260513.mbx

260513.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, May 13, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 95 Headlines ABBOTT DIABETES: Connoly Sues Over Defective Glucose Monitor ACUSHNET CO: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Suit Says ALERT 360: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Ayala Suit Alleges AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Kendrick Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ANABOLIC ALIENS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Evans Alleges ANAYA PERSONAL: Kramer Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind APPLE INC: Agrees to Settle Siri AI Fraud Class Suit for $250-Mil. ATTYX LLC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Solar Panel Systems Fraud AUDIBLE INC: Seeks to Certify Class Suit Over Audiobook Credits BELL AMBULANCE: Settles 2025 Data Breach Class Suit for $2-Mil. BERNARD MAYER: Pardo Files Suit Over ADA Violation BISSELL HOMECARE: Conceals Products' Hazardous Defects, Khalil Says BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Boardwalk GP Breached LPA, Court Says BOIRON INC: Faces Glinka Suit Over Products' Pain Relief Claims BOSE CORPORATION: Morris Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CARNIVAL CORPORATION: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Collins Says CAROL'S DAUGHTER: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Bishop Says CBR SERVICES: Rivera-Santos Suit Removed to E.D. California CENIKOR FOUNDATION: Davis Files Suit in S.D. California CENTO FINE: Faces Andrich Suit Over Tomato False Labeling CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Contreras Suit Removed to W.D. Washington CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Gorbatyuk Suit Removed to W.D. Washington CLEAN EARTH: Kunze Suit Moved to W.D. Wash. CLUB MONACO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Verduzco Suit Claims COASTAL BEND: Calderon Files FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages COSTAR GROUP: Harvey Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CREDIT CONTROL: Court OKs Post Settlement Motion to Dismiss Suit CRUTCHFIELD CORP: Cesario Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind CURALEAF HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suit Over Cannabis Antidote Claims DEERE & CO: Terminates Workers w/o Severance Benefits, Ahmed Says DIG INN RESTAURANT: Klein Sues Over Improper Business Practices DLV VISION ASC: Davis Files Suit in S.D. California DTLA 33 TAPS CONCESSIONS: Santiago Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. EMPIRE AUTO: Faces Figueroa Class Suit Over Vehicle Service Plans EYEMART EXPRESS: Bond Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI FCA US: Aiello Sues Over Defective Hybrid Electric Vehicles FIRST NATIONAL BANK: Mcauley Files Suit in Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas FIRST-CITIZENS BANK: Noel Suit Removed to C.D. California FLORIDA PHYSICIAN: Faces Class Action Suit Over Data Breach FS KKR CAPITAL: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit GRAYROBINSON PA: Clark Files Suit in M.D. Florida HACKS FOOD SAFETY: Rivera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HALLISEY & D'AGOSTINO: Rutherford File Suit Over Data Breach HAWTHORNE HYDROPONICS: Ortiz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HEALTH LINK: Assawasuksant Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HEALTHCARE CLEANING: Mendoza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HOME DEPOT: Cossey Suit Removed to C.D. California INSTRUCTURE HOLDINGS: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach J & D: Blind Users Face Barriers to Website Access, Bishop Says J.G. WENTWORTH: Faces Class Action Suit Over Sharing Loan Data JAMES L. MITCHELL: Court Dismisses Sex Offender Fee Challenge JENSEN LANDSCAPE SERVICES: Moreno Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. KALSHI INC: Brown Sues Over Illegal Commercial Text Messages KROGER CO: Anderson Sues Over Unlawful Health Insurance Surcharges LADDARAN MANAGEMENT CORP: Davison Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LEMONADE INC: Settles Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit for $10.5MM LIBERTY MUTUAL: Class Cert. Hearing in Ward Rescheduled to June 4 LISATA THERAPEUTICS: M&A Investigates Sale to Smithfield Foods LOWE'S HOME CENTERS: Rodgers Suit Removed to C.D. California MAGIC PLASTICS INC: Mejia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MARIANNA F. HEETER: Bennett Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida MARKWAYNE MULLIN: Guadalupe Files Suit in S.D. Florida MATTRESS FIRM: Santiago Sues Over Deceptive Pricing Scheme MAV BEAUTY: Website Denies Equal Access to Blind Users, Bishop Says MERCOR.IO CORP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Ananthula Says MONGODB INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Baxter" Securities Suit MONOLITHIC POWER: Miller Derivative Suit Stayed MONOLITHIC POWER: Waterford Twp. Class Suit Stayed MORGAN STANLEY: Storn Files Suit Over LIBOR Act Violation NATION COMPANY: Intercepts Content Communications, Erakat Alleges NCBT TRINITY PARKWAY: McNeal Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NECTAR SLEEP: Teeter Files Suit Over False Discount Prices NESTER HOSIERY: Bishop Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website NESTLE PURINA: Class Cert Deadline in Boyle Amended to August 14 NO. 7 BEAUTY: Faces Class Action Suit Over Falsely Advertised Wipes NOW SURFACING: Booker Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Continues to Defend Hubacek Securities Class Suit ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Silva Stockholder Derivative Suit Stayed OREMOR OF CAPISTRANO: Faces Baldwin Over Unwanted Text Messages PATHWARD NATIONAL: Mcauley Files Suit in Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas PENDLETON WOOLEN: Erwin Suit Removed to W.D. Washington PRIDE INTERMODAL: Nisby Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PROCTER & GAMBLE: Kreutter Suit Removed to C.D. California REDBANKS COLONIAL: Underpays Patient Care Employees, Dunn Says RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT: Colbert Files Suit in D. Kansas RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT: McAllister Files Suit in D. Kansas RODENBURG LLP: Clark Files Suit in D. North Dakota RODENBURG LLP: Dockter Files Suit in D. North Dakota SESDERMA USA: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Echols Alleges SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Pirani Securities Suit SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit SMARTE INC: Benasutti Suit Removed to N.D. California STEPPING OUT: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Skaggs Says STIFEL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Bank Deposits Class Suits STIFEL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Dell Class Suit in Missouri STIFEL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Striplin Class Suit SUSQUEHANNA GLASS: Loraw Files Suit in Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas TARGET INC: Overstates Number of Servings of Creamer, Suit Alleges TCL TECHNOLOGY: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Software Updates TEXAS: ACLU Files Class Suit Blocking Migrant Arrest Law TRADER JOE'S: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Mislabeling Coffee TRANE TECHNOLOGIES: Isom Sues Over HVAC Equipment Sale Monopoly TRISTAR INSURANCE: Settles 2022 Data Breach Class Suit for $1-Mil. TU TIPICO DOMINICANO: Mena FLSA Suit Transferred to E.D. New York ULTA SALON: Md. Court Grants Bid to Remand "Mulanena" UNITED LENDING TEAM: Martinez Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California UNITED STATES: Allowed Leave to File Opposition Surreply in Bourque US HEALTH: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cesario Suit Alleges VERITY SCREENING: Maclin FCRA Suit Transferred to D. Colorado VISIBLE IDEAS INC: Maxey Suit Removed to S.D. Florida WILLIAMS TANK LINES: Neves Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WOOT.COM LLC: Roth Files Suit in W.D. Washington WREN US: Unlawfully Terminates Employees, Thomas-Giambrone Says WTMG INC: Suarez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ZIMMERMANN (USA) INC: Jean-Jacques Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. [] Darrow Launches Platform to Identify, Vet & Manage Litigation ********* ABBOTT DIABETES: Connoly Sues Over Defective Glucose Monitor ------------------------------------------------------------ SHEILA CONNOLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABBOTT DIABETES CARE INC.; and ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00840-SM-EJD (E.D. La., April 21, 2026) alleges violation of the Louisiana Products Liability Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Freestyle Libre 2 and Freestyle Libre 2 Plus CGM, which were manufactured, designed, constructed, and produced by the Defendants, was defective due to a design and manufacturing flaw which caused the sensor to report falsely low glucose readings, even when users' actual blood glucose levels are normal or elevated. The Plaintiff relied upon this device to make potentially life-or-death treatment decisions regarding insulin administration and carbohydrate intake. These inaccurate readings pose a serious safety risk because they prompted Plaintiff to take unnecessary corrective action and delay appropriate treatment, putting her into DKA and almost resulting in her death, says the suit. Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc. provides healthcare services. The Company offers diagnostics, medical devices, nutritionals, and branded generic pharmaceuticals. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hugh P. Lambert, Esq. Jacki L. Smith, Esq. Brian J. Mersman, Esq. Madison C. Medver, Esq. LAMBERT, ZAINEY, SMITH, & SOSO, APLC 701 Magazine Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 581-1750 Facsimile: (504) 529-2931 Email: hlambert@lambertzainey.com jsmith@lambertzainey.com bmersman@lambertzainey.com mmedver@lambertzainey.com - and - Kerry J. Miller, Esq. Rebekka C. Veith, Esq. C. Hogan Paschal, Esq. Carly E. McClesky, Esq. MILLER, THIBODEAUX, DYSART, VEITH, & PASCHAL, LLC 643 Magazine Street, Suite 405 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 977-9150 Facsimile: (504) 977-9151 Email: kmiller@mtdvp.com rveith@mtdvp.com hpaschal@mtdvp.com cmccleskey@mtdvp.com ACUSHNET CO: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Acushnet Company d/b/a FootJoy, Case No. 0:26-cv-02466 (D. Minn., May 4, 2026) alleges that the Defendant's website, www.footjoy.com is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations. As a consequence of her experience visiting the Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found the Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like the Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content – content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users, the suit alleges. In addition to her claim under the ADA, the Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in the Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota pursuant to Minn. Stat. The Defendant does business within and around the State of Minnesota. The Defendant offers golf apparel for sale including, but not limited to, shoes, tops, bottoms, shorts, vests, quarter-zips, hoodies, outerwear, skirts, skorts, accessories, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com ALERT 360: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Ayala Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- JUAN AYALA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALERT 360 OPCO, INC. d/b/a ALERT 360, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00224-SH (N.D. Okla., April 21, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' personal identifiable information. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII––and failed to encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted PII was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect its customers' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes, says the suit. Alert360 Opco Inc, provides security products and services for residential, business and commercial applications. The Company offers home security system installations, alarm monitoring for security systems, energy management, home automation services, remote video monitoring and mobile surveillance trailers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tyler Bean, Esq. Kennedy Brian, Esq. Tanner R. Hilton, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 101 Park Ave. Suite 1300, #16982799 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (929) 677-5144 (929) 376-5170 (929) 274-2944 Email: tbean@sirillp.com kbrian@sirillp.com thilton@sirillp.com - and - Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Kendrick Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American International Industries. The case is styled as Sumatra Kendrick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American International Industries, Case No. 26STCV13659 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 28, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Commercial/Business Tort (Not Fraud/ Breach of Contract) (General Jurisdiction)." American International Industries -- https://www.aiibeauty.com/ -- is the leading manufacturer and distributor of innovative, quality beauty and skin care products for men and women.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert S. Arns, Esq. ARNS DAVIS LAW 515 Folsom St. Fl. 3 San Francisco, CA 94105-3177 Phone: 415-495-7800 Fax: 415-495-7888 Email: rsa@arnslaw.com ANABOLIC ALIENS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Evans Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES EVANS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Anabolic Aliens LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-4841 (N.D. Ill., April 28, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://anabolicaliens.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Evans and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Evans's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint relates that Evans has made an attempt to complete a transaction on the Website on March 27, 2026. However, while navigating the Website using his screen reader software, Evans encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented him from completing the process. The Website contains access barriers that deny full and equal access to Evans. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Evans and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of the Website in violation of the ADA and/or its implementing regulations, says the suit. Evans seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff James Evans is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Anabolic Aliens LLC provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including a comprehensive range of fitness and performance solutions, such as personalized coaching programs, nutritional supplements, and specialized exercise equipment, complemented by branded merchandise.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 716-281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law ANAYA PERSONAL: Kramer Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------------- BETH KRAMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANAYA PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS LLC d/b/a PACIFIC HEALTH LABORATORIES, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03198 (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.pacifichealthlabs.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Anaya Personal Care Products LLC d/b/a Pacific Health Laboratories sells cosmetic products, such as body butters, face washes, and hand creams made with natural ingredients like green tea and rose. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, New York 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com APPLE INC: Agrees to Settle Siri AI Fraud Class Suit for $250-Mil. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Guardian reports that Apple on Tuesday, May 5, agreed to pay $250m to settle a class-action lawsuit accusing it of misleading millions of iPhone buyers by falsely touting artificial intelligence capabilities for its Siri voice assistant in late 2024. Plaintiffs accused the California tech company of having "promoted AI capabilities that did not exist at the time, do not exist now, and will not exist for two or more years" in order to boost iPhone sales, according to the suit. Apple's more "personalized" version of Siri still has not been fully released despite its announcement nearly two years ago. The Better Business Bureau's National Advertising Division, the US advertising watchdog, had also concluded that Apple falsely suggested the new AI-powered Siri was "available now". The settlement filed for court approval, which includes no admission of wrongdoing by Apple, covers roughly 36m eligible devices -- the iPhone 16, as well as the iPhone 15 Pro and 15 Pro Max -- bought in the US from 10 June 2024 to 29 March 2025. "We resolved this matter to stay focused on what we do best: delivering the most innovative products and services to our users," Apple told the Financial Times. Each class member could receive $25 per device, a sum that could reach $95 depending on the number of approved claimants. "We are proud to secure a historic settlement on behalf of consumers who should feel confident and protected when deciding where to spend their hard-earned dollars," said Ryan Clarkson, founder and managing partner of Clarkson Law Firm, which brought the suit on behalf of consumers. "We are at an inflection point with AI, and the choices companies and regulators make now will shape how this technology impacts everyday people." A Morgan Stanley survey cited in the complaint indicated that "enhanced Siri" was the feature that potential iPhone buyers most anticipated. Apple had launched a major advertising campaign in 2024 to promote these capabilities, before confirming their indefinite delay and pulling its ads. The settlement must still be approved by Judge Noël Wise of the federal district court for the northern district of California at a hearing set for 17 June. [GN] ATTYX LLC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Solar Panel Systems Fraud ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges Attyx has fraudulently induced consumers into buying expensive solar panel systems and home improvements by falsely promising free roof replacements, low costs and that the systems would drastically reduce or eliminate monthly energy bills. According to the 48-page lawsuit, none of the roof replacements or home improvements promised by Attyx, formerly known as SUNCo Capital, LLC, were free, as the costs were instead "baked into" the price quoted by the defendant for solar system installation. The filing also alleges that Attyx sales personnel have secured consumer signatures for solar system installations and home improvements under false pretenses, either by preventing customers from reviewing key documents, misdirecting them to sign tablets under the guise of consenting to a credit check, or by "forging consumers' signatures" on purported loan agreements. Further, the class action lawsuit says that Attyx "ensured it got paid" by fraudulently originating loans, leaving consumers "saddled with debt." The case alleges that the fraudulent loans were extended "with the knowledge and agreement" of co-defendants Solar Mosaic LLC, WebBank, and Service Finance Company, LLC. "This scheme was repeated thousands of times, leading to substantial profits by both Attyx and its lending partners, all at the expense of often vulnerable consumers," the complaint summarizes. The fraud lawsuit further contends that Attyx's "coordinated and elaborate" scheme relied in part on the company's representations that it could install solar systems "for free, at no cost, or for no money out of pocket" through purported solar tax credits and government subsidies, such as a so-called "Roof Rescue Program" purportedly available to New York homeowners. Per the case, Attyx repeatedly advertised these supposed government-funded savings, and its salespeople used "high-pressure tactics" to motivate consumers and induce a false sense of urgency, including by claiming that these programs had limited space. However, the suit calls these solar tax credits "illusory," noting that Attyx allegedly did not connect consumers to government programs to provide free solar systems, nor was there ever a "Roof Rescue Program" in New York. The lawsuit says that the plaintiff's experience with Attyx "fits the mold of the broader fraud" perpetrated by the defendants. According to the complaint, representatives from Attyx assured the plaintiff that he would receive a new solar system for only $28,520, broken up into monthly payments of $167, and promised that the system would "significantly reduce" his energy bills. Importantly, the suit asserts that the plaintiff simply made an oral agreement and did not sign anything. Attyx's alleged "bait and switch" came later, when the plaintiff received a charge for $100,300 and realized the company had fraudulently arranged for two separate loans for the solar system and home improvements, which "saddled" the plaintiff with two loans of around $50,000 each with "costly" monthly payments that "far exceeded" the promised rate of $167 per month, the lawsuit alleges. Additionally, the Mosaic loan amounts included a hidden "dealer fee" that was never disclosed to the plaintiff, as he was never presented with the terms of the loan agreement, the filing claims. The case states that Attyx, Mosaic and Service Finance never provided the plaintiff with the legally required disclosures for loan agreements, and the consumer never agreed to the terms of the sale and loan agreement. The suit alleges that Attyx's representative simply forged the plaintiff's signature on an electronically generated loan agreement, in violation of the Truth in Lending Act and New York law. Moreover, Attyx left the plaintiff with a defectively installed, underperforming solar system, the complaint claims. The lawsuit says that Attyx and the other defendants have engaged in "mass false advertising" to induce consumers to buy "exorbitantly priced" solar systems and home improvement services, then "hoodwinked" them into loans amounting to tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. The lawsuit goes on to allege that Mosaic and WebBank have "made it a practice" to charge consumers with "seemingly attractive" APRs with the highest loan surcharge, which the case says negates any value a consumer may have been receiving. When consumers have reached out to Attyx with concerns about the "unexpected" financial obligations, the company simply "stopped taking the consumers' calls," per the case. Attyx has allegedly engaged in the scheme at issue for so long that the company faces at least one other lawsuit, filed by New York Attorney General Letitia James, alleging that the company may owe restitution of roughly $275 million to New York consumers alone. The AG lawsuit claims that Attyx has deliberately targeted customers of "limited means," including elderly individuals on fixed incomes and homes in lower and middle-class neighborhoods, with the allegedly fraudulent scheme. "As a result, consumers who purchased services from Attyx found that they were not charged the low net costs that Attyx has represented to them but were instead on the hook for the full price of Attyx's work -- including the purchase and installation of solar systems and any non-solar home improvement work -- which they were obligated to repay to Attyx's lending partners," the AG lawsuit charges. In a November 2025 Final Order, the New York Public Service Commission revoked Attyx's eligibility to operate as a solar energy distributor in the state after finding that the company engaged in "misleading or deceptive conduct," including making false representations about rates and savings. The Attyx class action lawsuit looks to cover all United States residents who purchased a solar panel system from Attyx. [GN] AUDIBLE INC: Seeks to Certify Class Suit Over Audiobook Credits --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that four plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Audible Inc. Why: Plaintiffs claim Audible unlawfully imposes expiration dates on audiobook credits. Where: The class action lawsuit is pending in Washington federal court. Audible customers have asked a federal judge to certify a nationwide class in a lawsuit alleging the company illegally places expiration dates on audiobook credits. The plaintiffs argue that Audible's credits, which can be redeemed for audiobooks, should be treated as "gift certificates" under Washington law, which generally prohibits such certificates from expiring. According to the motion for class certification, the proposed class would include all U.S. residents who received Audible credits that later expired starting Dec. 4, 2020. The plaintiffs claim that individual damages are relatively small, ranging from about $20 to $380, making it impractical for consumers to pursue claims on their own and supporting the need for class treatment. The class action lawsuit alleges Audible sells credits both individually and as part of premium subscriptions, with the understanding that users can exchange them for audiobooks they can keep indefinitely. Audible allegedly violates gift certificate law with expiring credits The plaintiffs argue Audible violated Washington's Gift Certificate Law by imposing expiration dates on the credits, causing consumers to lose unused value before they could redeem it. "Consumers are often unable to use the credits that Audible promised, and lose their valuable credits before having a chance to use them," the complaint states. The class action lawsuit also alleges the practice violates Washington's Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits deceptive or unfair business practices and allows for potential treble damages. Audible previously argued that its credits are not gift certificates because they are not tied to a specific monetary value. However, the court rejected that argument, ruling that the law does not require vouchers to have a fixed cash value to qualify. The plaintiffs are seeking class certification, damages and other relief, including potential treble damages under state law. Last year, consumers also sued Audible alleging it misled customers into believing they owned the audiobooks purchased through the platform, when, in fact, they only received a license to access them. The plaintiffs are represented by Jonas Jacobson, Simon Franzini, Gabriel Doble and Stephen Ferruolo of Dovel & Luner LLP. The Audible class action lawsuit is Hollis, et al. v. Audible Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-01999, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. [GN] BELL AMBULANCE: Settles 2025 Data Breach Class Suit for $2-Mil. --------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Bell Ambulance has agreed to a $2,000,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the medical transport company failed to protect current and former patients' and employees' sensitive information from a February 2025 data breach. The $2 million Bell Ambulance class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on February 23, 2026. The deal covers all United States residents whose private information was accessed in the Bell Ambulance data breach. The court-approved website for the Bell Ambulance class action settlement can be found at BellDataIncidentSettlement.com. According to the settlement agreement, class members who submit a timely, valid claim form can receive up to $5,000 for out-of-pocket losses incurred between February 13, 2025 and June 29, 2026 due to the data breach. Class members must submit third-party documentation, such as receipts, to receive a documented-loss payment. This settlement payment covers losses related to fraud or identity theft and expenses for credit reports, credit monitoring, ID replacement, postage and more. In lieu of a documented-loss payment, class members may instead file a claim form to receive an alternative cash payment of $90. No proof is required to claim this benefit, which may be reduced on a pro rata basis, depending on the total number of valid claims filed. Finally, all class members may elect on their claim form to receive two years of CyEx Medical Shield Complete, which includes medical identity theft insurance and monitoring for health insurance ID and medical record number exposure. To submit a Bell Ambulance settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the unique ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, complete and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Bell Ambulance settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked no later than June 29, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant the Bell Ambulance data breach settlement final approval following a hearing on July 14, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Bell Ambulance class action lawsuit alleged that the Wisconsin-based medical transport company failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to protect the private information of current and former employees and patients from a February 2025 data breach. Per the case, sensitive information that may have been accessed during the breach included full names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, driver's license numbers, financial information, information regarding medical diagnoses and treatments, medical record numbers, health insurance information, full-face photographs, and other protected health information. [GN] BERNARD MAYER: Pardo Files Suit Over ADA Violation -------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. BERNARD MAYER TR, as Trustee of the Bernard Mayer Trust, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-22944-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 27, 2026) is a class action for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities who uses a wheelchair to ambulate. He has very limited use of his hands and cannot operate any mechanisms which require tight grasping or twisting of the wrist. He has lower paraplegia, which inhibits him from walking or otherwise ambulating without the use of a wheelchair. He additionally has limitations involving his arms and hands. He is limited in his major life activities by such, including but not limited to walking, standing, grabbing, grasping and/or pinching. The Defendant owns and operates a commercial shopping center located at 17028 W Dixie Hwy, North Miami Beach, FL 33160 (hereinafter the "Commercial Property"). The complaint relates that the individual Plaintiff visits the Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property, to include visits on February 18, 2026, and encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the Commercial Property. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property has denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and has endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The barriers to access have likewise posed a risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to him. The Defendant has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to full and equal enjoyment of the services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of its place of public accommodation or commercial facility, in violation of the ADA, adds the complaint.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 Primary E-mail: aquezada@lawgmp.com Secondary E-mail: yabdalla@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Telephone: (305) 350-3103 Primary E-mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com Secondary E-mail: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com BISSELL HOMECARE: Conceals Products' Hazardous Defects, Khalil Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- MOHAMMAD KHALIL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BISSELL HOMECARE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04641 (N.D. Ill., April 23, 2026) arises from the dangerous design and prolonged concealment of a known defect in the Defendant's Steam Cleaners, and a belated, inefficient, and inadequate recall of the Steam Cleaners. According to the complaint, the Steam Cleaners were dangerously defective at the point of purchase, which was unknown to reasonable consumers but known to BISSELL. On July 18, 2024, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission ("CPSC"), together with BISSELL, announced the recall of approximately 3.2 million Steam Shot Handheld Steam Cleaners sold at major retailers nationwide since 2008. The CPSC reported at least 183 incidents of the Steam Cleaners expelling hot water or steam, resulting in 157 burn injuries to consumers. Despite this massive recall, BISSELL continued to sell substantially similar Steam Cleaner models, including the Steam Shot OmniReach and Steam Shot Omni models. These newer models suffered from the same or substantially similar defect -- the attachments can unexpectedly detach from the machine and expel hot water or steam onto users during use, posing the same burn hazard. Now, in 2026, BISSELL has been forced to expand its recall to include the Steam Shot OmniReach and Steam Shot Omni models -- the very products it continued to sell after the initial 2024 recall. This pattern of conduct demonstrates BISSELL's willful disregard for consumer safety and its prioritization of profits over the wellbeing of its customers. BISSELL's refusal to provide refunds, replacements, or professional repairs for the 2026 OmniReach recall underscores its ongoing disregard for consumer safety and demonstrates that the Recall remedy is inadequate, asserts the compllaint. Plaintiff MOHAMMAD KHALIL purchased a BISSELL Steam Shot OmniReach Handheld Steam Cleaner from Costco between March 2025 and October 2025. Before purchasing the Steam Cleaners, Plaintiff and Class Members did not know that (a) the Steam Cleaners had the Defect, (b) using the Steam Cleaners for their intended and foreseeable purpose would place consumers at risk of burn injuries and (c) in the event of such risk, BISSELL would offer a delayed, deficient and inadequate remedy. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and Class Members, seeks damages and all other relief available under law and equity from BISSELL, including punitive damages, for BISSELL's appalling and unconscionable misconduct. Plaintiff also seeks classwide injunctive relief, including: (i) a state-of-the-art notice program for the wide dissemination of a factually accurate recall notice for the Steam Cleaners; (ii) the implementation of a corrective advertising campaign to alert consumers to the dangers of the Defect; (iii) an offer to replace the Steam Cleaners with a reasonable and safe product; and/or (iv) a full refund for the purchase price of the Steam Cleaners. Defendant BISSELL Homecare, Inc. is a self-proclaimed leader in floor care and cleaning products, marketed and sold the Steam Cleaners as safe and effective cleaning tools for household use.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell Busch, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 979 Green Bay Road Highland Park, IL 60035 Telephone: (919) 926-7948 E-mail: rbusch@brysonpllc.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (616) 678-2180 E-mail: nsuciu@brysonpllc.com - and - Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 19800 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 270 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (212) 946-9389 E-mail: tkashima@brysonpllc.com - and - Luis Cardona, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (516) 862-0194 E-mail: lcardona@brysonpllc.com - and - Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Boardwalk GP Breached LPA, Court Says --------------------------------------------------------- Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP 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 4, 2026, that on May 25, 2018, plaintiffs Tsemach Mishal and Paul Berger, on behalf of themselves and the purported class, initiated a purported class action in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, Boardwalk GP, LP, Boardwalk GP, LLC, and BPHC regarding the potential exercise by Boardwalk GP of its right to purchase the issued and outstanding common units of the Company not already owned by Boardwalk GP or its affiliates. On September 28, 2018, the Trial Court denied approval of the Proposed Settlement. That on February 11, 2019, a substitute verified class action complaint was filed in this proceeding, which, among other things, added Loews as a defendant. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was heard by the Trial Court in July 2019, and in October 2019 the Trial Court ruled on the motion and granted a partial dismissal, with certain aspects of the case proceeding to trial. A trial was held the week of February 22, 2021, and post-trial oral arguments were held on July 14, 2021. In addition, on November 12, 2021, the Trial Court issued a ruling in the case, holding that Boardwalk GP breached the Limited Partnership Agreement and finding Boardwalk GP liable to the plaintiffs for approximately $690.0 million in damages, plus pre-judgment interest (approximately $166.0 million), post-judgment interest and attorneys fees, with the ruling and damages award solely against Boardwalk GP and not the Company or its subsidiaries. The defendants appealed the Trial Court's ruling to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware on January 3, 2022, and the plaintiffs filed a cross-appeal on January 17, 2022, contesting the Trial Courts calculation of damages. Following oral argument on September 14, 2022, the Supreme Court reversed the Trial Courts ruling on December 19, 2022, and remanded the case for further proceedings on claims not decided by the Trial Courts ruling. Briefing on the remanded issues was completed in September 2023, and a hearing was held in April 2024. In September 2024, the Trial Court ruled in favor of the defendants on all remanded issues. On October 21, 2024, the plaintiffs appealed the Trial Courts ruling on the remanded issues to the Supreme Court, briefing was completed in March 2025, and a hearing occurred in June 2025. On December 10, 2025, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the Trial Courts ruling, finding that Boardwalk GP had breached the Limited Partnership Agreement (LPA) in its exercise of the Purchase Right and noting that, in its 2022 decision, it had previously determined that Boardwalk GP was exculpated from damages; the remaining claims remanded by the Supreme Court to the Trial Court for further proceedings are tortious interference and unjust enrichment claims related to the exercise of the Purchase Right against the non-Boardwalk GP defendants. Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP is a master limited partnership that owns and operates natural gas and natural gas liquids pipeline and storage systems in the United States. The company provides transportation and storage services to a broad mix of customers, including utilities, power generators, marketers, and industrial users. BOIRON INC: Faces Glinka Suit Over Products' Pain Relief Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- CONSTANTINE GLINKA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BOIRON, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-02643 (E.D.N.Y., May 4, 2026) alleges that the Defendant represents to consumers through its packaging that the Products provide "pain relief," however, the Defendant's claims are false. According to the complaint, the products are homeopathic "medicine" based on a sham science. And, as numerous studies have shown, arnica montana -- the "active ingredient" in the Products -- is not effective for providing pain relief. In or around March 2025, Mr. Glinka purchased a 2.6 oz package of Boiron Arnicare Gel from a CVS in Brooklyn for approximately $12.49. In purchasing the Products, Mr. Glinka relied on Defendant's false, misleading, and deceptive marketing of the Products as providing "PAIN RELIEF." The Products did not provide Mr. Glinka with any pain relief. Had Mr. Glinka known that Defendant's representations were false and misleading, he would not have purchased the Products or would have only been willing to purchase the Products at a lesser price, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated consumers, asserts claims for violations of New York General Business Law. The Defendant formulates, manufactures, advertises, and sells Boiron Arnicare in all of its various varieties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. ARISOHN LLC 94 Blakeslee Rd. Litchfield, CT 06759 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 E-mail: josh@arisohnllc.com BOSE CORPORATION: Morris Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bose Corporation. The case is styled as Lindsey Morris, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Bose Corporation, Case No. 26CV185158 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., April 29, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Commercial/Business Tort (Not Fraud/ Breach of Contract)." Bose Corporation -- https://www.bose.com/ -- manufactures and distributes electronic products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Treglio, Esq. POTTER HANDY, LLP 100 Pine Street Suite 1250 San Diego, CA 92111 Phone: (415) 534-1911 Fax: (888) 422-5191 Email: jimt@potterhandy.com CARNIVAL CORPORATION: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Collins Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- NYNA COLLINS and TERESA BEAVERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-22862-KMM (S.D. Fla., April 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure Plaintiffs' and Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII"). On April 18, 2026, the ShinyHunters ransomware group claimed to have accessed over 8.7 million Carnival records containing personally identifiable information and internal corporate data. Carnival confirmed it had detected suspicious activity, but has not disclosed meaningful details. The complaint alleges that due to the nature of the services it provides, Carnival knowingly obtained sensitive PII and had a resulting duty to securely maintain that information in confidence. Plaintiffs and Class Members would not have provided their PII to Carnival if they had known that Carnival would not ensure that it used adequate security measures, says the suit. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek, among other things, orders requiring Carnival to fully and accurately disclose the nature of the information that has been compromised and to adopt sufficient security practices and safeguards to prevent incidents like the data breach in the future. Plaintiffs seek remedies including compensation for time spent responding to the Data Breach and other types of harm, free credit monitoring and identity theft insurance, and injunctive relief, including substantial improvements to Carnival's data security policies and practices. Plaintiffs Nyna Collins and Teresa Beavers have taken Carnival cruises, and provided Carnival with their personally identifiable information. Defendant Carnival Corporation is a cruise line operator that owns more than 90 vessels, and owns multiple private islands and beach ports.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: D. Todd Mathews, Esq. Bart D. Cohen, Esq. Panida A. Anderson, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 E-mail: tmathews@baileyglasser.com bcohen@baileyglasser.com panderson@baileyglasser.com CAROL'S DAUGHTER: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Bishop Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ CEDRIC BISHOP, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. CAROL'S DAUGHTER, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-3377 (S.D.N.Y., April 23, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.carolsdaughter.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on February 26, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Black Vanilla Moisture & Shine Hydration Conditioner from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and visually-impaired consumers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the goods, and services Defendant offers to the public on its Website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff CEDRIC BISHOP is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant CAROL'S DAUGHTER, LLC operates the Carol's Daughter online retail store, as well as the Carol's Daughter interactive Website that provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's haircare products, as well as other types of goods, pricing, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and internet pricing specials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212-228-9795 Facsimile: 212-982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal CBR SERVICES: Rivera-Santos Suit Removed to E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Denis R. Rivera-Santos, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CBR SERVICES, INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CV030353 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on April 29, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01668-JDP. Although the Complaint purports to assert claims under California wage and hour law, Plaintiff's claims are preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"), because their resolution requires interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") governing Plaintiff's employment.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gregory C. Simonian, Esq. CASAS RILEY SIMONIAN LLP 55 North 3rd Street Campbell, CA 95008 Phone: 650-948-7200 Facsimile: 650-948-7220 Email: gsimonian@legalteam.com CENIKOR FOUNDATION: Davis Files Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cenikor Foundation. The case is styled as Leroy Davis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Cenikor Foundation, Case No. 3:26-cv-02692-BTM-VET (S.D. Cal., April 28, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract. The Cenikor Foundation -- https://www.cenikor.org/ -- is a nonprofit organization dedicated to providing drug rehabilitation and mental health services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catherine Elizabeth Ybarra, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 700 South Flower Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 297-3807 Fax: (646) 417-5967 Email: cybarra@sirillp.com CENTO FINE: Faces Andrich Suit Over Tomato False Labeling --------------------------------------------------------- MIKE ANDRICH and NATALIE GIANNE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. CENTO FINE FOODS, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-04012 (N.D. Cal., May 4, 2026) alleges that Defendant's marketing and labeling of Cento San Marzanos as "Certified San Marzano" tomatoes is false, misleading, and unfair pursuant to the California Unfair Competition Law & Consumer Legal Remedies Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant lack the taste, consistency, and other physical characteristics associated by consumers with certified San Marzano Tomatoes. Cento is the primary culprit of this tomato fraud in the United States. It sells "Cento San Marzano Certified Peeled Tomatoes" and "Cento San Marzano Organic Certified Peeled Tomatoes". Cento markets Cento San Marzanos as "Certified" San Marzano Tomatoes with claims which were designed to, and do, falsely convey they are the famous San Marzano tomato grown in the traditional method and certified by Consortium. Plaintiffs Mike Andrich and Natalie Gianne purchased and used Cento San Marzanos in reliance upon Defendant's deceptive labeling, believing that they were authentic, certified San Marzano tomatoes. However, Cento San Marzanos were not satisfactory to Plaintiffs because they were not authentic, DOP San Marzano tomatoes and lacked the physical characteristics of authentic San Marzano tomatoes. The Plaintiffs contend that they would never have purchased Cento San Marzanos, especially at their premium price, if they had known that they were inauthentic, and indeed illegal in Italy, home of San Marzano tomatoes. CENTO FINE FOODS produces and distributes Italian style food products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory S. Weston. Esq. THE WESTON FIRM 402 W. Broadway, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 798-2006 E-mail: greg@westonfirm.com CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Contreras Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Luis Cabrera Contreras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC. a foreign profit corporation; CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL OF COLORADO, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; CHIPOTLE SERVICES, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; CMG STRATEGY CO., LLC, a foreign limited liability company; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 26-2-11149-9 SEA was removed from the King County Superior Court, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on April 29, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01464. The Complaint alleges that Defendants systematically failed to provide rest breaks and meal periods to Plaintiff and the putative class members at all of Chipotle's Washington restaurant locations. The Complaint additionally seeks compensatory damages, exemplary damages pursuant to RCW 49.52.070, liquidated damages of up to twice unpaid wages under both the Seattle Minimum Wage Ordinance (SMC 14.19.110) and the Seattle Wage Theft Ordinance (SMC 14.20.090), pre- and post-judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. Hannah M. Hanley, Esq. EMERY | REDDY, PC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com; reddyp@emeryreddy.com; paul@emeryreddy.com; hannah@emeryreddy.com The Defendants are represented by: Anthony Todaro, Esq. David M. Rund, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6900 Seattle, WA 98104-7029 Phone: 206.839.4800 Email: Anthony.Todaro@us.dlapiper.com David.Rund@us.dlapiper.com CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Gorbatyuk Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Karina Gorbatyuk and Luis Cabrera Contreras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC. a foreign profit corporation; CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL OF COLORADO, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; CHIPOTLE SERVICES, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; CMG STRATEGY CO., LLC, a foreign limited liability company; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 26-2-11145-6 SEA was removed from the King County Superior Court, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on April 29, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01468. The Complaint seeks relief on behalf of all current and former employees of Defendants who worked in Washington and earned less than twice the applicable state minimum hourly wage from April 2, 2020, through the date of certification of the class. The Complaint also alleges that Plaintiffs and putative class members are entitled to recover attorneys' fees pursuant to RCW 49.62.080.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. Hannah M. Hanley, Esq. EMERY | REDDY, PC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com; reddyp@emeryreddy.com; paul@emeryreddy.com; hannah@emeryreddy.com The Defendants are represented by: Anthony Todaro, Esq. David M. Rund, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6900 Seattle, WA 98104-7029 Phone: 206.839.4800 Email: Anthony.Todaro@us.dlapiper.com David.Rund@us.dlapiper.com CLEAN EARTH: Kunze Suit Moved to W.D. Wash. ------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of RYAN KUNZE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLEAN EARTH ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC.; BURLINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Clark (Case No. 26-00002-01018-06) to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on April 20, 2026. The clerk of court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05403. The case is assigned to Judge David G. Estudillo. Clean Earth Environmental Solutions, Inc. is a for-profit corporation specializing in environmental services, with a focus on hazardous and non-hazardous waste management and disposal. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Daniel Rhim, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One Union Square 600 University Street Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3122 Telephone: (206) 623-3300 Facsimile: (206) 447-6965 Email: drhim@littler.com CLUB MONACO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Verduzco Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS VERDUZCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLUB MONACO U.S., LLC d/b/a CLUB MONACO U.S., LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-02530-WQH-BLM (S.D. Cal., April 21, 2026) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Club Monaco U.S., LLC designs and sells fashion and apparel for women and men. The Company provides seasonal collections, wardrobe staples, and accessories including hats, scarves, gloves, and jewelry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Faythe Gutierrez, Esq. PLG DAMAGE ATTORNEYS 2750 SW 145th Avenue #509 Miramar, FL 33027 Email: service@plgdamage.com COASTAL BEND: Calderon Files FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- BENJAMIN CALDERON, RYAN GONZALEZ, RALPH HERNANDEZ, AND KYLER WALLGREN, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated v. COASTAL BEND MOORING AND MARINE, INC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00122 (S.D. Tex., April 27, 2026) is a collective action to recover unpaid overtime and other damages from the Defendants. The complaint relates that to meet its business objectives, Coastal Bend hires workers, like plaintiffs and the other day rate workers and salaried dock workers who it considers "Trained Crews" comprised of Boat Operators, Deck Hands, and Support Personnel to its marine industry clients; however, said employees are not exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint alleges that Coastal Bend uniformly applied its policy of paying its Line Handlers, Line Men, Barge Captains, and Shore Side Managers, including plaintiffs, flat rates with no overtime compensation. This was in part done pursuant to a complicated call out scheme. Coastal Bend employed this policy regardless of any individualized factors such as precise job position, hours already worked, specific assignment, time of day, or geographic location. On occasion, both the Day Rate Workers, who do not get paid if they do not work, and the Salaried Dock Workers, do not receive true overtime compensation when they work in excess of 40 hours in any given work week. Coastal Bend's unlawful conduct harmed the Day Rate Workers and the other Salaried Dock Workers by depriving them of the overtime wages they are owed, says the suit. The Day Rate Workers and the other Salaried Dock Workers, therefore, seek to recover all reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in this action. Plaintiff Benjamin Calderon was employed originally by the Defendant as a Line Handler and then as a "manager" or Salaried Dock Worker. Plaintiff Ryan Gonzales was employed by the Defendant as a Line Handler and subsequently as a Barge Captain. Plaintiff Ralph Hernandez was employed by the Defendant as a Line Handler. Plaintiff Kyler Wallgren was employed by the Defendant as a Line Handler or Line Man. Defendant Coastal Bend Mooring and Marine, Inc. holds itself out as Experts In Line Handling and Launch Services Since 1988.