260515.mbx

260515.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, May 15, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 97 Headlines 333 J: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Colon Alleges ADT INC: Fails to Properly Secure Personal Info, Smith Says ADT INC: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Lincoln Says AEROTECH INC: Seeks to Decertify Class in Schultz Lawsuit AIR CANADA: Sylvestri Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ALASKA AIR GROUP: Abrams Files Suit in Wash. Super. Ct. ALIGHT INC: Continues to Defend Securities Derivative Suit in Ill. ALIGHT INC: Faces Securities Class Suit in Illinois AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Continues to Defend Masoner Class Suit in N.Y. AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Continues to Defend Simons Securities Class Suit AMERICAN HONDA: Renewed Bid for Class Cert Amened to June 1 AMGEN INC: Sharma Sues Over Health Plan's Imposed Tobacco Surcharge ANGARA INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Bordeaux Extended to Dec. 7 APPLE INC: Seeks to Dismiss Feeney Second Amended Complaint ARAMARK SERVICES: Class Certification Bid in Adams Due Oct. 27 AS ONE INC: Scott Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ASC ORTHO: Fails to Protect Highly Sensitive Data, Kenney Says ASHLYNN MARKETING: Court Stays Pretrial Deadlines ATKORE INC: Entered into Settlement Deals in PVC Antitrust Suit ATLAS ENERGY: Continues to Defend Ayers Class Suit in Delaware BELL PARTNERS: Jones Sues Over Secret Apartment Rent Increase BERKELEY RESEARCH: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Syphax Says BETFAIR INTERACTIVE: Farley Sues Over Deceptive Sportsbook Platform BETTER BUSINESS: Faces West Wage-and-Hour Suit in D.D.C. BLUE HOUSE RESTAURANT: Marcum Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BP PRODUCTS: Johnston Sues Over Abusive Telemarketing Practices BRIAN ENGLISH: Prunier Loses Bid for Writ of Habeas Corpus CARFAIR COMPOSITES: Hibbard Seeks Operators' Unpaid Wages, OT CASEY'S RETAIL: Vallely Sues Over Unlawful Membership Renewals CENTRAL MAINE: Class Cert Bid Filing in Gagnon Due August 28 CLICK SALES INC: Sanchez Sues Over Privacy Law Violations COLUMBIA BANK: Jones Sues Over Private Data Breach COLUMBIA BANKING: Continues to Defend MOVEit MDL in Massachusetts COMPSOURCE MUTUAL: Trivestco Energy Files Suit in Okla. Dist. Ct. CORNELIO RANGEL: Pedraza Loses Bid for Writ of Habeas Corpus COTY INC: Faces Fernicola Derivative Suit in New York COTY INC: Faces Mody Derivative Suit in New York COTY INC: Faces Srinivasan Stockholder Class Suit in New York COX ENTERPRISES INC: Henderson Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Continues to Defend TCPA Class Suit in Michigan D.C. OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL: Sued Over Disciplinary Process DAVE INC: Court Stays Russell Suit Pending Appeal DVA RENAL HEALTHCARE: Morales Suit Transferred to C.D. California ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Antitrust Suit EPIPHANY CARE HOMES: Gutierrez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. EXAMWORKS LLC: Smith Suit Seeks to Certify Class F5 INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Derivative Suit F5 INC: Continues to Defend Smith Securities Class Suit in Wash. FASHION NOVA INC: Shavies Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California FCA US LLC: Humphreys Files Suit in E.D. Michigan FLEXIBLE FINANCE: Castillo Sues Over Unwanted Text Messages FORD MOTOR: Recalls F-150 Pickup Trucks Due to Gearshift Issue FORTREA HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Deslande Shareholder Suit FRESHWORKS INC: Stockholder Derivative Suit Stayed FRESHWORKS: Wins Summary Judgment in IPO Suit FRONTIER COOPERATIVE: Hussein Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FULL POWER: Gonzalez Files FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY: Fuller Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. GENEDX HOLDINGS: Scinto Derivative Suit Stayed GENERAC POWER: Dawson Seeks to Certify Florida Resident Class GENERAL LOGISTICS: Patten Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GENERAL MOTORS: Class Cert Filing in Harrison Extended to July 24 GENERAL MOTORS: Noboa Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices GEORGIA HERITAGE: Bauer Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct. HALOGENT LLC: Hampton Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website HARVEST POWER LLC: Fudol Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York HILTON RESORTS: Parties in Galvez Seek Initial Nod of Settlement IMPAC MORTGAGE: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Martinez Says INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES: Files Supplemental Bid to Dismiss Class Suit INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES: Leverett Derivative Suit Stayed INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES: Simpkins Derivative Suit Stayed INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Continues to Defend Artuso Pastry Class Suit JAMES MITCHELL: Court Dismisses Kaso Class Suit w/o Prejudice JT4 LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Abelyan Due August 20, 2027 JUSTICE BRAND: Teperson Sues Over Fictitious Reference Prices KAX BOX: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cole Suit Claims LAUREL EYE CLINIC: Cook Sues Over Unprotected Private Information LG ELECTRONICS: Tracks Smart TV Users, Cazares Alleges LKQ CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 22 LOS ANGELES COUNTY: Underpays DCFS Social Workers, Russell Says LUCID GROUP: Consolidated Fiduciary Derivative Suit Stayed LUCKY STRIKE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Anticompetitive Scheme MARQETA INC: Consolidated Derivative Suit Stayed MARQETA INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit MASIMO CORP: Continues to Defend Derivative Suit in California MASIMO CORP: Discovery in Vazquez Class Suit Ongoing MEDTRONIC INC: Fails to Secure Private Info, Jennings Alleges METAFIT PHARMA: Laplante Balks at Unsolicited Commercial Email Ads MITSUBISHI CHEMICAL: Sigala Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MY GOALS SOLUTIONS: Shavies Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California NATIONAL MANAGEMENT: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Cabriales Says NEW JERSEY: Graham Files Suit in N.J. Sup. Ct. NEXTFOODS INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Lopez Says NIKE INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Tariff-Related Overcharges NOORI CHICKEN: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Williams Says NORTH MOUNTAIN: Plaintiff Must File Amended Complaint by May 18 NOVELIS CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Daft Suit Says ONE SOURCE: Faces Hayes Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info PLUM DELUXE: Cruz Sues Over Website's ADA Non-Compliance POET TECHNOLOGIES: Jones Balks at Undisclosed Material Info PORSCHE SE: Faces Class Suit Over Repair Services Market Monopoly PORTILLO'S INC: Settlement in PAGA Class Suit for Court OK PUBLIC SERVICE: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in Maryland RAG & BONE: Transmits Spam Texts to Market Products, Verduzco Says RANGE VIEW: Must Participate in Scheduling Conference, Court Says REDBUBBLE INC: Henderson Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind REVTRAK INC: Fact Discovery in Bradley Closes on April 6, 2027 ROADELO LLC: Sends Unwanted Telemarketing Texts, Sutton Suit Claims RODENBURG LLP: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Chase Alleges ROTO-ROOTER SERVICES: Nohle Seeks Conditional Class Certification SEABOARD CORP: Continues to Defend DPP MDL in Minnesota SELENE FINANCE: More Time for Class Cert Bid Filing Sought SERVBANC HOLDCO: Chicago Capital Alleges Securities Law Breaches SEXTANT LIMITED: Cazares Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SHOALS TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Kissimmee Utility Suit SHOALS TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Oklahoma Pension Suit SHOALS TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Westchester Suit SIERRA FORESTRY: Cyphers Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SINGLESTORE INC: Lyons Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS: Grabar Law Probes Securities Fraud Claims SOLVENTUM CORP: Continues to Defend Bair Hugger Patient MDL SPARTAN RACE: Stokes Seeks Conditional Cert of FLSA Collective SPHERE ENTERTAINMENT: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit STEVEN MADDEN: Verduzco Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts SUNRUN INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Banks Due Jan. 30, 2027 SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Korver Class Suit SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS: Matton Derivative Suit Stayed SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS: Pizzelanti Derivative Suit Stayed SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS: Zhu Derivative Suit Stayed SUPERPLAY LTD: Parties Must Propose Class Cert Briefing Schedule TABB INC: Ojo Files TCPA Suit in D. New Jersey TAQUERIA EL GALLO: Faces Hernandez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. TEACHERS INSURANCE: Carfora Files Motion to Quash Subpoena TEMPUS AI: Continues to Defend GIPA Class Suit in Illinois TENARIS BAY: Case Management Order Entered in Painter Lawsuit TEXAS: Faces Ruiz Suit Over Violation of Constitutional Rights TEXAS: L.M.L. Suit Seeks Certify Noncitizen Class TICKETMASTER LLC: Abbott Can File Documents Under Seal TRAFCO LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Vaughn Alleges TRANSMEDICS GROUP: Continues to Defend Jewik Class Suit TVG-MEDULLA LLC: Discloses Patient Info to TikTok, Tlaib Alleges UL SOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend Martucci Class Suit in Illinois UNION PACIFIC: Black Seeks OK of Revised Class Area Map UNIQURE NV: Continues to Defend