing that such acts were a breach. Each Defendant's breach enabled the other Defendants to commit a breach of its duty. And, each Defendant, knowing of the other Defendant's breach, failed to make reasonable efforts under the circumstances to remedy the breach. For these independent reasons, each Defendant is liable for the losses caused by the breach of its co-fiduciary under ERISA, says the suit. Plaintiff Dale Moon started working at Schlumberger in 2023 and is still employed by the Company. Plaintiff James Haselman started working at Schlumberger in 2012 and ended his employment with Schlumberger in 2024. Defendant Schlumberger Technology Corporation is an oilfield services company, supplying technology, project management, and information solutions to the global energy industry.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Justin S. Abbarno, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 8160 Norton Parkway Mentor, OH 44060 Telephone: (440) 953-8888 Facsimile: (440) 953-9138 E-mail: jabbarno@dicellolevitt.com - and - Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Daniel R. Ferri, Esq. Elijah G. Savage, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com dferri@dicellolevitt.com esavage@dicellolevitt.com THERAPYMATCH INC: Underpays Sales Representatives, Galdamez Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANNABELLA GALDAMEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THERAPYMATCH, Inc. d/b/a HEADWAY, Defendant, Case No. 26-CV-3181 (S.D.N.Y., April 17, 2026) is a class and collective action seeking to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages for Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals who have worked for Defendant in the job titles of account executive, provider growth associate or growth associate, senior provider growth associate or senior growth associate, provider sales associate or sales associate, and other similar roles, however variously titled (together, "Sales Representatives"). Defendant TherapyMatch, Inc. d/b/a Headway is a software company that created an online mental health platform that connects therapy seekers ("Patients") with mental health care providers ("Providers") who accept insurance. The complaint relates that Headway employs Sales Representatives to sell access to the online mental health platform to Providers. Headway requires its Sales Representatives to meet productivity requirements and quotas. Plaintiff and similarly situated employees work long hours, often in excess of 40 hours per workweek, in order to comply with company expectations, complete required tasks, meet productivity requirements, and earn commissions. While employed by Headway, Plaintiff consistently worked more than 40 hours per workweek without receiving overtime compensation. During the relevant period, it has been Headway's policy to uniformly classify Sales Representatives, including Plaintiff, as exempt from overtime provisions and not to pay Sales Representatives any overtime wages. Throughout the relevant period, it was Headway's policy to deprive Plaintiff and other Sales Representatives of overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act; and the California Labor Code and applicable Wage Orders and regulations, as well as the California Unfair Business Practices Law, says the suit. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all similarly situated current and former Sales Representatives who worked for Headway pursuant to the FLSA. Plaintiff also brings this action to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages for herself and similarly situated Sales Representatives employed by Headway in California as a class action pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to remedy violations of the California Wage Laws. Plaintiff Annabella Galdamez was employed by Headway from November 2023 to July 2024 as a Provider Growth Associate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa L. Stewart, Esq. Aaron Bryce Lee, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (646) 509-2060 E-mail: mstewart@outtengolden.com E-mail: alee@outtengolden.com - and - Molly Frandsen, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1500 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 638-8800 Facsimile: (415) 638-8810 E-mail: mfrandsen@outtengolden.com TICKETMASTER LLC: Abbott Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Classes ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAWN ABBOTT, et al., v. TICKETMASTER, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-10757-GW-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Aug. 24, 2026 at 8:30 a.m., will move for an order to certify the following defined classes as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and/or 23(b)(3): "All residents of the United States, who purchased tickets through the Defendants' Website(s) or mobile applications to an event venued in New York state, and were charged one or more ancillary fees that were not included in the total price listed on the initial ticket listing page for the event on the Defendants' Website(s) or mobile application(s) between Aug. 29, 2022 and Aug. 11, 2025." ("Class"). Within the Class is the following subclass: "All residents of the United States who purchased tickets through the Defendants' Website(s) or mobile applications to an