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Martin S. Bohman, Esq. Harry E. Morse, Esq. BOHMAN | MORSE, LLC New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 930-4009 Facsimile: (888) 217-2744 E-mail: MARTIN@BOHMANMORSE.COM E-mail: HARRY@BOHMANMORSE.COM COSTAR GROUP: Harvey Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Costar Group Inc., et al. The case is styled as Derrick Harvey, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Costar Group Inc., Costar Realty Information Inc., Case No. 26STCV13744 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 29, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." CoStar Group -- https://www.costargroup.com/ -- is a global leader in commercial real estate information, analytics, online marketplaces and 3D digital twin technology.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robin G. Workman, Esq. WORKMAN LAW FIRM, PC 2325 3rd St Ste 329 San Francisco, CA 94107-4301 Phone: 415-782-3660 Fax: 415-788-1028 Email: robin@workmanlawpc.com CREDIT CONTROL: Court OKs Post Settlement Motion to Dismiss Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- JDSupra reports that on March 31, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted a debt collector's motion to dismiss a putative class action entitled ROBERT A. SCHULTZ, JR., Plaintiff v. CREDIT CONTROL, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Defendants, alleging violations of the FDCPA, finding that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing. The plaintiff filed suit in March 2018 after receiving a collection letter seeking to recover a $517.14 debt. The letter stated that the amount due may increase because of interest, late charges, and other charges, but the plaintiff alleged that no such interest or charges were ever assessed after the letter was sent. The plaintiff claimed the misleading statements caused uncertainty as to the amount owed and additional interest that would accrue. The parties had entered into a class settlement agreement in August 2019 and later executed an amended settlement agreement, which had received preliminary approval in March 2024. However, while the parties litigated attorney's fees, the defendant raised the issue of standing for the first time and moved to dismiss in August 2025. The court held that the plaintiff failed to allege a concrete injury sufficient to establish standing. Citing 3rd Circuit precedent, the court noted that the mere receipt of a misleading statement, or even confusion, without any further consequence, does not confer standing. The court found that the complaint contained no allegations that the plaintiff or other consumers relied on the collection letter or suffered harm as a result of their uncertainty, and that the plaintiff's suggested injuries -- such as consumers forgoing payment of other essential bills or being deterred from disputing the debt -- were hypothetical and too speculative to support standing. The court also rejected the plaintiff's argument that a statutory violation of the FDCPA alone was sufficient, noting that Article III requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation. The court also rejected the plaintiff's objection to the timing of the motion, noting that standing is a jurisdictional requirement that cannot be waived and may be raised at any stage of litigation. The complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and the plaintiff was given an opportunity to file an amended complaint. [GN] CRUTCHFIELD CORP: Cesario Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------------ DARREN CESARIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CRUTCHFIELD CORPORATION; and CRUTCHFIELD NEW MEDIA, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03251 (S.D.N.Y., April 21, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.crutchfield.com is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Crutchfield Corporation retails consumer electronics. The Company offers audio and video equipment for the automobiles, as well as computers, televisions, and other electronics. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com CURALEAF HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suit Over Cannabis Antidote Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRENT DUKE, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CURALEAF HOLDINGS, INC., a British Columbia, Canada corporation and CURALEAF, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:26-cv-00684 (D. Conn., May 4, 2026) is class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiffs who purchased one or more cannabis products in Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York and Ohio, manufactured, distributed, sold, or offered for sale by the Defendants. Cannabis purveyors market and promote their cannabis products to an unsuspecting public through a public relations megaphone as the antidote to ailments of all kinds, including, among others, insomnia, narcolepsy, over-eating, cancer, auto-immune disorders, neuropathy, pain, anger, boredom, sadness, shyness, irritable bowel syndrome, grief, opioid addiction. These claims are part of a calculated strategy in which the cannabis industry, including Defendants, have unleashed an acute intoxicant -- tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) -- at unprecedently high concentrations on their customers, says the suit. The Plaintiffs include JOSEPH PARKHURST, JACYN GREEN, DONNA TAYLOR, BYRON HILL, PATRICIA PYE, WAYNE BUTTS, RONALD SHELTON, JUSTIN DUNNE, ASHBY MONCURE, EDWARD BRISCOE, DANIELLE WEBSTER, JEREMY CAVOLO, STACEY PYSOCK, DERYLYN STOKES, SCOTT ZACK, ANTONIO DEENA, and JASON HOWELL. CHI is a vertically integrated cannabis operator engaged in the cultivation, processing, distribution, and retail sale of cannabis and cannabis-derived products in multiple U.S. markets under brands including Curaleaf, Find, JAMS, B Noble, Grassroots, Select and its line of Zero Proof seltzers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Neal L. Moskow, Esq. MOSKOW LAW GROUP, LLC CT Bar Number: 04516 425 Kings Highway East Fairfield, CT 06825 Telephone: (475) 999-4177 E-mail: neal@moskowlaw.com - and - Michael Piggins, Esq. James Bilsborrow, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG PC 3011 W. Grand Blvd., Fl. 24 Detroit, MI 48202 Telephone: (231) 366-3108 E-mail: mpiggins@weitzlux.com jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com - and - Patrick Kenneally, Esq. BURKE LAW GROUP, P.L.L.C. 205 N. Michigan Ave, Suite 810 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: 847-651-8525 E-mail: patrick.kenneally@burkegroup.law - and - Jack D. Franks, Esq. FRANKS GERKIN PONITZ GREELEY, P.C. 19333 E. Grant Hwy. Marengo, IL 60152 Telephone: (815) 923-2107 E-mail: jfranks@fgpglaw.com - and - Matthew F. Pawa PAWA LAW GROUP, P.C. 1280 Centre Street, Suite 230 Newton Centre, MA 02459 Telephone: (617) 641-9550 E-mail: mp@pawalaw.com DEERE & CO: Terminates Workers w/o Severance Benefits, Ahmed Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- TAUSEEF AHMED AND ANTHONY CATALFNO, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. DEERE & COMPANY, DEERE & COMPANY AS ADMINISTRATOR OF EMPLOYEE WELFARE BENEFITS PLAN AND DEERE & COMPANY SEVERANCE PAY PLAN FOR SALARIED EMPLOYEES (ALSO KNOWN AS JOHN DEERE SEPARATION PROGRAM), Case No. 4:26-cv-04114-SLD-RLH (C.D. Ill., May 4, 2026) claims for violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 on behalf of employees whose employment was terminated without severance benefits consistent Deere's employee benefit plan. The allegations include improper failure to grant benefits in accordance with plan requirements and breach of fiduciary duty. Mr. Ahmed is a former Deere employee whose last position was Group Product Manager Manufacturing Data Platform & Analytics in the Intelligent Solutions Group. Deere manufactures equipment for agriculture, construction, forestry, and lawncare.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dorothy A. O'Brien, Esq. O'BRIEN & MARQUARD, PLC 2322 East Kimberly Road, Suite 140S Davenport, IA 52807 Telephone: (563) 355-6060 Facsimile: (563) 355-6666 E-mail: dao@emprights.com - and - Melissa C. Hasso, Esq. HASSO & WILSON LAW FIRM PLLC 111 E. Grand Ave., Suite 212 Des Moines, IA 50309 Telephone: (515) 224-2079 Telephone: (515) 224-2321 DIG INN RESTAURANT: Klein Sues Over Improper Business Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- J.R. KLEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DIG INN RESTAURANT GROUP LLC d/b/a DIG INN, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03236 (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2026) is an action seeking to remedy the deceptive and misleading business practices of the Defendant arising its deceptive "fee camouflaging" scheme on its digital ordering platform. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant intentionally obscures its own corporate operating costs by secretly bundling them into a checkout line item labeled "Taxes and fees." Reasonable consumers understand "taxes" to be non-negotiable, government mandated levies. By grouping its internal corporate overhead into this exact same line item, the Defendant exploits the mandatory nature of taxes to deceive consumers about the true cost of its food and services, says the suit. Dig Inn Restaurant Group LLC d/b/a Dig Inn owns and operates a chain of restaurants. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 Email: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com - and - Mark Rabin, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 11 Park Place, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Email: mrabin@brysonpllc.com - and - J. Hunter Bryson, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 539-2708 Email: hbryson@brysonpllc.com DLV VISION ASC: Davis Files Suit in S.D. California --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DLV Vision ASC, et al. The case is styled as Leroy Davis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. DLV Vision ASC doing business as: Dougherty Laser Vision; Unifeye Vision Partners Holdings LLC doing business as: Unifeye Vision Partners, Case No. 3:26-cv-02703-BJC-JLB (S.D. Cal., April 28, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. DLV Vision ASC doing business as: Dougherty Laser Vision -- https://www.doughertylaservision.com/ -- is among the nation's most experienced laser and lens-based vision correction surgeons.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catherine Elizabeth Ybarra, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 700 South Flower Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 297-3807 Fax: (646) 417-5967 Email: cybarra@sirillp.com DTLA 33 TAPS CONCESSIONS: Santiago Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DTLA 33 Taps Concessions LLC. The case is styled as Ravid Santiago, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DTLA 33 Taps Concessions LLC, Case No. 26STCV13679 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 28, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." 33 Taps -- https://www.eatdrink33.com/ -- is a family-owned neighborhood sports bar born in Los Angeles, proudly serving local craft beers, burgers, wings, and vegan-friendly eats since 2016.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1450 Los Angeles, California 90071 Phone: (213) 985-1150 Fax: (213) 985-2155 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com EMPIRE AUTO: Faces Figueroa Class Suit Over Vehicle Service Plans ----------------------------------------------------------------- LEONARDO FIGUEROA, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EMPIRE AUTO PROTECT LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Corporation, Case No. 5:26-cv-04036 (N.D. Cal., May 4, 2026) alleges that consumers nationwide are being deceived because they are purchasing vehicle service plans in reliance on Empire's purported liberal refund policies. According to the complaint, Empire does not pay pro-rated refunds upon receiving refund requests. Empire also assures consumers that if they choose its vehicle service plans, they will receive the "best protection" and "best service and coverage." But California consumers are being deceived. California consumers could not possibly be receiving the "best service and coverage" because Empire is not legally allowed to sell vehicle service plans to California consumers, the lawsuit contends. Empire sells vehicle service plans nationwide through its website. These vehicle service plans are described as affordable extended warranties for automobiles. Prospective consumers are assured that they can receive a full refund if they cancel their plan for any reason, prorated for the amount of time the plan remained in place. Empire has made, and continues to make, false and misleading statements in its advertising of its vehicle service plans. Empire's advertising of its vehicle service plans conveyed a single, consistent false, unfair, unlawful, and misleading message to consumers, says the suit. EMPIRE AUTO PROTECT LLC offers vehicle service plans that cover auto breakdowns or repairs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dhaivat H. Shah, Esq. David I. Siegel, Esq. Erin M. Adrian, Esq. GRELLAS SHAH LLP 550 California Street, Suite 1040 San Francisco, Ca 94104 550 California Street, Suite 1040 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (408) 255-6310 Facsimile: (408) 255-6350 E-mail: ds@grellas.com dsiegel@grellas.com ema@grellas.com EYEMART EXPRESS: Bond Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI -------------------------------------------------------------- Ladenner Bond, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EYEMART EXPRESS LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-01378-K (N.D. Tex., April 29, 2026), is brought against Defendant, upon information and belief, for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI"), resulting in a devastating data breach. On April 17, 2026, Defendant reported to the Attorney General of Texas that it had experienced a data breach. Shortly after the Data Breach, online sources reported that Payouts King ransomware group claimed responsibility for the Data Breach on March 10, 2026.6 Payouts King allegedly exfiltrated 435 GB of data, including corporate documents, financial records, and personal information. The Defendant has not yet provided individual notice of the Data Breach to all victims of the Data Breach. Thus, most, if not all Class Members do not know that their Private Information has been compromised, and that they are, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. There has been no assurance offered by Defendant that all personal data or copies of data have been recovered or destroyed, or that Defendant has adequately enhanced its data security practices sufficiently to avoid a similar breach of its network in the future. Therefore, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and are at an imminent, immediate, and continuing increased risk of suffering, ascertainable losses in the form of harm from identity theft and other fraudulent misuse of their Private Information, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, and potential out-of-pocket expenses to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former patients, employees, and customers of Defendant. The Defendant provides eyecare medical services and vision products to customers and patients across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce W. Steckler, Esq. STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE PLLC 12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Phone: 972-387-4040 Facsimile: 972-387-4041 - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Kennedy M. Brian, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (212) 532-1091 Email: tbean@sirillp.com kbrian@sirillp.com - and - Philip Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue S., STE 1700 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Phone: (612) 339-7300 Email: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com FCA US: Aiello Sues Over Defective Hybrid Electric Vehicles ----------------------------------------------------------- DAVID AIELLO, MICHAEL BALZER, GREGORY DEANGELO, SEAN and KRISTINE ELY, JOCELYN and DANIEL GRENIER, MICHAEL and KATHY HARTWEGER, WILLIAM DENNIS, KELLY GAUDREAU, VERONICA PETTIS, ABBEY ROBSON, CHRISTOPHER SCHROBILGEN, and DARREN WOLBERG on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FCA US, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-11365-TGB-DRG (E.D. Mich., April 24, 2026) is a class action to hold FCA accountable for its defective vehicles, and the damages the consumers have incurred as a result. The case concerns a dangerous hidden defect in approximately 320,065 Jeep "4xe" plug-in hybrid electric vehicles equipped with a 400-volt, 17-kwh high voltage battery ("HV Battery") that can suddenly catch on fire while charging. What began in the fall of 2023 as a recall involving approximately 32,000 Jeep Wrangler 4xes that could catch fire and explode has now expanded into three recalls that encompass more than 320,000 vehicles, two distinct plug-in hybrid models, and a collective eleven model years. The defective vehicles at issue include Model Year 2020-2025 Jeep Wrangler 4xe and Model Year 2022-2026 Jeep Grand Cherokee 4xe plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (the "Class Vehicles") that were designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold by Defendant FCA US, LLC . According to the complaint, FCA promoted these plug-in hybrid Class Vehicles as safe, reliable, and high performing vehicles that remained true to the rugged Jeep brand image and performance, while avoiding the gas guzzling propensities of other SUVs before it. What FCA concealed and failed to disclose, however, is that the Class Vehicles have a dangerous and defective high-voltage hybrid battery system that can cause, and has in fact caused, vehicle fires and explosions (the "Fire Risk Defect"). The Fire Risk Defect exposes Plaintiffs and putative Class Members, as well as the public at large, to an unreasonable risk of accident, injury, death, or property damage from Class Vehicles that can catch fire while driving or, more commonly, while parked and charging. Owners and lessees of Class Vehicles have been injured in fact, incurred damages, and suffered ascertainable losses in money and property because of the Fire Risk Defect, asserts the complaint. They paid thousands of dollars for a plug-in hybrid electric propulsion system that they cannot use, and will continue to incur damages until the Fire Risk Defect is actually fixed. Had Plaintiffs and putative Class Members known of the Fire Risk Defect, they would not have purchased or leased those vehicles; paid substantially less for them; or purchased non-hybrid versions of the vehicles, which are significantly less expensive, says the suit. Plaintiffs seek damages and a repair under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Plaintiffs also seek damages and all available remedies for FCA's violations of state consumer protection acts, breaches of implied warranties, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs DAVID AIELLO, MICHAEL BALZER, GREGORY DEANGELO, SEAN and KRISTINE ELY, JOCELYN and DANIEL GRENIER, MICHAEL and KATHY HARTWEGER, WILLIAM DENNIS, KELLY GAUDREAU, VERONICA PETTIS, ABBEY ROBSON, CHRISTOPHER SCHROBILGEN, and DARREN WOLBERG purchased the vehicles for personal, family, and household use. Defendant FCA US, LLC formerly known as Chrysler Group is a motor vehicle manufacturer and a licensed distributor of new, previously untitled Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, and Ram brand motor vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq. Dana E. Fraser, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM PC 950 W. University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com dal@millerlawpc.com def@millerlawpc.com - and - Roger N. Heller, Esq. Phong-Chau G. Nguyen, Esq. Nicholas W. Lee, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 E-mail: rheller@lchb.com pgnguyen@lchb.com nlee@lchb.com - and - John R. Davis, Esq. Michael L. Slack, Esq. SLACK DAVIS, LLP 6001 Bold Ruler Way, Suite 100 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 795-8686 E-mail: jdavis@slackdavis.com mslack@slackdavis.com - and - Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 5775 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 620 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: (612) 254-7288 E-mail: rshelquist@cuneolaw.com FIRST NATIONAL BANK: Mcauley Files Suit in Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against First National Bank Of Pennsylvania. The case is styled as Daniel Mcauley, Jr., H. Edward Carr, James Oestreich, Tigran Kalaydzhyan, Prestige Fund A LLC, Prestige Fund A II LLC, Prestige Fund A IV LLC, Prestige Fund A V LLC, Prestige Fund A VI LLC, Prestige Fund A VII LLC, Prestige Fund A IX LLC, Prestige Fund B LLC, Prestige Fund B II LLC, Prestige Fund B IV LLC, Prestige Fund B V LLC, Prestige Fund B VI LLC, Prestige Fund B VII LLC, Prestige Fund B BTM I LLC, Prestige Fund D LLC, Prestige Fund D III LLC, Prestige Fund D IV LLC, Prestige Fund D V LL, Prestige Fund D VI LLC, Prestige Fund D BTM I LLC, WF Velocity I LLC, WF Velocity Fund IV LLC, WF Velocity Fund V LLC, WF Velocity Fund VI LLC, WF Velocity Fund VII LLC, and others similarly situated v. Pride Intermodal, Inc., Case No. CI-26-03065 (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas, Lancaster Cty., April 28, 2026). The case type is stated as "Tort Civil." Pride Intermodal Inc. -- https://prideintermodal.com/ -- is a privately owned trucking company based in Commerce, California, specializing in intermodal drayage services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex E. Rogers, Esq. 425 New Commerce Boulevard, Wilkes Barre, PA 18706 FIRST-CITIZENS BANK: Noel Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Brian Noel, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated v. FIRST-CITIZENS BANK & TRUST COMPANY, a North Carolina chartered bank, and its division, CIT Bank, Case No. 26STCV13206 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on April 29, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-04582. The Plaintiff contends that CIT failed to adequately communicate to its Savings Builder account holders that Savings Connect accounts allegedly offered higher interest rates than the Savings Builder accounts. He further takes issue with CIT's representations and marketing to Savings Builder account holders, contending, based on marketing and the language of the operative agreement governing his Savings Builder account, that he reasonably believed and expected that CIT would increase interest rates for Savings Builder accounts above what he ultimately received. Based on this alleged conduct, Plaintiff asserts claims under California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"); California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLR"); and for an accounting.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cory A. Baskin, Esq. WITKOW | BASKIN 21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 700 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Phone: (818) 296-9508 Email: cb@witkowlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Charles E. Elder, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP 1221 Broadway, Suite 2400 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 252-3597 Fax: (615) 252-6380 Email: celder@bradley.com FLORIDA PHYSICIAN: Faces Class Action Suit Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- Patsy Newitt, writing for ASC Review, reports that Jacksonville, Fla.-based multispecialty physician practice is facing a potential class action lawsuit following a November 2025 data breach, according to a May 3 news release. Florida Physician Specialists discovered its network was accessed by an unauthorized third party between Nov. 27 and 29. A review of the exposed data was completed April 6. Compromised information may include Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, financial account information, credit and debit card information, medical information and health insurance policy information. At the Becker's 23rd Annual Spine, Orthopedic and Pain Management-Driven ASC + The Future of Spine Conference, taking place June 11-13 in Chicago, spine surgeons, orthopedic leaders and ASC executives will come together to explore minimally invasive techniques, ASC growth strategies and innovations shaping the future of outpatient spine care. [GN] FS KKR CAPITAL: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP ("GPWR"), announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, captioned Stuart v. FS KKR Capital Corp., et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-02969, on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired FS KKR Capital Corp. ("FS KKR Capital" or the "Company") (NYSE: FSK) securities between May 8, 2024 and February 25, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. What Happened? On August 6, 2025, after the market closed, the Company reported second quarter 2025 earnings, revealing that the Company's net asset value had declined to $21.93 per share, down $1.44, or 6.2% from the prior quarter, and the total fair value of investments fell $474 million, to $13,648 million. Moreover, the Company reported earnings (loss) per share of negative $0.75, down $1.18 or 274.4% from the prior quarter, and a total net realized and unrealized loss per share of negative $1.36, down $1.12 or 466.7% from the prior quarter. Further, investments on non-accrual status rose to 3.0% and 5.3% of the total investment portfolio at fair value and amortized cost, respectively, compared to 2.1% and 3.5% in the prior quarter. However, the Company maintained that its "operating results and corresponding net asset value" were merely "impacted by company specific issues affecting four portfolio companies, each of which have been discussed on prior earnings calls." On this news, share prices fell $1.66 or 8.20% to close at $18.58 per share on August 7, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. Then, on February 25, 2026, after the market closed, the Company announced fourth quarter and full year 2025 earnings, revealing net asset value had continued to decline to $20.89, down $1.10 or 5% from prior quarter, and the total fair value of investments fell another $406 million, to $13,009 million. Moreover, the Company reported earnings (loss) per share of negative $0.41, down $1.17 or 153.9% from the prior quarter, and a total net realized and unrealized loss per share of negative $0.89, down $1.08 or 568.421% from the prior quarter. Further, investments on non-accrual status again rose to 3.4% and 5.5% of the total investment portfolio at fair value and amortized cost, respectively, compared to 2.9% and 5.0% in the prior quarter. The Company also "acknowledge[d] specific challenges" with additional companies and cut its dividend to $0.48 per share (previously $0.70). In the accompanying earnings call, the Company's Chief Investment Officer was forced to acknowledge that its "recent underperformance reflects challenges in certain legacy investments" in addition to those previously discussed. Further, challenges ran much deeper, as the Company revealed issues with the identified companies only accounted for "50% of net realized and unrealized losses." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $2.03 or 15.24%, to close at $11.29 per share on February 26, 2026, on unusually heavy trading volume. What Is The Lawsuit About? The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) the Company overstated the effectiveness of its portfolio restructuring efforts for its nonaccrual companies; (2) the Company overstated the valuation of its portfolio investments and/or overstated the effectiveness of the Company's portfolio valuation process; (3) the Company overstated the durability of its quarterly distribution strategy; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased or otherwise acquired FS KKR Capital securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. Contact Us To Participate or Learn More: If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact us: Charles Linehan, Esq., Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Toll-Free: (888) 773-9224 Email: shareholders@glancylaw.com If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.[GN] GRAYROBINSON PA: Clark Files Suit in M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against GrayRobinson, P.A. The case is styled as Donna Clark, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GrayRobinson, P.A., Case No. 6:26-cv-00930 (M.D. Fla., April 28, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Contract Dispute. GrayRobinson -- https://www.gray-robinson.com/ -- is a multidimensional team of professionals providing integrated legal, lobbying, and regulatory services to leading and emerging businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (954) 647-1866 Email: mweekes@milberg.com HACKS FOOD SAFETY: Rivera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hacks Food Safety Specialists, et al. The case is styled as Miguel Rivera, Remijio Zavala, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Hacks Food Safety Specialists, Courage Production, LLC, Case No. CU26-04043 (Cal. Super. Ct., Solano Cty., April 28, 2026). The case type is stated "Other Employment - Civil." Hack's Food Safety Specialists -- https://hacksfoodsafety.com/ -- provides professional sanitation services specifically tailored for the food processing industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristy R. Conolly, Esq. PROTECTION LAW GROUP 149 Sheldon St., El Segundo, CA 90245-3916 Phone: 424-290-3095 Email: kristy@protectionlawgroup.com HALLISEY & D'AGOSTINO: Rutherford File Suit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTOPHER RUTHERFORD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HALLISEY & D'AGOSTINO, LLP, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00637 (D. Conn., April 23, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. The complaint relates that the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") about its customers and employees. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach between September 28, 2025, and October 22, 2025. Unauthorized actors gained access to Defendant's systems and exfiltrated sensitive PII. Six months after discovering the Data Breach, Defendant sent a Notice of Data Security Incident letter to Plaintiff on April 17, 2026. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff suffered imminent and impending injury arising from the substantially increased risk of fraud, misuse, and identity theft, all because Defendant's Data Breach placed Plaintiff's PII right in the hands of criminals. In addition to injunctive relief, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the other Class Members, also seeks compensatory damages for Defendant's invasion of privacy, which includes the value of the privacy interest invaded by Defendant, the costs of future monitoring of their credit history for identity theft and fraud, plus prejudgment interest and costs. Plaintiff Christopher Rutherford is a Data Breach victim. Defendant Defendant Hallisey & D'Agostino, LLP is an accounting firm based in Wethersfield, Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 100 Pearl Street 14th Floor - #16946876 Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (929) 677-5181 E-mail: ofaircloth@sirillp.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Kennedy M. Brian, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 101 Park Ave. Suite 1300, #16982799 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (929) 677-5144 Telephone: 929-376-5170 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com E-mail: kbrian@sirillp.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com HAWTHORNE HYDROPONICS: Ortiz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hawthorne Hydroponics LLC. The case is styled as Honorio Ortiz, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hawthorne Hydroponics LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0003193 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., April 29, 2026). The case type is not stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Hawthorne Hydroponics LLC -- https://www.hawthornegc.com/ -- is the largest and most experienced supplier of horticulture, organics, hydroponics, and lighting supplies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Fawn F. Bekam, Esq. ABRAMSON LABOR GROUP 1700 W Burbank Blvd. Burbank, CA 91506-1313 Phone: 213-493-6300 Fax: 213-336-3704 Email: fawn@abramsonlabor.com HEALTH LINK: Assawasuksant Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Health Link, et al. The case is styled as Yupa Assawasuksant, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Health Link, Does 1-10, Inclusive, Case No. CGC26636337 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., April 28, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Healthlink Home Health -- https://www.healthlinkhha.com/ -- offers quality care at home, providing skilled nursing, therapy, and support for patients and families.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Walter Haines, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP 8605 Santa Monica Blvd, # 63354 West Hollywood, CA 90069-4109 Phone: 562-256-1047 Fax: 562-256-1006 Email: walter@uelglaw.com - and - David R. Lewismarkham, Esq. THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM 888 Prospect St., Ste. 200 La Jolla, CA 92037-4261 Phone: 619-399-3995 Fax: 619-323-1684 Email: dmarkham@markham-law.com The Defendant is represented by: H. Ann Liroff, Esq. FARBSTEIN & BLACKMAN APC 411 Borel Avenue, Suite 600 San Mateo, CA 94402 Phone: 650-554-6200 Email: hal@farbstein.com HEALTHCARE CLEANING: Mendoza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Healthcare Cleaning Solutions, L.P. The case is styled as Rosalba Mendoza, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Healthcare Cleaning Solutions, L.P.; Janitek Cleaning Solutions; WTMG, Inc.; Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0003168 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., April 29, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Healthcare Cleaning Solutions, often branded under P&G PRO, -- https://pgpro.com/en-us/ -- provides comprehensive cleaning products designed to meet the high hygiene standards of the healthcare industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1450 Los Angeles, California 90071 Phone: (213) 985-1150 Fax: (213) 985-2155 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com HOME DEPOT: Cossey Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Lamont Cossey, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV02697 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on April 29, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-04609. The Plaintiff alleges violations of and seeks remedies pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Complaint alleges violations of and seeks remedies pursuant to the FLSA. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges causes of action for failure to pay overtime in violation of the FLSA, and failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the FLSA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arby Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC 450 North Brand Blvd., Suite 900 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: 818.265.1020 Fax: 818.265.1021 Email: aa@calljustice.com The Defendants are represented by: Carrie A. Gonell, Esq. John D. Hayashi, Esq. Matthew M. Arnold, Esq. Zachary Princi, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653 Phone: +1.714.830.0600 Fax: +1.714.830.0700 Email: carrie.gonell@morganlewis.com john.hayashi@morganlewis.com matthew.arnold@morganlewis.com zachary.princi@morganlewis.com INSTRUCTURE HOLDINGS: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Instructure data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who believe their information may have been exposed in the incident, including Canvas, Mastery, and Parchment users. Instructure Security Incident: What Happened? Instructure Holdings Inc., the edtech company that runs Canvas, a learning management system used by tens of millions globally, has confirmed a data breach. On May 1, 2026, Chief Information Security Officer Steve Proud confirmed the Instructure data breach, and in a statement issued the following day, said the company had preliminarily concluded that the breach involved names, email addresses, student ID numbers, and messages exchanged among users. A May 3 post on Ransomware.Live indicates that threat actor ShinyHunters took credit for the data breach. Ransomware.Live's post shows that ShinyHunters claims to have exfiltrated over 3.65 TB of data, affecting nearly 9,000 educational institutions and 275 million students, teachers, and staff. ShinyHunters' statement indicates that billions of private messages with personal information were also compromised. Instructure plans to notify affected institutions of any updates regarding the compromised information as its investigation continues. In addition to Canvas, Instructure offers assessment platform Mastery and record management system Parchment to K-12, higher education, business, and government clients. What You Can Do After the Instructure Data Breach If you believe your information was exposed in the Instructure data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Instructure to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] J & D: Blind Users Face Barriers to Website Access, Bishop Says --------------------------------------------------------------- CEDRIC BISHOP, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. J & D BRUSH CO., LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-3378 (S.D.N.Y., April 23, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.wetbrush.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on February 26, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Wet Brush x Disney Winnie the Pooh Original Detangler - Hunny Pooh from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and visually-impaired consumers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the goods, and services Defendant offers to the public on its Website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff CEDRIC BISHOP is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant J & D BRUSH CO., LLC operates the Wet Brush online retail store, as well as the Wet Brush interactive Website that provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's haircare products, as well as other types of goods, pricing, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and internet pricing specials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212-228-9795 Facsimile: 212-982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal J.G. WENTWORTH: Faces Class Action Suit Over Sharing Loan Data -------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions Plaintiff R.R. filed a class action lawsuit against The J.G. Wentworth Co. Why: R.R. claims J.G. Wentworth shared sensitive financial information about its consumers with third parties without their knowledge or consent. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses J.G. Wentworth of sharing sensitive financial information about its consumers with third parties without their knowledge or consent. Plaintiff R.R. claims J.G. Wentworth embedded web trackers on its website that transmitted the contents of consumers' loan applications to third parties without their knowledge or consent. "These trackers perform various functions, often with the ultimate purpose of analyzing consumer information, and then monetizing those analyses by further disclosing the information to advertisers," the J.G. Wentworth class action lawsuit says. R.R. seeks to represent a nationwide class and a California class of consumers who submitted contact information through J.G. Wentworth's website in connection with an application for a financial product or service offered by the company within the past two years. J.G. Wentworth failed to inform consumers of trackers, class action alleges R.R. claims J.G. Wentworth failed to inform consumers about the trackers, which allegedly disclosed sensitive information contained in the consumers' loan applications, such as their names, email addresses, phone numbers, loan amount, income, homeownership status, credit worthiness and, in the case of a home equity line of credit, the home's value and equity. The plaintiff argues J.G. Wentworth failed to obtain the sufficient consent required under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and related state statutes to disclose consumers' sensitive financial information to third parties. "Despite legal and ethical duties to protect consumers' financial information, [J.G. Wentworth] undermined the importance of safeguarding consumers' financial information, breaching consumers' trust," the J.G. Wentworth class action lawsuit says. R.R. claims J.G. Wentworth is guilty of violating the Electronic Communication Privacy Act and California Information Privacy Act and of intrusion upon seclusion, breach of confidence and negligence. The plaintiff demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of statutory damages, disgorgement of profits, costs and attorneys' fees. Similarly, Hilton, LinkedIn, PNC Bank and Wells Fargo are facing class action lawsuits alleging they secretly tracked users' online activity using pixel trackers and other hidden technologies. The plaintiff is represented by Yaman Salahi, Nicole Cabañez and Taylor Applegate of Salahi P.C. and Albert Plawinski of Plawinski PLLC. The J.G. Wentworth class action lawsuit is R.R. v. The J.G. Wentworth Co., Case No. 3:26-cv-03082, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] JAMES L. MITCHELL: Court Dismisses Sex Offender Fee Challenge ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Philip Kaso, et al., Plaintiffs, v. James L. Mitchell, in his official capacity as Superintendent of West Virginia State Police, Defendant, Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-00603 (S.D. W. Va.), Judge Irene C Berger of the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Charleston Division, granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss a putative class action challenging West Virginia's $125 annual sex offender registry fee. The matter was dismissed without prejudice on May 4, 2026. Named Plaintiffs Philip Kaso, Stephen Basham, and Roderick Patton are subject to the West Virginia Sex Offense Registration Act. They brought this action against Colonel James L. Mitchell, Superintendent of the West Virginia State Police, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. The Plaintiffs are all required to register for life and to pay a $125 annual registration fee, which is statutorily designated for use by the State Police to enhance mental health services for current and former employees of the West Virginia State Police, and then for any other use essential to the general operations of the State Police. West Virginia law does not provide for individual risk analysis or deregistration of sex offenders based on post-offense conduct. Plaintiff Basham is disabled, indigent, and entirely dependent on benefit programs, but the fee applies regardless of ability to pay or indigency. Failure to pay the fee results in a judgment lien on the registrant's property. The Plaintiffs asserted two causes of action: Count I, an Eighth Amendment Punitive Fine claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, and Count II, a Due Process and Equal Protection Clause violation under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. They sought class certification, declaratory judgment that the fee is unconstitutional, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees and costs. On the Eighth Amendment claim, the court noted that a payment is a fine if it is a punishment for some offense. Civil fines serving remedial purposes do not fall within the reach of the Eighth Amendment, but a civil sanction that serves in part to punish is subject to the Eighth Amendment. The West Virginia Legislature included an intent provision stating that the Sex Offender Registration Act is intended to be regulatory in nature and not penal. The Registry Fee provision was added effective 2025, while the intent provision was enacted in 2000. The court acknowledged that the Registry Fee has characteristics in common with punitive fines -- it is not directed to defray the costs of the registry but for mental health services for the State Police, a purpose at best tangentially related to the sex offender registry. Additionally, a criminal conviction is a prerequisite for imposition of the fee. The court found it unnecessary to resolve whether the Registry Fee is punitive, because the Plaintiffs had not pled facts that would permit a finding of gross disproportionality. The $125 annual fee is imposed against individuals convicted of sex offenses and applied uniformly to all who are required to register. The court could not find that the $125 annual fee is grossly disproportionate to even the least culpable of sex offenders, including those required to pay it every year for several decades under lifetime registration. Accordingly, the court found that the Plaintiffs had not stated a claim that the Registry Fee violates the Excessive Fines Clause, and the motion to dismiss was granted as to Count I. On the Fourteenth Amendment claim, the court analyzed the Registry Fee under both due process and equal protection principles. Failure to pay does not constitute a violation of the registration requirements, nor does it incur any criminal penalty. Failure to pay, whether resulting from indigency or a refusal to pay, results in a judgment lien against the individual's property. The court found that a judgment lien for failure to pay a fee or fine does not implicate a fundamental right, and therefore rational basis review applies. The court found that because the legislature could have believed the fee to be a reasonable method of both defraying the costs of administering the sex offender registry and funding mental health services for the State Police, the Registry Fee passes rational basis review. To the extent the Plaintiffs contended that indigent and non-indigent registrants are treated differently, the court found that the legislature had a potential rational basis for imposing a flat fee on every individual required to register, without establishing a process for exemptions. The Plaintiffs cited no authority for the proposition that the Constitution requires an indigency exception for governmental fees or monetary charges. Because the Defendant is not required to evaluate a registrant's ability to pay prior to imposing the fee or entering a judgment lien, due process does not require that a hearing be provided. Therefore, the court found that the Plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court ordered that the Defendant's motion to dismiss be granted, that the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction be terminated as moot, and that the matter be dismissed without prejudice. The court further ordered that the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a sur-reply be granted and the attached sur-reply be filed. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JvMQpU from PacerMonitor.com JENSEN LANDSCAPE SERVICES: Moreno Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jensen Landscape Services, LLC. The case is styled as Carlos Moreno, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Jensen Landscape Services, LLC, Case No. 26STCV13808 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 29, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Jensen Landscape -- https://www.jensencorp.com/ -- provides landscape construction and maintenance, as well as custom residential landscaping services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nazo Koulloukian, Esq. KOUL LAW FIRM 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010-2003 Phone: 213-761-5484 Fax: 818-561-3938 Email: nazo@koullaw.com KALSHI INC: Brown Sues Over Illegal Commercial Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------ Nicholas Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kalshi Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01426 (W.D. Wash., April 27, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its violation of the Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA) by initiating and assisting in the transmission of commercial text messages to Washington residents who did not clearly and affirmatively consent in advance to receive the text messages. Kalshi promotes its product by using a "Refer a friend" program. This program pays existing users referral bonuses for referring their friends to trade on Kalshi. Through its "Refer a friend" program, Kalshi asks existing users to refer friends using a special link created by Kalshi. Existing users are directed to text their friends the Kalshi link and "Refer a friend" offer. If the friend uses the link to sign up for a Kalshi account and meets certain other requirements, the referrer (that is, the existing Kalshi user) receives an award that can be used for trading on Kalshi. Kalshi's "Refer a friend" program can be used via its mobile app. Existing users can access the program through the app. To take advantage of the program, existing users click the "Get $10" button on the app. Kalshi then generates a referral link and composes a text message for sharing with contacts. And, users send the message and link to their contacts. On February 6, 2026, Plaintiff received an unsolicited text message inviting him to sign up for a Kalshi account, while a resident of Ephrata, Washington. Plaintiff did not provide clear and affirmative consent to receive the promotional or marketing material from Kalshi via text message. Plaintiff had no means of opting out of receiving the unsolicited commercial text message, and still has no means of opting out of future referral messages. So, Plaintiff faces an imminent threat of future harm. But without an injunction, Plaintiff has no realistic way to stop the transmission of future Kalshi referral messages to his personal phone number, says the suit. Plaintiff, hence, ask the Court to issue an order certifying the asserted claims, or issues raised, as a class action; a judgment in his favor and the proposed class; and damages, including statutory damages, treble damages, and punitive damages where applicable. Plaintiff Nicholas Brown is domiciled in Ephrata, Washington. Defendant Kalshi Inc. is a prediction market exchange that allows users to trade contracts on the outcome of real-world events, such as elections, economic indicators, and weather outcomes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Natalya P. Maze, Esq. MAZE LAW GROUP PLLC 1600B SW Dash Point Rd. #127 Federal Way, WA 98023 Telephone: 206-355-6314 E-mail: npm@mazelawgroup.com - and - Vivek Kothari, Esq. KOTHARI LAW 555 SE Martin Luther King Blvd. Portland, OR 97214 Telephone: 503-567-6735 E-mail: vivek@kothari.law - and - Jonathan D. Grunberg, Esq. WADE, GRUNBERG & WILSON, LLC 3100 Cumberland Blvd SE, STE. 1130 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: 404-600-1153 E-mail: jgrunberg@wgwlawfirm.com KROGER CO: Anderson Sues Over Unlawful Health Insurance Surcharges ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lynn Anderson, and Lissette Maldonado Padilla, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. THE KROGER CO., Case No. 1:26-cv-00419-JPH (S.D. Ohio, April 29, 2026), is brought challenging the Defendant's unlawful practice of charging a "tobacco surcharge" under the Kroger Health and Welfare Benefit Plan ("Plan"), without complying with the regulatory requirements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") and the implementing regulations as it is both unfair and unlawful for entities like Kroger to impose discriminatory and punitive health insurance surcharges on employees who use tobacco products. This Complaint alleges that Defendant imposes a health-based tobacco surcharge without making available a compliant alternative standard to avoid the surcharge. This type of discrimination is permissible only if employers meet ERISA's strict wellness program criteria, which Defendant does not. Because Kroger seeks to take advantage of an affirmative defense allowing for discriminatory surcharges, it bears the burden of proving that its tobacco surcharge wellness program fully complies with every requirement under ERISA, including making available a reasonable alternative standard that ensures that all participants who satisfy an alternative standard receive the full reward. Participants like Plaintiffs are entitled to challenge arbitrary restrictions Defendant imposes on access to the "full reward." Where participants are not afforded a meaningful opportunity to avoid the surcharge through a reasonable alternative standard, ERISA must provide a mechanism for review. Once a participant plausibly alleges that a surcharge violates ERISA's anti-discrimination provisions and pleads facts showing deficiencies in the wellness program, the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate that its program fully complies with all statutory and regulatory requirements, including the obligation to make the "full reward" available and to provide adequate notice of that opportunity. The Plaintiffs are employees of Kroger who paid the unlawful tobacco surcharge to maintain health insurance coverage under the Plan. This surcharge imposed an additional financial burden on Plaintiffs and continues to impose such a burden on those similarly situated. The Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit individually and on behalf of all similarly situated Plan participants and beneficiaries, seeking to recover these unlawfully charged fees and for Plan-wide equitable relief to prevent Kroger from continuing to profit from its violations under the ERISA, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are or were employees of Kroger who paid a tobacco surcharge. Kroger operates a chain of supermarkets and retail stores offering groceries, pharmacy services, and general merchandise throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Ave. S, Ste. 