Scocco Class Suit in New York UNITED STATES: Families Block DOJ Requests for Hospital Records UPSTART HOLDINGS: Consolidated Exchange Act Derivative Suit Stayed UPSTART HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Crain Securities Class Suit UPSTART HOLDINGS: Hsu Derivative Suit Stayed UPSTART HOLDINGS: Okhai Derivative Suit Stayed UPSTART HOLDINGS: Romanyshyn Derivative Suit Stayed UPSTART NETWORK: Class Cert. Bids in Asher Due Feb. 26, 2027 UREVO WELLNESS: Nonato Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website VAER LLC: Thorne Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website VIRTU FINANCIAL: Seeks Leave to File Opposition Sur-Reply WASHINGTON FINE: Branson Suit Seeks Class Certification WATTS REGULATOR: Cordero Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. WREN MANUFACTURING: Crompton Files FLSA Suit in D. Delaware Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Has $239.0MM Total Reserves at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Has 484 Product Liability Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Defends Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Paramount Skydance Faces 18,050 Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Smurfit Faces 770 PI Lawsuits as of March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $684MM Liability at March 31 ********* 333 J: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Colon Alleges --------------------------------------------------- FELIX COLON, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. 333 J & M FOOD CORP., and LEONEL CRUZ, individually, and MARY ESPINAL CRUZ, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-02578 (E.D.N.Y., April 30, 2026) is a civil action for damages and other redress based upon willful violations that Defendants committed of Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to him by: (i) the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); (ii) the overtime provisions of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"); (iii) the NYLL's requirement that employers pay their employees all of their earned wages in full and without deduction; (iv) the NYLL's requirement that employers pay their employees an additional one hour's pay at the minimum wage rate for those days when their employees' spread of hours exceeds ten in a workday; (v) the NYLL's requirement that employers furnish employees with a wage notice containing specific categories of accurate information upon hire; (vi) the NYLL's requirement that employers furnish employees with a wage statement containing specific categories of accurate information on each payday; and (vii) any other claim(s) that can be inferred from the facts set forth herein. The complaint relates that throughout Plaintiff's employment, Defendants scheduled Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did work, six days per week, from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and from 3:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Saturdays, for a total of forty-six hours per week. In exchange for each of his regularly scheduled hours, Defendants paid Plaintiff on an hourly basis at the regular rate of $16.50. Thus, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at what should have been his overtime rate of $24.75 for the six regularly-scheduled hours that he worked over forty each week. Accordingly, Plaintiff worked a total of forty-eight and one-quarter hours that week. Defendants paid Plaintiff for only forty-three hours at his regular rate of $16.50 per hour. Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at his overtime rate of $24.75 for three of the overtime hours that he worked that week, and did not pay him at all for the five and one-quarter hours that he worked during his lunch breaks, pre-opening, and post-shift. Moreover, on each occasion when Defendants paid Plaintiff, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with a wage statement that accurately listed, inter alia, his actual hours worked and his regular and overtime wages owed. This failure deprived Plaintiff of the ability to know exactly how much compensation he was entitled to receive and contributed to the underpayment of wages. The Defendants have acted in the manner described herein to maximize their profits while minimizing their labor costs and overhead, adds the complaint. Plaintiff FELIX COLON worked for Defendants from April 2025 to December 2025, as a "jack of all trades," performing the duties of a stock clerk, unloader, delivery worker, and maintenance worker. Defendant 333 J & M FOOD CORP. is a New York corporation that operates at least three supermarkets, one in Queens, and two in Brooklyn.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony P. Consiglio, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 ADT INC: Fails to Properly Secure Personal Info, Smith Says ----------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER SMITH, on her own behalf and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADT INC., Defendant, Case No. 9:26-cv-80493 (S.D. Fla., April 28, 2026) is a class action against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personal identifiable information of Plaintiff and potentially 5.5 million individuals, including, but not limited to, name, address, email address, phone numbers, and in some cases date of birth, Social Security and Tax ID numbers. On April 24, 2026, ADT announced that its cybersecurity systems detected unauthorized access to a limited set of customer and prospective customer data on April 20, 2026. Prior to and through April 20, the Defendant obtained the Plaintiff's and Class members' PII, including by collecting it directly from Plaintiff and Class Members. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Plaintiff's and Class members' PII, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. Defendant admits that the unencrypted PII that was accessed and/or acquired by an unauthorized actor included name, social security number and/or financial account information, and other information such as phone number, address, and email address. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose PII was compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to: (i) adequately protect the Plaintiff's and Class members' PII; (ii) warn Plaintiff and Class Members of Defendant's inadequate information security practices; and (iii) effectively secure hardware containing protected PII using reasonable and effective security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents. ADT Inc. is an American security company that provides residential and small business electronic security, fire protection, and other related alarm monitoring services throughout the United States and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (786) 206-9057 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com - and - Marc H. Edelson, Esq. Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Facsimile: (267) 685-0676 E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com lverderame@edelson-law.com ADT INC: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Lincoln Says ------------------------------------------------------- LARIESHA LINCOLN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADT INC., Defendant, Case No. 9:26-cv-80495-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 29, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personal identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information") of potentially 5.5 million individuals, including, but not limited to, name, address, email address, phone numbers, and in some cases date of birth, Social Security and Tax ID numbers. The complaint relates that the Defendant collected Plaintiff's and Class members' PII and stored it, unencrypted, on Defendant's internet-accessible network. On April 20, 2026, Defendant experienced a data breach when a known ransomware gang utilized "an employee's Okta SSO login credentials" via a voice phishing attack and obtained customer data including "5.5 million unique email addresses associated with ADT customers". On April 24, 2026, Defendant began notifying Plaintiff and Class members of the Data Breach. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff and Class members have been forced to expend time dealing with the effects of the Data Breach. Plaintiff and Class members face substantial risk of out-of-pocket fraud losses such as loans opened in their names, for medical care and services billed in their names, tax return fraud, utility bills opened in their names, credit card fraud, and similar identity theft. Plaintiff and Class members may also incur out-of-pocket costs for protective measures such as credit monitoring fees, credit report fees, credit freeze fees, and similar costs directly or indirectly related to the Data Breach, says the suit. Plaintiff LARIESHA LINCOLN is an employee of Defendant's client. Defendant ADT INC. is an American security systems firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL, 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com AEROTECH INC: Seeks to Decertify Class in Schultz Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCHULTZ, et al., v. AEROTECH, INC., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00618-WSH (W.D. Pa.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order decertifying the class certified by the Court on March 11, 2026. As explained in the accompanying Memorandum in Support, the class certified by the Court cannot be maintained because the Plaintiffs' preferred investment strategy for the General Investment Account of the Aerotech, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan and Trust ("ESOT") is inappropriate for most participant-class members, thereby pitting factions of the class against one another. This means Rule 23(a)'s adequacy and commonality requirements are not satisfied. Even if Rule 23(a)'s requirements were satisfied, certification is only appropriate—if at all—under Rule 23(b)(3). While the class fails Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement for the same reasons it fails Rule 23(a)'s commonality requirement, the class must, at minimum, be narrowed through certification as an op-out class under Rule 23(b)(3). This is because ERISA breach of fiduciary duty claims "brought in the context of a defined contribution plan" like the ESOT "are individualized monetary claims" that "cannot be joined in a mandatory class certified under Rule 23(b)(1)." Aerotech is an automation company that provides 3D metrology, positioning, and custom-engineered motion solutions. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OyaOUb at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Lars C. Golumbic, Esq. Andrew D. Salek-Raham, Esq. Larry M. Blocho Jr., Esq. Kathryn E. Panish, Esq. GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 861-5408 Facsimile: (202) 659-4503 E-mail: lgolumic@groom.com asalek-raham@groom.com lblocho@groom.com kpanish@groom.com AIR CANADA: Sylvestri Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Air Canada, et al. The case is styled as Susan E. Sylvestri, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Air Canada, Does 1 through 10, Inclusive, Case No. CGC26636300 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., April 22, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Air Canada -- https://aircanada.com/ -- is the flag carrier and the largest airline of Canada, by size and passengers carried.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 4700 Los Angeles, California 90071 Phone: (213) 985-1150 Fax: (213) 985-2155 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com ALASKA AIR GROUP: Abrams Files Suit in Wash. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alaska Air Group Credit Union. The case is styled as Hope Abrams, and others similarly situated v. Alaska Air Group Credit Union, Case No. 26-2-13241-1 (Wash. Super. Ct., King Cty., April 21, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Tort." Alaska Air Group Credit Union -- https://aagcu.org/ -- is a full service financial institution.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kaleigh Nicole Boyd, Esq. MCNAUL EBEL PLLC 600 University St, Suite 2700 Seattle, WA 98101 ALIGHT INC: Continues to Defend Securities Derivative Suit in Ill. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Alight, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2026, that the Company faces a securities derivative suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On April 20, 2026, a derivative complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against nominal defendant Alight Inc.; its former Chief Executive Officer, David D. Guilmette; its former Chief Financial Officer, Jeremy J. Heaton; and eleven current and former members of the Alight Board. Along with alleged violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 premised on similar allegations to those in the Securities Class Action, the plaintiff seeks to recover for alleged breach of fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment. The Company intends to defend against the lawsuit vigorously. The lawsuit is in the early stages, and at this time the Company cannot reasonably estimate the likelihood or amount of any potential loss. Alight, Inc. is a technology-enabled provider of human capital and business solutions, offering cloud-based benefits administration, payroll, and digital human resources services to employers and their workforces. The company serves large enterprises and organizations across a range of industries in the United States and internationally. ALIGHT INC: Faces Securities Class Suit in Illinois --------------------------------------------------- Alight, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2026, that the Company faces securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. A putative private securities class action lawsuit was filed on March 16, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer and Vice Chair of the Board of Directors, David D. Guilmette, and its former Chief Financial Officer, Jeremy J. Heaton, on behalf of certain purchasers of securities of the Company (the Securities Class Action). Claims in the Securities Class Action include alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all defendants, and alleged violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company and/or David D. Guilmette and Jeremy J. Heaton. Plaintiffs in the Securities Class Action allege purported misstatements and omissions concerning the Company's growth potential, ability to execute on business plans, financial stability, and the sustainability of its recently initiated dividend program. The Company intends to defend against the lawsuit vigorously. The lawsuit is in the early stages, and at this time the Company cannot reasonably estimate the likelihood or amount of any potential loss. Alight, Inc. is a technology-enabled provider of human capital and business solutions, offering cloud-based benefits administration, payroll, and digital human resources services to employers and their workforces. The company serves large enterprises and organizations across a range of industries in the United States and internationally. AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Continues to Defend Masoner Class Suit in N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------------- AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Masoner class suit in the United States district Court for the Southern District of New York. On December 5, 2025, an action captioned Masoner v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. et al., No. N25C-12-022, was filed by two purported AMC stockholders against the Company, Adam Aron, and unspecified members of the Company's board of directors in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware. The complaint asserted claims for, among other things, fraud, fraud on the court, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and conspiracy based on the 2023 settlement of the action captioned In re AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. Stockholder Litigation No. 2023-0215-MTZ (Del. Ch.). Plaintiffs seek, among other things, monetary damages of approximately $4.2 million, disgorgement of approximately $18 million, declaratory relief, equitable relief, and injunctive relief. On March 18, 2026, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On March 24, 2026, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which named certain current and former directors of the Company's board of directors as defendants. On April 8, 2026, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which is currently being briefed and remains pending. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. is a leading theatrical exhibition company and one of the largest movie theater operators in the world, serving audiences through cinemas primarily in the United States and Europe. The Company offers a variety of movie-going experiences and related food, beverage, and premium services. AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Continues to Defend Simons Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Simons securities class suit in the United States district Court for the Southern District of New York. A purported securities class action captioned Simons v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-09042-JLR, was filed on October 31, 2025 by a purported former holder of AMC Preferred Equity Units against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint asserts a claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false and misleading public statements and omissions by the Company during the period from August 18, 2022 to November 1, 2023 concerning the conversion of the AMC Preferred Equity Units. The complaint alleges damages of at least $178 million, plus pre-judgment interest. The Company intends to defend the action vigorously. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. is a leading theatrical exhibition company and one of the largest movie theater operators in the world, serving audiences through cinemas primarily in the United States and Europe. The Company offers a variety of movie-going experiences and related food, beverage, and premium services. AMERICAN HONDA: Renewed Bid for Class Cert Amened to June 1 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE ELIAS MORALES AGUIRRE, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CORPORATION, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-06909-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood Gilliam, Jr. entered an amended scheduling order: Event Deadline Deadline for the Plaintiff's renewed June 1, 2026 motion for class certification: Deadline for the Defendant's opposition: June 29, 2026 These dates may only be altered by order of the Court and only upon a showing of good cause. The parties are directed to review and comply with this Court's standing orders. This order terminates Dkt. No. 89. American Honda is the North American subsidiary of Japanese Honda Motor Company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=onpmwY at no extra charge.[CC] AMGEN INC: Sharma Sues Over Health Plan's Imposed Tobacco Surcharge ------------------------------------------------------------------- SANJAY SHARMA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMGEN INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-04205 (C.D. Cal., April 21, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for unlawful imposition of a discriminatory tobacco surcharge and failure to notify of reasonable alternative standard for avoiding tobacco surcharge in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and breach of fiduciary duty. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of charging a tobacco surcharge under the Amgen Inc. Employee Benefit Plan that unjustly forces certain employees to pay higher premiums for their health insurance. The Defendant's Plan does not provide the required reasonable alternative standard, and even if it did, it has failed to adequately notify employees about the availability of such an alternative in all its Plan communications. Consequently, the Defendant's tobacco surcharge violates ERISA's anti-discrimination provisions by imposing additional costs on employees who use tobacco products without meeting the legal requirements for a wellness program. As a result of the imposition of the unlawful and discriminatory tobacco surcharge, the Defendant enriched itself at the expense of the Plan. Amgen Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company with its principal office located in Thousand Oaks, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive-Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 Email: jnelson@milberg.com - and - John D. Hughes, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 800 South Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (202) 932-7015 Email: jhughes@milberg.com ANGARA INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Bordeaux Extended to Dec. 7 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AYREANNE BORDEAUX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ANGARA, INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-02848-SSS-AYP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Syhes entered an order granting joint stipulation to extend briefing schedule and continue hearing: Case Event Deadline Deadline for the Plaintiff to file motion Dec. 7, 2026 for class certification and any class certification expert report: Deadline for the Defendant to file Feb. 1, 2027 opposition to class certification and any class certification expert report: Deadline for the Plaintiff to file reply Feb. 22, 2027 in support of motion for class certification and any class certification rebuttal expert report: Class certification hearing: March 26, 2027, at 2:00 p.m. Angara specializes in a wide array of exquisite jewelry, including rings, necklaces, earrings, engagement rings, and wedding rings. A copy of the Court's order dated May 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EwaNSI at no extra charge.[CC] APPLE INC: Seeks to Dismiss Feeney Second Amended Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY FEENEY, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. APPLE INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1–10, Case No. 2:25-cv-09716-GW-AJR (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants, on July 9, 2026, at 8:30 a.m., will move the Court, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 12(b)(6), for an order dismissing Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") on several grounds: (1) The Plaintiff's claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability (Count I) should be dismissed because she does not plausibly allege that her product was unmerchantable. (2) The Plaintiff's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") and Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") claims (Counts II and III) should be dismissed because the SAC does not allege any actionable misrepresentation. The Plaintiff does not allege that she actually saw or relied upon most of the statements cited in the SAC, and the statements she does allege she saw and relied upon are nonactionable in any event. (3) The SAC also does not state a claim under the CLRA and UCL (Counts II and III) for the independent reason that the Plaintiff has not alleged cognizable injury under these statutes. (4) The Plaintiff is not entitled to equitable relief (Counts II, III, and IV) because she has an adequate remedy at law, there is an express contract that governs the purchase of her product, and she has not plausibly alleged a risk of future injury. (5) The Plaintiff cannot assert claims relating to other Beats products she did not purchase or use because the SAC does not allege substantial similarity between the products or their marketing. On Nov. 27, 2024, the Plaintiff bought a set of Beats Studio Pro x Kim Kardashian headphones on "the Amazon website." The Plaintiff originally filed this lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. 25-ST-CV-24599. On Oct. 10, 2025, Apple removed the action to this Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, The Plaintiff purports to bring these claims on behalf of herself and proposed "Nationwide" and "California" classes, encompassing customers "who purchased Apple Beats Studio Pro series, including the Beats Fit Pro, Beats Solo Pro, and Beats Studio 3, from the period of July 9, 2021 to the present." Apple is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CucgIC at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher Chorba, Esq. Kelly Gregg, Esq. Graham M. Stinnett, Esq. Wesley Sze, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 Facsimile: (213) 229-7520 E-mail: cchorba@gibsondunn.com kgregg@gibsondunn.com gstinnett@gibsondunn.com wsze@gibsondunn.com ARAMARK SERVICES: Class Certification Bid in Adams Due Oct. 27 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARRIAN DESHONE ADAMS, v. ARAMARK SERVICES, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-08903-SK (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kim entered a case management and pretrial order: -- All non-expert discovery shall be completed no later than Oct. 23, 2026. -- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed by no later than Oct. 27, 2026. -- The Defendant's opposition to the motion for class certification shall be filed by no later than Nov. 10, 2026. -- The Plaintiff's reply in support of their motion for class certification shall be filed by no later than Nov. 17, 2026. -- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be noticed for a hearing on Dec. 7, 2026. -- The pretrial conference will be held on May 21, 2027 at 1:30 p.m. Aramark is an American food service and facilities services provider. A copy of the Court's order dated May 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Wv23sc at no extra charge.[CC] AS ONE INC: Scott Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against As One, Inc. The case is styled as Frankie Mae Scott, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. As One, Inc., Case No. 26CUB01565 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., April 23, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." As One International, Inc. -- https://www.asone-int.com/ -- is a biotech company bringing innovations to life science research and development by marketing and supplying unique products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Melmed, Esq. Meghan Higday Esq. Emily G. Horrigan, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP P.C. 1801 Century Park E, Ste. 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2346 Phone: 310-824-3828 Fax: 310-862-6851 Email: jm@melmedlaw.com mh@melmedlaw.com eh@melmedlaw.com ASC ORTHO: Fails to Protect Highly Sensitive Data, Kenney Says -------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY KENNEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASC ORTHO MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC D/B/A ALIGNED ORTHOPEDIC PARTNERS, Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-01664-GLS (D. Md., April 28, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health information about its current and former patients. But the Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. Allegedly, cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' PII/PHI. In short, the Defendant's failures placed the Class' PII/PHI in a vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the suit. ASC Ortho Management Company, LLC is an orthopedic healthcare provider with locations in Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sonjay Singh, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 400 East Pratt Street, 8th Floor #16946751 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (646) 829-1389 E-mail: ssingh@sirillp.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com ASHLYNN MARKETING: Court Stays Pretrial Deadlines ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.J., C.D., C.B., and D.F., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ASHLYNN MARKETING GROUP, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00311-GPC-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Curiel entered an order granting joint motion to stay pretrial deadlines and continue class certification hearing pending private mediation. 1. All pretrial deadlines set forth in the amended scheduling order, including the March 23, 2026, fact discovery cutoff, are stayed pending further order of the Court. 2. During the stay period, the Parties may continue to engage in fact discovery, including without limitation: (a) exchanging discovery responses; (b) completing document productions; (c) issuing, enforcing, administering, and otherwise engaging in third-party discovery; (d) implementing the forensic and post spoliation discovery contemplated by the Court's April 28, 2026 Order; and (e) any other discovery permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3. The Parties shall file a Joint Status Report within 14 days after the conclusion of mediation, addressing: (a) the outcome of mediation; (b) a proposed amended schedule for any remaining pretrial deadlines if the matter does not resolve in full; (c) the status of any then-pending discovery and the proposed schedule for completing it; and (d) any modification to the rescheduled class certification hearing the Parties believe appropriate in light of the mediation outcome. 4. The May 22, 2026, hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is vacated. The hearing may be rescheduled upon receiving the Joint Status Report. The Defendant specializes in the marketing and distribution of tobacco products. A copy of the Court's order dated May 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=U8Q226 at no extra charge.