260514.mbx

260514.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, May 14, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 96 Headlines ABSOLUTE DENTAL: Submission of Claims Forms Deadline Set June 18 AION MANAGEMENT: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Set for July 24 AMAZON.COM INC: Seeks to Remain Opposition Docs Under Seal ARIBAR LLC: Flores Balks at Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation ARIZONA PUBLIC: Continues to Defend Nuclear Power Antitrust Suit ATTYX LLC: Faces Cruz Suit Over Fraudulent Business Scheme AVILEZ & SONS: Luna Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Unfair Employment Fees BATTERY MART: Randolph Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users BISSELL HOMECARE: Conceals Products' Hazardous Defects, Glover Says BLUE CROSS: Sets to Begin $2.67BB Class Action Settlement Payments BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Agrees to $800,000 Shark Fin Class Settlement BOIRON INC: Glinka Files Suit Over Deceptive Product Marketing CAPGEMINI AMERICA: Palardy Alleges Race Discrimination, Retaliation CARECLOUD INC: Arslanian Files Suit in S.D. Florida CENTO FINE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Tomato Products' False Ads CIRCLE K: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit COLUMBIA BANK: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Dias Suit Says CONSUMER CELLULAR: Gonzales Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy CONTINENTAL CAFE: Agrees to Settle 2024 Data Breach Class Lawsuit CPO COMMERCE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Battle Suit Says DAVID EVANS: Faces Privett Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info DERMCARE MANAGEMENT: Head Sues Over Compromised Clients' Info DIGNITY HEALTH: Ghaemmaghami Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification DIGNITY HEALTH: Ghaemmaghami Seeks to Seal Portions of Exhibits DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Faces Bacalzo Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. EBENEZER INDUSTRIES: Hamati Seeks FLSA Collective Conditional Cert. ELLIOTT-LEWIS CORPORATION: Christopher Files Suit in E.D. Pa. EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Settles Data Sharing Class Suit for $56MM EUROPEAN WAX: Settles Privacy Class Action Lawsuit for $5-Million EVERGY INC: Settles Retirement Fund Class Action for $2.6MM FIREFLY AEROSPACE: Continues to Defend Diamond Securities Suit FIREFLY AEROSPACE: Shadowbolt Derivative Suit Stayed FORWARD AIR: $28MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 25 GENEDX HOLDINGS: Consolidated Derivative Suit Stayed GENEDX HOLDINGS: Settlement in Securities Suit for Court OK GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Defective Transmissions GRAHAM ENTERPRISE: Vallely Sues Over Automatic Membership Renewal GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit GUARDIAN FLIGHT: Miller Files Class Suit in Calif. Super. HANOVER INSURANCE: Fights to End Coverage in Tenant Class Suit HARVARD PILGRIM: Faces Suit Over Inaccurate Directory of Doctors HCA HEALTHCARE: Agrees to Settle Back Wages Suit for $1.56MM HOSPITAL SISTERS: Brahm Case Remanded to Eau Claire County Court IGGY AZALEA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Mother Iggy Meme Token INDIMADE BRANDS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Ford Says INSPIRE MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Davis Derivative Suit INSPIRE MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Korte Derivative Suit INSPIRE MEDICAL: Indiana PRS Class Suit Pending in SDNY INTERVET INC: Palmieri Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal INTERVET INC: Palmieri Suit Seeks to Certify Five State Classes INVIA FERTILITY: Discloses Heath Info to Third Parties, Suit Says KALSHI INC: Refer-A-Friend Texts Violate Wash. Law, Suit Claims KENNETH COLE: Class Cert Bid Filing in Ortiz Due Sept. 21 KEURIG DR. PEPPER: Faces Lauten Suit Over Unlawful Tariffs KNOWBE4 INC: Lead Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class LAUNDRESS LLC: Seeks to Maintain Reply Memo Under Seal LAUREL EYE CLINIC: Cook Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania LKQ PICK YOUR PART: Rodriguez Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois LUCID GROUP: Seeks to Seal Portions of Exhibits in Mangino LUCKY STRIKE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Price Dominance LYONS & DOUGHTY: Zemel Suit Seeks to Certify Consumer Class MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit Over Toxic Fragrance Compounds MCGRAW-HILL: Hurtado Files Personal Injury Suit in S.D. Ohio MEDPACE HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Set June 8 MEDTRONIC INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over 2026 Data Breach MILLER FENCING: Martin Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action MRS BPO: Mendoza Sues Over Consumer Debt Collection Violation MT. SPOKANE PEDIATRICS: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION: Bryant Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. NBT BANCORP: Seeks to Decertify Richey Collective Action O'REILLY AUTO: Class Cert Bid Filing in Jones Suit Due Nov. 4 OGLETHORPE INC: Settles 2025 Data Breach Class Suit for $350,000 OHIO STATE: Former NFL Players Join Sex Abuse Class Suit OSHKOSH CORP: DFPD Sues Over Conspiracy to Fix Fire Truck Prices PINNACLE WEST: Continues to Defend Nuclear Power Antitrust Suit PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Larrabee Files FDCA Suit in C.D. Cal. REGISTER.COM INC: Settles TCPA Class Action Suit for $1.5-Mil. REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: $17MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Aug. 10 ROLLING STONE: Settlement Ends Class Action Over Digital Switch SONY INTERACTIVE: Settles Antitrust Class Action Suit for $7.85MM SPORTRADAR GROUP: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims SPORTSMAN'S WAREHOUSE: Agrees to Settle Data Privacy Class Action SPRINGFIELD HOSPITAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Pellerin Says THERMOS LLC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Defective Stopper TICKETMASTER LLC: Madrigal Seeks to Certify Classes of Purchasers TICKETMASTER LLC: Madrigal Seeks to File Docs Under Seal TOYOTA OF BOARDMAN: Shafer Seeks to Certify Two Classes TRACTOR SUPPLY: Class Cert Filing in Chelsea Extended to July 7 TRINITY PETROLEUM: Agrees to Settle 2024 Data Breach Class Action TRITON GENERAL: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts, Rojas Says TROVE BRANDS: Discloses Personal Info to Third Parties, Dixon Says TWIST BIOSCIENCE: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit UNION BANK: $2.4MM Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set Aug. 6 VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Denied Vehicle Coverage WALLA WALLA: Faces Reed Civil Suit in Wash. Super. WESTERN ORTHOPAEDICS: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach WEX HEALTH: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Ashley Due Sept. 18 ********* ABSOLUTE DENTAL: Submission of Claims Forms Deadline Set June 18 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Oral Health reports that a proposed US$3.3-million class action settlement has been reached in a lawsuit stemming from a 2025 data breach involving Absolute Dental Group, according to a notice issued by the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. The settlement would resolve claims tied to a cybersecurity incident between Feb. 19 and March 5, 2025, that may have exposed patients' personal information, including Social Security numbers and health data. Absolute Dental, which operates clinics in Nevada, California and Texas, denied wrongdoing but agreed to establish a US$3.3-million settlement fund. Under the proposed agreement, eligible class members could receive up to US$5,000 for documented losses related to the breach. To receive compensation, claim forms must be submitted by June 18. Requests for exclusion or objections to the settlement are due by June 9. A final approval hearing is scheduled for July 30, 2026, in the case Jordan, et al. v. Absolute Dental Group, LLC, et al., No. 2:25-cv-00986 (D. Nev.). As part of the settlement, Absolute Dental also agreed to maintain enhancements to its cybersecurity and data protection practices. The incident was among 15 reported data breaches, cybersecurity incidents and settlements affecting dental organizations in the United States last year, according to Becker's Dental + DSO Review. [GN] AION MANAGEMENT: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Set for July 24 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GLORIA TURNAGE, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals, V. AION MANAGEMENT LLC, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00840-REP (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Payne entered an order that the disputes in this action have been settled: -- By May 22, 2026, the Plaintiff shall file her Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement along with the supporting memorandum and documentation. -- The Hearing respecting a Motion for Class Certification scheduled for 10:00 A.M. July 24, 2026, is cancelled. -- AION's partial motion to dismiss first amended complaint for failure to state a claim is denied as moot. AION is a vertically integrated real estate platform offering property management, construction, and investment services nationwide. A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Fo8nlH at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM INC: Seeks to Remain Opposition Docs Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned re Amazon.com, Inc. eBook Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-00351-GHW-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order maintaining under seal the redacted portions of the memoranda of law in support of and opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, the exhibits, and the redacted portions of the Plaintiffs' response to Amazon's request for leave to file a surreply. The Class Certification Papers include documents containing nonpublic, proprietary, and confidential business information of Amazon and certain non-parties, the suit says. The sensitive confidential information at issue falls into two main categories: (1) Amazon's competitively sensitive contractual arrangements with third parties (here, the Big Five Publishers), and (2) Amazon's internal competitively sensitive and proprietary business information. Serious competitive harm could result to both Amazon and the third-party publishers from public disclosure of these contractual arrangements. Amazon.com is a global technology company primarily involved in the sale of a range of products and services. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oKSdZ6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: John E. Schmidtlein, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 680 Maine Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20024 Telephone: (202) 434-5000 Facsimile: (202) 434-5029 E-mail: JSchmidtlein@wc.com ARIBAR LLC: Flores Balks at Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation -------------------------------------------------------- JAVIER FLORES, on behalf of himself and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff v. ARIBAR, LLC, d/b/a PERUVIAN CEVICHES BAR, OLGA ARINEZ, individually, and RODRIGO MIRANDA, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-22932-RAR (S.D. Fla., April 27, 2026) is an action against the Defendants to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages, and retaliatory discharge damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The suit is brought on behalf of Plaintiff and all other current and former employees similarly situated to Plaintiff and who worked more than 40 hours during one or more weeks, without being adequately compensated. On or about October 15, 2025, the Plaintiff complained for the last time about unpaid overtime wages. He complained to his manager, Defendant, Rodrigo Miranda. As a result of his complaints, and in retaliation for having engaged in statutorily protected activity, the Defendants fired Plaintiff a week later on October 21. Plaintiff Flores was hired by the Defendants as a non-exempt, full-time restaurant employee from approximately April 1, 2025 to October 21, 2025, or approximately 6 months. ARIBAR, LLC is a Peruvian food restaurant located in Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexis Mena-Glasgow, Esq. SIMPSON & MENA, P.A. 2250 SW Third Avenue, Suite 501 Miami, FL 33129 Telephone: (305) 912-7665 E-mail: alexis@simpsonmenalaw.com ARIZONA PUBLIC: Continues to Defend Nuclear Power Antitrust Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Arizona Public Service Co. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a nuclear power generation antitrust class suit in the United States District Court in Maryland. On July 11, 2025, APS, together with all 25 other U.S. nuclear power plant operators, was named in a class action lawsuit brought in the U.S. District Court in Maryland, alleging that the country's nuclear operators have violated antitrust laws by agreeing to exchange compensation information and suppress compensation, that the class action complaint has been brought on behalf of all persons employed in nuclear power generation in the U.S. from May 1, 2003 until the present and alleges violations of the Sherman Act, and that the company is unable at this time to predict the outcome of this matter and whether it will have a material impact on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Arizona Public Service Co. is the largest electric utility in Arizona, providing generation, transmission and distribution service to retail and wholesale customers across the state. The company operates a diversified portfolio of energy resources, including nuclear, natural gas, coal and renewable generation assets. ATTYX LLC: Faces Cruz Suit Over Fraudulent Business Scheme ---------------------------------------------------------- ELMER CRUZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATTYX, LLC (formerly known as SUNCO CAPITAL, LLC, and also doing business as SUNCO SOLAR, SUNCO ROOFING AND SOLAR, ATTYX SOLAR LLC, ATTYX ROOFING, NEW YORK ROOFING, AND LGCY POWER), ATTYX NEW YORK LLC, GRANT YOUNG, BENSON PAYNE, SOLAR MOSAIC LLC, SOLAR SERVICING LLC, WEBBANK and SERVICE FINANCE COMPANY, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-02494 (E.D.N.Y., April 27, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants for: (i) fraud; (ii) negligent misrepresentation; (iii) violation of New York General Business Law; (iv) violation of the federal Truth in Lending Act; (v) violation of New York's Uniform Commercial Code; and (vi) unjust enrichment. Plaintiff Cruz is a resident of Rockaway, New York, and is a citizen of the state of New York who purchased a Solar System from Attyx on false pretenses, as alleged herein. Specifically, in or around July 2024, Attyx represented to Plaintiff that it would install the Solar System for a total-out-of-pocket cost of $28,520 to Plaintiff, that Plaintiff would receive a completely free roof replacement as an incentive for installing the Solar System, that Plaintiff would only pay $167 a month (which Plaintiff believed would be paid to Attyx), and that Plaintiff's Solar System would reduce or even eliminate his electric utility expenses. According to the complaint, none of that was true; instead, Defendant charged Plaintiff $100,300 which included the cost of the Solar System, an undisclosed dealer fee to Mosaic, and $50,000 for the roof replacement Plaintiff was promised would be free. Defendant Attyx, along with Mosaic and Service Finance, fraudulently obligated Plaintiff to obtain $100,300 in loans Plaintiff did not agree to, which amount to approximately $180,000 when factoring in the dealer fee and interest over the life of the loans. Attyx, LLC is a New York solar energy company formed on August 1, 2019, with offices in Syosset, New York. Attyx, LLC also does business from offices in Lehi, Utah.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, Fl. 32 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com aobergfell@bursor.com AVILEZ & SONS: Luna Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Unfair Employment Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------ FERNANDO JAVIER RODRIGUEZ LUNA, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. ALVINO AVILEZ CASTANEDA, d/b/a ALVINO AVILEZ CONTRACTOR, AVILEZ & SONS HARVESTING, LLC, and JACKSON'S FARMING COMPANY OF AUTRYVILLE, Defendants, Case No. 7:26-cv-190 (E.D.N.C., April 17, 2026) is a class action asserting claims against the Defendants under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act and the North Carolina Human Trafficking Law, as well as claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, and North Carolina common law. Plaintiff Luna, a migrant farmworker, brings this action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees against the individuals and entities who employed him and similarly situated workers in North Carolina. The Plaintiff and his co-workers worked at Jackson's Farming Company of Autryville pursuant to temporary foreign worker visas, called H-2A visas. According to the complaint, first-time employees were charged an illegal recruitment fee to be put on the list to work for Defendants Alvino Avilez and Avilez & Sons Harvesting, LLC, and all employees were charged fees throughout their travel to the U.S. Once the employees arrived in North Carolina, the Avilez Defendants confiscated their passports and Social Security cards with the explicit goal of keeping them from leaving their employment. Plaintiff Luna and his co-workers also experienced a number of wage violations while working in North Carolina. The Plaintiff and his co-workers were not timely reimbursed for the costs of their visas, travel to and from North Carolina, or associated costs, as required by the H-2A visa program. The Defendants did not pay workers at the promised H-2A wage rate, and they created false payroll records purporting to show that the workers were properly paid. The Avilez Defendants also deducted money from the workers' pay for their Social Security cards. When Plaintiff Luna suffered a work-related injury, the Defendants sent him back to Mexico and did not give him his final paycheck, contends the suit. Plaintiff Luna is a citizen of Mexico who was admitted to the U.S. on a temporary basis with a visa to perform agricultural labor for the Defendants in 2024 and 2025. Avilez & Sons Harvesting, LLC is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the state of North Carolina in March of 2025. Alvino Avilez Castaneda is the sole Member/Organizer of Avilez & Sons.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clermont Ripley, Esq. Carol L. Brooke, Esq. Eli Longnecker, Esq. NORTH CAROLINA JUSTICE CENTER P.O. Box 28068 Raleigh, NC 27611 Telephone: (919) 856-2154 Facsimile: (919) 856-2175 E-mail: clermont@ncjustice.org carol@ncjustice.org eli.longnecker@ncjustice.org - and - Abigail Kerfoot, Esq. CENTRO DE LOS DERECHOS DEL MIGRANTE, INC. 711 W. 40th St., Unit 412 Baltimore, MD 21211 Telephone: (410) 783-0236 E-mail: abigail@cdmigrante.org BATTERY MART: Randolph Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users ----------------------------------------------------------------- ERIKA RANDOLPH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Battery Mart Of Winchester, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04352 (N.D. Ill., April 17, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.batterymart.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On February 23, 2026, while searching online for replacement batteries for home use, Plaintiff Randolph discovered the Defendant's website. Wanting to avoid the inconvenience of visiting multiple physical stores for finding suitable batteries for her needs, she decided to explore the website with the intent to make a purchase. However, the Plaintiff encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from completing the purchase. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by her and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Battery Mart Of Winchester, Inc. operates the website that offers a range of batteries, battery chargers, and power solutions for consumer electronics, vehicles, powersports, and backup systems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com BISSELL HOMECARE: Conceals Products' Hazardous Defects, Glover Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXYS GLOVER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BISSELL HOMECARE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01376 (W.D. Mich., April 28, 2026) arises out of Defendant's manufacture and sale of "about 1.7 million" defective steam cleaners with attachments. Defendant BISSELL HOMECARE, INC. is a vacuum cleaner and floor care product manufacturing corporation, that produces home appliances, such as the defective steam cleaners in question. The complaint relates that the Products were recalled on April 9, 2026 due to a risk that "the recalled steam cleaners' attachments can unexpectedly detach from the steam cleaners and expel hot water or steam onto users during use, posing a serious burn hazard." The Products were advertised, sold, and installed across the United States without adequate warnings or safeguards related to the Defect. All consumers who purchased the worthless and dangerous Products have suffered losses, asserts the complaint. The Defendant's failure to disclose the Defect at the time of sale -- and its refusal to assume responsibility for the resulting effects -- constitutes consumer deception, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and breach of warranties, the complaint adds. Plaintiff and the Class would not have purchased the Products, or would have paid significantly less, had they known of the Defect and limited recourse available, says the suit. As a result of the above losses, Plaintiff seeks damages and equitable remedies on behalf of herself and the Class. Plaintiff ALEXYS GLOVER purchased the Product with model 4171W in February 2026 at Walmart.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Dennis A. Lienhardt, Jr., Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 W. University Dr., Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48073 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com dal@millerlawpc.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com BLUE CROSS: Sets to Begin $2.67BB Class Action Settlement Payments ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that Blue Cross Blue Shield is set to distribute a $2.67 billion class action settlement with customers. Why: Plaintiffs claimed the health insurer violated antitrust laws by limiting competition and increasing premiums. Where: The class action settlement was approved in Alabama federal court in 2021. Blue Cross Blue Shield will soon begin distributing payments from a $2.67 billion class action settlement resolving claims that the health insurance provider engaged in anticompetitive practices. The long-running litigation began in 2013, when plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against more than 35 Blue Cross Blue Shield insurance plans. The lawsuit claimed the companies restricted competition within the health insurance market, which allegedly led to higher premiums and fewer choices for consumers. Blue Cross Blue Shield denied the allegations, and the court did not issue a final ruling on the merits of the claims. Instead, the parties agreed to resolve the dispute through a settlement. The agreement established a $2.67 billion settlement fund. However, after deducting attorneys' fees, administrative costs and other expenses, about $1.9 billion remains available for distribution to eligible class members. Blue Cross Blue Shield settlement benefits about 6M approved claimants Settlement payments are expected to begin distribution this month, with eligible class members receiving notice of their payment status. To qualify for a payout, class members were required to submit a valid claim by Nov. 5, 2021. Individuals who did not file a claim by the deadline are not eligible to receive compensation. The settlement includes two main groups: individuals and insured groups who had coverage between Feb. 7, 2008, and Oct. 16, 2020, and self-funded accounts that had coverage between Sept. 1, 2015, and Oct. 16, 2020. Approximately six million claims were submitted, and payments are expected to average around $333 per claimant, though individual amounts may vary depending on factors such as the type and duration of coverage. The settlement resolves claims that Blue Cross Blue Shield's business practices reduced competition among its member companies. While the insurer maintains it did not violate the law, the agreement allows both sides to avoid continued litigation. The plaintiffs are represented by Michael Hausfeld, Megan Jones and Swathi Bojedla of Hausfeld LLP; David Boies, Hamish Hume and Jonathan Shaw of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP; and Warren Burns and Christopher Cormier of Burns Charest LLP. The Blue Cross Blue Shield settlement is In re: Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation, MDL 2406, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. [GN] BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Agrees to $800,000 Shark Fin Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------- Danielle Toth of ClaimDepot reports that current or former owners or lessees of a 2019 or 2020 BMW X3, X4, X5, X6 or X7 may be eligible to claim reimbursement for certain repair costs and/or receive an extended warranty from a class action settlement. BMW of North America LLC agreed to settle a class action lawsuit alleging certain vehicles contained defects in their shark fin antennas. The lawsuit claims the company may not have fully sealed the antenna to the vehicle's roof, potentially allowing water to enter and damage components below the antenna. Who can file a claim? The class includes all persons or entities in the United States, including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, who currently own or lease, or previously owned or leased, certain U.S.