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-7300 Email: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Oren Faircloth, Esq. William H. Payne, IV, Esq. James Catania, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (212) 532-1091 Email: ofaircloth@sirillp.com wpayne@sirillp.com jcatania@sirillp.com LADDARAN MANAGEMENT CORP: Davison Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Laddaran Management Corp. The case is styled as Deon R. Davison, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Laddaran Management Corp., Case No. 26STCV13817 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 29, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Laddaran Management Corp is a professional services firm based in Palmdale, California, specializing in providing comprehensive management solutions to businesses of all sizes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1450 Los Angeles, California 90071 Phone: (213) 985-1150 Fax: (213) 985-2155 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com LEMONADE INC: Settles Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit for $10.5MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Leslie Linwood Rich and other consumers reached a proposed class action settlement with Lemonade Inc. Why: Plaintiffs claim Lemonade exposed driver's license numbers through its online insurance quote platform. Where: The proposed class action settlement was filed in New York federal court. Lemonade has agreed to pay $10.5 million to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging its online insurance quote platform exposed the driver's license numbers of approximately 190,000 individuals. The class action lawsuit alleges Lemonade designed a feature on its platform that automatically populated personal data, allowing third parties to access driver's license numbers when basic information, such as a person's name and address, was entered. Plaintiff Leslie Linwood Rich and other class members allege the data exposure occurred over a 17-month period between April 2023 and September 2024 and allowed cybercriminals to misuse the information. According to the complaint, the exposed data was used to solicit fraudulent loans, access retirement accounts and make unauthorized credit card charges. Rich claims he was not even a Lemonade customer and had not provided his driver's license information to the company yet still received notice that his data had been compromised. The class action lawsuit alleges Lemonade's actions constitute negligence and violations of consumer protection and privacy laws, including the New York General Business Law and the federal Drivers' Privacy Protection Act. Lemonade settlement would provide cash payments, credit monitoring Under the proposed settlement, class members may receive approximately $55 in cash payments, subject to deductions for attorneys' fees and other costs. In addition, the settlement provides three years of credit monitoring and identity protection services, with a stated retail value of nearly $720 per person. The agreement also covers individuals across the United States whose personal information was compromised and who received notice of the data breach. Lemonade has also implemented changes to its data security practices following the incident, according to the plaintiffs. Class counsel plan to seek attorneys' fees of up to one-third of the settlement fund. The plaintiffs are represented by Melissa R. Clark of Ahdoot & Wolfson P.C., Mark B. DeSanto of Berger Montague and John A. Yanchunis of Morgan & Morgan P.A. The Lemonade data breach class action lawsuit is In re Lemonade Inc. Data Disclosure Litigation, Case No. 1:25-cv-04106, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN] LIBERTY MUTUAL: Class Cert. Hearing in Ward Rescheduled to June 4 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ward v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 1:24-cv-10526 (D. Mass., Filed March 1, 2024), the Hon. Judge Brian E. Murphy entered an order granting Assented-To Motion to Continue Class Certification Hearing. -- Hearing on Motion to Certify Class is rescheduled until June 4, 2026, at 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom 12 (In person only) The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Liberty is an American diversified global insurer.[CC] LISATA THERAPEUTICS: M&A Investigates Sale to Smithfield Foods -------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2025 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and are investigating -- Lisata Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: LSTA) related to its sale to Smithfield Foods, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Lisata shareholders are expected to receive $4.00 per share in cash, and one non-transferable contingent value right entitling Lisata shareholders to receive potential payments under certain conditions. ACT NOW. The Tender Offer expires on May 29, 2026. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/lisata-therapeutics-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Independent Bank Corporation (NASDAQ: IBCP) related to its sale to HCB Financial Corp. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, HCB shareholders are expected to receive 1.5900 shares of Independent common stock and $17.51 for each share of HCB common stock. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/independent-bank-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- HCB Financial Corp. (OTCPK: HCBN) related to its merger with Independent Bank Corporation. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, HCB shareholders are expected to receive 1.5900 shares of Independent common stock and $17.51 for each share of HCB common stock. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/hcb-financial-corp/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Sila Realty Trust, Inc. (NYSE: SILA) related to its sale to Sunshine Ultimate Parent LLC. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Sila Realty shareholders are expected to receive $30.38 in cash per share. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/sila-realty-trust-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] LOWE'S HOME CENTERS: Rodgers Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Katie Rodgers, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, a North Carolina limited liability company; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. CIVVS2600146 was removed from the Superior Court of the County of San Bernardino, California, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on April 29, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-02224. The Complaint asserts eight causes of action: violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); violation of the False Advertising Law ("FAL"); common law fraud, deceit, and/or misrepresentation; violation of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"); violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act ("CCPA"); violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"); violation of the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); and unjust enrichment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark D. Potter, Esq. James M. Treglio, Esq. Isabel Rose Masanque, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP 100 Pine St., Ste 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Email: classactions@potterhandy.com The Defendants are represented by: Stephanie Sheridan, Esq. Meegan Brooks, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 71 Stevenson St., Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415.318.2770 Facsimile: 424.731.8301 Email: sheridans@ballardspahr.com brooksm@ballardspahr.com - and - Brianna R. Howard, Esq. 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2915 Phone: 424.204.4400 Facsimile: 424.204.4350 Email: howardbr@ballardspahr.com MAGIC PLASTICS INC: Mejia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Magic Plastics, Inc. The case is styled as Elvis J. Mejia, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Magic Plastics, Inc., Case No. 26STCV13814 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 29, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Magic Plastics, Inc. -- https://magicplastics.com/ -- is a family-owned and operated injection molding company, manufacturing quality products since 1985.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1450 Los Angeles, California 90071 Phone: (213) 985-1150 Fax: (213) 985-2155 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com MARIANNA F. HEETER: Bennett Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Michael D. Bennett, on behalf of the JJF Management Services, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated v. Marianna F. Heeter, as Administrator of the Estate of Richard A. Heeter, Capital Trustees, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02491 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on April 29, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:26-cv-01255-CEH-CPT to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as E.R.I.S.A. Labor for Employee Benefits.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory Y Porter, Esq. Ryan T. Jenny, Esq. Cary L. Joshi, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 463-2101 Fax: (202) 463-2103 Email: gporter@baileyglasser.com rjenny@baileyglasser.com cjoshi@baileyglasser.com - and - Laura E. Babiak, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 Phone: (304) 345-6555 Fax: (304) 342-1110 Email: lbabiak@baileyglasser.com - and - Major Khan, Esq. MKLLC LAW 11120 Avenue of the Americas 4th Floor New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 389-6111 Fax: (212) 389-6112 Email: mk@mk-llc.com - and - Patrick O. Muench, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER 318 W. Adams Street, Suite 1512 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 500-8680 Fax: (304) 342-1110 Email: pmuench@baileyglasser.com - and - Elizabeth McCarthy McDermott, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (978) 460-4250 Email: emcdermott@cohenmilstein.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael L. Scheier, Esq. Carson Emens Miller, Esq. Jacob D. Rhode, Esq. KEATING, MUETHING & KLEKAMP 1800 Provident Tower 1 E. 4th St. Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: (513) 579-6400 Email: mscheier@kmklaw.com carson.miller@kmklaw.com jrhode@kmklaw.com MARKWAYNE MULLIN: Guadalupe Files Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Markwayne Mullin, et al. The case is styled as Jose Martinez Guadalupe, on behalf of himself as an individual and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Markwayne Mullin, in his official capacity, Secretary of Department of Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons, in his official capacity, Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); Todd Blanche, in his official capacity, U.S. Attorney General; Current Warden Broward Transitional Center; Case No. 1:26-cv-23046-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 29, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal). Markwayne Mullin is an American politician and businessman who has served since 2026 as the ninth United States secretary of homeland security.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rogell Xavier Levers, Esq. THE LEVERS LAW FIRM 1840 Forest Hill Blvd., Ste. 100 West Palm Beach, FL 33406 Phone: (561) 721-6200 Fax: (561) 721-6202 Email: rxl@leverslaw.com MATTRESS FIRM: Santiago Sues Over Deceptive Pricing Scheme ---------------------------------------------------------- JOHN SANTIAGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MATTRESS FIRM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01383 (W.D. Wash., April 23, 2026) is a class action to address Defendant's misleading and unlawful pricing, sales, and discounting practices on its website www.mattressfirm.com The complaint relates that the products at issue are comprised of all mattresses that have been offered on the Website at a sale or discounted price from a higher reference price. Defendant's products sold on the Website not only have a market value lower than the promised former price, but the market value of the products is also lower than the discounted "sale" price. By using false reference pricing and false limited-time sales, Defendant artificially drives up demand for the products, and by extension drives up the price of the products. As a result, consumers received a product worth less than the price paid, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all consumers who purchased Products from Defendant at prices that purported to represent discounts off of falsely represented strikethrough prices. Based on Defendant's unlawful conduct, Plaintiff seeks damages, treble damages, restitution, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, for: (1) violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act; (2) breach of contract; (3) breach of express warranty; (4) fraud/intentional misrepresentation; (5) negligent misrepresentation; and (6) unjust enrichment/quasi-contract. Plaintiff John Santiago was in Washington at the time he made his purchase from the Website. Defendant Mattress Firm, Inc. is America's largest specialty mattress store.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas R. Major, Esq. NICK MAJOR LAW PLLC 450 Alaskan Way S, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 410-5688 E-mail: nick@nickmajorlaw.com - and - Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI LAW FIRM, PLLC. 140 Broadway, Fl. 46 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 Facsimile: (212) 884-4230 E-mail: adrian@gucovschilaw.com - and - Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 610 Miami, FL 33131-3302 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 E-mail: fhedin@hedinllp.com MAV BEAUTY: Website Denies Equal Access to Blind Users, Bishop Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- CEDRIC BISHOP, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. MAV BEAUTY BRANDS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-3379 (S.D.N.Y., April 23, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.marcanthony.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on February 9, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Strictly Curls Curl Defining Lotion from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and visually-impaired consumers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the goods, and services Defendant offers to the public on its Website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant MAV BEAUTY BRANDS, LLC operates the Marc Anthony online retail store, as well as the Marc Anthony interactive Website that provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's haircare products, as well as other types of goods, pricing, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and internet pricing specials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212-228-9795 Facsimile: 212-982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal MERCOR.IO CORP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Ananthula Says ------------------------------------------------------------ VINEETH ANANTHULA; CALISTA SCHENCK; CRYSTAL CRENSHAW; THITIPUN SRINARMWONG; and DAVID BEVVINO-BERV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MERCOR.IO CORPORATION d/b/a MERCOR; DELVE AI, INC. d/b/a DELVE; BERRIE AI INCORPORATED d/b/a LITELLM; and DOE AI LAB DEFENDANTS 1 10, Defendants, Case 3:26-cv-03362 (N.D. Cal., April 21, 2026) alleges that the Defendants experienced a data security incident (the "Data Breach") in which a significant amount of personally identifiable information and protected health information was exfiltrated by a group of hackers called "TeamPCP." According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants use an AI-driven labor platform that collected the functional equivalent of complete HR files on applicants and workers, routed them through mandatory AI interviews, automated screenings, background checks, identity verifications, work trials, and ongoing surveillance, and then exposed that information through a foreseeable supply-chain compromise. The Defendants markets itself as a platform that matches talent to projects. In reality, it screens, scores, ranks, routes, evaluates, monitors, and effectively creates personnel files, and bottom-line scores, for people seeking or performing work for Mercor and its AI lab clients. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' negligence, the Plaintiffs and class members suffered loss of privacy, increased risk of identity theft and fraud, says the suit. Mercor.Io Corporation develops application software. The Company provides platform uses AI-based resume parsing to find engineers. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Renner K. Walker, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, Fourteenth Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 357-1100 Facsimile: (212) 202-4322 Email: rwalker@hausfeld.com MONGODB INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Baxter" Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as John Baxter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MongoDB, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-5191-GHW (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Gregory H. Woods of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss in this class action Memorandum Opinion and Order dated April 30, 2026. MongoDB, Inc. is a global software company that sells document database platforms and related services, including its cloud-based product, Atlas. Lead Plaintiffs, who purchased MongoDB securities between June 1, 2023, and May 30, 2024, asserted that MongoDB and its executives made materially misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Lead Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants knew, but failed to disclose, that the company's transition to a consumption-based pricing model resulted in a glut of newly acquired fiscal year 2024 workloads consuming and growing at slower rates than new workloads had in the past, or not at all. Following MongoDB's May 30, 2024 announcement of expected reduced growth, the price of MongoDB common stock declined by nearly 24 percent in less than a day. The Individual Defendants -- Dev C. Ittycheria, Chief Executive Officer and President; Michael Lawrence Gordon, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer; and Srdjan Tanjga, Senior Vice President of Finance -- were named alongside MongoDB. Defendants moved to dismiss all claims, arguing that Lead Plaintiffs failed to adequately plead that the challenged statements were false or misleading and failed to allege facts supporting a strong inference of scienter at the time the statements were made. The Court grouped the challenged statements into five categories: (1) workload quality, growth, and consumption trends; (2) impact and execution of MongoDB's new go-to-market strategy; (3) risk disclosures; (4) workload and customer acquisition; and (5) retention rates. The Court found that some, but not all, of the challenged statements were inactionable because they were puffery, statements of opinion not rendered misleading by omission of information as to the fiscal year 2024 workloads' consumption rates, statements that did not trigger an additional obligation to speak, or forward-looking statements accompanied by meaningful cautionary language. However, Lead Plaintiffs adequately pleaded scienter with respect to the plausibly misleading statements that failed to disclose that the fiscal year 2024 workloads were not consuming as expected. The Court identified four actionable statements: Ittycheria's June 1, 2023 statement that MongoDB was acquiring high-quality workloads and that good things were happening; Tanjga's January 16, 2024 response at the Needham Growth Conference that the go-to-market transition was not terribly disruptive and that there was nothing particular to call out on a revenue consumption basis; Ittycheria's March 7, 2024 statement that Atlas consumption trends had been steady for several quarters with less variability in fiscal year 2024 compared to fiscal year 2023; and Gordon's May 2, 2024 statement that newly added workloads were accretive to growth and adding to the growth rate. The Court denied the motion to dismiss as to claims arising from these four statements. Lead Plaintiffs adequately pleaded scienter through motive and opportunity, based on allegations that Ittycheria and Gordon sold a combined total of over $234 million worth of MongoDB stock during the class period, with sales timed closely to the challenged statements. The Court also found adequate pleading of conscious misbehavior or recklessness, given the Individual Defendants' access to a Salesforce tracking program providing daily and quarterly updates on workload consumption, and their repeated public statements confirming they reviewed that data in real time. The Court granted the motion to dismiss as to claims arising from forward-looking statements and opinion statements with leave to amend no later than 14 days from the date of the order. All remaining claims involving puffery or statements that did not trigger an obligation to speak were dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yUPcbm from PacerMonitor.com Defendants are represented by: MongoDB, Inc. Edmund Polubinski III, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 212-450-4000 edmund.polubinski@davispolk.com Marie Killmond, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 212-450-4208 marie.killmond@davispolk.com Dev C. Ittycheria Edmund Polubinski III, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 212-450-4000 edmund.polubinski@davispolk.com Marie Killmond, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 212-450-4208 marie.killmond@davispolk.com Michael Lawrence Gordon Edmund Polubinski III, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 212-450-4000 edmund.polubinski@davispolk.com Marie Killmond, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 212-450-4208 marie.killmond@davispolk.com Movants are represented by: City of Miami Fire Fighters and Police Officers Retirement Trust Avi Josefson, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 212-554-1493 avi@blbglaw.com Heavy & General Laborers' Locals 472 & 172 Pension & Annuity Funds - Annuity Fund Avital Malina, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 631-367-7100 amalina@rgrdlaw.com David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 631-367-7100 drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com Vincent Michael Serra, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 619-672-1619 vserra@rgrdlaw.com Heavy & General Laborers' Locals 472 & 172 Pension & Annuity Funds - Pension Fund David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 631-367-7100 drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com Vincent Michael Serra, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 619-672-1619 vserra@rgrdlaw.com JC Goh Brian Philip Murray, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 212-682-5340 bmurray@glancylaw.com Carol Jou Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 212-363-7500 aapton@zlk.com Local 272 Labor-Management Pension Fund Avital Malina, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 631-367-7100 amalina@rgrdlaw.com David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 631-367-7100 drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com Vincent Michael Serra, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 619-672-1619 vserra@rgrdlaw.com Nikunj Patel Jarett Sena, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 646-933-1000 jsena@dicellolevitt.com Faysal Siddiqui Phillip C. Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM 212-686-1060 philkim@rosenlegal.com Thomas C. Walker Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 212-363-7500 aapton@zlk.com Plaintiff is represented by: John Baxter Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 212-363-7500 aapton@zlk.com MONOLITHIC POWER: Miller Derivative Suit Stayed ----------------------------------------------- Monolithic Power Systems 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 4, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington stayed the Miller derivative suit pending developments in the Securities Action. Two shareholder derivative suits were filed against current and one former director and certain executives, alleging breaches of their fiduciary duties, and these suits have been consolidated under the caption Miller v. Hsing, et al., No. 25-cv-527 (W.D. Wash.), filed on March 26, 2025 (the Derivative Litigation), which seeks unspecified amounts of damages and/or attorneys’ fees and other relief and is stayed pending developments in the Securities Action. Monolithic Power Systems Inc. is a semiconductor company that designs, develops and markets high-performance power solutions for a wide range of industrial, automotive, cloud computing and consumer applications worldwide. The company focuses on energy-efficient power management integrated circuits and related technologies. MONOLITHIC POWER: Waterford Twp. Class Suit Stayed -------------------------------------------------- Monolithic Power Systems 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 4, 2026, that the the Company continues to defend itself from the Waterford Twp. class suit pending developments in the Securities Action. A class action lawsuit was filed against the company and certain of its executives on February 4, 2025, captioned Waterford Twp. Gen. Emps. Ret. Sys. v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-220 (W.D. Wash.) (the Securities Action), alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making material misstatements or omissions relating to its business, that the company believes the lawsuit is meritless and currently intends to defend against it vigorously, and that the Securities Action seeks unspecified amounts of damages and/or attorneys' fees and other relief. Monolithic Power Systems Inc. is a semiconductor company that designs, develops and markets high-performance power solutions for a wide range of industrial, automotive, cloud computing and consumer applications worldwide. The company focuses on energy-efficient power management integrated circuits and related technologies. MORGAN STANLEY: Storn Files Suit Over LIBOR Act Violation --------------------------------------------------------- RONALD KEVIN STORN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MORGAN STANLEY, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03475 (S.D.N.Y., April 27, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for damages and/or restitution, as well as injunctive relief, brought against Morgan Stanley on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities who own or owned shares of Morgan Stanley's Fixed-to-Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series E ("Series E Shares"); Fixed-to-Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series F ("Series F Shares"); and Fixed-to-Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series I ("Series I Shares," collectively with the Series E Shares and Series F Shares, the "Preferred Shares") at any time between April 28, 2023 and the conclusion of this action. The complaint relates that pursuant to the London Interbank Offered Rate ("LIBOR") Act, Defendant had an obligation to adopt a floating rate pegged to Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) upon the redemption dates of its Series E, F, and I Preferred Shares because Defendant did not have a valid fallback provision identifying a benchmark replacement in the event of the permanent cessation of LIBOR. Defendant breached its obligations to Plaintiff and Class members under the LIBOR Act by failing to comply with the LIBOR Act's requirement that rates pegged to LIBOR must now peg to SOFR absent a valid fallback provision. Defendant's failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations constitutes negligence per se. But for Defendant's wrongful and negligent breach of its duties owed to Plaintiff and Class members, Plaintiff and Class members would not have been injured. The injury and harm suffered by Plaintiff and Class members were the reasonably foreseeable result of Defendant's breach of its duties. Defendant knew or should have known that its failure to adopt SOFR was a breach of its obligations under the LIBOR Act and LIBOR Rule, and that Defendant's breach would case Plaintiff and Class Members to experience the foreseeable harms associated with the decision to continue paying a lower fixed rate on the Series E, F, and I Preferred Shares instead of the agreed-to floating rate. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent conduct, Plaintiff and Class members have suffered injury and are entitled to compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial, says the suit. Plaintiff and Class Members are within the class of investors that the LIBOR Act was intended to protect, notes the complaint. The harm that resulted from Defendant's decision to convert its Series E, F, and I Preferred Shares to a fixed rate instead of adopting floating-rate SOFR is the type of harm the LIBOR Act was intended to guard against, it adds. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings claims for negligence per se, violations of the LIBOR Act, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and declaratory relief. The allegations are based upon personal knowledge as to Plaintiff and his own acts, as to all other matters, based upon the investigation of counsel, which included, among other things, (i) a review and analysis of U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") filings by Morgan Stanley, (ii) a review and analysis of press releases and other public statements, and (iii) a review and analysis of reports, including media reports, about the Company. Plaintiff Ronald Kevin Storn is a natural person and a resident of Kentucky. He holds 1,436 depositary shares of Morgan Stanley's Series E Shares, and 3,535 depositary shares of Morgan Stanley's Series F Shares. Defendant Morgan Stanley is a multinational investment bank and financial services company, headquartered at 1585 Broadway, New York, New York 10036.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sean M. Akchin, Esq. Nicole Lavallee, Esq. Daniel E. Barenbaum, Esq. BERMAN TABACCO 425 California Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-3200 E-mail: nlavallee@bermantabacco.com dbarenbaum@bermantabacco.com sakchin@bermantabacco.com NATION COMPANY: Intercepts Content Communications, Erakat Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- SALEEM ERAKAT, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons v. THE NATION COMPANY, LLC, a New York limited liability company, Case No. 3:26-cv-04048 (N.D. Cal., May 4, 2026) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all California residents who have accessed and used www.thenation.com, a website that Defendant provides for public access and use. According to the complaint, during the Plaintiff's use of the Website, he navigated to multiple pages on the Website, unaware that Defendant was causing and permitting Third Parties to intercept the content of his communications and reveal his interest in abortion and reproductive rights. The Defendant caused the interception of the contents of Plaintiff's communications with the Website, including the page URLs identifying what he was browsing and/or the referrer URLs reflecting prior navigation, which were transmitted to the Third Parties during the page-load process itself, the lawsuit says. The Defendant surreptitiously embeds and operates third-party tracking technologies on the Website that intercept the contents of users' electronic communications, including the page URLs reflecting what users are browsing, in real time and without notice or consent, says the suit. The Plaintiff was in California when he visited the Website, which occurred during the class period including but not limited to on April 9, 2026. The Defendant owns, operates, and controls the Website, an online news and commentary platform through which The Nation publishes political analysis, investigative journalism, and cultural commentary for readers nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Office: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC P.O. Box 1989 No. 305 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Office: (562) 612-1708 E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com NCBT TRINITY PARKWAY: McNeal Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against NCBT Trinity Parkway, LP, et al. The case is styled as McNeal, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NCBT Trinity Parkway, LP, NCBT Kettleman McDonald's LP, NCBT, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0003132 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., April 28, 2026). The case type is stated "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." NCBT Trinity Parkway LP is a commercial real estate company based in Stockton, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John G. Yslas, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wishire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: 213-255-3937 Email: jyslas@wilshirelawfirm.com NECTAR SLEEP: Teeter Files Suit Over False Discount Prices ---------------------------------------------------------- SHAWN TEETER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NECTAR SLEEP LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01380 (W.D. Wash., April 23, 2026) is a class action to address Defendant's misleading and unlawful pricing, sales, and discounting practices on its website www.nectarsleep.com The complaint relates that the products at issue are comprised of all mattresses and bedding products that have been offered on the Website at a sale or discounted price from a higher reference price. Defendant's products sold on the Website not only have a market value lower than the promised former price, but the market value of the products is also lower than the discounted "sale" price. By using false reference pricing and false limited-time sales, Defendant artificially drives up demand for the products, and by extension drives up the price of the products. As a result, consumers received a product worth less than the price paid, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all consumers who purchased Products from Defendant at prices that purported to represent discounts off of falsely represented strikethrough prices. Based on Defendant's unlawful conduct, Plaintiff seeks damages, treble damages, restitution, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, for: (1) violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act; (2) breach of contract; (3) breach of express warranty; (4) fraud/intentional misrepresentation; (5) negligent misrepresentation; and (6) unjust enrichment/quasi-contract. Plaintiff Shawn Teeter was in Washington at the time he made his purchase from the Website. Defendant Nectar Sleep LLC owns and operates the website at www.nectarsleep.com through which it sells mattresses, bedding accessories, and related home sleep products directly to consumers in Washington and nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas R. Major, Esq. NICK MAJOR LAW PLLC 450 Alaskan Way S, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 410-5688 E-mail: nick@nickmajorlaw.com - and - Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI LAW FIRM, PLLC. 140 Broadway, Fl. 46 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 Facsimile: (212) 884-4230 E-mail: adrian@gucovschilaw.com - and - Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 610 Miami, FL 33131-3302 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 E-mail: fhedin@hedinllp.com NESTER HOSIERY: Bishop Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- CEDRIC BISHOP, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. NESTER HOSIERY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-3424 (S.D.N.Y., April 25, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.farmtofeet.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on March 11, 2026, in an attempt to purchase American Trail Summit Light Targeted Cushion 3/4 Crew Socks from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and visually-impaired consumers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the goods, and services Defendant offers to the public on its Website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff CEDRIC BISHOP is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant NESTER HOSIERY, LLC operates the Farm to Feet online retail store, as well as the Farm to Feet interactive Website that provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's hosiery products, as well as other types of goods, pricing, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and internet pricing specials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212-228-9795 Facsimile: 212-982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal NESTLE PURINA: Class Cert Deadline in Boyle Amended to August 14 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Boyle et al v. Nestle Purina Pet Care Co., Case No. 1:25-cv-01745 (D. Colo, Filed June 4, 2025), the Hon. Judge Charlotte N Sweeney entered an order granting in part for good cause shown the Nestle Purina's Unopposed Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. The Scheduling Order be amended as follows: -- Deadline to Depose Plaintiffs' Experts is June 12, 2026 -- Nestle's Rule 26 Expert Disclosures deadline is June 22, 2026 -- Deadline to Depose Nestle's Experts is July 31, 2026 -- Deadline to file Daubert/Class Cert is August 14, 2026 -- Opposition to Class Certification deadline is Sept. 14, 2026 -- Reply in Support of Class Certification deadline is Oct. 12, 2026. The nature of suit states Real Property -- Torts to Land. The Defendant is a consumer packaged goods company that manufactures, markets, and distributes pet food and snacks for dogs and cats.[CC] NO. 7 BEAUTY: Faces Class Action Suit Over Falsely Advertised Wipes ------------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that No. 7 Beauty falsely advertises its "biodegradable" makeup remover and cleansing wipes, given that the cosmetic products do not break down within a reasonably short period of time in landfill conditions. The 25-page lawsuit says that consumers typically throw the No. 7 Beauty Biodegradable Makeup Removing Wipes and Biodegradable Cleansing Wipes at issue in the trash, where the products "ultimately end up in landfills or incinerators." The filing states that landfills do not have the conditions necessary to allow the wipes to completely decompose within a reasonable period of time. "[Anaerobic] conditions [at landfills] mummify the waste and prevent it from biodegrading within a reasonable amount of time, if at all," the complaint says. Per the case, No. 7 Beauty markets and sells its Biodegradable Makeup Removing Wipes and Biodegradable Cleansing Wipes with labels that prominently display an unqualified "biodegradable" claim with a small asterisk, indicating that consumers must turn around the package and read the fine print. The case says that although the back of the wipes' packaging states that they are "[t]ested to be biodegradable including landfill," another small asterisk accompanies this claim, directing consumers to the bottom of the package where it states the claim based on "EN13432 and ASTM D5511-18 testing." Neither form of testing measures whether a product will degrade in landfill conditions, the suit states. According to the suit, EN13432 testing concerns the minimum requirements for industrial composting, not landfill waste, and the "flawed" ASTM testing does not accurately simulate whether a product will biodegrade in a reasonably short period of time in landfill conditions. Consumers generally understand that biodegradable products will completely break down within a "reasonably short" period of time, typically within one year, the case relays. The lawsuit cites the Federal Trade Commission's Green Guides, which the class action lawsuit notes were created for "this exact deceptive practice." The Green Guides stipulate that "[u]nqualified degradable claims for items that are customarily disposed in landfills, incinerators, and recycling facilities are deceptive because these locations do not present conditions in which complete decomposition will occur within one year." No. 7 Beauty's misleading representations aim to capitalize on environmentally conscious consumers concerned that products may persist in the environment and who are willing to pay premium prices for biodegradable packaging, the lawsuit claims. The lawsuit says that had the plaintiffs and class members been aware that the wipes were not biodegradable in customary disposal conditions, they either would have paid significantly less for the products or not purchased them at all. The No. 7 Beauty class action lawsuit looks to cover all individuals in the United States who purchased the No. 7 Beauty wipes labeled with a biodegradable representation on the front packaging. [GN] NOW SURFACING: Booker Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARTRELL DESAMONTA BOOKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NOW SURFACING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-4729 (N.D. Ill., April 27, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://www.royaldesignstudio.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Booker and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Booker's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. On April 7, 2026, Booker came across the Defendant's website offering decorative stencils and related products for various home decor, home improvement, and interior design needs. Booker decided to further explore the Website and its available products with the intent to make a purchase. However, he encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented him from completing the transaction. The Website contains access barriers that deny full and equal access to Booker. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Booker on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of the Website in violation of the ADA and/or its implementing regulations, asserts the complaint. Booker seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff MARTRELL DESAMONTA BOOKER is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant NOW SURFACING, INC. provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a wide range of decorative stencils for walls, furniture, floors, and tiles, available in various styles, such as damask, floral, geometric, Moroccan, tribal, and mural designs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 929-442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Continues to Defend Hubacek Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- On Semiconductor Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending April 3, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Hubacek securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. A putative securities class action, Hubacek v. On Semiconductor Corp., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01429 (D. Del.), filed on December 13, 2023 by an alleged stockholder of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against the Company and certain of its officers. This action was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona in March 2024. The initial complaint asserted claims for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleged that the defendants made misleading statements regarding the Company's SiC business. An amended complaint was filed on May 31, 2024, which again asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeks a ruling that the case may proceed as a class action, as well as damages, attorneys fees, and costs. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 30, 2024. After reviewing the Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint, the plaintiff deemed it necessary to further amend its complaint and filed a second amended complaint on September 6, 2024. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on October 10, 2024, and full briefing on this motion was completed on December 20, 2024. Oral arguments on this motion to dismiss were heard by the court on June 27, 2025. On July 11, 2025, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's second amended complaint without prejudice. On August 11, 2025, the plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint on September 25, 2025, and full briefing on this motion was completed on December 10, 2025. The Company believes that it has strong legal defenses to the claims asserted and will vigorously defend itself. On Semiconductor Corp., doing business as onsemi, is a global semiconductor manufacturer that supplies intelligent power and sensing technologies for automotive, industrial, and other end markets. The company is headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona, and its shares trade on the Nasdaq Global Select Market. ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Silva Stockholder Derivative Suit Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------- On Semiconductor Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending April 3, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2026, that the United States District Court for the District of Delaware stayed the Silva stockholder derivative suit pending the resolution of Hubacek v. On Semiconductor Corp. On January 3, 2024, a purported stockholder derivative action captioned Silva v. El-Khoury, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00007 (D. Del.), was filed by a purported stockholder of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, and on February 12, 2024, a purported stockholder derivative action captioned Smalley et al. v. El-Khoury et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00183 (D. Del.), was filed by a purported stockholder of the Company in the same court; both derivative actions, Silva and Smalley, were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on April 15, 2024. Separately, on February 28, 2024, a purported stockholder derivative action captioned Mumme et al. v. El-Khoury et al., Case No. CV2024-003974 (D. AZ.), was filed by a purported stockholder of the Company in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona in and for the County of Maricopa, and on March 15, 2024, a purported stockholder derivative action captioned Chan et al. v. Abe et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00552 (D. AZ.), was filed by a purported stockholder of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. On June 16, 2025, a purported stockholder derivative action captioned Balsam-Respler et al. v. El-Khoury et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-001672 (D. AZ.), was filed by a purported stockholder of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. On September 23, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona consolidated the Balsam-Respler and Chan derivative complaints into a consolidated action entitled In re ON Semiconductor Corporation Stockholder Derivative Litigation, Case No. CV-24-00552 (D. AZ.). The allegations in these derivative complaints are substantially similar to the allegations in the securities class action complaint discussed above, and the derivative suits purport to assert claims (1) on behalf of the Company against certain of its officers for contribution under the federal securities laws and (2) against all of the defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste. The plaintiffs seek an award of damages, pre-judgment interest, punitive damages, attorneys fees, and other costs and expenses related to the litigation. The Company believes that the plaintiffs lack standing to assert claims on the Company's behalf, and these pending derivative actions were stayed by agreement pending the resolution of Hubacek v. On Semiconductor Corp. On Semiconductor Corp., doing business as onsemi, is a global semiconductor manufacturer that supplies intelligent power and sensing technologies for automotive, industrial, and other end markets. The company is headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona, and its shares trade on the Nasdaq Global Select Market. OREMOR OF CAPISTRANO: Faces Baldwin Over Unwanted Text Messages --------------------------------------------------------------- ISAAC BALDWIN, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. OREMOR OF CAPISTRANO, LLC D/B/A CAPISTRANO VALLEY TOYOTA, Case No. 3:26-cv-02818-H-GC (C.D. Cal., May 4, 2026) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of San Diego County, California. The Defendant is a business with its headquarters located in 33395 Camino Capistrano, San Juan Capistrano, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com PATHWARD NATIONAL: Mcauley Files Suit in Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pathward National Association. The case is styled as Daniel Mcauley, Jr., H. Edward Carr, James Oestreich, Tigran Kalaydzhyan, and others similarly situated v. Pathward National Association, Metabank, Case No. CI-26-03025 (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas, Lancaster Cty., April 28, 2026). The case type is stated as "Tort Civil." Pride Intermodal Inc. -- https://prideintermodal.com/ -- is a privately owned trucking company based in Commerce, California, specializing in intermodal drayage services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex E. Rogers, Esq. 425 New Commerce Boulevard, Wilkes Barre, PA 18706 PENDLETON WOOLEN: Erwin Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Melissa Erwin, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PENDLETON WOOLEN MILLS, INC., Case No. 26-2-03116-31 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for Snohomish County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on April 29, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01466. The Plaintiff alleges Pendleton violated Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("CEMA") and Washington's Consumer Protection Act ("CPA") by sending marketing emails to Washington consumers with false and misleading subject lines. The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS & BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Natalie A. Lyons, Esq. Ian R. Bensberg, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com nlyons@cohenmalad.com ibensberg@cohenmalad.com - and - Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Michael C. Tackeff, Esq. Andrew K. Murray, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: 615-254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com mtackeff@stranchlaw.com amurray@stranchlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Steven M. Wilker, Esq. Parna Mehrbani, Esq. TONKON TORP LLP 1300 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 2400 Portland, OR 97201 Phone: 503.221.1440 Facsimile: 503.274.8779 Email: steven.wilker@tonkon.com parna.mehrbani@tonkon.com PRIDE INTERMODAL: Nisby Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pride Intermodal, Inc. The case is styled as Delonzo D. Nisby, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Pride Intermodal, Inc., Case No. 26STCV13655 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 28, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Pride Intermodal Inc. -- https://prideintermodal.com/ -- is a privately owned trucking company based in Commerce, California, specializing in intermodal drayage services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent Marlis, Esq. THE WORK JUSTICE FIRM 3530 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1460 Los Angeles, CA 90010-2334 Phone: 323-775-9000 Fax: 323-775-9000 Email: brent@workjustice.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Kreutter Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Sandra Kreutter, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No. 26STCV12271 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on April 29, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-mc-00035. The Class Action Complaint ("CAC") concerns P&G's sale and marketing of certain Charmin® brand toilet paper products (the "Product(s)"). The Plaintiff alleges that P&G misleads customers about the amount of toilet paper contained in Charmin "MEGA" rolls by comparing them the "Regular" roll. The Plaintiff brings claims on behalf of herself individually and all others similarly situated under California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's False Advertising Law, California's Unfair Competition Law, and intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment claims.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Mitchell B. Ludwig, Esq. KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE 550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500 Glendale, CA 91203-1922 Phone: (818) 547-5000 Facsimile: (818) 547-5329 Email: mbl@kpclegal.com - and - Norman C. Simon, Esq. Eileen M. Patt, Esq. HERBERT SMITH FREEHILLS KRAMER (US) LLP 1177 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 715-9100 Facsimile: (212) 715-8000 Email: norman.simon@hsfkramer.com eileen.patt@hsfkramer.com REDBANKS COLONIAL: Underpays Patient Care Employees, Dunn Says -------------------------------------------------------------- DENVER DUNN, individually and on behalf of those similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. REDBANKS COLONIAL TERRACE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-CV-303-DJH (W.D. Ky., April 28, 2026) is a class action seeking unpaid overtime compensation owed by Defendant to Plaintiff and similarly-situated employees for all hours worked. The complaint alleges that the Defendant employs and has employed in the last three years other non-exempt employees in the Commonwealth of Kentucky and, like Plaintiff, deprived those employees of overtime compensation owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act and/or the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act by not paying those employees the full amount of overtime compensation due for their overtime work. The Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff overtime compensation was not the result of any circumstances specific to the Plaintiff. Rather, it arose from Defendant's common pay policies of not paying employees for all time worked, which Defendant applied generally to the employees of Defendant's nursing home, despite the fact that Plaintiff and the similarly-situated employees were non-exempt and entitled to overtime pay, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members further contends that they are entitled to reimbursement of the litigation costs and attorney's fees expended if they are successful in prosecuting an action for unpaid wages. Plaintiff Denver Dunn was employed by Defendant working at Defendant's nursing home in Sebree, Kentucky for a portion of the three-year period preceding the filing of this complaint. Defendant Redbanks Colonial Terrace, Inc. is a retirement facility located in Sebree, Webster County, Kentucky.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark N. Foster, Esq. Law Office of Mark N. Foster, PLLC P.O. Box 869 Madisonville, KY 42431 Telephone: (270) 213-1303 E-mail: MFoster@MarkNFoster.com RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT: Colbert Files Suit in D. Kansas ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Restaurant Management Company of Wichita, Inc. The case is styled as Ronnie Colbert, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Restaurant Management Company of Wichita, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-02245-DDC-JBW (D. Kan., April 28, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Account Receivables. Restaurant Management Co. of Wichita Inc (RMC) is one of the largest Pizza Hut franchisees in the nation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maureen M. Brady, Esq. MCSHANE & BRADY LLC 4006 Central Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Phone: (816) 888-8010 Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT: McAllister Files Suit in D. Kansas --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Restaurant Management Company of Wichita, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Matthew McAllister, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Restaurant Management Company of Wichita, Inc., Heart of Texas Pizza, LP, Case No. 2:26-cv-02246-JAR-JBW (D. Kan., April 28, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Account Receivables. Restaurant Management Co. of Wichita Inc (RMC) is one of the largest Pizza Hut franchisees in the nation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maureen M. Brady, Esq. MCSHANE & BRADY LLC 4006 Central Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Phone: (816) 888-8010 Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com RODENBURG LLP: Clark Files Suit in D. North Dakota -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rodenburg LLP. The case is styled as Sheila Clark, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rodenburg LLP doing business as: Rodenburg Law Firm, Case No. 3:26-cv-00136-PDW-ARS (D.N.D., April 29, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Rodenburg LLP doing business as Rodenburg Law Firm -- https://rodenburgllp.com/ -- specializes in debt recovery and commercial collections across five states, leveraging over 30 years of experience.