[CC] ATKORE INC: Entered into Settlement Deals in PVC Antitrust Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Atkore Inc. disclosed in a current report on Form 8-K, dated Monday, May 4, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Tuesday, May 5, 2026, that it entered into settlement agreements on April 28, 2026 with two of the three putative classes in a case captioned In re PVC Pipe Antitrust Litigation (Class Action Litigation). These two classes were the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (DPP Plaintiffs) and the Non-Converter Seller Purchaser Plaintiffs (NCSP Plaintiffs) (together, the DPP and NCSP Plaintiffs), individually and on behalf of the putative DPP and NCSP Plaintiff class members. The Settlement Agreements totaled $136.5 million and were recognized in the Company's financial statements for the quarter ended March 27, 2026. Atkore Inc. is a manufacturer of electrical, mechanical and safety infrastructure products, serving construction, industrial and utility markets across North America and internationally. The company offers a broad portfolio including electrical conduit, fittings, cable and other infrastructure-related products. ATLAS ENERGY: Continues to Defend Ayers Class Suit in Delaware -------------------------------------------------------------- Atlas Energy Solutions Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Ayers class action in the Delaware Court of Chancery. A class action filed on July 2, 2024 in the Delaware Court of Chancery by purported shareholder Patrick Ayers against certain current and former directors of the Company and certain of the Company's affiliates, asserting claims of breach of fiduciary duty related to the corporate reorganization that changed the Company's Up-C structure to a customary C corporation, seeking unspecified damages for the plaintiff individually and on behalf of the Company and other former Class A common stockholders as well as an award of attorneys’ fees and costs, which allegations the Company disputes and against which it intends to vigorously defend, noting that the lawsuit is currently in discovery and that, given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be met for success on the merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action. Atlas Energy Solutions Inc. is a provider of proppant and logistics solutions to the oil and gas industry, with operations focused on supporting hydraulic fracturing activity in major U.S. shale basins. The Company offers sand production, transportation, and related services aimed at improving efficiency and reducing costs for exploration and production customers. BELL PARTNERS: Jones Sues Over Secret Apartment Rent Increase ------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY JONES, individually and for all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BELL PARTNERS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-02214 (C.D. Cal., April 29, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violating tenant protection laws. The complaint alleges that the Defendant purchases multifamily rental properties that are seen as underperforming. Defendant then attempts to increase the revenue received from each unit by systematically inflating rent to what it perceives to be market value. The Defendant raises rent for its tenants without providing any notice to its tenants of the rent increase. Tenants, like Plaintiff, are surprised to learn that their rent was suddenly increased from one month to the next. They usually discover the increase in the "residential portal" online when they go to pay their rent. While Defendant phases in rent increases over months, Defendant also attempts to correct underperforming units by fraudulently inducing its tenants into signing new leases with substantially different terms by representing such leases are mandatory. Such new leases are not mandatory, and they contain hidden rent increases. Not only were these actions taken in bad faith, but they were made with the intention to defraud unsuspecting tenants, like Plaintiff, and increase overall profitability of each rental unit. As a result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have been harmed and damaged in several ways. Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered monetary damages in the form of unlawful rent increases they paid monthly for many months or years, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members are seeking injunctive relief, actual damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and treble damages. Plaintiff ASHLEY JONES is a tenant at an apartment complex in Murrieta, California, which was purchased by Defendant sometime in 2024. Defendant BELL PARTNERS, INC. is a multifamily property management company that operates numerous apartment communities throughout California, and many across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Swigart, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio S, Suite 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (866) 219-3343 E-mail: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com - and - Daniel Shay, Esq. SHAY LEGAL, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio S, Suite 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: 619-222-7429 E-mail: Dan@ShayLegal.com BERKELEY RESEARCH: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Syphax Says -------------------------------------------------------------- JORDAN M. SYPHAX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BERKELEY RESEARCH GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-03366 (N.D. Cal., April 21, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence/negligence per se, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. 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 between February 28, 2025, and March 2, 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. Berkeley Research Group, LLC is a global consulting firm based in Emeryville, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, PC 468 N. Camden Drive, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Email: daniel@slfla.com BETFAIR INTERACTIVE: Farley Sues Over Deceptive Sportsbook Platform ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN FARLEY, and MICHAEL FOX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BETFAIR INTERACTIVE US LLC d/b/a FANDUEL SPORTSBOOK, FANDUEL, INC., FANDUEL GROUP PARENT LLC, FLUTTER ENTERTAINMENT PLC, and DRAFTKINGS INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03464 (S.D.N.Y., April 27, 2026) is a class action arising from Defendants' systematic use of online sportsbook platforms in violation of New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, these online sportsbook platforms are designed not merely to facilitate lawful sports wagering, but to maximize user engagement, repeated betting, and customer losses through a coordinated system of live and in game betting, personalized promotions, frictionless redepositing, and aggressive retention tactics. Through their sportsbook apps and related digital marketing systems, Defendants FanDuel and DraftKings transformed sports gambling from an occasional, event-based activity into a high-frequency, always-available, app-driven product engineered to keep customers wagering continuously. The Defendants profited from this conduct by increasing the number, frequency, and speed of wagers placed on their platforms, increasing customer retention, and increasing the amount of money deposited and lost by users on FanDuel and DraftKings sportsbook products, says the suit. The Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated to recover damages, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, and all other remedies permitted by law arising from Defendants' unlawful, unfair, deceptive, and inequitable conduct. Betfair Interactive US LLC, does business as FanDuel Sportsbook, operates and/or causes to be operated the FanDuel Sportsbook products used by consumers in New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. 1 Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 E-mail: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com - and - Andre R. Belanger, Esq. POULIN|WILLEY|ANASTOPOULO LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: andre.belanger@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com BETTER BUSINESS: Faces West Wage-and-Hour Suit in D.D.C. -------------------------------------------------------- AKIA WEST, TYLER WEST, and ZYNEA WEST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BETTER BUSINESS CONNECTION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01361 (D.D.C., April 21, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay all earned wages due and owed in violation of the District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act and District of Columbia Wage Payment Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants at any time between January 2025 and January 2026. Better Business Connection, Inc. is a transportation services provider based in Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER, & GREENBERG LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 Email: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.COM - and - Matthew T. Sutter, Esq. SUTTER & TERPAK, PLLC 7540 A Little River Turnpike, First Floor Annandale, VA 22003 Telephone: (703) 256-1800 Email: Matt@SutterAndTerpak.Com BLUE HOUSE RESTAURANT: Marcum Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue House Restaurant, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Riece Marcum, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. Blue House Restaurant, Inc., Blue House Restaurant Roseville, Inc., PS Blue House Restaurant Vacaville, Inc., Case No. CU26-03948 (Cal. Super. Ct., Solano Cty., April 23, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Civil." Blue House Korean BBQ -- https://www.bluehousekbbq.com/ -- offers authentic Korean dining.