-specification BMW vehicles purchased or leased, registered and operated in the United States, District of Columbia or Puerto Rico. The eligible vehicles are: -- BMW X3 (model years 2019-2020 produced between Nov. 1, 2018, and March 31, 2020) -- BMW X4 (model years 2019-2020 produced between Nov. 1, 2018, and March 31, 2020) -- BMW X5 (model years 2019-2020 produced between Nov. 1, 2018, and March 31, 2020) -- BMW X6 (model years 2019-2020 produced between Nov. 1, 2018, and March 31, 2020) -- BMW X7 (model years 2019-2020 produced between Nov. 1, 2018, and March 31, 2020) Class members who owned or leased more than one eligible vehicle may submit a claim for each vehicle. What does the settlement exclude? -- The settlement excludes vehicles declared a total loss, sold for salvage purposes or branded with a "salvage" or "flood" title a from the extended warranty benefit. -- Repairs performed after the mailing date of the class notice are not eligible for reimbursement as the extended warranty covers those repairs at no cost at BMW centers. How much can class members get? The settlement provides two main benefits: reimbursement for certain past repair expenses and an extension of the new vehicle limited warranty for the sealing defect. Class members who paid out of pocket for repairs to the shark fin antenna, telematics unit or battery for the telematics unit before the settlement's effective date may be eligible for reimbursement provided the vehicle was less than 10 years old and had fewer than 120,000 miles at the time of repair. -- Repairs at a BMW center (dealer): 100% reimbursement of eligible repair costs with no cap -- Repairs at an independent repair shop: 100% reimbursement of eligible repair costs up to a maximum of $2,000 The settlement administrator will reduce reimbursement amounts by any goodwill adjustment, coupon, refund or payment BMW, an insurer or a service contract provider makes. For 60 days after the court grants final approval of the settlement, BMW centers will provide no-cost sealing defect repairs for any class vehicle regardless of age or mileage. The settlement also extends the new vehicle limited warranty for the sealing defect to 10 years or 120,000 miles from the vehicle's in-service date, covering all costs associated with diagnostics and repairs related to the defect. After the mailing date of the class notice, repairs for the sealing defect are free at BMW centers during the extended warranty period. How to claim settlement benefits To claim reimbursement for past repair expenses, class members can submit the online claim form or download, print and complete the PDF claim form%204.29.2026.pdf) and mail it to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Craft Claims Administrator, c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC, P.O. Box 225391, New York, NY 10150-5391 The deadline to submit a claim is Aug. 27, 2026. The settlement website does not specify the form of payment. Is proof or documentation required to submit a claim? Yes. Claimants must provide documentation to support their claim for reimbursement. Required proof includes: -- Proof that the class member made the repair at an authorized BMW dealer or independent repair shop (if independent, proof of business license or state registration) -- Vehicle model, model year and VIN -- Proof of ownership or lease (identity of owner/lessee) -- Proof that the vehicle had fewer than 10 years and 120,000 miles at the time of repair (e.g., repair order with mileage, service records) -- Itemized repair invoice showing parts and labor costs -- Proof of payment (credit card receipt, statement or canceled check) -- Description and date of repair, including part numbers used To file an online claim, class members must provide the class member ID located on the settlement notice. Settlement fund breakdown The settlement fund includes: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees and expenses: Up to $800,000 -- Service award to class representative: Up to $5,000 -- Payments to class members: Reimbursement for eligible repairs Important dates -- Deadline to opt out: June 30, 2026 -- Fairness hearing: July 28, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: Aug. 27, 2026 When is the Craft v. BMW of North America LLC payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments on a rolling basis after the court resolves any appeals and grants final approval of the settlement. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit alleged certain BMW vehicles had a defect in their shark fin antennas that could allow water to enter the vehicle and damage internal components. BMW of North America LLC denied these allegations but agreed to settle the case to avoid further litigation costs and risks. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Up to 100% of repair costs Deadline: August 27, 2026 [GN] BOIRON INC: Glinka Files Suit Over Deceptive Product Marketing -------------------------------------------------------------- CONSTANTINE GLINKA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOIRON, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02531 (E.D.N.Y., April 28, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its false, misleading, and deceptive marketing of its products. Defendant Boiron, Inc. formulates, manufactures, advertises, and sells Boiron Arnicare in all of its various varieties (the "Products") throughout the United States, including in New York. The Defendant represents to consumers through its packaging that its Products provide "PAIN RELIEF." Unbeknownst to consumers, however, Defendant's claims are false. 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, the complaint alleges. Plaintiff Glinka purchased a 2.6 oz package of Boiron Arnicare Gel from a CVS in Brooklyn for approximately $12.49 in March 2025. 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, says the suit. Accordingly, Mr. Glinka, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, asserts claims for violations of New York General Business Law. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendant's unlawful acts and practices, to recover actual damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and any other just and proper relief available.[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 CAPGEMINI AMERICA: Palardy Alleges Race Discrimination, Retaliation ------------------------------------------------------------------- FRANCIS PALARDY, Plaintiff v. CAPGEMINI AMERICA INC, and STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-05082-DCF (W.D. Ark., April 17, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant seeking compensatory damages and equitable relief for discrimination on the basis of disability, race, and national origin, and for retaliation, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Capgemini America failed to provide reasonable accommodation for Plaintiffs hearing disability within a reasonable time and retaliated against Plaintiff after he raised concerns regarding accessibility and working conditions. He further alleges that Capgemini subjected him to discrimination based on race and national origin, including practices that prevented him from obtaining continued project assignments following his removal from the State Farm project, and that Capgemini's internal screening process functioned to exclude qualified American workers while facilitating continued placement of South Asian visa holders. The Plaintiff further asserts that project teams assigned by Capgemini to the State Farm project were composed overwhelmingly of employees of South Asian race and Indian national origin, reaching more than 90 percent of United States-based project personnel, and that this composition was known or reasonably should have been known to State Farm. The Plaintiff was assigned by Capgemini to perform software development work for Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. Capgemini America, Inc. is a corporation headquartered in New York, New York, with its parent company of 340, 000 workers based in Paris, France. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is headquartered in Bloomington, Illinois, is the largest auto insurer in the United States, with 19,000 offices, including within this district.[BN] The Plaintiff, of Fayetteville, Arkansas, appears pro se. CARECLOUD INC: Arslanian Files Suit in S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carecloud, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Linda Arslanian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Carecloud, Inc., CareCloud Health, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-23048-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 29, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. CareCloud -- https://carecloud.com/ -- is a leading cloud-based and AI-powered healthcare solutions provider, offering EHR, RCM, PM, and AI-driven clinical documentation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (954) 647-1866 Email: mweekes@milberg.com CENTO FINE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Tomato Products' False Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Charalambous and Mason Leib, writing for ABC News, reports that a proposed class action lawsuit filed in California on Monday, May 4, alleges "tomato fraud" by the popular Italian food distributor Cento Fine Foods. The lawsuit, filed by two California residents, claims the company is illegally and falsely branding its tomato products as containing San Marzano Certified tomatoes. Cento has dismissed the claims and called the allegations meritless. San Marzano tomatoes are a variety of plum tomato originating in Italy's Campania region and are renowned for their intense, sweet flavor. The lawsuit alleges the tomatoes in Cento's San Marzano tomato products are inauthentic and inferior to the "Ferrari or Prada" of canned tomatoes, quoting from a blog post on Martha Stewart's website describing the tomatoes. "Defendant's marketing and labeling of Cento San Marzanos as 'Certified San Marzano' tomatoes is false, misleading, and unfair," the lawsuit states. "They lack the taste, consistency, and other physical characteristics associated by consumers with certified San Marzano Tomatoes." San Marzano tomatoes are afforded protected status -- "DOP" or "Denominazione d'Origine Protetta" -- in the European Union, like other region-specific goods including Champagne and Parmesan cheese. An independent consortium, Il Consorzio di Tutela del Pomodoro San Marzano DOP, regulates the sale of the tomatoes to ensure they are grown in the right region using the proper techniques. The consortium's website details the categorization of the San Marzano tomato, which it describes as "grown exclusively in the Sarnese-Nocerino area," having an "elongated cylindrical shape" and "an intense red color with yellow shades." True San Marzano tomatoes need to be certified by the consortium, according to the lawsuit, which alleges Cento products lack the necessary certification to be considered true San Marzano tomatoes. Cento has said it voluntarily stopped seeking certification from consortium in the 2010s over labeling requirements, though the lawsuit alleges the removal was linked to an investigation into "counterfeit DOP labeling." The lawsuit points to the Cento product labels, alleging the company has created "an erroneous impression that they contain DOP certified San Marzano Tomatoes of equivalent quality." In a statement to ABC News, a lawyer for Cento Fine Foods said the lawsuit is "entirely without merit" and vowed to "defend this claim vigorously." "We believe this claim is entirely without merit. We have previously successfully defended a comparable lawsuit in New York federal court and will defend this claim vigorously as well, including seeking prompt dismissal," the statement read. The lawyer declined to comment further, citing the pending litigation. The New York case referenced in the statement refers to a similar lawsuit against Cento that was dismissed by a federal judge in 2020. That lawsuit alleged Cento was selling unknowing customers an "inferior" product -- third-party-certified San Marzano tomatoes -- and that customers would not pay for Cento's products if they "[knew] the truth" about them. The judge in that case wrote that a "reasonable consumer" was unlikely to seek out a specific "Consortium certified" San Marzano tomato over one that matched the same standards but was certified by a different body. Cento has argued in the past that its San Marzano tomatoes are grown in the right region of Italy, use the proper methods, and get their certification from a different third party. "At Cento Fine Foods, we take nothing more seriously than the quality and integrity of our products. We take pride in the fact that our labels accurately describe the products inside. Cento is a brand consumers can trust," the company said in a 2019 statement responding to the New York lawsuit. This week's lawsuit was filed by two California shoppers who estimated they purchased more than a dozen cans of Cento tomatoes. The proposed class action suit requests that a judge award more than $25 million to allegedly deceived consumers. "Plaintiffs 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," the lawsuit states. [GN] CIRCLE K: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Danielle Toth of Claim Depot reports that consumers who received a notice from Circle K Stores, Inc. stating a May 2024 data incident compromised their private information may be eligible to claim up to $2,000 and/or credit monitoring from a class action settlement. Gas Express LLC d/b/a Circle K agreed to settle a class action lawsuit alleging a cyberattack targeted its computer systems in May 2024. The lawsuit claimed the breach exposed personal information, including names and Social Security numbers. Who can file a claim? To be eligible for compensation, class members must meet the following criteria: -- They are a living individual residing in the United States. -- They received a direct notice from Gas Express LLC d/b/a Circle K stating the May 2024 data incident impacted their private information. How much can class members get? Eligible class members can claim one of two types of cash payments, as well as credit monitoring services. -- Cash payment A -- Documented losses: Class members who experienced out-of-pocket losses between May 20, 2024, and Sept. 3, 2026, due to the data incident can claim up to $2,000. Covered expenses include losses from identity theft or fraud, fees for credit reports or monitoring, costs to replace IDs and postage for contacting banks. Class members must provide documentation (such as receipts) to support their claim. The total payout for this category is capped at $45,000 for all claims. Once claims reach this cap, the settlement administrator will no longer accept further claims. -- Cash payment B -- Alternate cash: Class members who do not have documented losses can claim a one-time $50 payment without providing documentation. However, this benefit is limited to 10% of the class or 700 claims. Once claims reach this cap, the settlement administrator will no longer accept further claims. -- Credit monitoring: All class members can enroll in two years of CyEx Financial Shield Complete. This service includes $1 million in financial fraud insurance, monitoring for identity theft, unauthorized transactions and high-risk activity plus access to fraud resolution agents if suspicious activity is detected. How to claim a class action payment Class members can file a claim online or download and print a PDF claim form, complete it and mail it to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Circle K Data Incident Settlement, c/o Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 25226, Santa Ana, CA 92799 The claim deadline is Sept. 3, 2026. What proof or documentation is necessary to submit a claim? -- For cash payment A -- documented losses, class members must provide supporting documentation, such as receipts, statements or other records showing their out-of-pocket expenses. Personal certifications, declarations or affidavits are not sufficient alone, but class members may include them as context for other documentation. -- For cash payment B -- alternate cash or credit monitoring, class members do not need to provide documentation. They must simply attest that they are eligible and select the correct option on the claim form. -- For online claims, class members must provide the unique ID and PIN from the settlement notice they received. Those who are unable to locate their ID and PIN should contact the settlement administrator by emailing info@GasExpressDataSettlement.com and providing their full name and mailing address. Payout options -- PayPal -- Venmo -- Zelle -- Virtual prepaid card (sent by email) -- Physical check Settlement fund breakdown The settlement fund includes: -- Settlement administration costs: Up to $30,000 -- Attorneys' fees and costs: Up to $235,000 -- Service awards to class representatives: $1,000 each to four representatives ($4,000 total) -- Credit monitoring costs: Covered for all class members who elect this benefit -- Payments to class members: Up to $45,000 for documented loss claims and 10% of the class (700 claims) for alternate payments Important dates -- Deadline to file a claim: Sept. 3, 2026 -- Opt-out deadline: Sept. 3, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: Sept. 18, 2026 When is the Circle K data breach settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will distribute payments and benefits no later than 30 days after the court resolves any appeals and grants final approval of the settlement. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit alleged a targeted cyberattack on Circle K's computer systems in May 2024 exposed sensitive personal information. The plaintiffs claimed Circle K failed to adequately protect customer data. Circle K denies any wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties of further litigation. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Up to $2,000 plus credit monitoring Deadline: September 3, 2026 [GN] COLUMBIA BANK: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Dias Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- SCOTT DIAS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COLUMBIA BANK, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-05428 (W.D. Wash., April 27, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data in violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, the Washington Data Breach Notification Disclosure Law, the California's Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer Privacy Act, and the California Customer Records Act. The Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information about its consumers, including Plaintiff. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. The cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because the Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' PII. In short, Defendant's failures placed the Class' PII in a vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, the suit alleges. Columbia Bank is a regional bank headquartered in the Northwest and is among the largest banks in the region, operating more than 350 branch locations across the western United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com CONSUMER CELLULAR: Gonzales Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy -------------------------------------------------------------- ARIANNA GONZALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CONSUMER CELLULAR, INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation, d/b/a CONSUMERCELLULAR.COM, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-4543 (C.D. Cal., April 28, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its unlawful spamming and invasion of privacy. According to the complaint, the Defendant CONSUMER CELLULAR blankets Americans with illegal spam. It deploys every tactic in the proverbial playbook -- false and misleading subject lines, spoofed domains, and falsified headers -- to trick unwary recipients into opening messages they would otherwise ignore. After being deceived into engaging with the spam, unsuspecting consumers like Plaintiff are funneled to Defendant's website at CONSUMERCELLULAR.COM where Defendant installs a web of illegal tracking pixels on their devices. Those tracking technologies enable Defendant and its surveillance partners to monitor visitors' behavior across the internet, converting a single deceptive email into ongoing digital surveillance. Both the spam and the surveillance are illegal under California law, the complaint alleges. Although a plaintiff need not plead or prove actual damages to bring a claim under the statute, Plaintiff has in fact suffered concrete, particularized harm as a result of Defendant's conduct, it says. Plaintiff spent valuable time and attention investigating the misleading offer; searching the WHOIS database to learn who the e-mail came from; incurred opportunity costs and lost productivity; and suffered depletion of device and network resources, including storage space, bandwidth usage on a metered data plan, and battery life, adds the suit. The Plaintiff, hence, seeks: (a) an order certifying that the action be maintained as a class action, that Plaintiff be designated as class representative, and that undersigned counsel be designated as class counsel; (b) all available declaratory, legal, and equitable relief including injunctive relief; (c) statutory damages; (d) punitive damages; (e) attorneys' fees and costs as allowed by law; and (f) any and all other relief at law or equity that may be appropriate. Plaintiff ARIANNA GONZALES received a misleading spam e-mail from Defendant, was tricked into opening the spam, and then visited Defendant's website at CONSUMERCEULLAR.COM Defendant CONSUMER CELLULAR, INCORPORATED sells mobile phones via the website CONSUMERCELLULAR.COM.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com CONTINENTAL CAFE: Agrees to Settle 2024 Data Breach Class Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Continental Cafe Holdings, LLC has agreed to a class action settlement to end a lawsuit that alleged the contract dining and refreshment provider failed to protect the information on its systems from a data breach discovered in October 2024. The Continental Cafe class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on March 30, 2026. The settlement covers all individuals affected by the Continental Cafe data breach, including anyone who received the company's November 2024 data breach notice and is not party to an arbitration agreement implemented by Continental Cafe Holdings on March 14, 2019 and/or July 18, 2023. Court documents state that private information of approximately 8,284 people was exposed during the data breach. The court-approved website for the Continental Cafe data breach settlement can be found at ContinentalCafeDataIncident.com. Continental Cafe settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form can receive up to $700 for out-of-pocket losses incurred between October 18, 2024 and July 28, 2026 due to the data breach. Class members must submit proof, such as receipts or bank statements, to receive an out-of-pocket loss payment. This benefit covers expenses stemming from fraud or identity theft and costs for professional fees, credit repair services, credit monitoring, freezing/unfreezing credit and miscellaneous expenses, such as notary and travel. In lieu of an out-of-pocket loss payment, class members may instead file a claim form to receive a cash payment of up to $50, with no proof required. In addition to either cash payment option, all settlement class members may file a claim to receive an enrollment code for three years of one-bureau credit monitoring and identity theft protection services. To file a Continental Cafe settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the login ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF of the claim form to print, fill out and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Continental Cafe settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by July 28, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Continental Cafe Holdings data breach settlement following a hearing on August 18, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to consumers only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Continental Cafe Holdings class action lawsuit alleged that the food and beverage distributor, which serves Michigan, Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania, failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to protect the information in its care, which led to a data breach discovered by the company on October 18, 2024. Per court documents, private information exposed during the breach included full names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, financial information, driver's license and passport numbers, Social Security numbers, health insurance information, medical records and Family Medical Leave Act information. [GN] CPO COMMERCE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Battle Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE BATTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CPO Commerce, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04753 (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.cpooutlets.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On March 10, 2026, while searching online for power tools for his DIY and home improvement projects, the Plaintiff discovered the Defendant's website, which features an extensive range of power tools, equipment, and accessories. While exploring the website, the Plaintiff discovered a Factory Reconditioned Drywall Screwgun and became interested in purchasing it. However, while browsing the website, he encountered many accessibility issues that prevented him from completing his intended purchase. Plaintiff Battle asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by him and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inadequate focus order, inaccessible contact information, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccessible drop-down menus, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in CPO Commerce's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. CPO Commerce, LLC operates the website that offers power tools, woodworking and metalworking tools, lawn and garden equipment, tool accessories, and related products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com DAVID EVANS: Faces Privett Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info -------------------------------------------------------------- JASON PRIVETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DAVID EVANS ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00766-SI (D. Ore., April 17, 2026) is a class action lawsuit against the Defendant for its negligent failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive personally identifiable information, culminating in a massive and preventable data breach. As part of its business practices and to provide employment and engineering services, the Defendant collects, stores, and maintains employees' and clients' PII, including Plaintiff's and Class Members'. On or about February 26, 2026, the Defendant discovered that it suffered a data breach and began an investigation. This investigation revealed that between approximately February 26 and February 27, 2026, an unauthorized third-party accessed and took files containing PII. Upon information and belief, the Defendant has not disclosed publicly what threat actor was involved. As a result of Defendant's negligence and deficient data security practices, cybercriminals easily infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected computer systems and stole the private information of Plaintiff and Class Members, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of the Class, seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, nominal damages, restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and all other remedies this Court deems just and proper. David Evans Enterprises, Inc. is the parent company of David Evans & Associates, Inc., a Portland, Oregon based consulting engineering services business with offices in Oregon, California, Colorado, Idaho, Mississippi, Nevada, New York, Texas, Utah, and Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul B. Barton, Esq. OLSEN BARTON LLC 4035 Douglas Way, Suite 200 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Telephone: (503) 468-5573 Facsimile: (503) 820-2933 E-mail: paul@olsenbarton.