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd Michael Miller, Esq. SOLBERG STEWART MILLER PO Box 1897 Fargo, ND 58107-1897 Phone: (701) 237-3166 Email: tmiller@solberglaw.com RODENBURG LLP: Dockter Files Suit in D. North Dakota ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rodenburg LLP. The case is styled as Tori Dockter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rodenburg LLP doing business as: Rodenburg Law Firm, Case No. 3:26-cv-00133-PDW-ARS (D.N.D., April 28, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract. Rodenburg LLP doing business as Rodenburg Law Firm -- https://rodenburgllp.com/ -- specializes in debt recovery and commercial collections across five states, leveraging over 30 years of experience.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd Michael Miller, Esq. SOLBERG STEWART MILLER PO Box 1897 Fargo, ND 58107-1897 Phone: (701) 237-3166 Email: tmiller@solberglaw.com SESDERMA USA: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Echols Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- TAZINIQUE ECHOLS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Sesderma USA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-4829(N.D. Ill., April 28, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://www.sesderma.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Echols and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Echols' rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint relates that on December 24, 2025, during her online search, Echols discovered the Defendant's Website. She decided to explore the Website, and ultimately decided to purchase the Revitalizing Pack Hyal 5 + Mesoses. However, she encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from completing the transaction. The Website contains access barriers that deny full and equal access to Echols, asserts the complaint. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Echols and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of the Website in violation of the ADA and/or its implementing regulations, says the suit. Echols seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff Tazinique Echols is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Sesderma USA LLC provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a wide selection of dermatological and cosmetic skincare products, including serums, creams, cleansers, sunscreens, and specialized treatments designed to address various skin concerns such as aging, acne, pigmentation, and hydration.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N, Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 716-281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Pirani Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- ZenaTech, Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 20-F/A, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2026, that Slack Technologies continues to defend the Pirani securities class suit in the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. in September 2019, several purported class action lawsuits were filed against Slack Technologies, Inc., its directors, certain of its officers, and certain investment funds associated with certain of its directors, each alleging violations of securities laws in connection with Slack's registration statement on Form S-1 related to its June 2019 direct listing on the New York Stock Exchange, including an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in 2021, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Pirani v. Slack Technologies, Inc. (No. 20-16419 (9th Cir. 2021)) affirmed the 2020 conclusion of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that Pirani, who bought Slack common shares in its direct listing, had standing to bring claims under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act even though he was unable to determine whether the shares he bought were registered under the Slack registration statement, thereby calling into question the long-standing precedent that claimants must trace the shares they purchased to the allegedly defective registration statement and/or prospectus in order to pursue claims under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act. However, if a stockholder is nonetheless successful in bringing a Securities Act claim against the Company stemming from its direct listing, any adverse outcome in such litigation may have a material adverse impact on the Companys business, results of operations and/or financial condition. ZenaTech, Inc. is a technology company focused on developing and commercializing advanced software and hardware solutions for enterprise and industrial customers. The company offers a range of products and services designed to enhance operational efficiency, data analytics, and digital transformation initiatives. SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- ZenaTech, Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 20-F/A, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2026, that Slack Technologies continues to defend a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In September 2019, several purported class action lawsuits were filed against Slack Technologies, Inc., its directors, certain of its officers, and certain investment funds associated with certain of its directors, each alleging violations of securities laws in connection with Slack's registration statement on Form S-1 related to its June 2019 direct listing on the New York Stock Exchange, including an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 19-cv-05857-SI, affirmed the 2020 conclusion of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that Pirani, who bought Slack common shares in its direct listing, had standing to bring claims under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act even though he was unable to determine whether the shares he bought were registered under the Slack registration statement, thereby calling into question the long-standing precedent that claimants must trace the shares they purchased to the allegedly defective registration statement and/or prospectus in order to pursue claims under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act. However, if a stockholder is nonetheless successful in bringing a Securities Act claim against the Company stemming from its direct listing, any adverse outcome in such litigation may have a material adverse impact on the Company's business, results of operations and/or financial condition. ZenaTech, Inc. is a technology company focused on developing and commercializing advanced software and hardware solutions for enterprise and industrial customers. The company offers a range of products and services designed to enhance operational efficiency, data analytics, and digital transformation initiatives. ZenaTech, Inc. is a technology company focused on developing and commercializing advanced software and hardware solutions for enterprise and industrial customers. The company offers a range of products and services designed to enhance operational efficiency, data analytics, and digital transformation initiatives. SMARTE INC: Benasutti Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Paige Benasutti, Kelly Huiskamp, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SMARTe, Inc., Case No. 26CV487946 was removed from the Santa Clara Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on April 29, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-03764-NC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. SmartE -- https://www.smarte.pro/ -- is a software development firm that offers a data platform that provides sales and marketing data.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Myriah Jaworski, Esq. CLARK HILL LLP 505 Montgomery Street, 13th Floor San Fransisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 984-8500 Email: mjaworski@clarkhill.com STEPPING OUT: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Skaggs Says -------------------------------------------------------- DA'JON SKAGGS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STEPPING OUT BALLROOM DANCE CORP. d/b/a THE PENTHOUSE, QIUXUAN LI a/k/a RACHEL LI, and KENNETH REECE, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03465 (S.D.N.Y., April 27, 2026) is a class/collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law to recover minimum wages, spread of hours compensation, and unlawfully retained gratuities owed to Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff worked at Defendants' event space, "The Penthouse," at 617 West 46th Street, New York, NY, 10036. Plaintiff's job duties generally included cleaning The Penthouse and setting up lights and/or audio equipment prior to events; providing coat check service and greeting customers; bussing tables -- or clearing plastics cups and re-useable dishware and cleaning up when someone spilled a drink -- when The Penthouse was busy; and sweeping, mopping and polished the floors of The Penthouse. Plaintiff estimates he spent about 40% of his time doing busser duties. During Plaintiff's employment, Defendants only paid Plaintiff twice. Defendants also unlawfully retained Plaintiff's tips, notes the complaint. The Defendants failed to provide wage statements to Plaintiff that complied with NYLL, or any statement of hours worked or rates paid in a particular pay period, the complaint alleges. Had Plaintiff been given this legally required information, Plaintiff would have been in a better position to advocate for his rights when he did complain to Defendants, including a complaint to Defendant Li about "not getting paid a penny" on January 13, 2026. Thus, Defendants' failure to provide Plaintiff with lawful wage statements caused Plaintiff to be underpaid. Because no wage notice or compliant wage statements were provided, Plaintiff could not effectively determine which workdays and hours the January 13, 2026 and January 22, 2026 deposits covered, whether defendants were taking a tip credit, whether any deductions or withholdings were taken, or whether any tip amounts were included, and that lack of information concealed the extent of underpayment and delayed Plaintiff's ability to challenge it, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the FLSA Non-Exempt Employee Collective Members, seeks damages in the amount of his unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages as provided by the FLSA, attorneys' fees and costs, post-judgment interest, and such other legal and equitable relief as the Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff Da'Jon Skaggs was employed by Defendants from around December 15, 2025 to January 17, 2026. Defendant Stepping Out Ballroom Dance Corp. d/b/a The Penthouse ("Stepping Out") is a New York corporation that, at all relevant times, operated and held the on-premises liquor license for an event space. Defendants Qiuxuan Li a/k/a Rachel Li and Kenneth Reece are owners and/or managers of Defendant Stepping Out who had the power to hire, fire, set pay and schedules for Plaintiff and other employees.{BN} The Plaintiff is represented by: Finn W. Dusenbery, Esq. HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & REHNS LLP 112 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 213-8311 Facsimile: (212) 779-0028 - and - Joseph M. Bonomo, Esq. PITTA LLP 120 Broadway, 28th Fl New York, NY 10271 Telephone: (917) 473-3119 Facsimile: (212) 779-0028 STIFEL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Bank Deposits Class Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Stifel Financial Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a bank deposits class suits in the federal district court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Beginning in March 2025, the Company and certain of its affiliates were named as defendants in multiple putative class actions pending in the federal district court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The class action claims have been brought on behalf of customers who had cash deposits or balances in the Stifel Insured Bank Deposit Program or the Stifel Insured Bank Deposit Program for Retirement Accounts, alleging various contractual, fiduciary, and statutory claims based on the allegation that the Company failed to pay a reasonable rate of interest on its cash sweep products. Together, the complaints seek unspecified compensatory damages, equitable relief, and treble damages. The Court has now selected lead plaintiffs counsel and a Consolidated Class Action Complaint will be filed shortly. The Company will then file its responsive pleading. While there can be no assurance that it will be successful, it intends to vigorously defend the claims. Stifel Financial Corp. is a diversified financial services holding company providing securities brokerage, investment banking, trading, investment advisory, and related financial services to individual investors, institutions, corporations, and municipalities. The company operates through multiple subsidiaries, including its broker-dealer and bank affiliates, across the United States and select international markets. STIFEL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Dell Class Suit in Missouri ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stifel Financial Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Dell class suit in the federal district court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The Company, the Board, and its investment committee and respective members (together, the "Company Defendants") are defendants in a putative class action related to the administration of the Companys 401(k) Plan (the "Plan") pending in federal district court for the Eastern District of Missouri, the Dell Complaint, filed on July 4, 2025, brought on behalf of the Plan and current and former employees that are members of the Plan, alleging fiduciary violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The Dell Complaint alleges the Company Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by causing the Plan to pay excessive recordkeeping and administrative service fees and by failing to prudently monitor and remove one of the Plans investment options. The Dell Complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, equitable relief, and plan reformation. The case is at an early stage, and while there can be no assurance of success, the Company Defendants intend to vigorously defend the case. Stifel Financial Corp. is a diversified financial services holding company providing securities brokerage, investment banking, trading, investment advisory, and related financial services to individual investors, institutions, corporations, and municipalities. The company operates through multiple subsidiaries, including its broker-dealer and bank affiliates, across the United States and select international markets. STIFEL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Striplin Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Stifel Financial Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Striplin class suit in the federal district court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The Company, the Board, and its investment committee and respective members (together, the "Company Defendants") are defendants in a putative class action related to the administration of the Companys 401(k) Plan (the "Plan") pending in federal district court for the Eastern District of Missouri, the Striplin Complaint, filed on Feb. 20, 2026, brought on behalf of the Plan and current and former employees that are members of the Plan, alleging fiduciary violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The Striplin Complaint alleges the Company Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to prudently monitor and remove two of the Plans investment options; the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Striplin Complaint on April 27, 2026, and the Company Defendants investigation of these allegations is in process. Prior to the filing of the Dell Complaint, the Company identified a change in the market pricing of certain recordkeeping and administrative fees and a potential underperformance with certain Plan investments, calculated restorative payments, funded the Plan on March 31, 2025, notified the Department of Labor through its Voluntary Fiduciary Correction Program, and on Aug. 4, 2025, received a no-action letter from the Department of Labor; the Company Defendants have also moved to dismiss the Dell Complaint. The Striplin Complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, equitable relief, and plan reformation. The case is at an early stage, and while there can be no assurance of success, the Company Defendants intend to vigorously defend the case. Stifel Financial Corp. is a diversified financial services holding company providing securities brokerage, investment banking, trading, investment advisory, and related financial services to individual investors, institutions, corporations, and municipalities. The company operates through multiple subsidiaries, including its broker-dealer and bank affiliates, across the United States and select international markets. SUSQUEHANNA GLASS: Loraw Files Suit in Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Susquehanna Glass Company. The case is styled as Sean D. Loraw, and others similarly situated v. Susquehanna Glass Company, Case No. CI-26-03042 (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas, Lancaster Cty., April 29, 2026). The case type is stated as "Tort Civil." Susquehanna Glass Company -- https://www.susquehannaglass.com/ -- specializes in hand-cut and engraved glassware, as well as screen-printed glasses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 TARGET INC: Overstates Number of Servings of Creamer, Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges Target has overstated the number of servings in 35.3 oz containers of its Market Pantry Original Coffee Creamer by understating the gram-weight equivalent of one teaspoon to make it appear that each canister contains more powder than it actually does. The 40-page complaint contends that Target has effectively shorted consumers by at least 13.3 percent of the advertised number of servings in each container of its private-label powdered coffee creamer, causing buyers to pay for roughly 66 to 83 servings that they never receive in a product labeled and advertised as containing about 500 servings. According to the complaint, the alleged deception is rooted in Target listing a serving size of the powdered creamer as one teaspoon, or two grams, on the product's nutrition facts panel. However, the case says that independent testing commissioned by the plaintiff in January 2024 found that this equivalency is inaccurate and that a teaspoon of the creamer weighs more than two grams. " . . . [T]wo independent laboratories' testing of the Product found (1) the 'servings' claim on the Product was false and misleading because the Product was short at least 13.31% of the promised one teaspoon servings; and (2) the stated equivalency that one teaspoon of the Product was the same as two grams of the Product was false," the filing summarizes. The case points to the Code of Federal Regulations, which governs how serving sizes and the number of servings per product must be determined and disclosed. These rules rely on a Reference Amount Customarily Consumed (RACC), or the amount consumed by the average adult, which the Food and Drug Administration sets as two grams for powdered coffee creamers, the complaint relays. Because consumers do not typically measure intake in grams, manufacturers must convert this amount into a more appropriate household unit, like teaspoons, before calculating servings per container, the filing says. The lawsuit alleges that Target's conversion from grams to teaspoons was erroneous. In particular, because the product's "true weight" per teaspoon supposedly exceeds two grams, per independent testing, federal rounding rules require that products weighing between two and five grams be rounded to the nearest half gram, the lawsuit states. As a result, the weight of the creamer should be 2.5 grams, the suit contends, making one teaspoon an inaccurate serving size, the suit claims. If calculated correctly, the number of servings per canister of Market Pantry Original Coffee Creamer powder would be closer to roughly 417 to 434 servings, well below the label claim of "about 500 servings" and beyond the allowable variance margin. Because the serving size is incorrect, nearly all nutrient label values for the product—such as calories, sugar, fat, cholesterol, vitamins and others—may also be skewed, the suit notes. The Target class action lawsuit looks to represent all consumers who purchased the 35.3 oz Market Pantry Original Coffee Creamer from a brick-and-mortar Target store in the state of New York for personal, family or household use during the period beginning at the earliest date allowed by law to April 23, 2025. [GN] TCL TECHNOLOGY: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Software Updates ---------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Younker, writing for tom's guide, reports that Roku and TCL are being sued in a class action lawsuit that claims software updates released by the companies have been "repetitively defective," making TVs unusable. Update: We reached out to Roku and a spokesperson said, "We believe the claims are meritless." We've also reached out to TCL and the company declined to comment. Roku is most known for making some of the best streaming stick devices and its platform has been featured on some of the best TVs we've tested, while TCL makes a variety of televisions. The two companies have a partnership where Roku's OS powers the smart capabilities of many affordable TVs. TCL is one of Roku's biggest clients. The complaint was filed in a federal court based out of southern California, where the companies were accused of releasing software updates that cause the smart TVs to freeze, restart over and over, not turn on at all or degrade the experience. As seen by Top Class Actions, the plaintiff, Terri Elise, accuses the companies of knowingly releasing poor updates. "Despite consumers' persistent complaints of repeated system failures, often leaving their TVs completely inoperable, defendants offer no recourse," the Roku class action lawsuit reads. "This is inconsistent with representations made in express warranties, which promise to repair, correct or otherwise remediate the software defect." The suit lists the Roku Select Series, Roku Plus Series, and the TCL 3, 4, 5, and 6-series models that run RokuOS. The complaint demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief plus an award of actual and statutory damages and restitution for members of class action. The initial filing does not have a specific number, but that will come about as the case either settles or goes to trial. What TCL owners are saying There are several comments under the Top Class Actions post with people noting that they've experienced issues with Roku TCL sets. "I was watching my TV and it just stopped showing pictures," one owner claimed. Another said they have the TCL QM8 which would get blacked out screens or just shut off after software issues. On the Roku and TCL subreddits we were able to find multiple posts about software updates breaking TVs going back at least two years, which matches with the timeline presented in the lawsuit. For example, this post from four months ago decries a forced firmware update that disabled connectivity features. Or this one from the Roku subreddit where the poster claimed their TCL TV refused to update its operating system. This lawsuit is in its initial stages so it may be some months before a resolution or settlement is reached. We have reached out to TCL and Roku for comment and will update this article should we hear back. [GN] TEXAS: ACLU Files Class Suit Blocking Migrant Arrest Law -------------------------------------------------------- Reuters reports that civil rights advocates on Monday, May 4, filed a new lawsuit seeking to block Texas authorities from enforcing parts of a 2023 Texas law that would allow the arrest and prosecution of people suspected of illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, after an appeals court allowed the measure to move forward. Groups including the American Civil Liberties Union filed a class action lawsuit, seeking to represent thousands of people across the state who could be held liable for violating a reentry crime provision in the Texas law, SB 4, if it takes effect on May 15. They filed the case in federal court in Austin, Texas, after the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on April 24 overturned a 2024 injunction that had blocked enforcement of ⁠the law. The injunction was granted in a lawsuit brought by Democratic former President Joe Biden's administration along with the immigrant-rights groups Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, American Gateways and the county of El Paso, Texas. Republican President Donald Trump's administration dropped the case, but the other plaintiffs pressed on, convincing judges prior to last month that Texas' law unconstitutionally interfered with federal immigration enforcement and was trumped by federal law. The majority in the 5th Circuit's 10-7 ruling did not address the constitutionality of the law, but instead held the organizations pursuing the legal challenge lacked standing to pursue their case. The ACLU's new lawsuit seeks to remedy that by instead suing on behalf of noncitizens who could be subject to certain ⁠provisions of the law. "Every court to have reached the merits of laws like SB 4 has found them to be unconstitutional," Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, said in a statement. "SB 4 is cruel and illegal, and we will keep fighting it until it is permanently struck down.” The plaintiffs are seeking an emergency injunction to prevent Texas from enforcing ⁠four provisions of the law, including one that makes it a state crime for someone to reenter the United States after deportation, even if they have federal permission to do so or have since obtained a green card. The lawsuit also challenges a provision of the ⁠law that gives magistrate judges in Texas the power to issue deportation orders. Spokespeople for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, whose office is defending the law, did not respond to requests for comment. The case is L.M.L. v. Martin, U.S. ⁠District Court for the Western District of Texas, No. 1:26-cv-01170. For the plaintiffs: Cody Wofsy of the American Civil Liberties Union [GN] TRADER JOE'S: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Mislabeling Coffee ---------------------------------------------------------------- Taylor Fishman of Fox 5 News, reports that a dispute over coffee labeling is drawing national attention, as a class-action lawsuit accuses Trader Joe's of misleading customers about its low-acid coffee. The lawsuit claims the product contains less caffeine than consumers expect, raising questions about how the coffee is marketed and labeled. For one small company, the issue is personal. Kerry Sachs, CEO and co-founder of North Carolina-based Puroast Coffee, says his company