event venued in New York state between July 17, 2023 and Aug. 11, 2025." The Plaintiffs also request: 1) for Plaintiffs, Movants and/or Helen Pantuso to be named class representatives; and 2) for the law firms of Zimmerman Reed LLP, Tycko & Zavareei LLP, Z Law LLC and Giskan Solotaroff & Anderson LLP to be appointed as class counsel. The following Movants, who have agreed to intervene and serve as additional class representatives, join in Plaintiffs' motion: Dennis Mitcheltree,Jesse Carr, Suzanne Black, Tara Thrasher-Tyler, Eric Reichenberg, Nina Richardson, Deepak Gera, Patrick Reiner, Rafael Sanchez, William Stark, Ryan Murphy, Kelli Durr, Hayley Kresock, Melanie Wohl, Katrina Overbey, and Peter Olshanksy. Ticketmaster is an American ticket sales and distribution company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MIpW9O at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq. Caleb Marker, Esq. Jessica Liu, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 6420 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1080 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (877) 500-8780 Facsimile: (877) 500-8781 TRAJECTOR MEDICAL: Baker Suit Removed to N.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Christopher Baker, Randall Coates, Kerry Isner, Damon Oliver, and Warren Treadwell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRAJECTOR MEDICAL, LLC, f/k/a VET COMP & PEN MEDICAL CONSULTING, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, Case No. 01-2026-CA-952 was removed from the Circuit Court of the Eighth Judicial Circuit in and for Alachua County, Florida, to the United States District Court for Northern District of Florida on April 28, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00099-MW-HTC. The Plaintiffs' single-count Complaint asserts that Trajector's alleged violations of federal law, in particular, federal regulations issued by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA"), constitute a violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, commonly referred to as "FDUTPA."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles T. Douglas Jr., Esq. DOUGLAS LAW FIRM 117 North 2nd Street Palatka, FL 32177 Email: charlie@dhclawyers.com The Defendants are represented by: John E. Clabby, Esq. Simon A. Gaugush, Esq. Aaron S. Weiss, Esq. Olivia Zukowski, Esq. CARLTON FIELDS, P.A. Corporate Center Three at International Plaza, Suite 1000 4221 West Boy Scout Boulevard Tampa, FL 33607-5780 Phone: (813) 229-4229 Email: JClabby@carltonfields.com SGaugush@carltonfields.com AWeiss@carltonfields.com OZukowski@carltonfields.com TU TIPICO DOMINICANO: Mena Suit Transferred to E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Amaury Mena, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. Tu Tipico Dominicano Corp., Tu Tipico Restaurant Dominicano II, Inc., Roberto Ramirez, individually, Case No. 1:26-cv-02450 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on April 28, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-02510-JAM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Tu Tipico Dominicano -- https://tutipicodominicano.com/ -- is a popular restaurant located in the Castleton Corners neighborhood of Staten Island, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. Andrew C. Weiss, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 248-5550 Fax: (516) 248-6027 Email: mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com acw@employmentlawyernewyork.com UNITED STATES: Diego Plaintiffs Lose Preliminary Injunction Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIEGO N. et al., v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-00577-CJN (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Carl Nichols entered a judgment that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to a preliminary injunction at this stage of the litigation and based on the present record. Because individual habeas petitions provide the Plaintiffs with an alternative remedy in court—namely, individualized determinations regarding the propriety of their detention— the Plaintiffs' claims are likely barred by 5 U.S.C. section 704. The Plaintiffs therefore have failed to establish that the purported re-application policy, while perhaps not obligatory, is likely contrary to law. The scope of Plaintiffs' requested relief also augurs against an injunction. As the Court of Appeals has reiterated, "[b]ecause injunctions can irreparably injure parties, courts must use great caution, granting them only in cases where they are clearly indispensable to the ends of justice." The Plaintiffs have not shown that equitable relief is so clearly indispensable to entitle them to that "extraordinary remedy." The Plaintiffs are four pseudonymous unaccompanied alien children who were in Office of Refugee Resettlement ("ORR") custody at the time of the filing of this lawsuit. They allege that although each of them has a sponsor who was previously approved by ORR, ORR refused to release them until those sponsors submitted new applications. They argue that because their sponsors were previously approved as custodians, the Government cannot keep them detained absent a showing that their continued detention is justified. The Government's policy of doing so, Plaintiffs contend, violates their constitutional due process rights and the Administrative Procedure Act. The Defendant is a cabinet-level executive branch department of the U.S. federal government created to set guidelines for the private healthcare system and providing essential human services. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated April 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bCxHCl at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Seeks Leave to File Opposition Class Sur-Reply ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHASE BOURQUE et al., v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Case No. 3:24-cv-06994-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for leave to file supplementary material in connection with the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Defendants seek leave to file a supplemental brief, not to exceed five pages, to address three issues raised for the first time in the Plaintiffs' reply brief, filed on April 16, 2026. A copy of the proposed surreply is attached to the accompany declaration as Exhibit A. In their Reply, the Plaintiffs responded to the Defendants' arguments with two novel arguments. First, the Plaintiffs argue that, to show standing to seek injunctive relief, the Plaintiffs need not show that the named plaintiffs themselves face any likelihood of paying the expedite passport fee in the future because the Department in 2021 adopted a "written policy" governing the methodology that would be used to set the EPF, and because, the Plaintiffs contend, "the Government has engaged in a pattern of officially sanctioned conduct violating the Plaintiffs' federal rights." Second, the Plaintiffs argue that they need not challenge the discrete agency decisions, such as the 2021 decision they referenced earlier, that governed the EPF during the class period in order to show causation and redressability because, in their view, the Department's "conduct," representing "the continued implementation of the same policy and the same fee" over a period of time, qualifies as a "cognizable agency action." The Defendants believe both of these arguments are erroneous and inconsistent with established law and seek to respond to them in a surreply. US is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the nation’s presence into the Pacific Ocean. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gAgksc at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Jessica Lundberg, Esq. Kathryn Wyer, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1100 L Street NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 305-1865 Facsimile: (202) 514-8640 E-mail: jessica.a.lundberg@usdoj.gov kathryn.wyer@usdoj.gov UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Hill Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Stephanie Hill, Hailey Waller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. University of Phoenix, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-04936 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on April 28, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-01115 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. The University of Phoenix -- https://www.phoenix.edu/ -- is an online college that is accredited, affordable, and has degrees that align to careers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anasuya E. Shekhar, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Ave., 5th Fl. Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (267) 609-6910 Fax: (267) 609-6955 Email: jerry@lcllp.com The Defendants are represented by: David A. Yudelson, Esq. CONSTANGY BROOKS SMITH AND PROPHETE LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 909-7775 Fax: (424) 465-6630 - and - Lindsay B. Nickle, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP. 100 Crescent Court, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (806) 535-0274 Email: lnickle@constangy.com - and - Phillip Winston Londen, Esq. OSBORN MALEDON PA P.O. Box 36379 Phoenix, AZ 85067-6379 Phone: (602) 640-9315 Fax: (602) 940-9050 UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Soliz Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Mari Soliz, Denise Rico, individually, and on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. University of Phoenix, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-04522 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on April 28, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-01114 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. The University of Phoenix -- https://www.phoenix.edu/ -- is an online college that is accredited, affordable, and has degrees that align to careers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Amanda Grace Fiorilla, Esq. Christian Levis, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG PC 44 S Broadway, Ste. 