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. Ryan W. Myers, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com rwm@federmanlaw.com DERMCARE MANAGEMENT: Head Sues Over Compromised Clients' Info ------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY HEAD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DERMCARE MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-04083-SVW-AJR (C.D. Cal., April 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach discovered on February 26, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. DermCare Management, LLC is a provider of dermatology and aesthetic medicine services based in Hollywood, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edward Cole, Esq. Laura Van Note Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 Email: sec@colevannote.com lvn@colevannote.com DIGNITY HEALTH: Ghaemmaghami Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Vafa Ghaemmaghami, on behalf of himself and similarly situated individuals, v. Dignity Health, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00052-KML (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) granting his motion for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) and/or (b)(2), (2) certifying the Unpaid Sick Leave Class on Dr. Ghaemmaghami's claim under the Arizona paid sick time statute and the Unpaid Leave Subclass on Dr. Ghaemmaghami's claim of breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) appointing Dr. Ghaemmaghami as Class Representative, and (4) appointing Jaburg Wilk and Frankel Syverson as Class Counsel. The Unpaid Sick Leave Class consists of: "All current and former physicians who were employees of Dignity in Arizona at any time from Jan. 8, 2021 to present." The Unpaid Leave Subclass consists of: "All current and former physicians who were employees of Dignity in Arizona from Oct. 1, 2023 to present and whose contracts stated the physicians were entitled to participate in Dignity's employee benefit plans." The suit alleges that Dignity Health, Inc. devised and employs a compensation scheme that compensates Dr. Ghaemmaghami and the class members only for the time they "actually worked," depriving them of compensation for any time they take off in violation of Arizona law and Dignity's contractual promise. Dr. Ghaemmaghami is a trauma surgeon who has worked for Dignity since 2017 and currently works for Dignity. To date, Dignity has deprived Dr. Ghaemmaghami of any paid leave despite Arizona law requiring at least forty hours of paid sick time and his contract entitling him to 192 hours of paid time away ("PTA"). Instead, the only way that Dr. Ghaemmaghami is permitted to take any time off from scheduled work without financial consequence, is if he then makes up that time in full. Dignity provides health care services throughout Arizona, California and Nevada. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=br2U8S at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alden A. Thomas, Esq. Michelle L. Hogan, Esq. Corrinne R. Viola, Esq. Ian M. Fischer, Esq. JABURG & WILK, P.C. 1850 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: (602) 248-1000 E-mail: aat@jaburgwilk.com mlh@jaburgwilk.com crv@jaburgwilk.com imf@jaburgwilk.com - and - Ty D. Frankel, Esq. Patricia N. Syverson, Esq. FRANKEL SYVERSON PLLC 2375 E. Camelback Road, Suite 600 Phoenix, AZ 85016 E-mail: ty@frankelsyverson.com patti@frankelsyverson.com The Defendant is represented by: Adam B. Merrill, Esq. Blaize M. Boles, Esq. Karen K. Cain, Esq. Matthew P.F. Linnabary, Esq. POLSINELLI PC One E. Washington Street, Suite 1200 Phoenix, AZ 85004 E-mail: abmerrill@polsinelli.com bboles@polsinelli.com kcain@polsinelli.com mlinnabary@polsinelli.com DIGNITY HEALTH: Ghaemmaghami Seeks to Seal Portions of Exhibits --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Vafa Ghaemmaghami, on behalf of himself and similarly situated individuals, v. Dignity Health, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00052-KML (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion to file under seal portions of exhibits to the motion for class certification that include personal identifying information of absent class members. Specifically, the Plaintiff requests permission to file under seal (1) the home address of employee physicians from Exhibits 3 and 24, and (2) first and last names of physicians who are or were employed by Dignity from Exhibits 3, 8, 11, 16, 18, 20, 23, and 24. Dignity provides health care services throughout Arizona, California and Nevada. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DDZVxC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alden A. Thomas, Esq. Michelle L. Hogan, Esq. Corrinne R. Viola, Esq. Ian M. Fischer, Esq. JABURG & WILK, P.C. 1850 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: (602) 248-1000 E-mail: aat@jaburgwilk.com mlh@jaburgwilk.com crv@jaburgwilk.com imf@jaburgwilk.com - and - Ty D. Frankel, Esq. Patricia N. Syverson, Esq. FRANKEL SYVERSON PLLC 2375 E. Camelback Road, Suite 600 Phoenix, AZ 85016 E-mail: ty@frankelsyverson.com patti@frankelsyverson.com The Defendant is represented by: Adam B. Merrill, Esq. Blaize M. Boles, Esq. Karen K. Cain, Esq. Matthew P.F. Linnabary, Esq. POLSINELLI PC One E. Washington Street, Suite 1200 Phoenix, AZ 85004 E-mail: abmerrill@polsinelli.com bboles@polsinelli.com kcain@polsinelli.com mlinnabary@polsinelli.com DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Faces Bacalzo Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- KYLE BACALZO, TIFFANY FULTON, and KRYS SCHEMPP, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DREAMWORKS ANIMATION LLC, NBC UNIVERSAL DIGITAL SOLUTIONS LLC, ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS ENTERPRISES, LLC, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26NNCV02994 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as non-exempt employees at any time between 2021 and 2025. DreamWorks Animation LLC is an animation company based in California. NBC Universal Digital Solutions LLC is a subsidiary of NBCUniversal Media, LLC based in New York, New York. Entertainment Partners Enterprises, LLC is a production management solutions provider based in California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq. Cathy Gonzalez, Esq. HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC 801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1015 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 696-2306 Facsimile: (818) 696-2307 Email: haig@hbklawyers.com cathy@hbklawyers.com EBENEZER INDUSTRIES: Hamati Seeks FLSA Collective Conditional Cert. ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jordan Hamati, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated, v. Ebenezer Industries Inc. dba Liberty Market, an Arizona corporation, Joe Johnston and Cindy Johnston, a married couple, and David Traina and Kiersten Traina, a married couple, Case No. 2:25-cv-03432-JJT (D. Ariz.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting conditional certification of Fair Labor standards Act (FLSA) collective action comprised of: "All individuals in Arizona employed by Liberty Market who participated in a tip pool, from [insert date 3 years earlier from date the FLSA Notice is distributed to the date the FLSA Notice is distributed]." The Parties agree to the FLSA Notice attached hereto as Exhibit A and the Consent Form attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Parties agree that potential FLSA opt-in plaintiffs shall have 45 days from the date the Plaintiff distributes the FLSA Notice and Consent Form to file a Consent Form with the Court to join the case as an FLSA Opt-In Plaintiff. The Parties agree that to the extent this Stipulation is denied for any reason, neither Party shall be prejudiced by having entered this Stipulation, such that the Plaintiff may seek FLSA conditional certification through a motion, which the Defendants may oppose. The Plaintiff filed his collective action and class action complaint on Sept. 17, 2025. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TgzjmD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ty D. Frankel, Esq. Patricia N. Syverson, Esq. FRANKEL SYVERSON PLLC 2375 E. Camelback Road, Suite 600 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: 602-598-4000 E-mail: ty@frankelsyverson.com patti@frankelsyverson.com The Defendants are represented by: Tracy A. Miller, Esq. Tate J. Wines, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Esplanade Center III, Suite 800 2415 East Camelback Road Phoenix, AZ 85016 ELLIOTT-LEWIS CORPORATION: Christopher Files Suit in E.D. Pa. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Elliott-Lewis Corporation. The case is styled as Adam Christopher, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. MRO Corporation, Deaconess Health System, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-02779 (E.D. Pa., April 28, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Contract Dispute. Elliott-Lewis -- https://elliottlewis.com/ -- is a full service Mechanical Contractor providing the following services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Acciavatti, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Phone: (610) 842-5801 Fax: (212) 868-1229 Email: macciavatti@milberg.com EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Settles Data Sharing Class Suit for $56MM ------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Equity Residential agreed to a $56 million class action settlement with renter plaintiffs. Why: Plaintiffs claim landlords used RealPage software to share pricing data and fix rental prices. Where: The settlement is pending in Tennessee federal court. How to get help: If you signed a lease for an apartment or rental unit after Oct. 21, 2018, and your property manager used RealPage software, you may qualify for the RealPage price fixing lawsuit. Equity Residential agreed to pay $56 million to resolve claims it participated in a rent price-fixing scheme that used RealPage's revenue management software. The proposed settlement is part of a broader multidistrict litigation alleging that landlords across the country used RealPage's YieldStar and AI Revenue Management software to coordinate rental pricing and suppress competition. According to the class action claims, landlords using the software shared confidential, competitively sensitive information, including pricing and lease data, with one another. Plaintiffs allege this allowed participating companies to align rent prices and avoid competing, resulting in higher housing costs for renters nationwide. The class action lawsuit alleges the arrangement effectively created a "cartel" among competing landlords by enabling them to adjust rental prices based on shared data rather than market competition. Equity Residential settlement includes payment, business practice commitments In addition to the $56 million payment, the proposed settlement includes commitments related to Equity Residential's business practices. According to a Law360 report, the agreement includes provisions addressing how the company uses nonpublic data and its reliance on revenue management software, though the company stated these commitments are consistent with its current practices and will not require significant operational changes. Equity Residential said it chose to settle to avoid the cost and uncertainty of prolonged litigation and to reduce potential exposure associated with complex antitrust claims. The company also indicated it does not expect the settlement to materially impact its financial position, though it will increase its loss contingency reserves. The case is part of ongoing litigation involving multiple landlords and property management companies. Other defendants have also reached settlements, including agreements totaling more than $140 million that previously received preliminary approval. Last month, Camden Property Trust agreed to a $53 million settlement to resolve claims it conspired with other landlords to fix rent prices using RealPage revenue management software. The RealPage antitrust class action lawsuit is In re: RealPage Inc. Rental Software Antitrust Litigation (No. II), Case No. 3:23-md-03071, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. [GN] EUROPEAN WAX: Settles Privacy Class Action Lawsuit for $5-Million ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that European Wax Center agreed to a $5 million class action settlement to resolve claims it used tracking pixels on its website to collect and share consumer information without consent. The European Wax Center settlement benefits individuals who visited waxcenter.com and/or booked an appointment on the website between June 30, 2023, and April 2, 2026. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim European Wax Center violated federal and state privacy laws by using tracking pixels on its website to collect and share consumer information without consent. The company allegedly shared this information with third parties, such as Facebook and Google. European Wax Center, a hair removal salon with locations across the country, has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $5 million class action settlement to resolve the privacy allegations. Under the terms of the European Wax Center settlement, class members can receive an equal share of the net settlement fund. Each class member is estimated to receive $10. However, payments may be reduced on a pro rata basis depending on the number of claims filed with the settlement. The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 30, 2026. The final approval hearing for the class action settlement is scheduled for July 15, 2026. To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by June 30, 2026. Who's Eligible The class action settlement benefits U.S. residents who visited waxcenter.com, including those who booked an appointment on the website, from June 30, 2023, through April 2, 2026. Potential Award Up to $10 Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 06/30/2026 Case Name Cumor, Dunn v. European Wax Center Inc., Case No. 26-CA-002430, in the 13th Judicial Circuit Court in Hillsborough County, Florida Final Hearing 07/15/2026 Settlement Website EWCDigitalSettlement.com Claims Administrator Cumor, Dunn v. European Wax Center Inc. c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC P.O. Box 225391 New York, NY 10150-5391 (833) 447-6949 Class Counsel Sarah Westcot Alec Leslie Stephen Beck BURSOR & FISHER P.A. Defense Counsel Joel Griswold BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP [GN] EVERGY INC: Settles Retirement Fund Class Action for $2.6MM ----------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Chilson, writing for Kansas Reflector, reports that Evergy Inc. and one of its contractors agreed to pay $2.6 million to employees to settle a class-action lawsuit filed over how company retirement funds were managed. Evergy will pay $1.7 million and SageView Advisory Group, which contracted with Evergy to manage its 401(k) retirement plans, will pay $900,000, according to a preliminary settlement agreement filed Wednesday, May 6, in the Western District Court of Missouri. Former Evergy employees Derick Doll, Catherine Fluegel and Joseph Nagle filed the lawsuit in January 2025, alleging the company failed to remove American Century Fund Target Date Funds from employee investment options even though the company underperformed. Missouri District Judge Stephen Bough gave the lawsuit class-action status in October 2025. The class action includes any former or current Evergy employee who invested in the American Century funds beginning in January 2019. A settlement administrator will be appointed, and there will be a hearing to grant final settlement approval, court filings said. [GN] FIREFLY AEROSPACE: Continues to Defend Diamond Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Firefly Aerospace 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 Company continues to defend itself from the Diamond securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. A purported Firefly stockholder filed a putative securities class action complaint on November 11, 2025 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, captioned Diamond v. Firefly Aerospace Inc., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01812 (W.D. Tex.) (the Securities Action). The complaint names Firefly and certain of its current and former directors and officers as defendants and asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, arising from allegedly false or misleading statements or omissions of purportedly material fact concerning the demand and growth prospects of Firefly's Spacecraft Solutions offerings and the operational readiness and commercial viability of the Alpha rocket. On March 26, 2026, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and recaptioned the case as In re Firefly Aerospace Securities Litigation. The lead plaintiff is expected to file an amended complaint by May 29, 2026. Firefly intends to defend itself vigorously against these allegations and claims but is currently unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss. Firefly Aerospace Inc. is a commercial space company that develops and operates launch vehicles, in-space transportation systems, and related spacecraft solutions for government and commercial customers. The company focuses on providing responsive, cost-effective access to space for small and medium payloads. FIREFLY AEROSPACE: Shadowbolt Derivative Suit Stayed ---------------------------------------------------- Firefly Aerospace 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 Texas stayed the Shadowbolt derivative suit is stayed in its entirety pending entry of final judgment. On December 23, 2025, one of Firefly's purported stockholders filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in an action captioned Shadowbolt v. Kim, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-02126 (W.D. Tex.) (the Derivative Action). The plaintiff seeks to pursue claims, purportedly on Firefly's behalf, against certain of Firefly's current and former directors and officers for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and contribution under Section 21D of the Exchange Act and Section 11(f) of the Securities Act, among other common law causes of action, arising from substantially the same allegations at issue in the Securities Action. The Derivative Action is stayed in its entirety pending entry of final judgment, including after any appeals have been pursued or exhausted, in the Securities Action. Firefly is currently unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss. Firefly Aerospace Inc. is a commercial space company that develops and operates launch vehicles, in-space transportation systems, and related spacecraft solutions for government and commercial customers. The company focuses on providing responsive, cost-effective access to space for small and medium payloads. FORWARD AIR: $28MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 25 ---------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., and Collins Shelton Blair & Wright PLLC issued a statement regarding the Forward Air Stockholder Litigation: IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT FOR THE STATE OF TENNESSEE TENNESSEE CHANCERY COURT GREENVILLE, TENNESSEE Cambria County Employees Retirement System and Michael A. Roberts, Plaintiffs, v. Forward Air Corporation, Ronald W. Allen, Ana Amicarella, Valerie A. Bonebrake, C. Robert Campbell, R. Craig Carlock, G. Michael Lynch, George S. Mayes Jr., Chitra Nayak, Javier Polit, Thomas Schmitt, and Laurie A. Tucker, Defendants. Docket No. 2023-cv-400 CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER CLASS ACTION, SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR TO: ALL SHAREHOLDERS OF FORWARD AIR CORPORATION AS OF AUGUST 10, 2023 (THE DATE DEFENDANTS AGREED TO THE MERGER AGREEMENT WITH OMNI NEWCO, LLC AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES, INCLUDING OMNI LOGISTICS LLC), AND THEIR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST WHO OBTAINED SHARES BY OPERATION OF LAW, BUT EXCLUDING ANY EXCLUDED PERSONS (THE "CLASS"). THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION CASE PENDING IN COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Chancery Court for the State of Tennessee, Third Judicial District, Greene County (the "Court") and Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 23 that: (i) the action (the "Action") is pending in the Court and has been preliminarily certified as a class action for settlement purposes only; and (ii) Plaintiffs and Defendants have reached a proposed settlement for $28,000,000.00 in cash (the "Settlement Amount") as set forth in the Stipulation (the "Settlement"), a copy of which is available at www.ForwardAirStockholderSettlement.com. The Settlement, if approved by the Court, will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held on June 25, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., before The Honorable Douglas T. Jenkins, either in person at the Chancery Court for the State of Tennessee, Third Judicial District, Greene County, Greene County Courthouse, 101 South Main Street, Greeneville, Tennessee 37743, or remotely by telephone or videoconference (in the discretion of the Court), to, among other things: (i) determine whether to finally certify the Class for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 23; (ii) determine whether Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel have adequately represented the Class, and whether Plaintiffs should be finally appointed as Class representatives for the Class and Plaintiffs' Counsel should be finally appointed as counsel for the Class; (iii) determine whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class and in the best interests of the Class; (iv) determine whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice and the Releases provided under the Stipulation should be granted; (v) determine whether the Order and Final Judgment approving the Settlement should be entered; (vi) determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable, and should therefore be approved; (vii) determine whether and in what amount any Fee and Expense Award should be paid to Plaintiffs' Counsel out of the Settlement Fund and whether and in what amount any service award to each Plaintiff should be paid out of the Settlement Fund; (viii) hear and rule on any objections to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Plaintiffs' Counsel's application for any Fee and Expense Award; and (ix) consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in connection with the Settlement. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or remote appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement Website, www.ForwardAirStockholderSettlement.com. If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice and Proof of Claim, you may obtain copies by contacting the Settlement Administrator at Forward Air Stockholder Settlement, Verita Global, P.O. Box 301171, Los Angeles, CA 90030-1171. A copy of the Notice and Proof of Claim can also be downloaded from the Settlement Website, www.ForwardAirStockholderSettlement.com. All Class Members are strongly encouraged to carefully review the full Notice, and to complete a Proof of Claim. If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata basis to eligible Class Members in accordance with the terms of the proposed Plan of Allocation stated in the Notice or such other plan of allocation as is approved by the Court. To share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim by mail (postmarked no later than July 10, 2026) or electronically (no later than July 10, 2026). Accordingly, Class Members will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Stipulation. Any objections to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Plaintiffs' Counsel's application for the Fee and Expense Award must be filed with the Clerk & Master's Office of the Chancery Court for the State of Tennessee and delivered to Plaintiffs' Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than June 3, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Any Class Member who wishes to be excluded from the Settlement may submit a "Request for Exclusion" such that it is postmarked no later than May 29, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Any Class Member who submits a Request for Exclusion may thereafter validly retract such Request for Exclusion by (a) serving a written revocation of that Request for Exclusion, signed under penalty of perjury, to the Settlement Administrator, Plaintiffs' Counsel, and Defendants' Counsel acknowledging that the Person (i) retracts or withdraws his, her, its, or their Request for Exclusion, and (ii) agrees to be bound by any Order and Final Judgment in the Action and the Releases to be given, as provided for in the Stipulation or as otherwise set forth in the Order and Final Judgment, and (b) filing a written notice with the Court of the same (which Plaintiffs' Counsel may file on behalf of the Person retracting their Request for Exclusion), provided that both must occur no later than June 18, 2026, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, otherwise that Person will be included in the Class. Please do not contact the Court or the Clerk & Master's Office regarding this Summary Notice. All questions about this Summary Notice, the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Settlement Administrator or Plaintiffs' Counsel. Requests for the Notice should be made to the Settlement Administrator: Forward Air Stockholder Settlement c/o Verita Global P.O. Box 301171 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1171 1-888-233-7067 Website: www.ForwardAirStockholderSettlement.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, should be made to Plaintiffs' Counsel: Christopher H. Lyons, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 200 31st Avenue North Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: 1-800-449-4900 Email: settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com Michael J. Barry, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 123 Justison Street, 7th Flr. Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: 1-302-622-7000 Email: mbarry@gelaw.com BY ORDER OF THE CHANCERY COURT FOR THE STATE OF TENNESSEE, THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT, GREENE COUNTY DATED: March 6, 2026 GENEDX HOLDINGS: Consolidated Derivative Suit Stayed ---------------------------------------------------- GeneDx Holdings 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 United States District Court for the District of Delaware stayed the consolidated derivative suit pending resolution of or announcement of a settlement in the Helo putative class action. A stockholder filed a derivative suit on November 28, 2023, allegedly on behalf of the Company and based largely on the same allegations in the securities class action, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, styled Ghazaleh v. Schadt, et al., 1:23-cv-01357 (D. Del.). The suit purports to assert claims against certain of the Company's former and current officers and directors under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and corporate waste. The Company is named only as a nominal defendant, and the complaint seeks damages on the Company's behalf, as well as corporate governance and other relief. On March 11, 2024, the court issued an order staying this suit pending resolution of or announcement of a settlement in the Helo putative class action (or certain other developments). On August 15, 2025, a third, substantially similar stockholder derivative suit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, styled Ingrao v. Ryan, et al., 1:25-cv-01027 (D. Del.). This suit, also purportedly brought on the Company's behalf against certain of its former or current officers and directors, asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks damages on the Company's behalf, as well as corporate governance reforms and other relief. On October 27, 2025, the court issued an order consolidating this action with the Ghazaleh derivative suit and staying the consolidated suit until final resolution of or an announcement of a settlement in the Helo class action, with the consolidated derivative suit captioned In re GeneDx Holdings Corp. Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 1:23-cv-01357-GBW (D. Del.). GeneDx Holdings Corp. is a genetic testing and precision medicine company focused on providing advanced genomic diagnostics and data-driven insights to support the diagnosis and management of rare and inherited diseases. The company offers a broad menu of clinical genomic testing services to healthcare providers, patients, and biopharmaceutical partners. GENEDX HOLDINGS: Settlement in Securities Suit for Court OK ----------------------------------------------------------- GeneDx Holdings 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 it was named as a defendant, along with certain of its current and former officers, in a putative securities class action lawsuit filed on September 7, 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, styled Helo v. Sema4 Holdings Corp., et al., 3:22-cv-01131 (D. Conn.). Following the appointment of a lead plaintiff, an amended complaint was filed on January 30, 2023. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on August 21, 2023, and that motion was granted on July 31, 2024. A second amended complaint was filed on September 13, 2024. As amended, the complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of stockholders who purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between January 18, 2022 and August 15, 2022. The second amended complaint does not reassert most of the earlier allegations and purports to allege that the defendants made false and misleading statements about the abilities and potential of Centrellis, the Company's proprietary intelligence platform, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, fees and costs. The Company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was denied on June 23, 2025, and the parties subsequently engaged in discovery. During the first quarter of 2026, the parties in the Helo putative class action reached an agreement in principle to resolve all claims for approximately $4.8 million and intend to execute a formal stipulation of settlement reflecting such agreement in principle. To be finalized, the settlement must first be approved by the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, and there can be no assurance that the court will approve such settlement. During the fourth quarter of 2025, the Company reserved the aforementioned settlement and associated litigation costs, totaling approximately $6.0 million, which are reported in accounts payable and accrued expenses on the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2025. During the first quarter of 2026, the Company incurred $0.7 million in associated litigation costs reported in accounts payable and accrued expenses on the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2026. GeneDx Holdings Corp. is a genetic testing and precision medicine company focused on providing advanced genomic diagnostics and data-driven insights to support the diagnosis and management of rare and inherited diseases. The company offers a broad menu of clinical genomic testing services to healthcare providers, patients, and biopharmaceutical partners. GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Defective Transmissions --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a group of vehicle owners are suing General Motors. Why: The plaintiffs allege that GM knowingly sold vehicles with defective 10-speed transmissions. Where: The GM class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses General Motors of knowingly selling vehicles with defective 10-speed transmissions. Plaintiffs Napa Valley G Experience LLC, Juan Morales and Ruben Smith filed the class action lawsuit against GM on April 13 in California federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the lawsuit, GM sold vehicles with defective 10-speed transmissions that can cause violent or erratic shifting, delayed acceleration and even a complete loss of motive power. The plaintiffs allege that GM knew about the defect but failed to disclose it to consumers. The class action lawsuit claims that the defect affects a wide range of GM vehicles, including Chevrolet, GMC and Cadillac models. GM issued technical service bulletins and recalls related to the defect, but these measures were too little, too late to remedy the fundamentally defective nature of the 10-speed transmission, the plaintiffs contend. Lawsuit claims GM knew about transmission defect before vehicles hit market The plaintiffs allege that GM knew about the defect before the vehicles were sold, as the transmission was co-developed with Ford, which faced similar issues with its 10-speed transmission in its F-150 trucks. Despite this knowledge, GM continued to sell the vehicles without disclosing the defect, the plaintiffs say. The class action lawsuit seeks to represent a class of all California residents who purchased or leased a GM vehicle with a 10-speed transmission. The plaintiffs are seeking damages, including the cost of repairs, as well as injunctive relief to prevent GM from continuing to sell vehicles with the defective transmission. In a separate class action lawsuit, consumers sued GM over allegations it sold vehicles with a defective brake vacuum pump system that can increase stopping distances and impair braking performance. The plaintiffs are represented by Michael F. Ram and Colin Losey of Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group and Will Ourand of Morgan & Morgan. The GM class action lawsuit is Napa Valley G Experience LLC, et al. v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-03148, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] GRAHAM ENTERPRISE: Vallely Sues Over Automatic Membership Renewal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Ellen Vallely, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Graham Enterprise, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2026LA000570 (Cir. Ct., DuPage Cty., Ill., April 28, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its unlawful business policy and practice. According to the complaint, the Defendant systematically violates the Illinois Automatic Contract Renewal Act ("ACRA") by failing to provide an acknowledgment after a consumer signs up for a membership that includes the automatic renewal offer terms, cancellation policy, and information regarding how to cancel, which may be accomplished by linking to a resource that provides instructions that account for different platforms and services, in a manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer. The ACRA declares, "a violation of this Act constitutes an unlawful practice under the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act." The complaint relates that during the Class Period, Plaintiff visited Defendant's car wash located at 1 E Roosevelt Rd, Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois, and purchased a car wash monthly membership in person. Plaintiff had issues trying to cancel her membership, which ultimately ended up happening after she figured out how to cancel. It is Defendant's uniform policy and practice to not provide such cancelations instructions to all consumers at each of the locations that Defendant operates in Illinois. The Plaintiff suffered real monetary loss as a result of Defendant's failure to properly disclose its autorenewal terms, cancellation policy, and how to cancel the membership, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff asserts this action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated who signed up for a car wash membership in person, seeking monetary damages, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. Plaintiff Mary Ellen Vallely has been a resident and citizen of the State of Illinois. Defendant Graham Enterprise, Inc. operates car washes in Illinois on a monthly subscription basis.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Peterson, Esq. CONSUMER LAW ADVOCATE, PLLC 680 N. Lake Shore Dr., Suite 110 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (815) 999-9130 E-mail: mtp@lawsforconsumers.com GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who acquired Graphic Packaging Holdings Company ("Graphic Packaging" or the "Company") (NYSE:GPK) securities during the period of February 4, 2025 through February 2, 2026, inclusive ("the Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your Graphic Packaging investments, you have until July 6, 2026 to request lead plaintiff appointment. Courts do not consider lead plaintiff applications submitted after this deadline. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. For more information about the lawsuit: https://www.kmllp.com/cases-investigations/graphic-packaging-holdings What Is This Lawsuit About? The lawsuit alleges that (i) Graphic Packaging was experiencing, inter alia, significant inventory management issues, as well as significantly reduced demand and volumes and increased costs; (ii) the Company downplayed the true scope and severity of the foregoing issues, which were likely to, and did, have a material negative impact on the Company's business and financial results; (iii) the Company likewise overstated the strength and sustainability of the Company's business model and operations, as well as its ability to weather ongoing macroeconomic headwinds; and (iv) accordingly, the Company's previously issued FY 2025 financial guidance was unreliable and/or unrealistic. On May 1, 2025, Graphic Packaging issued a press release reporting its first quarter 2025 financial results. Among other results, the press release reported non-GAAP EPS of $0.51, missing consensus estimates by $0.07, and revenue of $2.12 billion, representing a 6.2% year-over-year decline, and missing consensus estimates by $10 million. The press release further revealed that the Company had negatively revised its previously issued FY 2025 net sales outlook to a range of $8.2 billion to $8.5 billion, significantly down from its prior guidance of $8.7 billion to $8.9 billion; its adjusted EBITDA outlook to a range of $1.4 billion to $1.6 billion, significantly down from its prior guidance of $1.68 billion to $1.78 billion; and its adjusted EPS outlook to a range of $1.75 to $2.25, significantly down from its prior guidance of $2.53 to $2.78. The Company blamed the negatively revised guidance on "an expectation of a 2% volume decline and $80 million of input cost inflation at the midpoint", as well as "higher macroeconomic and consumer spending uncertainty." On this news, the price of Graphic Packaging shares declined by $3.94 per share, or approximately 16%, from $25.31 per share on April 30, 2025 to close at $21.37 on May 1, 2025. On December 8, 2025, Graphic Packaging issued a press release announcing that it "plans to accelerate certain inventory reduction plans into the fourth quarter that were originally planned for 2026", and that "[p]roduction curtailment is expected to impact fourth quarter operating results by $15 million, which is in addition to the $15 million relating to" certain earlier-announced curtailments. The Company further revealed that it had negatively revised its FY 2025 financial guidance again, now expecting its adjusted EBITDA "to be in the range of $1.38 billion to $1.43 billion" significantly below its previously revised guidance of $1.4 billion to $1.45 billion and adjusted EPS "to be in the range of $1.75 to $1.95" significantly below its previously revised guidance of $1.80 to $2.00. In a separate press release issued the same day, Graphic Packaging announced that Defendant Doss had "mutually agreed with [its] Board of Directors to step down from his role [as President and CEO] and as a director effective December 31, 2025." On this news, the price of Graphic Packaging shares declined by $1.35 per share, or approximately 9%, from $15.58 per share on December 8, 2025 to close at $14.23 on December 9, 2025. Then, on February 3, 2026, Graphic Packaging issued a press release reporting its fourth quarter and FY 2025 financial results. Among other results, Graphic Packaging reported non-GAAP EPS of $0.29, missing consensus estimates by $0.06. The Company attributed its disappointing earnings results to, inter alia, lower volumes, increased costs, and inventory reduction. Further, Graphic Packaging projected a meaningful decline in adjusted EBITDA in 2026, citing "a $130 million negative impact from actions taken to reduce inventory and generate [FCF], an approximately $100 million accrual (non-cash in 2026) for a return to more normal incentive compensation, January weather and production impacts, and other largely offsetting operating items." In the same press release, Graphic Packaging's new President and CEO, Robbert Rietbroek, announced that he had "initiated a comprehensive review of our organization structure, operations, and footprint," among other aspects of the Company's business. On this news, the price of Graphic Packaging shares declined by $2.36 per share, or approximately 16%, from $14.78 per share on January 30, 2026 to close at $12.42 on February 3, 2026. The Lead Plaintiff Appointment Process. The federal securities laws permit any investor who acquired eligible securities during the class period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit. Courts typically appoint the investor(s) with the largest financial loss in the case and the ability to represent the class rather than investors with simply the largest investment portfolio. Courts regularly appoint individual investors, whether acting alone or as a group, as lead plaintiffs. The rights of any investor who bought shares during the class period are generally already protected. However, lead plaintiffs have the power to influence case strategy and have a say in settlement decisions, as well as decisions concerning allocation of settlement funds among class members. What Should I Do? If you purchased or otherwise acquired Graphic Packaging securities, have information, or would like to learn more about this investigation, please contact Lauren Molinaro of Kirby McInerney LLP by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or fill out the contact form below, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters at no cost. Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at Kirby McInerney LLP's website. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Lauren Molinaro, Esq. Kirby McInerney LLP Tel: (212) 699-1171 https://www.kmllp.com https://securitiesleadplaintiff.com/ investigations@kmllp.com [GN] GUARDIAN FLIGHT: Miller Files Class Suit in Calif. Super. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Guardian Flight, LLC, et al. The case is captioned as RUSSELL MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GUARDIAN FLIGHT, LLC, et al., Case No. CGC26636030 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., April 16, 2026). A case management conference is set for September 23, 2026, before Judge Rochelle East. The case type is stated as other non-exempt complaints. Guardian Flight, LLC is a provider of air medical services based in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noel Harlow, Esq. LABOR LAW PC 100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 700 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 494-6082 Email: noel.harlow@laborlawpc.com HANOVER INSURANCE: Fights to End Coverage in Tenant Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Tez Romero, writing for Insurance Business, reports that Hanover Insurance is pushing back on its duty to defend a property manager named in a sweeping tenant class action across Oregon. On May 5, the carrier walked into federal court in Portland and asked a judge to declare that it owes nothing -- no defense, no indemnity -- to its insured, Marathon Management, Inc., under a professional liability policy. The filing lays out a familiar dilemma for insurers writing real estate errors-and-omissions coverage: what happens when the property manager you covered turns out to be financially intertwined with the very landlords being sued? The trouble started with David Friend, a tenant at the Solace apartment complex in Portland, according to the filing. Friend filed a class action accusing Marathon -- which, the filing says, also manages other Oregon complexes including Glendoveer Woods, Bridgeton, McKinney Lane, Bell Tower, Willamette Estates and Arris -- of breaking the state's landlord-tenant statutes in a number of ways. The allegations include monthly utility charges billed without proper documentation, an unexplained "Meter Reading" fee tacked onto rents, lease provisions that allegedly cap tenants' legal remedies, and renter's insurance requirements that, according to Friend, did not follow Oregon's rules. Marathon and the property owner, VAA Investment, LLC, are accused of violating multiple sections of the Oregon Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. Hanover, for its part, is currently footing the defense -- but only under a full reservation of rights. The carrier argues that nothing in Friend's class action is actually covered. Its first big move is the policy's Landlord Tenant Statute Exclusion, a clause built for exactly this kind of dispute. It strips coverage for "any statutory penalties, fines, assessments, attorney fees or any interest" tied to alleged violations of laws governing the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants. There is a narrow carve-back for liability the insured would have had even without the statute -- but Hanover says that does not save the day here. Then there is the Owned Property exclusion, which is where the case gets interesting for underwriters. Hanover points to language in the underlying lawsuit itself -- the claim that Marathon and the property owners "act under a single enterprise" -- and argues that the buildings Marathon manages effectively qualify as Owned Property under the policy. The definition reaches real estate held by any entity under the same financial control as the insured, or one with a financial interest in the insured. For good measure, Hanover also invokes exclusions for intentional conduct, deceptive business practices, contractual liability and non-monetary relief. And it argues the case does not clear the policy's front door, because Friend is not alleging a "Wrongful Act" -- which the policy defines as a negligent act, error, omission, misstatement or personal injury in the rendering or failure to render professional services. For E&O underwriters and claims professionals, the filing is a useful reminder: when a property manager and the property owner share the same financial DNA, the line between professional services and ownership liability can quickly blur - and so can coverage. The allegations in both the underlying tenant lawsuit and Hanover's coverage filing have not been tested in court. No ruling has been issued, and the defendants have not yet filed a response in the federal coverage action. [GN] HARVARD PILGRIM: Faces Suit Over Inaccurate Directory of Doctors ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pollock Cohen LLP, along with co-counsel Walden Macht Haran & Williams LLP, and Zalkind, Duncan & Bernstein LLP have filed a class action lawsuit in Massachusetts state court against Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare and its parent company, Point32 Health alleging that its "ghost network" of mental health providers harmed thousands of people. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants engaged in deceptive and fraudulent business practices by intentionally publishing an inaccurate directory of supposedly in-network doctors, therapists and other medical providers. A vast majority -- upwards of 80 percent -- of the doctors and therapists listed in the in the insurance company's directory of supposedly in-network providers didn't actually exist, didn't accept the insurance, or wouldn't take on new patients. The suit focuses on the harm caused by business practices that make it very difficult and expensive to access mental healthcare. "People pay an expensive premium to have access to what is represented is a robust network of providers; when in reality there are few doctors who actually participate," said Steve Cohen of Pollock Cohen LLP, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs. "This is a classic bait-and-switch but with very serious health consequences." One of the named plaintiffs is a teacher that suffers from anxiety and post-partum mania, with symptoms so severe at times she needed emergency treatment. She called more than 60 providers, expanded her search to more than 30 minutes from her home, virtual care and still it took more than 16 months before she could find a single in-network provider. Another named plaintiff needed mental health services for his minor son. When he first started exploring the directory provided to him, it offered providers 80 miles away from their home, therapists who didn't take their insurance or weren't taking new patients and dead-end after dead-end. After six months he finally found an out-of-network provider at significant cost to their family, along with additional time and energy to push for the reimbursement owed to them. "Harvard Pilgrim has provided its customers with misleading and deceptive materials for years, delaying care and harming the people they are supposed to help," said Jacob Gardener of Walden Macht Haran & Williams, co-counsel for the plaintiffs. "When subscribers have to pay out of pocket, those costs add up," added Ana Munoz of Zalkind, Duncan & Bernstein LLP, co-counsel for the plaintiffs. "And for those people who cannot afford out-of-network care, the impact on their mental health can be devastating." The complaint was filed May 6, 2026 in state court in Massachusetts. Click here for the complaint. About Pollock Cohen LLP Visit http://www.pollockcohen.com About Walden Macht Haran & Williams LLP Visit https://wmhwlaw.com Zalkind, Duncan & Bernstein LLP Visit https://www.zalkindlaw.com Contact: Steve Cohen SCohen@PollockCohen.com (917) 364-4197 [GN] HCA HEALTHCARE: Agrees to Settle Back Wages Suit for $1.56MM ------------------------------------------------------------ Jennifer Emert, writing for ABC 13 News, reports that a class action settlement against HCA Healthcare could provide tens of thousands of current and former Mission Health employees with back wages. The $1,563,000 settlement stems from a civil complaint filed by Sharon McRee, who worked for Mission between 2002 and 2022. The complaint alleged that Missdayion Hospitals used a rounding system for the time clocks that short-changed employees on the actual time that they worked. The complaint also alleged that the hospitals automatically deducted time for meal breaks that employees did not take. MISSION HEALTH, HCA HEALTHCARE SETTLE ANTITRUST LAWSUIT FILED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS "We're pleased with the result and glad that we could help these folks," said Attorney Matthew Lee of Lee Segui, PLLC, a Raleigh-based law firm. "This settlement will return to many thousands of workers time that was 'rounded' against them and that they will now receive. Every amount of pay matters when you're working hard to make ends meet, particularly here in Western North Carolina, while the area is still recovering from the devastation of Hurricane Helene." The class action complaint is expected to include approximately 16,100 class members, according to Lee. MISSION HOSPITAL SURPASSES 90 NURSES IN 90 DAYS HIRING GOAL Members of the class action settlement will automatically receive a check after the courts grant final approval. The complaint was filed in April 2024. The settlement also approved $536,064.63 in attorneys' fees and expenses, which the court found were reasonable. [GN] HOSPITAL SISTERS: Brahm Case Remanded to Eau Claire County Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATALIE BRAHM, JAMES QUAID, SUE BORNEMANN, and KIM WARD, on behalf of themselves and similarly-situated individuals, v. HOSPITAL SISTERS HEALTH SYSTEM, SACRED HEART HOSPITAL OF THE HOSPITAL SISTERS OF THE THIRD ORDER OF ST. FRANCIS, PREVEA HEALTH SERVICES, INC., and PREVEA HEALTH NETWORK, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00444-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge William M. Conley entered an order that: 1. This case is remanded to the Eau Claire County Circuit Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the clerk of court is directed to return the record to that court. 2. The Plaintiffs' motion to strike the expert report of James Vint, the defendants' motion to strike the expert opinion of Eric Krause, the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and the defendants' motion for summary judgment are denied as moot. With the benefit of a full record at summary judgment, even considering Dr. Shafiq's expert opinions and the other evidence of record in a light most favorable to plaintiffs, the court finds that plaintiffs lack standing to bring any of their claims in federal court. The Plaintiffs' lack of standing only became clear as this case moved beyond the pleading stage and it became apparent that plaintiffs had insufficient evidence of a legally-cognizable injury in fact. Accordingly, the court will not award attorney's fees against the defendants in this case. The Plaintiffs assert that the defendants installed digital marketing and automatic rerouting tools on their websites that routinely disclose their patients' identities and protected health care information to third-party websites like Google without the patients' knowledge or consent in violation of federal and state wiretapping statutes, as well as Wisconsin common and statutory laws for breach of duty of confidentiality, breach of implied contract to protect privacy, public disclosure of private facts, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs have moved to certify four, separate subclasses covering distinct, but overlapping time periods between 2016 and 2023: (1) HSHS patients who accessed the MyHSHS portal through a web browser; plus three classes of Prevea patients who accessed the MyPrevea portal through (2) a web browser, (3) a mobile app, or (4) a link within a text message or email notification. HSHS is a regional health system that operates hospitals and clinics throughout Wisconsin and Illinois. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ahji60 at no extra charge.[CC] IGGY AZALEA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Mother Iggy Meme Token ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lockridge Okoth, writing for Yahoo Finance, reports that Burwick Law filed a federal class action lawsuit against rapper Iggy Azalea. The suit alleges she misled buyers of her Mother Iggy (MOTHER) meme coin with promises of real-world utility that never fully materialized. The complaint was filed in the Southern District of New York. It accuses Azalea of violating New York consumer protection laws after MOTHER lost roughly 99.5% of its peak value. Inside the Iggy Azalea MOTHER lawsuit The suit, filed on Monday, May 4, brought by Burwick on behalf of MOTHER buyers, cites New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350. Both statutes target deceptive acts and false advertising. Plaintiffs also add claims of negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment. The filing argues Azalea framed MOTHER as the native currency of an ecosystem she controlled. That ecosystem allegedly included Motherland, an online casino, and Unreal Mobile, a telecommunications business co-founded by the rapper. Azalea told followers they would need MOTHER to enter Motherland. She also said Unreal Mobile customers could buy handsets and monthly plans with the token, claiming savings of up to $600 a year. According to the filing, neither integration delivered durable, on-chain utility for holders. Plaintiffs argue buyers received no equity, no governance rights, and no revenue share in any of Azalea's businesses. "Holders of MOTHER received no equity in Azalea's businesses. They received no revenue-sharing rights, no voting power, no contractual claims, and no legal interest in any underlying enterprise," read an excerpt in the filing. How MOTHER Collapsed From a $200 Million Peak Azalea launched MOTHER on Solana on May 28, 2024. She positioned it as a meme coin with embedded utility, distinct from the typical celebrity launch. [GN] INDIMADE BRANDS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Ford Says --------------------------------------------------------------- SANDRA FORD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Indimade Brands LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04727 (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, www.theflamingcandle.