helped pioneer the low-acid coffee category. "Our company invented low-acid coffee," Sachs said. Puroast says it developed a patented process to reduce acidity while maintaining flavor for consumers sensitive to traditional coffee. Sachs says concerns began when Trader Joe's started selling its own low-acid French roast. Puroast purchased the product from Trader Joe's and conducted testing. According to Sachs, the results raised concerns. "We found that it wasn't really low acid," he said. "And we also found it had less than half the caffeine." In 2025, Puroast filed a federal lawsuit against Trader Joe's, alleging the company is not being transparent about its product. The legal battle has since expanded. In recent days, four consumers filed a separate class-action lawsuit, alleging the coffee contains significantly less caffeine than standard coffee and that the difference is not disclosed on the packaging. According to reports, those claims cite the testing first conducted by Puroast. Puroast says it is not seeking financial damages, but instead, the company is asking for clearer labeling and for the federal government to establish a standard for what qualifies as "low-acid" coffee. "We're hoping this leads to a standard," Sachs said. "So if you say low acid, it actually meets that definition." Trader Joe's has not publicly responded to the lawsuits and did not respond to requests for comment before this story was published. The company's low-acid French roast coffee remains available for sale in stores. The case highlights a broader issue facing the food and beverage industry — how specialty claims like "low acid" are defined and regulated. Without a clear federal standard, companies may have flexibility in how they label products, which can lead to confusion for consumers. As the legal process continues, the outcome could have wider implications beyond coffee. A ruling in the case could influence how similar products are labeled, marketed, and tested across the country. [GN] TRANE TECHNOLOGIES: Isom Sues Over HVAC Equipment Sale Monopoly --------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD ISOM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANE TECHNOLOGIES PLC; TRANE U.S. INC.; MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC TRANE HVAC US LLC; LENNOX INTERNATIONAL INC.; LENNOX INDUSTRIES INC.; ALLIED AIR ENTERPRISES LLC; CARRIER GLOBAL CORP.; VIESSMANN MANUFACTURING CO. (U.S.) INC.; RHEEM MANUFACTURING CO.; HEAT TRANSFER PRODUCTS GROUP, LLC; DAIKIN INDUSTRIES, LTD.; DAIKIN COMFORT TECHNOLOGIES NORTH AMERICA, INC.; DAIKIN APPLIED AMERICAS INC.; GOODMAN DISTRIBUTION INC.; THERMALNETICS, LLC; ROBERT BOSCH LLC; ROBERT BOSCH GMBH; JC RESIDENTIAL AND LIGHT COMMERCIAL LLC; JOHNSON CONTROLS-HITACHI AIR CONDITIONING NORTH AMERICA LLC; AAON, INC.; AAON, INC.; AAON COIL PRODUCTS, INC.; and BASX, INC, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-11294-RJW-APP (E.D. Mich., April 20, 2026) alleges violation of the Sherman Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, beginning no later than January 1, 2020, the Defendants entered into an agreement to fix, raise, and stabilize the prices of HVAC Equipment sold in the United States. They carried out that agreement through three reinforcing mechanisms: the exchange of non-public competitive data through AHRI, the public signaling of price increases through ACHR News, and coordinated restrictions on manufacturing output. The conspiracy generated unprecedented profit margins for Defendants and billions of dollars in overcharges paid by the distributors, wholesalers, and contractors who purchase HVAC Equipment at the first point of sale, says the suit. Trane Technologies Public Limited Company manufactures industrial equipment. The Company offers central heaters, air conditioners, electric vehicles, air cleaners, and fluid handling products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul F. Novak, Esq. Michael P. Piggins, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG P.C. The Fisher Building 3011 W. Grand Boulevard, Floor 24 Detroit, MI 48202 Telephone: (313) 800-4170 Email: pnovak@weitzlux.com mpiggins@weitzlux.com - and - Patrick McGahan, Esq. Michael Srodoski, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 156 South Main Street P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Telephone: (860) 537-5537 Facsimile: (860) 537-4432 Email: pmcgahan@scott-scott.com msrodoski@scott-scott.com - and - Patrick Coughlin, Esq. Carmen Medici, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 798-5325 Facsimile: (619) 233-0508 Email: pcoughlin@scott-scott.com cmedici@scott-scott.com - and - Karin E. Garvey, Esq. Fatima Brizuela, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6443 Email: kgarvey@scott-scott.com fbrizuela@scott-scott.com - and - Christopher Burke, Esq. Yifan (Kate) Lv, Esq. BURKE LLP 402 West Broadway, Suite 1890 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 369-8244 Email: cburke@burke.law klv@burke.law TRISTAR INSURANCE: Settles 2022 Data Breach Class Suit for $1-Mil. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that TRISTAR Insurance Group, Inc. has agreed to a $1,000,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the insurance company failed to protect sensitive information on its systems from a November 2022 data breach. The $1 million TRISTAR Insurance Group class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on February 26, 2026. The settlement covers all United States residents whose personal information was compromised in the November 2022 data breach and to whom TRISTAR sent a data breach notice on or around February 1, 2024. Approximately 38,037 people are covered by the TRISTAR settlement, per court documents. The court-approved website for the TRISTAR Insurance Group data breach settlement can be found at TRISTARDataSettlement.com. According to the website, TRISTAR settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form can receive up to $5,000 for "extraordinary" losses stemming from the data breach. This benefit covers expenses related to identity theft or fraud, the settlement site says. In addition to an extraordinary-loss payment, class members can also receive up to $500 for out-of-pocket expenses incurred due to the TRISTAR data breach. Class members must submit proof, such as receipts, with their claim form to receive an extraordinary-loss and/or out-of-pocket expense payment. Further, in addition to extraordinary-loss and out-of-pocket expense payments, class members can also submit a claim for up to four hours of lost time spent responding to the data breach, at a rate of $25 per hour. In lieu of the foregoing settlement benefits, class members can instead file a claim form to receive a cash payment, with no proof required. According to the settlement agreement, class members who are California residents can receive $100, while non-California residents are eligible to receive $40 cash. In addition to any monetary benefits, all class members may file a claim form to receive an enrollment code for three years of three-bureau credit monitoring, which includes fraud assistance. Finally, as part of the class action settlement, TRISTAR has agreed to enhance its data security, data management, identity protection and threat detection capabilities. To file a TRISTAR Insurance Group settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and log in using the settlement claim ID found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF of the claim form to print, fill out and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All TRISTAR settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by July 15, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the TRISTAR Insurance Group data breach settlement following a hearing on June 23, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to consumers only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The TRISTAR Insurance Group class action lawsuit alleged that the nationwide insurance provider failed to enact proper cybersecurity measures to protect sensitive information stored on its systems from a data breach, which the company discovered on or around November 10, 2022. Per court documents, private information that may have been exposed during the breach included names, Social Security numbers and payment information. [GN] TU TIPICO DOMINICANO: Mena FLSA Suit Transferred to E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned 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 lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Tu Tipico Dominicano -- https://tutipicodominicano.com/ -- is a Dominican restaurant located in Staten Island, New York, known for its authentic cuisine and community presence.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. Andrew C. Weiss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 248-5550 Email: mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com acw@employmentlawyernewyork.com ULTA SALON: Md. Court Grants Bid to Remand "Mulanena" ----------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned Tinayia Mulanena, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., Defendant, Civil No. 1:25-cv-03753-JRR (D. Md.), Judge Julie R. Rubin of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand and denied as moot Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Consolidate in the underlying putative class action. Plaintiffs Tinayia Mulanena, Alyiah Jackson-Mulanena, Christie Ledesma, Kenya Amaker, Alexandria Auffarth, Shaleice Wood, and Danielle Nelson, citizens of Maryland, initiated the action in the Circuit Court for Frederick County against Defendant on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, alleging false and misleading email marketing in violation of the Maryland Commercial Electronic Mail Act (MCEMA), Maryland Code Annotated, Commercial Law, Section 14-3001, et seq. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant initiated the transmission of hundreds of commercial electronic mail messages with false or misleading subject lines. Specifically, Defendant frequently sent emails advertising that a free gift was available; however, the body of those emails contained conditions that recipients were required to meet in order to obtain the free gift. Plaintiffs sought statutory damages of $500 per violation, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on all sums awarded. Defendant removed the action to federal court under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332 and 1453, asserting diversity jurisdiction and jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Defendant then filed a Motion to Dismiss, contending that Plaintiffs had failed to allege a concrete injury necessary to confer Article III standing. Plaintiffs thereafter filed the instant Motion to Remand, arguing — perhaps counterintuitively — that they lacked Article III standing, and therefore the action could not proceed in federal court. The court observed that the party seeking to remove a case to federal court bears the burden of demonstrating federal jurisdiction, and that if federal jurisdiction is doubtful, a remand is necessary. On the standing question, the court applied the three-part test: the plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact that is both concrete and particularized; the injury must be fairly traceable to the defendant's challenged action; and it must be likely that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. The court reaffirmed that under Article III, an injury in law is not an injury in fact, and that plaintiffs cannot establish a cognizable injury simply by pleading a statutory violation. Critically, the court found that unlike the plaintiff in Harbers v. Eddie Bauer — a Western District of Washington decision on which Defendant relied — Plaintiffs here did not allege they were actually deceived by Defendant's emails. Plaintiffs asserted only that the emails contained subject lines with false or misleading information that had the capacity to deceive the recipient. Moreover, Plaintiffs did not allege that Defendant's emails were unsolicited or unwanted. Rather, Plaintiffs asserted that they wanted to continue receiving emails from Defendant — they simply did not want those emails to have deceptive subject lines. Accordingly, Plaintiffs did not allege an invasion of privacy or any similar injury to constitute a concrete harm. The court also noted an internal contradiction in Defendant's positions: in the Motion to Dismiss, Defendant argued that Plaintiffs failed to allege a concrete injury, while in opposition to the Motion to Remand, Defendant argued that Plaintiffs had alleged sufficient concrete harm. The court concluded that Defendant cannot have it both ways. On Defendant's alternative argument that remand would be futile because Plaintiffs' claims were preempted by the CAN-SPAM Act, the court declined to address it. The Fourth Circuit has held that futility of remand does not provide an exception to Section 1447(c), and that if a federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it must remand the case. Accordingly, the court remanded the action to the Circuit Court for Frederick County, Maryland, and denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Consolidate as moot. A copy of the court's Memorandum Opinion dated May 04, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xdofVL from PacerMonitor.com Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. Ste 120 1000 Remington Blvd., Bolingbrook, IL 60440 Represented by: Aaron Andrew Nichols, Esq. ICE MILLER LLP aaron.nichols@icemiller.com Edward M. Buxbaum, Esq. ICE MILLER LLP edward.buxbaum@icemiller.com Melanie L. Lee, Esq. WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP mlee@willkie.com Debra Bogo-Ernst, Esq. WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP dernst@willkie.com Craig C. Martin, Esq. WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP cmartin@willkie.com Amanda S. Amert, Esq. WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP aamert@willkie.com Plaintiffs Kenya Amaker; Alexandria Auffarth; Alyiah Jackson-Mulanena; Christie Ledesma; Tinayia Mulanena; Danielle Nelson; Shaleice Wood Represented by: David Matthew Trojanowski, Esq. Z LAW, LLC dmt@zlawmaryland.com Cory L. Zajdel, Esq. Z LAW, LLC clz@zlawmaryland.com UNITED LENDING TEAM: Martinez Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Lending Team, Inc. The case is styled as Nathaniel Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. United Lending Team, Inc., Case No. 5:26-cv-02237 (C.D. Cal., April 29, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. United Lending Partners -- https://unitedlendingpartners.com/ -- is a premier residential purchase and refinance lender.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN AND ASSOCIATES APC 2901 West Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Phone: (949) 270-2798 Email: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com UNITED STATES: Allowed Leave to File Opposition Surreply in Bourque ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge Chen entered an order granting the Defendants' motion for leave to file surreply in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Clerk of Court is directed to file of record Defendants' proposed surreply, attached as Exhibit A to the declaration accompanying their administrative motion, as of the date of this Order. 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 Court's order dated April 30, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iVUPCq at no extra charge.[CC] US HEALTH: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cesario Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ DARREN CESARIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. US HEALTH AND WELLBEING, LLC d/b/a LIQUID I.V. and WELLBEING COLLECTIVE, Case No. 1:26-cv-0366 (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2026) is a putative Class Action Complaint against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, arising from Defendant's failure to ensure that its e-commerce website, www.liquid-iv.com is accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. The Plaintiff is a legally blind resident of New York County who suffers from advanced Retinitis Pigmentosa, a progressive hereditary retinal dystrophy that causes severe peripheral field loss, impaired night vision, decreased contrast sensitivity, and progressive constriction of the functional visual field. The Defendant markets and sells, through its website, proprietary Cellular Transport Technology.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Schonfeld, Esq JOSEPH & NORINSBIERG 825 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 E-mail: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com VERITY SCREENING: Maclin FCRA Suit Transferred to D. Colorado ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as David Maclin, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Verity Screening Solutions, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01560 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on April 29, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-01809-CYC to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Verity Screening Solutions, LLC -- https://verityscreening.com/ -- assist companies of all sizes to efficiently implement, manage and control their employment screening and background check obligations.[BN] VISIBLE IDEAS INC: Maxey Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Britney Maxey, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VISIBLE IDEAS INC. d/b/a SPLIT PAY, Case No. 244673865 was removed from the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the United States District Court for Southern District of Florida on April 29, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-23050-XXXX. The Complaint alleges that Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), by purportedly sending unsolicited text messages to Plaintiff. The Complaint asserts claims under the TCPA, including alleged violations of the National Do Not Call Registry provisions, and alleged failure to honor opt-out requests. The Complaint seeks statutory damages of $500 per violation, trebled to $1,500 per violation for willful or knowing conduct, as well as injunctive relief.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane THE LAW OFFICE OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone (813) 340-8838 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com - and - Chad J. Robinson 382 NE 191st PMB 99460 Miami, FL 33179-2423 Phone (786) 519-2423 Email: chad@chadrobinson.com The Defendants are represented by: Carmen Elena Jule SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 30 Rockefeller Plaza, 39th Floor New York, NY 10112 Phone (212) 653-8700 – general Phone (212) 653-8198 – direct Email: cjule@sheppard.com WILLIAMS TANK LINES: Neves Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Williams Tank Lines, et al. The case is styled as William Neves, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. Williams Tank Lines, Does 1-10, Case No. 26CV010491 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April 28, 2026). The case type is stated "Other Employment Complaint Case." Williams Tank Lines -- https://williamstanklines.com/ -- is a reputable transportation company based in Sparks, Nevada, offering a wide range of services across multiple terminals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elliot J. Siegel, Esq. KING & SIEGEL, LLP 724 S. Spring Street, Suite 201 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Phone: 213-465-4802 Fax: 213-465-4803 Email: elliot@kingsiegel.com WOOT.COM LLC: Roth Files Suit in W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Woot.com LLC. The case is styled as Austin Roth, Brandon Rose, Alexander Fonseca, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Woot.com LLC as a wholly owned subsidiary of Amazon.com Services LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-01460 (W.D. Wash., April 29, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Wire and Electronics Communications Act. Woot -- https://www.woot.com/ -- is an American Internet retailer based in the Dallas suburb of Carrollton, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca Luise Solomon, Esq. Kim D. Stephens, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Ave., Ste. 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 682-5600 Fax: (206) 682-2992 Email: rsolomon@tousley.com kstephens@tousley.com WREN US: Unlawfully Terminates Employees, Thomas-Giambrone Says --------------------------------------------------------------- TAYLOR-DNAE THOMAS-GIAMBRONE, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WREN U.S. HOLDINGS, INC., WREN KITCHENS NEW YORK, INC., and WREN LOGISTICS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02475 (E.D.N.Y., April 25, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification ("WARN") Act, and the New York State WARN Act ("NY WARN Act"). According to the complaint, on April 22, 2026, Plaintiff and class members received an internal email notifying them of anticipated interruptions to the computer systems the next day as a result of work performed by IT. On April 23, 2026, Defendants abruptly terminated every employee that they employed in the State of New York State effective immediately, without providing any advance written notice. None of the persons employed by Defendants in the State of New York received advance notice of their termination, much less the 60 days' advance written notice required under the WARN Act. As a result of Defendants' failure to provide the notice required by the WARN Act, Plaintiff and similarly situated employees are entitled to recover back pay, benefits, and other relief as provided under the WARN Act, says the suit. The Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees seek to recover up to 60 days wages and benefits, pursuant to WARN Act and NY Labor Law from Defendant. Plaintiff TAYLOR-DNAE THOMAS-GIAMBRONE was employed by Defendants at their showrooms in Levittown and Yonkers, New York. Defendants are affiliated corporate entities that operate as a single integrated business enterprise engaged in the design, manufacture, and distribution of kitchens within the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 E-mail: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com WTMG INC: Suarez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against WTMG, Inc. The case is styled as Maria Isabel Suarez, an individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. WTMG, Inc. d/b/a Janitek Cleaning Solutions, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0003175 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., April 29, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." WTMG, Inc. doing business as JaniTek Cleaning Solutions -- https://janitek.net/ -- is a janitorial company that provides commercial cleaning and floor maintenance services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Blvd. Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (818) 962-6465 Fax: (818) 962-6469 Email: alindsay@d.law ZIMMERMANN (USA) INC: Jean-Jacques Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zimmermann (USA), Inc. The case is styled as Soukena Jean-Jacques, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Zimmermann (USA), Inc., Case No. 26STCV13672 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 28, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Zimmermann -- https://www.zimmermann.com/us/ -- is a luxury fashion brand from Sydney, Australia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. Kaitlyn E. Fry, Esq. Tiffany Hyun, Esq. Andrew Weaver, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 707 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 4700 Los Angeles, CA 90017-3601 Phone: 213-985-1150 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com tiffany.hyun@thesentinelfirm.com kaitlyn.fry@thesentinelfirm.com andrew.weaver@thesentinelfirm.com [] Darrow Launches Platform to Identify, Vet & Manage Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Darrow(TM), the leading AI lab for legal risk, announced May 12 the launch of a new platform that fundamentally changes how law firms build and manage their litigation practice. Litigators using Darrow have surfaced $22 billion in litigation linked to risk buried across industries and markets. The new platform gives firms the ability to detect opportunities early, evaluate their merits, predict settlement outcomes, and manage their entire docket like a portfolio. The launch marks a significant milestone for the world's leading litigation teams. Every new case is a bet, an upfront commitment of capital and attorney time often made with incomplete information. Darrow's new platform changes that by giving firms the litigation intelligence to evaluate opportunities before they commit to contingency arrangements, and operational visibility across the case portfolio. This enables risk, value, and settlement expectations to align resources across their entire docket. "Legal exposure doesn't announce itself. It builds quietly across industries, markets, and regulatory environments, often long before anyone acts on it," said Evya Ben Artzi, Co-founder and CEO. "What we've built is the infrastructure to see that risk early, and to give the legal ecosystem the intelligence to respond. This platform is the next step in that mission." The platform is built around four core capabilities: Case Discovery. AI agents continuously analyze data across industries and markets to surface litigation exposure that would otherwise go undetected. Every opportunity is also expert-vetted by former AmLaw 100 attorneys. Case Evaluation. Before committing, firms can investigate legal merits, review comparable cases, analyze defendant behavior directly in the platform. Cases are also run through Darrow's award-winning underwriting platform, giving firms a rigorous, independent assessment of case value and risk - with the information needed to make a sound decision at every stage. Portfolio Management. A real-time dashboard provides visibility across a firm's entire docket -- tracking settlement value, projected net to firm, case distribution, and litigation stage across every active matter. Plaintiff campaigns, intake, and document collection are managed in one place. Embedded Intelligence. Darrow's legal intelligence is available interactively throughout the platform, allowing teams to ask questions and get immediate answers -- on legal merits, defendant history, valuation assumptions, or case precedent -- without switching tools or waiting on support. Together, these capabilities give plaintiff firms a level of visibility and operational control that the demands on contingency litigation have always required. "Contingency litigation has always meant making high-stakes decisions with limited data," said Mathew Keshav Lewis, COO. "Darrow's new platform brings unique visibility, legal intelligence, and AI driven analytics to make smarter decisions." With Darrow's new platform, the process of identifying and advancing meaningful cases becomes faster, more precise, and grounded in data. For more information and a demo, visit www.darrow.ai About Darrow Darrow(TM) is the leading AI lab for legal risk and the pioneer of litigation exposure management. We study how legal exposure forms across industries, markets, and regulatory environments -- combining large-scale legal data, advanced AI systems, and deep domain expertise to surface emerging risk before it escalates. This research powers Darrow's litigation intelligence platform, used by law firms, insurers, and compliance teams to identify risk earlier, assess it with greater confidence, and act decisively. To date, Darrow has surfaced over $22 billion in actionable legal risk. Learn more at www.darrow.ai ********* 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 ***