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Phone: (914) 733-7266 Fax: (914) 997-0035 Email: clevis@lowey.com - and - Anthony M. Christina, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG PC - WEST CONSHOHOCKEN PA 100 Front St., Ste. 520 West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (215) 399-4770 - and - Russell S. Thompson, IV, Esq. THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PC 11445 E Via Linda, Ste. 2 Scottsdale, AZ 85259 Phone: (602) 388-8898 Email: rthompson@thompsonconsumerlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: David B. Rosenbaum, Esq. OSBORN MALEDON PA - PHOENIX 2929 N Central Ave., Ste. 2000 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Phone: (602) 640-9000 Fax: (602) 640-9050 - and - Lindsay B. Nickle, Esq. Taylor Deeanna Brisco CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP. 100 Crescent Court, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (806) 535-0274 Email: lnickle@constangy.com tbrisco@constangy.com - and - Phillip Winston Londen, Esq. OSBORN MALEDON PA P.O. Box 36379 Phoenix, AZ 85067-6379 Phone: (602) 640-9315 Fax: (602) 940-9050 VOLUSIA COUNTY, FL: Powell Seeks OK of Renewed Bid for Class Cert ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY POWELL, as next of kin and on behalf of J.T.A., a minor, YVONNE WOLFE, as next of kin and on behalf of C.L., a minor, et al., v. THE SCHOOL BOARD OF VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA, a Political subdivision of the state of Florida, Case No. 6:21-cv-01791-JSS-NWH (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their renewed motion for class certification. The proposed Class is defined as follows: "All students throughout the state of Florida with learning disabilities who attended public schools owned and operated by the Defendant, The School Board of Volusia County, Florida." Those qualifying proposed Class members under the age of 18 will be represented by their respective next of kin. The Plaintiffs move for certification of their claims for unlawful discrimination pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disability Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Plaintiffs concurrently move to for appointment of the following firm as Class Trial Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, The Harr Law Firm, Inc. The Plaintiffs include LYNETTE CLEWS, as next of kin and on behalf of M.A.R., a minor, ELICIA RODRIGUEZ, as next of kin and on behalf of A.J.R., a minor, MORGAN RICHARDS, as next of kin and on behalf of D.R.R., a minor, GEORGIA HINES, as next of kin and on behalf of G.J.H, a minor, CRYSTAL COOPER, as next of kin and on behalf of M.R.J., a minor, ANGELICA AMIS, as next of kin and on behalf of D.S., a minor, DONALD FAULKNER, JR., as next of kin and on behalf of B.C.D. and J.J.F., minors, JEFFREY BLASSMEYER, as next of kin and on behalf of L.I.B., a minor, KIMBERLY AMIS, as next of kin and on behalf of J.M.B., a minor, BRYAN SIROIS, as next of kin and on behalf of M.E.S., a minor, SHANNON ROBINSON, as next of kin and on behalf of L.D.S., a minor, KAYLA KLINGLER, as next of kin and on behalf of J.J.K., a minor, TENEA PHILLIPS, as next of kin and on behalf of C.N.P., a minor, BRANDON BRINDLEY, as next of kin and on behalf of A.C.B., a minor, TIFFANY REINHARDT, as next of kin and on behalf of W.M.A., a minor, SARAH WINDHOVEN, as next of kin and on behalf of J.M.W., a minor, ANNI SUADI, as next of kin and on behalf of L.A., AMANDA SULLIVAN, as next of kin and on behalf of C.M.C.L., a minor, EMMA VANCURAN, as next of kin and on behalf of N.D.V.C., a minor, BRENT EULER, as next of kin and on behalf of C.A.E., a minor, HEATHER DEY, as next of kin and on behalf of D.C.D., a minor, KEVIN TOMAKA, as next of kin and on behalf of N.A.T., a minor, WENDY WEISHEIMER, as next of kin and on behalf of C.W., a minor, DONALD W. POWELL, as next of kin and on behalf of S.E.P., PAMELA TOMS, as next of kin and on behalf of M.T.K., a minor, TERRIE L. FUEHRER, as next of kin and on behalf of C.L.F., a minor, TINA TRENCHERD, as next of kin and on behalf of H.C.T., a minor, CARLA ANDER, as next of kin and on behalf of T.A., MIRANDA FREELAND, as next of kin and on behalf of J.W.D., III, a minor, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. The School Board of Volusia County, Florida, governs the Volusia County Schools (VCS), a large public school district in Central Florida. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OklBMY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason L. Harr, Esq. THE HARR LAW FIRM The Harr Professional Center 517 South Ridgewood Avenue Daytona Beach, FL 32114 Telephone: (386) 226-4866 E-mail: jasonharr@harrlawfirm.com brittanipetrofsky@harrlawfirm.com miriamjuarez@harrlawfirm.com WALMART INC: Glase Seeks Refunds from Unlawful Tariffs ------------------------------------------------------ JOHN GLASE and ADAM FALKNER AND KRISTIN FALKNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WALMART INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00988 (N.D. Ohio, April 27, 2026) is a class action arising from Walmart's retention of windfall profits generated by the unlawful tariffs imposed by the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Beginning in February 2025, President Trump issued a series of executive orders invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose new and significant tariffs on imports from nearly every foreign country, including those from which Walmart sources products. Following the imposition of the subject tariffs, Walmart publicly stated that it would implement price increases across its product lines to manage the financial impact of the subject tariffs. The Plaintiffs and the Class purchased Walmart products after these price increases took effect and, as a result, paid higher prices reflecting these tariff-related adjustments. This