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Ford and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On April 01, 2026, Plaintiff Ford was searching online for candle-making supplies. During her search, Ford came across the Defendant's website. After reviewing customer feedback, Plaintiff Ford decided to explore the website with the intent to make a purchase. While browsing through the categories, she decided to start her purchase of candle-making supplies with a candle mold. However, Ford encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented the completion of the transaction. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff Ford and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. Plaintiff Ford seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Indimade Brands LLC operates the website which offers candle making waxes, fragrance oils, wicks, jars, molds, packaging, tools, kits, and craft supplies.[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 INSPIRE MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Davis Derivative Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Inspire Medical 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 Company continues to defend itself from the Davis stockholder derivative suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On March 20, 2026, a second stockholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, purportedly on behalf of Inspire against certain of the Company's present and former officers and against all current members of the Board of Directors and Inspire (as a nominal defendant), captioned Davis v. Herbert et al. The Davis Derivative Lawsuit arises out of the same subject matter as the Indiana PRS Lawsuit and alleges substantially the same claims as the Korte Derivative Lawsuit, plus a claim for contribution under Section 21D of the Exchange Act, and likewise seeks unspecified damages. On April 21, 2026, counsel for plaintiffs in the Davis Derivative Lawsuit submitted, along with all defendants in those lawsuits, a proposed stipulation to consolidate them into one lawsuit and to stay them, among other terms, and the Company and the individual defendants intend to vigorously defend against the action. Inspire Medical Systems, Inc. is a medical technology company that develops and markets minimally invasive implantable neurostimulation systems for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea. Its Inspire therapy is designed as an alternative to continuous positive airway pressure for patients with moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea. INSPIRE MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Korte Derivative Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Inspire Medical 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 Company continues to defend itself from the Korte stockholder derivative suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On January 27, 2026, a stockholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, purportedly on behalf of Inspire against certain of the Company's present and former executive officers and against all current members of the Board of Directors and Inspire (as a nominal defendant), captioned Korte v. Herbert, et al. The Korte Derivative Lawsuit arises out of the same subject matter as the Indiana PRS Lawsuit described above and alleges the following claims: (1) Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder; (2) Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder; (3) Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act; (4) a common-law claim for breach of fiduciary duty; (5) common-law aiding and abetting; (6) unjust enrichment; and (7) waste of corporate assets. The Korte Derivative Lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, and the Company and the individual defendants intend to vigorously defend against the action. On April 21, 2026, counsel for plaintiffs in the Korte submitted, along with all defendants in those lawsuits, a proposed stipulation to consolidate them into one lawsuit and to stay them, among other terms, and the Company and the individual defendants intend to vigorously defend against both actions. Inspire Medical Systems, Inc. is a medical technology company that develops and markets minimally invasive implantable neurostimulation systems for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea. Its Inspire therapy is designed as an alternative to continuous positive airway pressure for patients with moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea. INSPIRE MEDICAL: Indiana PRS Class Suit Pending in SDNY ------------------------------------------------------- Inspire Medical 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 Indiana PRS class suit is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. A putative securities class action filed on December 22, 2025 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by the Indiana Public Retirement System, on behalf of itself and other similarly situated investors, against the Company and certain of its executive officers, captioned Indiana Public Retirement System v. Inspire Medical Systems, Inc., et al. The Indiana PRS Lawsuit arises from the same underlying subject matter as the City of Pontiac Lawsuit, alleges the same violations of law, and is based on the same or similar purportedly materially false and misleading statements made during the same class period, all relating to the launch of the Company's Inspire V neurostimulator, and the plaintiffs seek, among other relief, unquantified compensatory damages, together with attorneys' fees and costs. On January 22, 2026, the Company and the individual defendants moved to transfer the Indiana PRS Lawsuit to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, and that motion remains pending. Inspire Medical Systems, Inc. is a medical technology company that develops and markets minimally invasive implantable neurostimulation systems for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea. Its Inspire therapy is designed as an alternative to continuous positive airway pressure for patients with moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea. INTERVET INC: Palmieri Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VALERIE PALMIERI, DIANE GORDON, TERI IPPOLITO, GAYLE MORASKI, HOLLY REEVES, and AMY TUCKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. INTERVET, INC. d/b/a MERCK ANIMAL HEALTH, a subsidiary of MERCK & CO., INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-22024-JXN-AME (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting them leave to file the memorandum in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and other supporting materials provisionally under seal, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.3(c)(4). The Plaintiffs have diligently drafted the memorandum in support of the Motion, which includes citation to and quotation of many documents produced by the Defendant that are currently designated, pursuant to the Protective Order governing this litigation, as "Protected Material." Accordingly, the Plaintiffs request that the Court allow leave to file the Motion and supporting materials provisionally under seal so that they may challenge the Defendant's confidentiality designations that are understood to be beyond the scope of the Protective Order via meet and confer efforts with the Defendant and the right to challenge whether these documents must be maintained under seal beyond a provisional basis. The Parties will proceed to resolve any outstanding confidentiality designation challenges with Honorable André M. Espinosa if needed and will file a joint motion to file under seal pursuant to Local Civil Rules 5.3 when all disputes have been briefed and/or resolved. The Parties previously engaged in this process with respect to the filing of Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint. The Defendant delivers advanced animal health products and import/export services for livestock and companion animals. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dF5QRH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark A. DiCello, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. Adam Prom, Esq. Ellen M. Teuscher, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT 8610 Norton Parkway, Third Floor Mentor, OH 44060 Telephone: (440) 953-8888 E-mail: madicello@dicellolevitt.com - and - Jessica J. Sleater, Esq. Ralph N. Sianni, Esq. ANDERSEN SLEATER SIANNI LLC 64 Laurel Mountain Ct. Carmel, NY 10512 INTERVET INC: Palmieri Suit Seeks to Certify Five State Classes --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VALERIE PALMIERI, DIANE GORDON, TERI IPPOLITO, GAYLE MORASKI, HOLLY REEVES, and AMY TUCKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. INTERVET, INC. d/b/a MERCK ANIMAL HEALTH, a subsidiary of MERCK & CO., INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-22024-JXN-AME (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying five State Classes under Connecticut, New York, and Florida consumer protection claims and implied warranty claims under Connecticut, New York, Illinois, and Texas law. Accordingly, Certification of each State Class is based upon the Defendant's omission of the risk and reports of adverse neurological reactions associated with Defendant's Bravecto chew flea and tick product. The Plaintiffs specifically seek to certify the following class definition for each State Class: "All purchasers of Bravecto from May 20, 2014, through June 4, 2019." The Plaintiffs further move for the Court to appoint the law firms of DiCello Levitt LLP and Andersen Sleater Sianni LLC as class counsel and to appoint Plaintiffs as class representatives of their respective State Classes as follows: Valerie Palmieri and Gayle Moraski for Connecticut; Amy Tucker for New York; Teri Ippolito for Florida; Diane Gordon for Illinois; and Holly Reeves for Texas. The Defendant delivers advanced animal health products and import/export services for livestock and companion animals. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Jl9usD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark A. DiCello, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. Adam Prom, Esq. Ellen M. Teuscher, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT 8610 Norton Parkway, Third Floor Mentor, OH 44060 Telephone: (440) 953-8888 E-mail: madicello@dicellolevitt.com - and - Jessica J. Sleater, Esq. Ralph N. Sianni, Esq. ANDERSEN SLEATER SIANNI LLC 64 Laurel Mountain Ct. Carmel, NY 10512 INVIA FERTILITY: Discloses Heath Info to Third Parties, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- M.G., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INVIA FERTILITY SPECIALISTS, PLLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04784 (N.D. Ill., April 27, 2026) is a class action lawsuit to address Defendant's unlawful practice of implementing tracking technology on its website and disclosing Plaintiff's and Class Members' confidential personally identifiable information, protected health information, and confidential health communications to unauthorized third parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc. f/k/a Facebook, Inc., and Google LLC. As part of its medical services, the Defendant offers its patients online medical services and obtains and handles highly sensitive personal health information related to reproductive healthcare through its online medical services. The Plaintiff and Class Members are Defendant's current and former fertility patients who utilized Defendants' online medical services to book appointments, complete medical forms, and access the patient portal. According to the complaint, the Defendant improperly disclosed and misused the private information for the purpose and intent of enhancing Defendant's marketing capabilities and monetizing Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information. By deploying a combination of Facebook and Google tracking on its fertility provider website, the Defendant maximized the exposure of its patients' and prospective patients' reproductive health data to advertising ecosystems to gain the highest probability of converting new patients with the lowest cost per conversion of a new patient. The Plaintiff brings causes of action for (1) Violation of Electronic Communications Privacy Act; (2) breach of implied contract; (3) unjust enrichment; (4) violation of Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act; (5) Violation of the Illinois Eavesdropping/Interception Common and Statutory Law; and (6) negligence. InVia Fertility Specialists, PLLC is a reproductive health provider specializing in IVF, IUI, egg freezing, sperm freezing, and other fertility treatments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. Clint C. Watson, Esq. Kevin M. Cox, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 2754 Erie Ave. Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: (513) 381-2333 Facsimile: (513) 766-9011 E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com cwatson@thelyonfirm.com kcox@thelyonfirm.com - and - Gary Klinger, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com KALSHI INC: Refer-A-Friend Texts Violate Wash. Law, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Kalshi unlawfully initiates and assists the sending of "Refer a friend" text messages to Washington residents who have not consented to receive commercial texts from the prediction market operator. The 18-page lawsuit contends that Kalshi has violated the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA) by enabling its users to act as agents on its behalf to send promotional texts containing sign-up links and offering rewards without obtaining a recipient's consent. Kalshi is a nationwide prediction market that allows users to buy and sell event contracts based on the outcome of various events. The case alleges that Kalshi seeks to grow its user base by incentivizing existing accountholders to invite their friends to join the platform with the promise of $10 to $25 awards that can be used for trading on Kalshi. According to the suit, Washington law protects state residents from receiving unwanted commercial texts and requires companies to obtain clear, affirmative consent before sending marketing communications. According to the complaint, Kalshi provides "substantial assistance" to existing users in composing and sending its refer-a-friend text messages by offering copy-and-paste features, generating invitation links, and directing users to send messages. Although the text messages are sent by individual users and not the business, the lawsuit argues that these communications still constitute violations of CEMA due to Kalshi's heavy involvement in their creation and transmission and its use of financial incentives. "Kalshi does not obtain clear and affirmative consent prior to the sending of these text messages," the complaint contends. "In fact, Kalshi does not communicate with the recipients prior to the texts being sent, much less obtain clear and affirmative consent." The lawsuit claims that Kalshi is aware that sending unsolicited marketing messages to Washington residents without prior consent is unlawful. According to the complaint, the company can identify which phone numbers are associated with Washington residents and whether consent has been obtained. "Kalshi benefits from the sending of illegal text messages to Washington residents, because it can advertise its products, target new customers, and make money from new users in Washington," the filing summarizes. The Kalshi class action lawsuit seeks to represent all individuals who, during the applicable statute of limitations period, received a Kalshi "Refer a friend" text message to their cell phone while residing in Washington and had not given prior clear and affirmative consent. [GN] KENNETH COLE: Class Cert Bid Filing in Ortiz Due Sept. 21 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ortiz et al., v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-00771-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thompson entered a case management and scheduling order as follows: Trial date: Sept. 25, 2028 Final pretrial conference: Aug. 10, 2028 at 3:30 pm Expert discovery cut-off: Jan. 7, 2028 Last day to hear motion for class Sept. 21, 2027 certification: Fact discovery cut-off: Sept. 17, 2027 Class certification reply due: July 22, 2027 Class certification motion due: April 23, 2027 The Defendant is a manufacturer of fashion footwear, handbags, apparel and accessories for men, women and children. A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=29leDd at no extra charge.[CC] KEURIG DR. PEPPER: Faces Lauten Suit Over Unlawful Tariffs ---------------------------------------------------------- PATRICIA LAUTEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KEURIG DR. PEPPER INC., Defendant, Case No. 2026LA000509 (Ill. Cir., Dupage Cty., April 17, 2026) is an action for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, for violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Businesses Practices Act and unjust enrichment, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant, in charging Plaintiff unlawful tariffs. Beginning on February 1, 2025, and continuing through May 2025, U.S. President Donald J. Trump issued a series of executive orders declaring a litany of unprecedented purported national emergency related to drug trafficking, trade deficits, and Venezuelan oil thereby imposing tariff duties on imports from many important United States world trade partners including, but not limited to, Canada, Mexico, India, Germany, and China under the International Emergency Economics Powers Act (IEEPA). The sweeping Tariff Executive Orders imposed an array of frequently changing duties ranging from 10% to 84% based on erratic country specific tariff policy dictated through rapidly published Executive Orders. The Defendant paid IEEPA tariffs when it imported the products Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers purchased. To off set the cost of paying IEEPA tariffs, the Defendant passed the tax burden onto Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers by directly or indirectly charging them the cost of the unlawful IEEPA tariffs. As a result, any IEEPA tariffs charged to Defendant were unlawful and unconstitutional, and Defendant is entitled to seek a refund for any tariffs it paid pursuant to the Tariff Executive Orders through either litigation or the Liquidation process. However, the Defendant passed its unlawful IEEPA tariff burdens onto Plaintiff, the Class, and Subclass Members by directly or indirectly charging Plaintiff and the Classes Members the cost of the unlawful IEEPA tariffs. The Plaintiff, the Class, and Sub-Class Members were thereby deprived of money paid to Defendant for unlawful IEEPA tariffs. The Defendant's retention of money obtained from charging consumers for IEEPA tariffs offends public policy, is oppressive and causes substantial injury to consumers by depriving those consumers like Plaintiff, the Class, and Sub-Class Members of the cost of the unlawful IEEPA Tariffs, the suit alleges. Keurig Dr. Pepper Inc. manufactures, advertises, markets, sells, and distributes consumer products throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 23586 Calabasas Rd., Suite 105 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com - and - Steven G. Perry, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 555 Skokie Blvd., Suite 500 Northbrook, IL 60062 Telephone: (224) 218-0875 E-mail: steven.perry@toddflaw.com KNOWBE4 INC: Lead Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned re KnowBe4, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:25-cv-22574-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3): (1) Certifying the following plaintiff class: (i) All persons and entities that held KnowBe4, Inc. ("KnowBe4") Class A common stock as of the Dec. 7, 2022 record date (the "Record Date") that were entitled to vote on the "take-private" acquisition by Vista Equity Partners Management, LLC and its affiliates; and (ii) All persons and entities that sold shares of KnowBe4 Class A common stock from Oct. 12, 2022 through the Feb. 1, 2023 close of the Merger (the "Class Period"), including those who sold shares into the Merger; Excluding: the Defendants and their affiliates, the officers and directors of Defendants, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns and any entity in which any excluded persons have—or had at any time since the start of the Class Period—a controlling interest; (2) Appointing Lead Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and (3) Appointing Co-Lead Counsel as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g) and appointing Liaison Counsel as Class Liaison Counsel. The Lead Plaintiffs alleges violations of Proxy and Anti-Fraud Provisions of the Federal Securities Laws. KnowBe4 is a company that, prior to the subject Merger, was controlled by KKR, Elephant Partners, and KnowBe4's founder, Sjoerd Sjouwerman. These controlling shareholders collectively structured a deal to sell KnowBe4 to private equity giant Vista at a price they knew was unfair, while falsely representing to investors and shareholders the transaction was "fair" and in unaffiliated shareholders' "best interests." KnowBe4 is a platform for security awareness training and simulated phishing attacks. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=n5T1Go at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin J. Widlanski, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 372-1800 E-mail: bwidlanski@kttlaw.com - and - Vincent R. Cappucci, Esq. Robert N. Cappucci, Esq. Brendan J. Brodeur, Esq. Andrew M. Sher, Esq. Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq. ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP 230 Park Avenue, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 894-7200 E-mail: vcappucci@entwistle-law.com rcappucci@entwistle-law.com bbrodeur@entwistle-law.com asher@entwistle-law.com aentwistle@entwistle-law.com - and - Adam Warden, Esq. Jonathan Lamet, Esq. David J. Schwartz, Esq. Thomas Curry, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 7777 Glades Road, Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33434 Telephone: (561) 394-3399 E-mail: awarden@saxenawhite.com jlamet@saxenawhite.com dschwartz@saxenawhite.com tcurry@saxenawhite.com LAUNDRESS LLC: Seeks to Maintain Reply Memo Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ostenfeld v. The Laundress, LLC et al. (re Laundress Marketing and Product Liability Litigation), Case No. 1:22-cv-10667-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order maintaining under seal certain portions of The Laundress's reply memorandum of law in support of its motion to strike the declaration of Stephen J. Fearon, Jr. in support of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification ("Reply"). The Laundress seeks to redact information relating to (1) product formulations, testing, and research and development, (2) quality assurance procedures, measures, and controls, and (3) microbiological testing. The Laundress has limited its sealing and redaction requests to information that contains confidential business information, the disclosure of which would cause competitive harm. This includes trade secrets, internal strategies, and sensitive commercial data. The request is narrowly tailored and consistent with the Second Circuit's presumption in favor of public access to judicial documents. Accordingly, the confidentiality of the excerpts identified herein is justified and necessary to prevent competitive injury. Laundress provides plant-derived laundry and home cleaning products. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MYijtS at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Ronald Y. Rothstein, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 300 N. LaSalle Dr., Suite 4400 Chicago, IL 60654-3406 Telephone: (312) 558-5600 Facsimile: (312) 558-5700 E-mail: rrothste@winston.com LAUREL EYE CLINIC: Cook Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Laurel Eye Clinic, LLP. The case is styled as Cynthia Cook, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Laurel Eye Clinic, LLP, Case No. 2:26-cv-00713 (W.D. Pa., April 28, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. The Laurel Eye Clinic -- https://www.laureleye.com/ -- is dedicated to being the leader in Ophthalmology by providing the highest quality ophthalmic care and related services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: nickc@lcllp.com LKQ PICK YOUR PART: Rodriguez Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as David Rodriguez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LKQ PICK YOUR PART MIDWEST, LLC, Case No. 2025CH08591 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for Northern District of Illinois on April 29, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-04957. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges causes of action for Violations of the Illinois Consumer Protection Act; Unjust Enrichment; Common Law Fraud/Fraudulent Omission; and Negligence.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William T. Gibbs, Esq. CORBOY & DEMETRIO, P.C. 33 North Dearborn Street, 21st Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 346-3191 Email: wtg@corboydemetrio.com ccfiling@corboydemetrio.com The Defendants are represented by: Alan Ritchie, Esq. PILGRIM CHRISTAKIS LLP One South Dearborn, Suite 1420 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 939-6580 Email: aritchie@pilgrimchristakis.com - and - Tyler E. Sanchez, Esq. Jennifer S. Goldstein, Esq. SALISIAN LLP 550 S. Hope Street, Suite 750 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 622-9100 Facsimile: (800) 622-9145 Email: tyler.sanchez@salisianllp.com jennifer.goldstein@salisianllp.com LUCID GROUP: Seeks to Seal Portions of Exhibits in Mangino ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mangino v. Lucid Group, Inc. et al. (re Lucid Group, Inc. Securities Litigation), Case No. 3:22-cv-02094-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to seal portions of the exhibits to their opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The information sought to be sealed is narrowly tailored to what is required to protect Lucid's competitive interests. The Motion is filed concurrently with the declaration of Shon Morgan in support of the Defendants' administrative motion to seal portions of Exhibits to their opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Sharing this information publicly would afford a competitor a significant advantage in its manufacturing efforts against Lucid, and disclose personally identifiable information about its employees, the suit says. Lucid is a US-based luxury electric vehicle (EV) manufacturer. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kAPj2W at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Shon Morgan, Esq. Kurt E. Wolfe, Esq. Ryan P. Gorman, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 E-mail: shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com kurtwolfe@quinnemanuel.com ryangorman@quinnemanuel.com LUCKY STRIKE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Price Dominance ------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Scarcella of Reuters reports that a group of bowling patrons has sued Bowlero and AMF bowling centers owner Lucky Strike Entertainment (LUCK.N), alleging the company illegally drove up prices and undercut quality in a drive to dominate the U.S. bowling industry. The proposed class action, filed in the federal court in Seattle on Wednesday, May 6, said Lucky Strike and subsidiaries violated federal antitrust laws and state consumer protection provisions through its strategy of acquiring hundreds of competing bowling centers nationwide. The plaintiffs are 11 bowlers from Washington, California, New York, Illinois and other states. They are seeking class action status on behalf of at least thousands of other bowlers. Mechanicsville, Virginia-based Lucky Strike, which was formerly known ⁠as Bowlero Corp, in a statement on May 7 called the lawsuit "a meritless attempt by a startup plaintiffs' firm to generate headlines." Lucky Strike said the market is competitive, and that "we are confident in our conduct, confident in the law, and we will defend this case vigorously and to the fullest." Attorneys for the consumers did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The bowlers allege Lucky Strike acquired bowling centers across dozens of cities, giving it dominant market shares locally and nationally. Bowlero operates more than 350 bowling centers in North America and controls about 35% of U.S. bowling revenue, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit claims the consolidation allowed the company to raise prices for ⁠lane rentals, shoe rentals, food and drinks, while cutting costs by reducing maintenance, staffing and operating hours. "Bowlero's dominance -- fueled by repeated hedge fund and private equity investment on the road to going public -- is the product of its Wall Street-engineered unlawful merger-driven playbook," the lawsuit said. The lawsuit also cites Bowlero's 2019 purchase of the Professional Bowlers Association, which the plaintiffs say gave ⁠it additional leverage over competitors through marketing and tournament access. The PBA organizes professional bowling tours and has media deals with major U.S. broadcasting networks. The plaintiffs asked for unspecified monetary damages and a court order unwinding certain past acquisitions. They are also ⁠seeking to bar Lucky Strike from making additional acquisitions in bowling and related markets. The case is Benjamin Doehr et al v. Lucky Strike Entertainment et al, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, No. ⁠2:26-cv-01535. For plaintiffs: Catherine Simonsen of Simonsen Sussman, and John Fiske of Baron & Budd For defendants: No appearances yet [GN] LYONS & DOUGHTY: Zemel Suit Seeks to Certify Consumer Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRED ZEMEL, v. LYONS, DOUGHTY & VELDHUIS, P.C., Case No. 2:25-cv-01219-SDW-JRA (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion for class certification. The Plaintiff seeks to certify Plaintiff Class defined as follows: Class: "All consumers within Essex County that were sent a collection letter for a Capital One account with the language "Notice: Your balance may increase in the future due to other charges allowed by your agreement and/or law" for debts incurred primarily for personal or household use, within one year of filing this complaint through judgment." The action arises from the Defendants' violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in its attempt to collect a debt from the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff filed an initial Complaint on Feb. 13, 2025, alleging that the Defendant violated the provisions of the FDCPA banning false, deceptive, or misleading collection conduct. Lyons is a creditors' rights law firm. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qfRxdT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Ste. 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit Over Toxic Fragrance Compounds ----------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Cole, class action veteran and founder of the Cole & Van Note law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Marriott International, Inc. and numerous related entities for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and various California state laws. The lawsuit alleges Marriott subjected customers and employees to toxic fragrance compounds at numerous Marriott locations, resulting in a multitude of short term and chronic health reactions. "This lawsuit is the first of its kind and, with more such cases to come, should serve as a warning to all businesses pushing synthetic fragrance on their customers and employees," says Scott Cole, the principal attorney on the case. "The public is largely unaware of how dangerous fragrance chemicals are to the chemically sensitive disabled population. To those suffering from this condition, however, Marriott's use of fragrance deprives them of the rights the rest of us take for granted." The lawsuit seeks a court order against Marriott, so that everyone, regardless of physical condition, can safely enjoy its goods and services. Chemical/fragrance sensitivity is a recognized disability under the law and impacts nearly one-third of all Americans. Unlike naturally occurring scents, man-made fragrance is a pollutant which can contain dozens of unhealthy chemicals, including volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Use of fragrance limits access to airplanes, restaurants, hotels, medical facilities and countless other public facilities since it is well known to cause respiratory, dermatological and cognitive injuries. According to the lawsuit, over 95% of chemicals found in synthetic fragranced products derive from petrochemicals including highly toxic benzene derivatives, aldehydes and phthalates, known endocrine disruptors and potential carcinogens which are linked to breast cancer and birth defects. As Scott Cole explains, "the fact that Marriott may have introduced fragrance in its facilities, believing it smells good or to mask unpleasant odors or even dangerous mold, does not justify using harmful compounds or excuse its discriminatory effect. Everyone is entitled to equal access, regardless of Marriott's profit motives." The lawsuit is entitled Kovacs, et al. v. Marriott International, Inc., et al. and was filed in the United States (Northern) District Court. For more information about this case, please contact Cole & Van Note at https://colevannote.com/fragrance/ or (510) 891-9800. ABOUT COLE & VAN NOTE Since its inception in 1992, Cole & Van Note has litigated countless class action matters against businesses of all types, and in nearly every industry imaginable. It engages in nationwide litigation as a well-known and widely respected member of the country's legal community. For decades, the firm has recovered billions of dollars for countless civil and consumer rights victims, has been involved in record-setting resolutions and corrected numerous unlawful practices. Contacting Cole & Van Note is always free of charge and always confidential. If you are chemically sensitive and encountered a business or workplace using fragrance, help us put an end to this harmful practice. Attorney Advertisement. Our previous results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome. Contacts Scott Cole, Esq. Cole & Van Note Phone: (510) 891-9800 https://colevannote.com/fragrance [GN] MCGRAW-HILL: Hurtado Files Personal Injury Suit in S.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against McGraw-Hill. The case is captioned as NORMA HURTADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MCGRAW-HILL, Case No. 2:26-cv-00469-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio, April 17, 2026). The suit is brought against the Defendants for personal injury claims. McGraw-Hill is an education science company headquartered in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Richard Karon, Esq. KARON LLC 631 West St. Clair Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 390-2594 Facsimile: (216) 241-8175 Email: dkaron@karonllc.com MEDPACE HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Set June 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP reminds stockholders that a class action was filed on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Medpace Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ: MEDP) securities between April 22, 2025 and February 9, 2026. Medpace is a clinical contract research organization (CRO) focused on providing scientifically driven outsourced clinical development services to the biotechnology, pharmaceutical, and medical device industries. For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. What is the class period? April 22, 2025 - February 9, 2026 What are the allegations? Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that Medpace Holdings Inc. (MEDP) Misled Investors Regarding its Expected Book-to-Bill Ratio According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants provided investors with material information concerning Medpace's expected book-to-bill ratio for the fourth quarter 2025. Defendants' statements, among other things, portrayed an overly optimistic book-to-bill ratio of 1.15 throughout the Company's fiscal year. Particularly, Medpace continuously made statements during earnings calls focused on the Company's anticipated book-to-bill ratio of 1.15 during the second half of fiscal year 2025. Defendants continuously touted "well-behaved" cancellation rates and made clear that cancellations were not caused by weak business or a weak funding environment, providing investors with overly positive growth expectations that could not maintain the projected 1.15 book-to-bill ratio. Plaintiff alleges that on February 9, 2026, Medpace announced its fourth quarter 2025 book-to-bill ratio of 1.04, well below the guidance of 1.15. On this news, the price of Medpace's common stock fell from $530.35 per share on February 9, 2026 to $446.05 per share on February 10, 2026, a decline of more than 15.9%. What can shareholders do now? You may be eligible to participate in the class action against Medpace Holdings Inc. Shareholders who wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the class must submit their papers to the court by June 8, 2026. The lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. For more information, click https://robbinsllp.com/medpace-holdings-inc/ All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. To be notified if a class action against Medpace Holdings Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today. Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact: Aaron Dumas, Jr., Esq. Robbins LLP 5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92122 (800) 350-6003 adumas@robbinsllp.com www.robbinsllp.com [GN] MEDTRONIC INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over 2026 Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Medtronic is liable for an April 2026 data breach during which hackers infiltrated the medical technology company's database and reportedly obtained more than nine million records containing sensitive personal and health information. The 42-page Medtronic data breach lawsuit contends that the company recklessly disregarded consumers' privacy rights by failing to have in place adequate cybersecurity measures to protect the personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) in its care. Per the suit, names, addresses, medical histories, billing information, health insurance details, demographic information and Social Security numbers were compromised in last month's Medtronic cyberattack. According to the complaint, the April 2026 data breach, credited to the cyberhacking group ShinyHunters, was the "direct and proximate result" of Medtronic's failure to implement reasonable data security practices, including those recommended for businesses by the Federal Trade Commission. The incident reportedly exposed over nine million records containing sensitive information, the suit says. The lawsuit claims that Medtronic has yet to determine which individuals were impacted, and stated in an April 24 press release that it was still investigating whether patient data was affected. "Despite all the publicly available knowledge of the known and foreseeable consequences of disclosure of PII and PHI, Medtronic's policies and practices with respect to maintaining the security of Class Members' PII and PHI were reckless, or, at the very least, negligent," the filing states. The lawsuit argues that the exposure of someone's private information to cybercriminals can leave them susceptible to identity theft, medical and financial fraud for years to come. Misuse of a consumer's information can be incredibly difficult to detect and resolve, particularly when Social Security numbers are involved, and may enable cybercriminals to create fake insurance claims, file fraudulent tax returns, file for unemployment benefits or publish the information for sale on the dark web, the case stresses. Despite Medtronic's representations that it maintains robust data privacy and security safeguards for its patients and employees, these measures were inadequate, especially given that healthcare entities are high-risk targets of cyberattacks, the complaint argues. "By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from Plaintiff's and Class Members PII and PHI, Medtronic assumed legal and equitable duties and knew or should have known that it was responsible for protecting Plaintiff's and Class Members PII and PHI from disclosure," the complaint asserts. The plaintiff, a California resident, says she provided sensitive information to Medtronic in connection with receiving a heart monitor device in early 2026. The plaintiff claims that since the breach, she has experienced an increase in spam calls and text messages and faces a "substantially increased risk" of fraud and identity theft. The lawsuit notes that since the data breach, Medtronic has announced no specific changes to its data security practices and policies or addressed the vulnerabilities in its systems that were supposedly exploited by the cyberhackers. The Medtronic data breach lawsuit looks to represent all individuals in the United States whose personally identifiable and/or protected health information was exposed during the data breach disclosed by Medtronic on or around April 24, 2026. [GN] MILLER FENCING: Martin Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Joshua Martin, v. Miller Fencing, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Shannon Miller and Chelsea Miller, husband and wife, Case No. 2:26-cv-01335-MTL (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. Certifying a collective action for unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees pursuant to the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), permitting the Plaintiff and the proposed group of similarly situated individuals to proceed as a collective action; 2. Defining and limiting the collective as follows: "All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees who are or were employed by Miller Fencing, LLC at any time from Jan. 8, 2023, through the present date ("FLSA Collective" or "FLSA Collective Members")." 3. Certifying a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 class action permitting Plaintiff and putative class members to recover earned sick time, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs owed pursuant to the Arizona Earned Paid Sick Time Act ("EPST Act"); and 4. Defining and limiting the putative class as follows: "All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees who are or were employed by Miller Fencing, LLC at any time from July 1, 2017, through the present date ("Putative Class Members")." 5. Appointing the Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel under Rule 23(g). Martin worked for Miller Fencing constructing custom equestrian barns, fencing, and similar structures for clients in the Arabian horse community, at rodeo facilities, and the like. Miller offers wood, vinyl, aluminum & chain link fencing. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DT70l7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas J. Enoch, Esq. Clara S. Bustamante, Esq. Margot Veranes, Esq. LUBIN, ENOCH & BUSTAMANTE, P.C. 349 North Fourth Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85003-1505 Telephone: (602) 234-0008 Facsimile: (602) 626-3586 E-mail: nick@leblawyers.com clara@leblawyers.com margot@leblawyers.com The Defendants are represented by: Alan M. Bayless Feldman, Esq. Danielle M. Huber, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 2111 East Highland Avenue, Suite B-250 Phoenix, AZ 85016 E-mail: Alan.Feldman@jacksonlewis.com Danielle.Huber@jacksonlewis.com MRS BPO: Mendoza Sues Over Consumer Debt Collection Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- JEILLIANNE MENDOZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MRS BPO, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-03222-PCP (N.D. Cal., April 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the law by communicating directly with the Plaintiff in connection with the collection of the Consumer Debt via the second communication despite the Plaintiff's request to cease communication with him with respect to the debt during its first communication on December 11, 2025. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff suffered damages. MRS BPO, LLC is a debt collector based in Marlton, New Jersey. [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 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com melanie@jibraellaw.com eric@jibraellaw.com MT. SPOKANE PEDIATRICS: 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 Mt. Spokane Pediatrics data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Mt. Spokane Pediatrics data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Mt. Spokane Pediatrics Security Incident: What Happened? Mt. Spokane Pediatrics, with clinics in Spokane and Spokane Valley, Washington, has announced a data breach affecting 29,410 Washington state residents. A notice posted on Mt. Spokane Pediatrics' website states that the incident, which occurred on or around January 1, 2026, involved unauthorized access to its network systems. On April 22 of this year, a forensic investigation conducted with the help of cybersecurity experts revealed that files containing personal and protected health information were removed in the breach. The information compromised in the Mt. Spokane Pediatrics data breach includes full names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, health insurance information, medical treatment information, medical diagnostic information, medical record or patient numbers, health plan beneficiary numbers, and dates of service. Mt. Spokane Pediatrics began notifying those whose information was contained within the exfiltrated files on April 30, 2026. What You Can Do After the Mt. Spokane Pediatrics Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Mt. Spokane Pediatrics 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 Mt. Spokane Pediatrics 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] NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION: Bryant Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case FRANK BRYANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION CENTERS, LLC, D/B/A NFI; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2600526, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 16, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-02071-DMG-ACCV to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code. National Distribution Centers, LLC, doing business as NFI, is a logistics provider, headquartered in New Jersey. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Shiva S. Davoudian, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 553-0308 Facsimile: (800) 715-1330 Email: sdavoudian@littler.com - and - Valentina Wilson, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 101 Second Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 433-1940 Facsimile: (415) 399-8490 Email: vwilson@littler.com NBT BANCORP: Seeks to Decertify Richey Collective Action -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HEATHER RICHEY, et al., individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. NBT BANCORP INC., Case No. 6:24-cv-00362-GTS-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order to decertify the collective action conditionally certified on Oct. 30, 2025. Because the opt-in plaintiffs are not similarly situated to the Named Plaintiffs, and because their allegations cannot be efficiently resolved on a collective basis, decertification is appropriate, as set forth in the accompanying Defendant NBT Bancorp Inc.'s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class Certification and in Support of Defendant's Motion to Decertify the Conditionally Certified Collective Action. The Defendant is a financial holding company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=f2vggw at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Brian E. Whiteley, Esq. Shawn R. Chowdhury, Esq. DARCLAY DAMON LLP 160 Federal Street, Suite 1001 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 274-2903 Facsimile: (617) 722-6003 E-mail: bwhiteley@barclaydamon.com O'REILLY AUTO: Class Cert Bid Filing in Jones Suit Due Nov. 4 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIA JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-01173-RAJ (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Jones entered a scheduling order as follows: EVENT DATE Deadline to join additional Parties: July 8, 2026 Deadline for the Plaintiff to file motion for class certification: Nov. 4, 2026 Deadline for the Defendant to file 30 days after service opposition to the Plaintiff's motion of motion for class certification: Deadline for the Plaintiff to file 15 days after service reply to the Defendant's opposition of opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification: The Court will set further case scheduling deadlines after ruling on the motion for class certification. Should the Court deny the class certification motion, any party may request an expedited trial date. O'Reilly owns and operates retail auto parts stores. A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1xIbfp at no extra charge.[CC] OGLETHORPE INC: Settles 2025 Data Breach Class Suit for $350,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Oglethorpe has agreed to a class action settlement capped at $350,000 to resolve claims that a 2025 data breach compromised sensitive consumer information. The Oglethorpe settlement benefits individuals who received a notice from Oglethorpe informing them that their information may have been compromised in a data breach in June 2025. According to the data breach class action lawsuit, Oglethorpe failed to protect consumer information from a 2025 data breach. The Oglethorpe data breach allegedly compromised names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers and medical information. Oglethorpe is a mental health and substance abuse treatment provider based in Florida. The company has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $350,000 as part of a settlement to resolve the data breach class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Oglethorpe settlement, class members can receive a cash payment. Class members who experienced documented losses as a result of the data breach can receive up to $2,500 in reimbursement for identity theft, fraud, credit expenses, ID replacement costs and more. Class members who did not experience documented losses can receive a one-time cash payment of $75. However, this payment may be reduced on a pro rata basis depending on the number of claims filed with the settlement. All class members can receive one year of free medical data monitoring services through CyEx Medical Shield. These services include $1 million in medical identity theft insurance along with monitoring for healthcare insurance ID exposure, medical record number exposure, unauthorized health savings account spending and more. The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 8, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Oglethorpe data breach class action settlement is scheduled for June 22, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by July 8, 2026. Who's Eligible The class action settlement benefits individuals who were sent a notice by Oglethorpe Inc. that their personal information may have been impacted by a data breach in June 2025. Potential Award Up to $2,500 Proof of Purchase Documentation of losses, such as bank statements or receipts Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 07/08/2026 Case Name Scott, et al. v. Oglethorpe Inc., Case No. CACE-25-018319, in the Florida Circuit Court for Broward County Final Hearing 06/22/2026 Settlement Website Oglethorpe2025DataIncident.com Claims Administrator Oglethorpe Data Incident Settlement c/o Settlement Administrator PO Box Number 25191 Santa Ana, CA 92799-9958 info@Oglethorpe2025DataIncident.com (888) 406-0861 Class Counsel Jeff Ostrow KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. Mariya Weekes MILBERG PLLC Defense Counsel James Mongale MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC [GN] OHIO STATE: Former NFL Players Join Sex Abuse Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Corky Siemaszko, writing for NBC News, report that thirty former Ohio State University football players, including more than a dozen who went on to play in the NFL, signed on to the class action lawsuit brought by other ex-OSU students who say they were sexually abused decades ago by campus doctor Richard Strauss. While the eight-year legal battle to get OSU to pay damages over allegations that it failed to protect them from Strauss has thus far been led largely by former college wrestlers, this new group includes prominent former members of the Buckeye football team like Al Washington, Ray Ellis and Keith Ferguson, all three of whom went on to play pro football, former OSU wrestler Mike DiSabato announced in a news release Thursday, May 7. Attorney Rocky Ratliff, who is a former OSU wrestler and one of the Strauss survivors currently suing the school, confirmed that he is representing the 30 football players who have signed engagement letters to join the class action lawsuit that he is affiliated with. "They signed up under me, but eventually they will be part of the class action lawsuit," he said. The group of men formerly played for NFL teams that include the Chicago Bears, the Dallas Cowboys, the Detroit Lions, the Cleveland Browns and the former San Diego Chargers. "When you play football, you encounter obstacles, and when I was a Buckeye, I decided not to let what happened to me defeat me, so I kept quiet," Washington, 67, told NBC News ahead of the announcement. "But I've been living with this a long time, and it's time to settle this once and for all." "I love Ohio State, but I want Ohio State to take some accountability for what happened to us," said Washington, who later played for the New York Jets. Like the other men suing the school, Washington and the other former OSU football players allege that Strauss sexually abused them under the guise of giving them the physicals they were required to undergo before they were allowed to play for OSU. Washington, who runs a private insurance company in Columbus, Ohio, said he became aware of the scope of the Strauss abuse allegations and the legal actions against OSU several years after DiSabato went public in 2018 with allegations that Strauss sexually abused him and hundreds of other athletes and that the school knew about it but did nothing to stop him. But Washington hesitated to come forward because he didn't want to jeopardize the career of his son, also named Al Washington, who was then a linebackers coach at OSU and is now a linebackers coach for the Miami Dolphins. "I didn't want him to be penalized for something that affected me," Washington said. In response to the latest development, OSU spokesperson Benjamin Johnson said in a statement that the university "has sincerely and persistently tried to reconcile with survivors, including former football student-athletes, through monetary and non-monetary means, including settlements, counseling services and other medical treatment." Previously, the university and its former president have publicly apologized "to each person who endured" abuse at the hands of Strauss. Ohio State has been battling Strauss-related lawsuits in the Southern District of Ohio since 2018. As of April 15, the school had settled with 317 survivors, including some former football players, for more than $61 million, Benjamin said. But the university still faces five active lawsuits in the Southern District of Ohio from 236 men alleging Strauss abused them. Strauss, who died by suicide in 2005, preyed on hundreds of men from the mid-1970s to the late 1990s, according to an independent investigation sponsored by the university. The investigation, conducted by the Perkins Coie law firm, concluded in May 2019 that Strauss sexually abused at least 177 male athletes and students and that coaches and administrators knew about it for two decades but failed to stop him. One of those former coaches accused by DiSabato and numerous other former OSU wrestlers of doing nothing to stop Strauss from abusing them was Rep. Jim Jordan, the powerful Republican congressman from Ohio who was an assistant wrestling coach at Ohio State from 1986 to 1994. Jordan has repeatedly denied any knowledge of what Strauss allegedly did to the athletes and he is not named in the Perkins Coie report. [GN] OSHKOSH CORP: DFPD Sues Over Conspiracy to Fix Fire Truck Prices ---------------------------------------------------------------- THE DURANGO FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. OSHKOSH CORPORATION, PIERCE MANUFACTURING, INC., REV GROUP, INC., ROSENBAUER AMERICA LLC, and FIRE APPARATUS MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-1574 (D. Colo., April 14, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for their unlawful contract, combination, or conspiracy to suppress the supply and raise the prices of fire trucks sold throughout the United States. Manufacturer Defendants are the largest manufacturers of Fire Trucks in the United States, controlling between 70 to 80 percent of the United States Fire Trucks market. Defendant Fire Apparatus Manufacturers' Association ("FAMA") is the primary trade association for the Fire Truck industry, and its exclusive membership consists of manufacturers of Fire Trucks, specifically excluding consumers. The complaint relates that to accomplish the anticompetitive aims of the conspiracy, Defendants engaged in a continuous and multi-faceted exchange of competitively sensitive information through FAMA, which suppressed supply and price competition and permitted Defendants to monitor each other's adherence to the conspiracy. FAMA collects nonpublic, competitively sensitive information from members and then shares that information with other members in a give-to-get information sharing scheme. On January 1, 2016, Defendants conspired, colluded, and entered into an agreement to artificially suppress supply and raise prices of Fire Trucks at supracompetitive levels, alleges the complaint. Defendants' actions resulted in Plaintiff and members of the Class paying supracompetitive prices for Fire Trucks in the United States and its territories. Defendants' anticompetitive conduct violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Among the victims of the conspiracy are fire departments, municipalities, and entities that purchased Fire Trucks from the Manufacturer Defendants, says the suit. The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and Class Members, seeks to recover the overcharges they paid. Plaintiff seeks treble damages, injunctive relief, and other relief pursuant to the federal and state antitrust laws for the anticompetitive alleged conduct and demands a trial by jury on all matters so triable. Plaintiff The Durango Fire Protection District provides all hazard responses to 325 square miles of La Plata County, Colorado, as well as the City of Durango.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris Cowan, Esq. R. CHRISTOPHER COWAN, ESQ., LTD. P.O. Box 512 813 Main Avenue, Suite 209 Durango, CO 81302-0512 Telephone: 970-880-8900 Facsimile: 214-853-5800 fax E-mail: chris@cowan.ltd PINNACLE WEST: Continues to Defend Nuclear Power Antitrust Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Pinnacle West Capital 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 nuclear power generation antitrust class suit in the United States District Court in Maryland. The Company was named, along with all 25 other U.S. nuclear power plant operators, in a class action lawsuit brought in the U.S. District Court in Maryland on July 11, 2025. The lawsuit alleges that the country's nuclear operators have violated antitrust laws by agreeing to exchange compensation information and suppress compensation. The class action complaint has been brought on behalf of all persons employed in nuclear power generation in the U.S. from May 1, 2003 until the present and alleges violations of the Sherman Act. The company is unable at this time to predict the outcome of this matter and whether it will have a material impact on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Pinnacle West Capital Corp is a Phoenix-based holding company whose primary subsidiary, Arizona Public Service Co., is a vertically integrated electric utility serving retail and wholesale customers across Arizona. The company generates, transmits, and distributes electricity from a portfolio that includes nuclear, coal, natural gas, and renewable energy resources. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Larrabee Files FDCA Suit in C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC. The case is captioned as SHARON LARRABEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Case No. 5:26-cv-01899 (C.D. Cal., April 16, 2026). The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC is a debt collection company based in Norfolk, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com REGISTER.COM INC: Settles TCPA Class Action Suit for $1.5-Mil. -------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Register.com has agreed to a $1,500,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the online domain provider placed unsolicited phone calls to consumers' cell phones without consent, in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The $1.5 million Register.com class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on April 1, 2026. The settlement covers all individuals and entities in the United States to whom, from February 12, 2021 through November 24, 2025, Register.com placed a call to a cellular telephone number where the call used an artificial or prerecorded voice, and after the cell number was permanently disconnected and made available for reassignment per the Federal Communications Commission's Reassigned Numbers Database. Court documents state that Register.com has identified a list of 453 affected phone numbers. The court-approved website for the Register.com TCPA settlement can be found at RegisterTCPASettlement.com. Register.com settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form can receive a pro rata cash payment from the deal. The preliminary approval order notes that settlement payments are expected to be $2,130 per phone number should each class member file a valid claim. To file a Register.com settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and log in using the claim ID found on their copy of the settlement notice. All Register.com settlement claim forms must be submitted by June 15, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Register.com TCPA settlement following a hearing on July 7, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Register.com class action lawsuit alleged that the website domain name seller violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act by placing calls that used artificial or prerecorded voices to the cell phones of consumers who never provided consent to receive them, including those who were not customers or accountholders of the company. [GN] REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: $17MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Aug. 10 ------------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION IN RE REVANCE THERAPEUTICS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION C.A. No. 3:25-cv-0018-EJR District Judge Eli J. Richardson Mag. Judge Jeffery S. Frensley IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED REVANCE SECURITIES, INCLUDING COMMON STOCK (CUSIP: 761330109; TICKER "RVNC") AND 1.75% FIXED COUPON CONVERTIBLE SENIOR UNSECURED NOTES (CUSIP: 761330AB5), DURING THE PERIOD OF FEBRUARY 29, 2024 THROUGH THE CLOSE OF THE MERGER TRANSACTION WITH CROWN LABORATORIES, INC. ON FEBRUARY 6, 2025, INCLUSIVE (THE "SETTLEMENT CLASS PERIOD"), YOU COULD RECEIVE A PAYMENT FROM A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. CERTAIN PERSONS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF THE CLASS AS SET FORTH IN THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Order of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, that in the litigation (the "Action"), a Settlement has been proposed for $17,000,000.00 in cash (the "Settlement"). A hearing will be held on August 10, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. Central Time, before the Honorable Eli J. Richardson, at the United States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, Fred D. Thompson U.S. Courthouse and Federal Building, Courtroom 5C, 719 Church Street, Nashville, TN 37203, for the purpose of determining whether: (i) the proposed Class should be certified for settlement purposes; (ii) the proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (iii) the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable and adequate, and therefore should be approved; (iv) the application of Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses from the Settlement Fund, including interest earned thereon, and awards to Lead Plaintiffs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(4), should be granted; and (v) the judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered dismissing the Action with prejudice. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THE LITIGATION, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE NET SETTLEMENT FUND. You may obtain a copy of the Stipulation, the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the "Notice") and the Proof of Claim Form at www.RevanceSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: Revance Securities Settlement, c/o A.B. Data Ltd., P.O. Box 173120, Milwaukee, WI 53217; (877) 507-1390. If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim by mail, postmarked no later than August 28, 2026, or submit it online by that date. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a valid Proof of Claim, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will still be bound by any judgment entered by the Court in this Action (including the releases provided for therein). To exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must mail a written request for exclusion so that it will be received by July 13, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not exclude yourself from the Class, you will be bound by any judgment entered by the Court in this Action (including the releases provided for therein), whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim. If you submit a valid request for exclusion, you will have no right to recover money pursuant to the Settlement. Any objection to the proposed Class, Settlement, the Plan of Allocation or the fee and expense application must be filed with the Court no later than July 13, 2026.2 PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, DEFENDANTS OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement, you may contact the Claims Administrator by calling (877) 507-1390, or Lead Counsel at the following addresses: ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq. 500 West 2nd Street, Suite 1900 Austin, TX 78701 aentwistle@entwistle-law.com ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP Robert N. Cappucci, Esq. 230 Park Avenue, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10169 rcappucci@entwistle-law.com SAXENA WHITE P.A. Jonathan D. Lamet, Esq. 7777 Glades Road, Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33434 settlements@saxenawhite.com BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE DATED: MAY 8, 2026 ROLLING STONE: Settlement Ends Class Action Over Digital Switch --------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Rolling Stone parent Penske Media Corp. has agreed to a class action settlement to resolve a lawsuit that claimed the company breached its contracts with lifetime magazine subscribers when it switched them from print versions to digital-only access to the publication. The Rolling Stone class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on April 27, 2026. The deal covers all individuals living in the United States who previously purchased a "lifetime" subscription to Rolling Stone Magazine. The court-approved website for the Rolling Stone class action settlement can be found at RS-Settlement.com. Rolling Stone settlement class members can continue to receive the print edition of the magazine with their subscription for as long as printed editions continue to be published during their lifetime, the website says. Additionally, class members can receive two years of free access to RollingStone.com, as long as they continue to live in the United States. Class members who previously requested, and are currently receiving, the print edition of Rolling Stone will continue to receive the printed version as usual, and they may also claim the two years of free access to RollingStone.com, the website says. To submit a Rolling Stone claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter their contact information. Alternatively, they can email settlement@rollingstone.com or call 800-552-3632 and provide their name, mailing address and email address. Claim forms will be accepted on a rolling basis as there is no deadline for the Rolling Stone settlement. Settlement documents state that those who file a claim to receive print editions of the magazine will receive regular delivery beginning six to 12 weeks after their claim is approved. Those who claim the two-year subscription to RollingStone.com will receive access within 14 days of claim approval. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Rolling Stone settlement following a hearing on August 7, 2026. The Rolling Stone class action lawsuit alleged that the pop culture magazine breached its contracts with "lifetime" subscribers by switching them from physical print copies of the magazine to a digital "E-Edition," depriving the readers of the primary benefit of their subscriptions, in violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act. [GN] SONY INTERACTIVE: Settles Antitrust Class Action Suit for $7.85MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Sony Interactive Entertainment agreed to a $7.85 million class action settlement to resolve claims it violated federal antitrust laws by monopolizing the PlayStation digital game market. The PlayStation settlement benefits consumers who purchased one or more digital video games through the PlayStation Store between April 1, 2019, and Dec. 31, 2023, for which a game-specific voucher was available at retail prior to April 1, 2019, and for which a total of at least 200 game-specific voucher redemptions were made prior to April 1, 2019, and for which the post-discount price increased by at least 50 cents between Jan. 1, 2017, and March 31, 2019, compared to the period between April 1, 2019, and Dec. 31, 2023. A list of eligible games can be found on the settlement website. According to the class action lawsuit, Sony violated federal antitrust laws by monopolizing the PlayStation digital game market. As a result of this alleged antitrust violation, consumers were forced to pay more for digital games than they otherwise would have, the plaintiffs contend. Sony Interactive Entertainment is a video game company that develops and sells PlayStation consoles and games. Sony has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $7.85 million class action settlement to resolve the antitrust allegations. Under the terms of the PlayStation settlement, class members may receive compensation tied to their eligible purchases, with distributions calculated pursuant to a court-approved plan of allocation. The deadline for exclusion and objection is July 2, 2026. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Oct. 15, 2026. No claim form is required to benefit from the settlement. Class members who do not exclude themselves will automatically receive settlement benefits. Class members with deactivated PlayStation Network accounts have until Aug. 27, 2026, to submit their purchase information to receive settlement benefits. Who's Eligible The class action settlement benefits consumers who purchased one or more video games through the PlayStation Store between April 1, 2019, and Dec. 31, 2023, for which a game-specific voucher was available at retail prior to April 1, 2019, for which a total of at least 200 voucher redemptions were made prior to April 1, 2019, and for which the post-discount price increased by at least 50 cents between Jan. 1, 2017, and March 31, 2019, compared to the period between April 1, 2019, and Dec. 31, 2023. A list of eligible games can be found on the settlement website. Potential Award TBD Proof of Purchase Consumers with deactivated PlayStation Network accounts will need to provide qualifying purchase information and a current address to receive a settlement payment. Claim Form Deadline 07/02/2026 Case Name Caccuri, et al. v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC, Case No. 21-cv-03361-AMO, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Final Hearing 10/15/2026 Settlement Website PSNDigitalGamesSettlement.com Claims Administrator PSN Digital Game Settlement P.O. Box 173046 Milwaukee, WI 53217 info@PSNDigitalGamesSettlement.com (877) 777-9145 Class Counsel Michael M. Buchman JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM LLP Defense Counsel Andrew C. Finch Meredith Dearborn PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP [GN] SPORTRADAR GROUP: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Sportradar Group AG (NASDAQ: SRAD) resulting from allegations that Sportradar may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Sportradar securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=63096 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On April 22, 2026, Muddy Waters Research published a report titled, "Sportradar AG: Putting the BET into Aiding and Abetting". According to the report, Sportradar knowingly served customers operating in jurisdictions where online gambling was illegal. The report also stated that Muddy Waters experts analyzed Sportradar's system architecture and code and "found evidence of direct connections between numerous illegal and nefarious operators and [Sportradar]." On this news, Sportradar stock fell 22.6% on April 22, 2026. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com SPORTSMAN'S WAREHOUSE: Agrees to Settle Data Privacy Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Sportsman's Warehouse agreed to a class action settlement to resolve claims it violated Pennsylvania law by disclosing firearm purchase information without consent. The Sportsman's Warehouse settlement benefits Pennsylvania residents who ordered and reserved a firearm online from Sportsman's Warehouse for in-store pickup between Jan. 1, 2020, and March 13, 2024. According to the data privacy class action lawsuit, Sportsman's Warehouse disclosed information about firearm purchases on its website to third parties without consent. Plaintiffs in the case say this conduct violated Pennsylvania's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act and the Uniform Firearms Act. Sportsman's Warehouse is an outdoor recreation store that sells camping, fishing, hunting and other gear. Sportsman's Warehouse has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to resolve the class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Sportsman's Warehouse settlement, class members can receive a cash payment of up to $107. Exact payments may be lower depending on the number of claims filed with the settlement. The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 4, 2026. The final approval hearing for the data privacy class action settlement is scheduled for July 31, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by June 19, 2026. Who's Eligible The class actions settlement benefits Pennsylvania residents who ordered and reserved a firearm online from www.sportsmans.com for purchase to be completed in-store from Jan. 1, 2020, to March 13, 2024. Potential Award $107 Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 06/19/2026 Case Name Petris v. Sportsman's Warehouse Inc., et al., Case No. 25-CV-06320, in the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, Pennsylvania Final Hearing 07/31/2026 Settlement Website SWUFASettlement.com Claims Administrator Sportsman's UFA Settlement c/o Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 25226 Santa Ana, CA 92799-9958 info@swufasettlement.com (833) 386-6494 Class Counsel Philip L. Fraietta BURSOR & FISHER P.A. Defense Counsel Jamie L. Filipovic O'HAGAN MEYER LLC [GN] SPRINGFIELD HOSPITAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Pellerin Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ SAVANNAH PELLERIN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPRINGFIELD HOSPITAL INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00132-mkl (D. Vt., April 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiff's and/or Class Members' protected health information and personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network, including, without limitation, full names, dates of birth, reasons for visiting Defendant, treating physician names, and medical numbers. With this action, Representative Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause her and thousands of other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly occurred on December 17, 2025, by which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network and accessed the private information which was being kept there. By obtaining, collecting, using and deriving a benefit from Representative Plaintiffs and Class Members' private information, the Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals. Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party -- an undoubtedly nefarious third party seeking to profit off this disclosure by defrauding Representative Plaintiff and Class Members in the future, says the suit. Representative Plaintiff further seeks to hold Defendant responsible for not ensuring that the private information was maintained in a manner consistent with industry, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, the HIPAA Security Rule and other relevant standards. Springfield Hospital Inc. is a non-profit critical access hospital with a principal place of business located in Springfield, Vermont.