particular dispute stems from Walmart's statements and actions around a structural inequity in the tariff refund process. While the importer of record is the only party that may recover a refund from the government for an improperly assessed tariff, the importer is often nothing more than a pass-through vehicle. Frequently, the importer simply fronts the cost of the tariff, and recovers a percentage of the cost by imposing higher prices on consumers. The consumer, for all intents and purposes, pays a percentage of the tariff. According to the complaint, Walmart makes no commitment to compensate its customers who paid elevated prices during the Class Period, leaving Walmart the sole benefactor of the illegal tariff windfall. Walmart's simultaneous recoupment of tariff costs from consumers through elevated pricing and from the government through court-ordered tariff refunds constitutes unjust enrichment at the expense of the Class. Therefore, the Plaintiffs seek a judgment that Walmart is obligated to return to Plaintiffs and proposed Class Members all IEEPA duties passed on to customers in the form of higher prices on products, with interest. The Plaintiffs and the Classes are entitled to restitution of the tariff overcharges they paid, or a proportionate share of any tariff refunds Walmart recovers, together with interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs. Headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas, Walmart Inc. operates discount stores, supercenters, and neighborhood markets.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas J. Connick, Esq. Theodore M. Dunn, Jr., Esq. Kevin Kozak, Esq. SCHNEIDER BELL LLP 1375 E. Ninth Street, Suite 900 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 696-4200 Facsimile: (216) 696-7303 E-mail: tconnick@sssb-law.com tdunn@mysblaw.com - and - Edward A. Proctor, Esq. MILLS, MILLS, FIELY AND LUCAS, LLC 101 Canton Central Plaza, Suite 1200 Canton, OH 44702 Telephone: (330) 456-0506 E-mail: eproctor@mmfllaw.com - and - Edward W. Cochran, Esq. 20030 Marchmont Rd. Shaker Heights, OH 44122 Telephone: (216) 577-4545 E-mail: edward@edwcochran.com WALT DISNEY: Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOCAL 272 LABOR MANAGEMENT PENSION FUND, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, v. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-03661-CBM-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their application and sealing Exhibits J, Q and R to the declaration of Ladan F. Stewart in support of the Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, along with portions of the Memorandum of Law in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion. Exhibit J was designated as "Confidential" by Non-Party Atalanta Sosnoff Capital, LLC, pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order as it is the excerpted deposition transcript of Atalanta's witness relying on documents Atalanta marked as "Confidential." Exhibits Q and R were designated "Confidential" by the Defendants pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order as they comprise confidential segment-level financial information and analyses. Walt Disney is an American multinational mass media and entertainment conglomerate. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KRqfif at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Jonathan D. Polkes, Esq. Stacy Nettleton, Esq. Adam B. Banks, Esq. Ladan F. Stewart, Esq. Tania C. Matsuoka, Esq. Zach Williams, Esq. WHITE & CASE LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 819-8200 E-mail: jonathan.polkes@whitecase.com stacy.nettleton@whitecase.com adam.banks@whitecase.com ladan.stewart@whitecase.com tania.matsuoka@whitecase.com zach.williams@whitecase.com - and - John W. Spiegel, Esq. John M. Gildersleeve, Esq. MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 E-mail: john.spiegel@mto.com john.gildersleeve@mto.com WHALECO INC: Faces Pottish Suit Over Misleading Spam E-Mails ------------------------------------------------------------ DALLAS POTTISH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WHALECO INC., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a TEMU.COM, Defendant, Case No. 26STCV13488 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles, April 27, 2026) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Business and Professions Code and the California Trap and Trace Law for unlawful spamming and invasion of privacy. According to the complaint, the Defendant deploys every deceptive tactic like materially false subject lines, deceptive headers, and spoofed domains to trick unwary Californians into opening messages they would otherwise ignore. The harm does not stop at the inbox as after being deceived into engaging with the spam, the Plaintiff was funneled to the website, temu.com where Defendant installed a web of illegal tracking pixels on Plaintiff's device. Those tracking technologies enable Defendant and its partners to follow Plaintiff's behavior across the Internet, converting a single deceptive email into ongoing digital surveillance. TEMU.COM does this to everyone who clicks on its spam, alleges the suit. Whaleco Inc., d/b/a TEMU.COM, is a company that operates an online marketplace.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.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 ***