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laura Van Note Esq. Scott Edward Cole, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 E-mail: sec@colevannote.com lvn@colevannote.com THERMOS LLC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Defective Stopper -------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco on ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Thermos, LLC failed to warn consumers that certain food and beverage containers were sold with stoppers that lacked an effective pressure-relief mechanism, which could cause the hot contents therein to forcefully eject once the container is opened. The 32-page defective product lawsuit was filed after Thermos in late-April 2026 recalled roughly 8.2 million Thermos Stainless King Food Jars and Thermos Sportsman Food & Beverage Bottles due to a serious risk of impact injuries and lacerations. Per the case, Thermos has received 27 reports of consumers having been "struck by a stopper that forcefully ejected upon opening the container," including three instances of permanent vision loss. According to the suit, the Thermos defect poses a danger even during normal and foreseeable use of the insulated containers. The filing alleges that although Thermos provides general use and care instructions for the containers at issue, the company "failed to include any warnings regarding the risk that internal pressure could build during normal use and cause the stopper to forcefully eject upon opening." Per the case, Thermos advertises and markets the affected products as suitable for storing food and drinks for "extended periods," with claims that the containers can keep food hot or cold for many hours. The complaint says that marketing materials also tout Thermos features such as "double-wall vacuum insulation," "high quality 18/8 stainless steel" and a "Dura-Guard pressure relief stopper that enhances insulated performance and removes easily." The lawsuit says that while Thermos makes these representations to communicate that its products are "carefully" engineered and safe for normal use, nowhere does the company disclose the risk of pressure buildup and the possibility of the forceful ejection of the stopper, creating a "false sense of safety" for consumers. According to the complaint, consumers understood Thermos's marketing representations to mean that the products were designed to handle the internal pressure created by storing hot or cold food, as the defendant repeatedly highlighted the products' convenience, portability, and heat-retention capacity. The Thermos class action lawsuit says the company was put on notice of the apparent defect in 2024 when a consumer complained that a Thermos Stainless King 16 oz. vacuum-insulated food container "explosively" decompressed upon opening, producing a loud noise and effectively turning the lid into a "high-velocity projectile." After the abrupt decompression, the lid "ricocheted" around the room, hitting a counter and traveling between eight to 10 feet, the lawsuit says. Although no injuries occurred, the case says the incident "underscores the severity and unpredictability of the defect," and that the company knew about but failed to warn consumers or address the defective design. The filing states that the April 30 recall advised consumers to immediately stop using the affected Thermos containers and contact the company for a free replacement lid. However, the case contends that this relief is inadequate, as the measure is limited to a replacement part from "a company [consumers] may no longer trust" and does not offer a cash refund. Moreover, the replacement lid may not "fully eliminate" the risk of pressure buildup and stopper ejection, the Thermos lawsuit adds. The Thermos class action lawsuit looks to cover all individuals who purchased one or more of the affected products in the United States for personal/household use within any applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] TICKETMASTER LLC: Madrigal Seeks to Certify Classes of Purchasers ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE MADRIGAL, et al., v. TICKETMASTER LLC, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02375-GW-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Aug. 24, 2026, at 8:30 a.m., will move for class certification before the Honorable George Wu. The Plaintiffs will request that the Court: (1) certify following classes of purchasers who encountered the "not All in" buy flow, and the Order Processing Fee ("OPF") buy flow under Rule 23(a), Rule 23(b)(3), and Rule 23(b)(2): The California Class "All purchasers located in California at the time of the transaction, who, on or after March 18, 2021, encountered the (1) "not All in" buy flow and/or the (2) OPF buy flow while making a ticket purchase on Ticketmaster's platform." The D.C. Class "All purchasers located in DC at the time of the transaction, who, on or after May 9, 2022, encountered the (1) "not All in" buy flow, and/or the (2) Order Processing Fee buy flow while making a ticket purchase on Ticketmaster's platform." The Florida Class. "All purchasers located in Florida at the time of the transaction, who, on or after March 18, 2021, encountered the (1) "not All in" buy flow, and/or the (2) Order Processing Fee buy flow while making a ticket purchase on Ticketmaster's platform." The Illinois Class. "All purchasers located in Illinois at the time of the transaction, who, on or after March 18, 2022, encountered the (1) "not All in" buy flow, and/or the (2) Order Processing Fee buy flow while making a ticket purchase on Ticketmaster's platform." The Maryland Class "All purchasers located in Maryland at the time of the transaction, who, on or after April 8, 2022, encountered the (1) "not All in" buy flow, and/or the (2) Order Processing Fee buy flow while making a ticket purchase on Ticketmaster's platform." The New York Class "All purchasers located in New York at the time of the transaction, who, on or after March 18, 2022, encountered the (1) "not All in" buy flow, and/or the (2) Order Processing Fee buy flow while making a ticket purchase on Ticketmaster's platform." (2) appoint Plaintiff Michelle Madrigal as representative of the California Class, Plaintiff Helen Pantuso as representative of the Florida Class, Plaintiff Jessica Tempest as a representative of the New York Class, Plaintiff Tracey Sunde as representative of the Illinois Class, Plaintiff Sherry Adams as representative of the D.C. Class, and Plaintiffs Nadine Holmes and Mario Staten as representatives of the Maryland Class; (3) appoint Tycko & Zavareei LLP, Giskan Solotaroff & Anderson LLP, Z Law LLC, and Zimmerman Reed as Class Counsel; and (4) direct the Parties to jointly submit a proposed Notice Plan within 60 days of the Court’s Order granting this Motion. Ticketmaster operates as a ticket distribution company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=R4wuqo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Annick Persinger, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 10880 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1101 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (510) 254-6808 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com - and - Caleb Marker, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 6420 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1080 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (877) 500-8780 E-mail: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com - and - Oren S. Giskan, Esq. GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP 1 Rockefeller Plaza, 8th Floor New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 847-8315 E-mail: ogiskan@gslawny.com - and - Cory L. Zajdel, Esq. Z LAW, LLC 2345 York Road, #B-13 Timonium, MD 21093 Telephone: (443) 213-1977 E-mail: clz@zlawmaryland.com TICKETMASTER LLC: Madrigal Seeks to File Docs Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE MADRIGAL, et al., v. TICKETMASTER LLC, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02375-GW-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order permitting the Plaintiffs to file under seal a certain confidential document in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification The Plaintiff applies to file the following document under seal: Portions of the Declaration of Annick M. Persinger; Exhibit 6; Exhibit 8; Exhibit 9; Exhibit 10; Exhibit 16; Exhibit 18; Exhibit 22; Exhibit 30; Exhibit 44; and Exhibit 45. The Plaintiffs are also contemporaneously submitting an unredacted version of Exhibit A to the Declaration of Annick M. Persinger in Support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and an unredacted version of their memorandum in support of class certification. Ticketmaster operates as a ticket distribution company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TivdqO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Annick Persinger, Esq. Robert M. Devling, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 10880 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1101 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (510) 254-6808 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com rdevling@tzlegal.com - and - Caleb Marker, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 6420 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1080 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (877) 500-8780 E-mail: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com - and - Oren S. Giskan, Esq. GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP 1 Rockefeller Plaza, 8th Floor New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 847-8315 E-mail: ogiskan@gslawny.com - and - Cory L. Zajdel, Esq. Z LAW, LLC 2345 York Road, #B-13 Timonium, MD 21093 Telephone: (443) 213-1977 E-mail: clz@zlawmaryland.com TOYOTA OF BOARDMAN: Shafer Seeks to Certify Two Classes ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICK SHAFER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TOYOTA OF BOARDMAN, Case No. 4:25-cv-00941-BMB (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying two classes against the Defendant: (1) Do Not Call Registry Class: "All persons in the United States who, from four years prior to the filing of this action, (1) were sent at least two text messages within any 12-month period, (2) by the Defendant or on the Defendant's behalf; (3) for the purpose of promoting the Defendant's products and services; (4) even though the person's telephone number was listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days; and (5) the person did not agree to receive such text messages from the Defendant." (2) National Internal Do Not Call Class: "All persons within the United States who, within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint, (1) received at least two text messages within any 12-month period; (2) from the Defendant or on the Defendant's behalf; (3) for the purpose of promoting the Defendant's products and services; (4) to the person's personal telephone number; (5) while the Defendant did not institute procedures that met the minimum standards required by 47 C.F.R. section 64.1200(d)(1)-(6)." Certification could not be more appropriate. The Defendant's discovery responses and the testimony of its corporate representatives make it clear that the Defendant has no safeguards whatsoever to ensure compliance with the TCPA. Despite this, the Defendant nevertheless utilizes its CRM software, DriveCentric, to generate revenue via mass telemarketing, the suit contends. The Defendant is an automobile dealership located in Boardman, Ohio. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jOXXcZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher E. Berman, Esq. Kayla N. Kershen, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: cberman@shamisgentile.com kkershen@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Ste. 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com TRACTOR SUPPLY: Class Cert Filing in Chelsea Extended to July 7 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHELSEA L. HARRISON KEESLER, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the Plan, v. TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY, Case No. 3:25-cv-00715 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Frensley entered an order granting the joint motion to modify the case management order. The deadline to complete all written discovery and depose all witnesses related to the motion for class certification is extended to June 19, 2026. The deadline for Plaintiff to file her motion for class certification is extended to July 7, 2026. The Defendant is the source for farm supplies, pet and animal feed and supplies, clothing, tools, fencing, and so much more. A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KErMJ2 at no extra charge.[CC] TRINITY PETROLEUM: Agrees to Settle 2024 Data Breach Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Trinity Petroleum Management, LLC, along with Rimrock Resource Operating, LLC, Confluence DJ, LLC and Validus Energy II Midcon, LLC, have agreed to a class action settlement to resolve a lawsuit that alleged the oil-and-gas accounting services provider failed to protect sensitive information from an October 2024 data breach. The Trinity Petroleum Management class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on March 31, 2026. The settlement covers all United States residents who were notified by Trinity Petroleum that their private information was potentially accessed and/or exfiltrated during the data breach that occurred between October 10 and October 14, 2024. The court-approved website for the Trinity Petroleum data breach settlement can be found at TrinityPetroleumSettlement.com. Trinity Petroleum settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form can receive up to $5,000 for documented out-of-pocket losses incurred between October 10, 2024 and June 29, 2026 due to the data breach. This benefit covers expenses related to identity theft or fraud and costs for credit reports, credit monitoring, identity theft protection, replacement IDs and more. Class members must submit proof, such as receipts or bank statements, to receive a documented-loss payment. In addition to a documented-loss payment, class members can also submit a claim for up to four hours of lost time spent responding to the breach, at a rate of $25 per hour. This benefit covers time spent on changing passwords, investigating suspicious account activity and researching the breach. In lieu of documented-loss and lost-time payments, class members can instead file a claim form to receive a $55 cash payment, with no proof required. Lastly, all class members can submit a claim for three years of CyEx Identity Defense Complete, which comes with identity theft insurance and real-time credit file and public records monitoring. To file a Trinity Petroleum settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and log in using the unique ID and PIN 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 Trinity Petroleum settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by June 29, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Trinity Petroleum data breach settlement following a hearing on July 20, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Trinity Petroleum Management class action lawsuit claimed that the outsourcing and consulting firm, which serves oil and gas businesses such as Rimrock, Confluence, and Validus, failed to enact proper cybersecurity measures to protect sensitive information in its care from a data breach that occurred between October 10 and October 14, 2024. Per court documents, private information potentially affected during the breach included names, addresses and Social Security numbers. [GN] TRITON GENERAL: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts, Rojas Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JORGE ROJAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRITON GENERAL CONTRACTING LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04338 (N.D. Ill., April 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of placing unwanted text messages to the cellular telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers in an attempt to promote its products or services without obtaining prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's action, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages. Triton General Contracting LLC is a residential and commercial general contractor based in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, PC 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 Facsimile: (508) 318-8100 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com TROVE BRANDS: Discloses Personal Info to Third Parties, Dixon Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ TREVOR DIXON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TROVE BRANDS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-at-00701 (E.D. Cal., April 27, 2026) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all U.S. residents who accessed and navigated Defendant's website, www.owalalife.com and whose electronic communications were intercepted or recorded by advertising technology provided by Google, LLC and Attentive Mobile, Inc. According to the complaint, when Plaintiff and other consumers visit the website, they are presented with the opportunity to opt out of third-party tracking technologies including those which Defendant uses for targeted advertising and website performance purposes. Unbeknownst to its customers, and contrary to its express assurance that customers have control over the sale and sharing of their personal information, the Defendant intercepts and discloses its customers personally identifiable information and product purchase information to unknown third parties even when customers affirmatively disable the tracking technologies. The Defendant aids, agrees with, employs, or otherwise enables Third Parties to eavesdrop on communications sent and received by Plaintiff and Class Members on the Website that Defendant owns and operates, including communications that contain PII. By failing to procure consent -- and continuing to allow the Third Parties’ tracking even after consumers reject the tracking technologies -- Defendant violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and the California Constitution, says the suit. Trove Brands, LLC d/b/a Owala is a family of active lifestyle brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 874-0710 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com TWIST BIOSCIENCE: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Twist Bioscience 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 on December 12, 2022, a putative securities class action lawsuit captioned Peters v. Twist Bioscience Corporation, et al., Case No. 22-cv-08168 (N.D. Cal.) was filed in federal court in the Northern District of California against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer, alleging violations of federal securities laws. On March 31, 2026, the parties engaged in mediation and reached a settlement in principle under which the Company would pay, or cause its insurance carriers to pay, a settlement payment of approximately $17.1 million. Separately, on September 25, 2023, a shareholder derivative suit captioned Shumacher v. Leproust et al., No. 1:23-cv-01048-UNA, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against directors of the Company and an employee (the Shumacher Action). The suit is based on substantially the same allegations in the Securities Class Action and seeks to recover, on behalf of the Company, damages to the Company arising from, among other things, the Securities Class Action. On November 13, 2023, the parties to the Shumacher Action entered into a stipulation staying the Shumacher Action pending further proceedings in the Securities Class Action. On November 13, 2025, another derivative lawsuit captioned Sell v. Leproust, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01380-MN was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, alleging similar claims and seeking similar recovery as the Shumacher Action (the Sell Action), and on December 2, 2025 the Sell Action was consolidated with the Shumacher Action and stayed pending further proceedings in the Securities Class Action. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of this matter. Twist Bioscience Corp is a biotechnology company that manufactures synthetic DNA and provides DNA-based products and services for use in health care, industrial chemicals, agriculture and academic research. The company leverages a proprietary silicon-based DNA synthesis platform to enable applications in genomics, drug discovery and data storage. UNION BANK: $2.4MM Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set Aug. 6 --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Union Bank and Trust Co. agreed to pay nearly $2.4 million in a class action settlement to resolve claims it failed to protect consumer data in a MOVEit data breach. The United Bank and Trust settlement benefits anyone whose personally identifiable information (PII) was included in the files affected by the MOVEit security incident between May 27 and 31, 2023. Union Bank and Trust was allegedly affected by the 2023 MOVEit data breach, which exposed consumer names, Social Security numbers and other sensitive data. Plaintiffs in the data breach class action lawsuit argue the bank could have prevented the incident by implementing reasonable cybersecurity measures. Union Bank and Trust is a financial institution that offers banking, lending, investment and other services. Union Bank and Trust has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $2,389,976 class action settlement to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the Union Bank and Trust settlement, class members can receive either reimbursement for losses or an alternative cash payment. Class members can receive up to $2,500 for ordinary losses, including up to four hours of lost time at a rate of $25 per hour. The settlement also allows for up to $10,000 in reimbursement for extraordinary losses, including documented, unreimbursed monetary losses that occurred between May 31, 2023, and the end of the claims period. Class members who did not experience losses as a result of the United Bank and Trust data breach can receive a cash payment of $100. All class members are eligible for two years of three-bureau credit monitoring and identity theft protection services. The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 22, 2026. The final approval hearing for the data breach class action settlement is scheduled for Aug. 6, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by July 21, 2026. Who's Eligible The class action settlement benefits individuals who received a data breach notification from Union Bank and Trust informing them their personal information may have been compromised in the 2023 MOVEit security incident. Potential Award Up to $12,500 in reimbursements or a $100 cash payment, plus two years of credit monitoring services Proof of Purchase Documentation of losses, such as bank statements, invoices, receipts or phone records Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 07/21/2026 Case Name Scott, et al. v. Union Bank and Trust Co., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-12436-ADB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts Final Hearing 08/06/2026 Settlement Website UBTDataSettlement.com Claims Administrator Union Bank and Trust Co. Data Breach Settlement c/o RG/2 Claims Administration LLC P.O. Box 59479 Philadelphia, PA 19102-9479 UBTDataSettlement@rg2claims.com (800) 464-3215 Class Counsel E. Michelle Drake BERGER MONTAGUE P.C. Gary F. Lynch LYNCH CARPENTER LLP Douglas J. McNamara COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC Karen H. Riebel LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP Charles E. Schaffer LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP Kristen A. Johnson HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP Defense Counsel James F. Monagle Meghan J. Wood MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC [GN] VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Denied Vehicle Coverage --------------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Heath, writing for NJ.com, reports that a class-action lawsuit has been filed against Volkswagen and two affiliated companies, alleging they wrongfully denied coverage for engine and powertrain failures under their vehicle service plans. The lawsuit, filed Monday, May 4, in Mercer County Superior Court, was brought by Carlos Colon and Marquis Reddick, both of New York. They are seeking to represent Volkswagen and Audi owners nationwide who have faced similar problems. The suit names Volkswagen Group of America, VWFS Protection Services and Safe-Guard Products International. It was filed in New Jersey because Volkswagen Group of America is incorporated in the state and the companies named in the suit do significant business there, according to the complaint. The lawsuit alleges the companies sold service plans promising comprehensive coverage for engine components but "systematically denied or delayed valid claims" for covered failures in Volkswagen and Audi vehicles, breaching their contractual obligations. The suit also claims the companies imposed "unreasonable and unauthorized" requirements for coverage, including making customers pay for full engine teardowns without guaranteeing that their claims would be approved. The companies were also aware of recurring engine-related issues but failed to disclose them, the complaint alleges. The companies did not respond to requests for comment from NJ.com. "Defendants sold these protection plans as meaningful safeguards against exactly the types of expensive engine and powertrain failures that Plaintiffs and countless other VW and Audi owners have experienced," said Howard A. Gutman, the attorney representing Colon, Reddick and the proposed class. "This class action seeks to hold them accountable and obtain the coverage that was promised and paid for." Colon and Reddick allege they purchased vehicle service contracts that included engine components, such as cylinder heads and water pumps. However, both say they faced denials or obstructions after presenting their claims through authorized dealerships and the companies' claims-handling systems. Colon, of Coram, New York, owned a 2020 Volkswagen Tiguan covered by a Volkswagen Drive Easy Certified Pre-Owned Vehicle Service Protection Platinum Contract. After the vehicle had a cylinder head failure, the Smithtown Volkswagen dealership in St. James, New York, recommended replacing the covered component. However, Safe-Guard allegedly required Colon to pay about $2,500 for an engine teardown without guaranteeing coverage. When he declined, his claim was effectively denied, the suit states. Reddick, of Freeport, New York, purchased a 2022 Audi Q8 along with an Audi Pure Protection Platinum Vehicle Service Contract for $5,250. Reddick said the vehicle came with extensive warranty and service contract coverage. But after the vehicle repeatedly overheated and the engine failed, the companies allegedly refused coverage, saying he continued driving the vehicle despite a warning light. The complaint alleges Colon and Reddick are not alone, with at least dozens of consumers having their claims unlawfully denied or delayed. The consumers are seeking damages, restitution, declaratory relief, injunctive relief prohibiting the alleged wrongful practices and attorneys' and experts' fees. [GN] WALLA WALLA: Faces Reed Civil Suit in Wash. Super. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Walla Walla Investors LLC, et al. The case is captioned as BENSON REED, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WALLA WALLA INVESTORS LLC, et al., Case No. 26-2-00940-03 (Wash. Super., Benton Cty., April 17, 2026). The case type is stated as MSC2 Miscellaneous - Civil. Walla Walla Investors LLC is a finance company based in Washington. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Jordan Ferraro, Esq. Lauren Nicole Vega, Esq. FERRARO VEGA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, INC. 3333 Camino Del Rio S., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92108 WESTERN ORTHOPAEDICS: 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 Western Orthopaedics data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Western Orthopaedics data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Western Orthopaedics Security Incident: What Happened? Western Orthopaedics has disclosed a data breach involving unauthorized network access. A sample notification letter (pictured below) states that on October 2, 2025, Western Orthopaedics identified a potential security incident. A subsequent investigation, conducted with its cybersecurity team and external experts, found that an unauthorized party accessed and/or acquired data between approximately September 17 and September 25 of the same year. A review of the affected data, completed on March 3, 2026, revealed that the Western Orthopaedics data breach potentially exposed full names; addresses; phone numbers; Social Security numbers; dates of birth; financial account, credit, or debit card numbers with or without security codes, access codes, or passwords; health insurance information; health insurance plan or subscriber identification numbers; medical provider names; medical dates of service; and medical cost or billing information. Western Orthopaedics operates three practices in the Denver area. It also provides outreach at the Citizens Medical Center in Colby, Kansas; the Goodland Regional Medical Center in Goodland, Kansas; and the Wray Hospital and Clinic in Wray, Colorado. What You Can Do After the Western Orthopaedics Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Western Orthopaedics 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 Western Orthopaedics 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] WEX HEALTH: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Ashley Due Sept. 18 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATASHA ASHLEY, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WEX HEALTH, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:26-cv-00332-JES-BJW (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge White entered scheduling order setting discovery deadlines and class certification motion deadline and order granting-in-part joint motion to amend scheudling order: 1. Any motion to join other parties, amend the pleadings, or file additional pleadings shall be filed by April 13, 2026. 2. The Court vacates the May 14, 2026, Status Conference. 3. Fact and class discovery are not bifurcated, but class discovery must be completed by July 30, 2026. 4. The Plaintiff(s) must file a motion for class certification by Sept. 18, 2026. The Defendant is a provider of employee benefits solutions in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=L8A2R2 at no extra charge.[CC] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2026. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***