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elliot J. Siegel, Esq. Melissa R. Rinehart, Esq. KING & SIEGEL, LLP 724 S. Spring Street, Suite 201 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Phone: 213-465-4802 Fax: 213-465-4803 Email: elliot@kingsiegel.com melissa@kingsiegel.com BP PRODUCTS: Johnston Sues Over Abusive Telemarketing Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- BIANCA JOHNSTON, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-02203 (C.D. Cal., April 28, 2026) is a putative class action against the Defendant brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. To promote its goods and services, the Defendant allegedly engages in telemarketing text messages at unlawful times. The Defendant violated the federal law by initiating telephone solicitations to telephone subscribers such as Plaintiff and the Class members before the hour of 8 a.m. or after the hour of 9 p.m., says the suit. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct which has resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to Plaintiff and the Class members. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of themselves and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. BP Products North America Inc. explores, develops, refines, and markets oil and natural gas. The Company produces gasoline, kerosene, distillate fuel oils.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com BRIAN ENGLISH: Prunier Loses Bid for Writ of Habeas Corpus ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KERVENSEN PRUNIER, v. BRIAN ENGLISH, Case No. 3:26-cv-00305-DRL-SJF (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Damon R. Leichty entered an order that: (1) Denies the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, except to find that Kervensen Prunier must be classified under 8 U.S.C. section 1226(a), including for purposes of any custody redetermination; and (2) Directs the clerk to enter final judgment and to close this case. The district judge's decision vacating Hurtado is thus unlikely to change the outcome of a custody redetermination motion filed by an individual like Mr. Prunier, who is outside of California. These recent proceedings also indicate that the government remains committed to its interpretation of section 1225(b)(2) notwithstanding the prior rulings of this court and others. This doesn't affect the court's jurisdiction, but it does affect Mr. Prunier's relief. The appropriate remedy is to put the ball in his court to file a motion for custody redetermination in his pending removal proceedings, with the benefit of a finding from the court that he is not categorically ineligible for bond under 8 U.S.C. section 1225(b)(2). The court likewise must deny immediate release because Mr. Prunier has not met his burden of showing his current detention unlawful under section 1226. Mr. Prunier is a citizen of Jamaica who presented himself at a United States port of entry in San Ysidro, California, on Oct. 26, 2024. He was 17 years old and said he intended to go live with his parents in Indiana. He was detained and processed as an unaccompanied minor, served with a notice to appear in immigration court, and then released to the custody of his father. He since turned 18; and, in August 2025, he was arrested in Cass County, Indiana, on charges of domestic battery, criminal confinement, and strangulation. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PUJS2G at no extra charge.[CC] CARFAIR COMPOSITES: Hibbard Seeks Operators' Unpaid Wages, OT ------------------------------------------------------------- DYLAN HIBBARD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARFAIR COMPOSITES USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 26-cv-747 (E.D. Wis., April 28, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff seeking relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws for Defendant's unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid straight time (regular) and/or agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem appropriate. According to the complaint, the Defendant operated an unlawful compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by: (1) shaving time (via electronic timeclock rounding) from Plaintiff's and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees' weekly timesheets for pre-shift and post-shift hours worked and/or work performed, to the detriment of said employees and to the benefit of Defendant, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL; and (2) failing to compensate said employees for daily meal breaks, in violation of the WWPCL. The Plaintiff was hired as an hourly-paid, non exempt employee in the position of operator in approximately June 2025, working primarily at Defendant's Wausaukee, Wisconsin location. Carfair Composites USA, Inc., is a manufacturer that owns, operates, and manages multiple physical locations in the State of Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 1200 N. Mayfair Road, Suite 270 Wauwatosa, WI 53226 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com CASEY'S RETAIL: Vallely Sues Over Unlawful Membership Renewals -------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Ellen Vallely, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Casey's Retail Company, Defendant, Case No. 2026LA000572 (Ill. Cir. Ct., 18th Judicial, Dupage Cty., April 28, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the Illinois Automatic Contract Renewal Act and the Illinois Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act in regards to its car wash memberships. The Plaintiff maintains that the Defendant violated 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 the consumer. Headquartered in Ankeny, IA, Casey's Retail Company operates car washes at its gas stations 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 CENTRAL MAINE: Class Cert Bid Filing in Gagnon Due August 28 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as GAGNON v. CENTRAL MAINE HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, Case No. (D. Maine, Filed Aug. 20, 2025), the Hon. Judge Lance E. Walker entered an order granting motion to amend scheduling order. -- Deadline for Plaintiff to serve written settlement demand is extended to July 9, 2026 -- Deadline for Defendant to serve response to settlement demand is extended to July 23, 2026 -- Deadline to complete Phase 1 of discovery is extended to July 27, 2026 -- Deadline for Plaintiff to designate expert witnesses is extended to July 27, 2026 -- Deadline for Defendant to designate expert witnesses is extended to July 27, 2026 -- Deadline for Plaintiff to file motion for class certification is extended to August 28, 2026. -- Deadline for Defendant to file response to motion for class certification is extended to September 29, 2026 -- Deadline for Plaintiff to file reply memorandum in support of motion for class certification is extended to October 12, 2026 The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendant is an integrated healthcare delivery system.[CC] CLICK SALES INC: Sanchez Sues Over Privacy Law Violations --------------------------------------------------------- ALICIA SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLICK SALES INC., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a BEYONDPROSTATE.COM, Defendant, Case No. 26STCV13639 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 28, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the California Business & Professions Code and the California Trap and Trace Law. The Plaintiff was blanketed with illegal spam by the Defendant. After being deceived into engaging with spam, Plaintiff was funneled to the website beyondprostate.com where Defendant installed a web of illegal tracking pixels on Plaintiff's device. Those tracking technologies enable Defendant and its partners to follow Plaintiff's behavior across the internet, converting a single deceptive email into ongoing digital surveillance. In this class action, the Plaintiff maintains that the Defendant intentionally intruded upon the private affairs, concerns, and seclusion of Plaintiff by improperly accessing Plaintiff's personal information and using it for improper purposes, including by partnering with multiple data brokers to sell Plaintiff's and class members' private information to the highest bidder and them with behavioral advertising. Click Sales Inc. operates as an e-commerce platform and an affiliate marketplace. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. David W. Reid, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com Dreid@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com COLUMBIA BANK: Jones Sues Over Private Data Breach -------------------------------------------------- JAMES JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COLUMBIA BANKING SYSTEM, INC. and COLUMBIA BANK, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-05438 (W.D. Wash., April 28, 2026) arises from the Defendants' failure to undertake adequate measures to safeguard the private information of Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members. Although the data breach occurred between October 2, 2025, and December 22, 2025, the Defendants failed to immediately notify and warn Plaintiff and Class Members, waiting nearly four months, until April 17, 2026, when Defendants disclosed the data breach to the California Attorney General. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all other individuals whose private information was accessed and/or acquired by an unauthorized party in the data breach. The Plaintiff asserts claims negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. Headquartered in Roseburg, OR, Columbia Bank offers commercial and personal banking services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kaleigh N. Boyd, Esq. MCNAUL EBEL NAWROT & HELGREN PLLC 600 University Street, Suite 2700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 467-1816 Facsimile: (206) 624-5128 E-mail: kboyd@mcnaul.com - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com COLUMBIA BANKING: Continues to Defend MOVEit MDL in Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------------------- Columbia Banking System, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated MOVEit customer data security breach MDL in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. It previously disclosed that in 2023 the Bank was informed by one of its technology service providers (the "Vendor") that a widely reported security incident involving MOVEit, a file sharing software used globally by government agencies, enterprise corporations, and financial institutions, resulted in the unauthorized acquisition by a third party of the names and social security numbers or tax identification numbers of certain of the Bank's consumer and small business customers (the "Vendor Incident"). On behalf of the Bank, the Vendor notified approximately 429,000 affected customers, and the Bank and the Vendor notified applicable federal and state regulators regarding the Vendor Incident. Subsequently, the Bank was named in a number of putative class action lawsuits related to the Vendor Incident, which collectively allege claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, breach of fiduciary duty, invasion of privacy, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and violation of certain state statutes. Given the large number of federal cases throughout the United States, including those involving the Bank, on October 4, 2023 the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation initiated a multidistrict litigation ("MDL") to consolidate such cases, captioned In Re: MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 3083, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (MDL No. 1:23-md-03083-ADB-PGL). The Bank has engaged defense counsel and intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits and any similar or related lawsuits or claims. Separately, the Bank has notified relevant insurance carriers and business counterparties and continues to reserve all of its relevant rights to indemnity, defense, contribution, and other relief in connection with these matters. Columbia Banking System, Inc. is a bank holding company whose principal subsidiary, Umpqua Bank, provides commercial, small business, and consumer banking services across the Western United States. The company offers a range of deposit, lending, treasury management, and wealth management products to individuals and businesses. COMPSOURCE MUTUAL: Trivestco Energy Files Suit in Okla. Dist. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CompSource Mutual Insurance Company. The case is styled as Trivestco Energy Company, and Lobaugh Law Firm P.C., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. CompSource Mutual Insurance Company, formerly known as Compsource Oklahoma, Case No. CJ-2026-3167 (Okla. Dist. Ct., Oklahoma Cty., April 24, 2026). The case type is stated as "Civil relief more than $10,000: Breach of Fiduciary Duty." CompSource Mutual Insurance Company -- https://www.compsourcemutual.com/ -- is an insurance agency in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Burrage, Esq. Randa K. Reeves, Esq. Blake Sonne, Esq. Hannah Whitten, Esq. Reggie N. Whitten, Esq. WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 - and - Kenneth N. Jean, Esq. PO BOX 2403 Ponca City, OK 74602 - and - Joe E. Jr. White, Esq. 630 N.W. 63rd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 CORNELIO RANGEL: Pedraza Loses Bid for Writ of Habeas Corpus ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORNELIO RANGEL PEDRAZA, v. WARDEN, Case No. 3:26-cv-00482-DRL-SJF (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Leichty entered an order that: (1) Denies the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, except to find that Cornelio Rangel Pedraza must be classified under 8 U.S.C. section 1226(a), including for purposes of any custody redetermination; and (2) Directs the clerk to enter final judgment and to close this case. The district judge's decision vacating Hurtado is thus unlikely to change the outcome of a custody redetermination motion filed by an individual like Mr. Rangel Pedraza, who is outside of California. These recent proceedings also indicate that the government remains committed to its interpretation of section 1225(b)(2) notwithstanding the prior rulings of this court and others. Mr. Pedraza is a citizen of Mexico who entered the United States without inspection in 1998 when he was a young child. He was previously granted relief under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). His deferred status expired in 2022. In early March 2026, he was arrested by local law enforcement in Elkhart County, Indiana, for driving on a suspended license. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JFj5Yr at no extra charge.[CC] COTY INC: Faces Fernicola Derivative Suit in New York ----------------------------------------------------- Coty Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2026, that the Company faces the Fernicola derivative suit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. On April 3, 2026, a stockholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (County of New York), captioned Fernicola v. Nabi, et al., Index No. 154383/2026 against certain current and former Coty officers and board members. The complaints assert causes of action of breach of fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets, based on the same allegations as the putative securities class action. On behalf of the Company, the complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, governance reforms, and fees and costs. Coty Inc. is a global beauty company that develops, manufactures and markets cosmetics, skincare, fragrance and related products. The company sells its brands through mass, prestige and professional channels in markets worldwide. COTY INC: Faces Mody Derivative Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------ Coty Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2026, that the Company faces the Mody derivative suit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. On April 14, 2026, respectively, a stockholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (County of New York), captioned Mody v. Ballini, et al., Index No. 652215/2026, against certain current and former Coty officers and board members. The complaints assert causes of action of breach of fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets, based on the same allegations as the putative securities class action. On behalf of the Company, the complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, governance reforms, and fees and costs. Coty Inc. is a global beauty company that develops, manufactures and markets cosmetics, skincare, fragrance and related products. The company sells its brands through mass, prestige and professional channels in markets worldwide. COTY INC: Faces Srinivasan Stockholder Class Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------- Coty Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2026, that the Company faces the Srinivasan stockholder class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. A purported stockholder class action complaint captioned Srinivasan v. Coty Inc., et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-02343-RA (S.D.N.Y.), was filed on March 23, 2026 by a putative stockholder against the Company and certain current and former officers of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff alleges that certain of the Company's statements in November 2025 regarding its fiscal year 2026 earnings guidance were materially false and/or misleading. The plaintiff asserts claims under the federal securities laws and seeks, among other things, monetary damages. Coty Inc. is a global beauty company that develops, manufactures and markets cosmetics, skincare, fragrance and related products. The company sells its brands through mass, prestige and professional channels in markets worldwide. COX ENTERPRISES INC: Henderson Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Edward Henderson, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Cox Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 26CV003014 was removed from the State Court of Fulton County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on April 24, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-03764-NC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for Video Privacy Protection Act. Cox Enterprises, Inc. -- https://www.coxenterprises.com/ -- provides communications and media company.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. Anasuya Shekhar, Esq. Nicholas Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: NickC@lcllp.com The Defendant is represented by: Ali Abugheida, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP -SF CA 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 773-5700 - and - Aravind Swaminathan, Esq. ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 401 Union Street, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 839-4300 - and - Ryan D. Watstein, Esq. WATSTEIN TEREPKA LLP 75 14th Street NE, Suite 2600 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 782-0695 Email: ryan@wtlaw.com CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Continues to Defend TCPA Class Suit in Michigan ------------------------------------------------------------------ Credit Acceptance 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 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the TCPA class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. A putative class action was filed on April 7, 2025, against the Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan alleging that the Company violated the TCPA by allegedly calling the cellular phones of members of the putative class without prior express consent and with the use of an artificial or prerecorded voice. The plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class and requests damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys fees. On May 14, 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Rather than responding to the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on May 29, 2025. On June 12, 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. On February 4, 2026, the court issued an opinion and order granting in part and denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Credit Acceptance Corp is a specialized financial services company that provides auto financing programs, primarily supporting subprime and nonprime consumers through a nationwide network of automobile dealers. The Company structures and services auto loan programs and related financial products across the United States. D.C. OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL: Sued Over Disciplinary Process ------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael D.J. Eisenberg, Plaintiff v. Hamilton Fox, III, Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the District of Columbia, and James T. Phalen Board on Professional Responsibility, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01435-RCL (D.D.C., April 28, 2026) is a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, and class certification. Defendant Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") is the prosecutorial arm of the District of Columbia attorney discipline system, created under Rule XI and empowered to investigate, prosecute, and negotiate discipline of members of the D.C. Bar. Defendant Board on Professional Responsibility ("Board") is the adjudicative body established under Rule XI and the Board Rules to oversee disciplinary matters and supervise Hearing Committees. Plaintiff Michael D.J. Eisenberg is a member of the District of Columbia Bar and the respondent in the underlying disciplinary matter investigated and prosecuted by ODC from which this collateral action arises. According to the complaint, this action presents a narrow issue: whether Defendants, acting within a public disciplinary system created by a congressionally established court, may induce compromise admissions through execution and filing of negotiated-discipline petitions and affidavits, then divert that process away from the formal limited-hearing track mandated by the governing rules, and later try to use the executed petition, the associated affidavit, and the admissions contained in those documents for impeachment or other adverse evidentiary use in a later contested hearing despite earlier unilaterally dishonoring the settlement promises made to induce such admissions in compromise discussions. The Plaintiff is not asking the Court to adjudicate the merits of the underlying ODC disciplinary charges, notes the complaint. Those charges lacking proper evidentiary support or not reasonably supported by disciplinary law will be aggressively contested in the disciplinary forum. Neither does this petition seek an order compelling Defendants to reopen any compromise docket or to convene a limited public hearing on any prior petition, remedies that also do not seem available within the disciplinary system as structured, it notes. Rather, the specific relief sought here is: (a) a declaration that informal, off-record, respondent-excluded derailment of a filed compromise petition is not the functional equivalent of formal rejection under Board Rules 17.7 and 17.10; and (b) permanent injunctive relief barring Defendants from using any executed compromise petition, any associated Rule 17.3(b) affidavit, and any admissions contained in those documents for impeachment or other adverse evidentiary use in any later contested evidentiary hearings. To the extent interim relief, including a stay, becomes necessary to preserve the status quo before adjudication on the merits, Plaintiff will seek such relief by separate motion and not through this Complaint. The Plaintiff bring this suit on behalf of himself and all current and prospectively similarly situated respondents in the District of Columbia disciplinary system who (a) executed one or more petitions for negotiated disposition that were not brought to the formal limited hearing required by Board Rule 17.4 because Office of Disciplinary Counsel and/or a Hearing Committee instead used informal, off-record derailment, and (b) were materially prejudiced as a result, including by the threatened or actual use of petition, affidavit, and admission materials in later contested disciplinary proceedings. The Plaintiff appears pro se. DAVE INC: Court Stays Russell Suit Pending Appeal ------------------------------------------------- Dave Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2026, that on April 1, 2025, a putative class action was filed by Michael Russell and other named plaintiffs against the Company in the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County, California, alleging that the Company's practices violate the Military Lending Act (MLA) and Truth in Lending Act (TILA). The Russell Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief, civil penalties, monetary relief and other relief. On May 5, 2025, the Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On June 11, 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss or to compel arbitration. On July 2, 2025, rather than oppose the motion, the Russell Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint (the "Russell Amended Complaint") which added a claim under the Georgia Payday Loan Act. On July 29, 2025, the Company renewed its motion to dismiss or to compel arbitration. The hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss or to compel arbitration was held on December 8, 2025. On December 12, 2025, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss as well as its motion to compel arbitration. On December 26, 2025, the Company filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the District Court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal. On April 13, 2026, the Company filed its brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Dave Inc. is a financial technology company that offers mobile banking services, including cash advances and budgeting tools, aimed at helping consumers avoid overdraft fees and manage short-term cash flow. The company partners with regulated financial institutions to provide its products and services to customers across the United States. DVA RENAL HEALTHCARE: Morales Suit Transferred to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Yvette Blanca Morales, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Petitioner v. DVA Renal Healthcare Inc., Davita Inc., Respondents, Case No. 3:26-cv-00935 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on April 20, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-04455-MWF-MAR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Labor/Mgmnt. Relations. DVA Renal Healthcare Inc. -- https://davita.com/ -- provides dialysis services.[BN] The Petitioner is represented by: Ava Issary, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 790 E Colorado Blvd Fl 9 Pasadena, CA 91101-2193 Phone: (818) 661-0330 Email: ava@jameshawkinsaplc.com - and - Gregory E. Mauro, Esq. James R Hawkins, Esq. Lauren Ashley Falk, Esq. Michael J.S. Calvo, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 387-7200 Fax: (949) 387-6676 Email: greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com james@jameshawkinsaplc.com lauren@jameshawkinsaplc.com michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com The Respondents are represented by: Jennifer Joy McDermott PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 557-2900 Fax: (310) 557-2193 Email: jmcdermott@proskauer.com ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Energizer Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated antitrust class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In 2023, three purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and Wal-Mart Inc. in the Northern District of California alleging that the defendants conspired to inflate the prices of certain Energizer battery and lighting products (the Products) charged by the Company to other retailers and to prevent other retailers from charging consumers prices below Wal-Mart's pricing, in violation of antitrust and consumer protection laws. The matters were filed on behalf of putative classes of entities that purchased the Products directly from Energizer, persons who purchased the Products directly from a Wal-Mart brick-and-mortar store, and persons who indirectly purchased the Products (other than for resale). All three lawsuits have been consolidated. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, monetary damages, costs and disbursements, reasonable attorneys' fees, as well as injunctive relief. The Company has not recorded any accruals in its consolidated financial statements as the likelihood of a loss from these cases is not probable nor estimable at this time. The Company believes that it has substantial defenses against the claims and intends to vigorously defend against them. Energizer Holdings, Inc. is a global manufacturer and distributor of primary batteries, portable lighting and auto care products sold under a portfolio of well-known brand names. The company markets its products through mass merchandisers, warehouse clubs, hardware stores and other retail channels worldwide. EPIPHANY CARE HOMES: Gutierrez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Epiphany Care Homes, Inc. The case is styled as Erika Y. Ruiz Gutierrez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Epiphany Care Homes, Inc., Case No. 2026CUOE064919 (Cal. Super. Ct., Ventura Cty., April 21, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Epiphany Care Homes -- https://epiphanycarehome.com/ -- provides quality assisted living, memory care, therapy, and skilled nursing services at our elderly care facility in Minnetonka, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. MOON LAW GROUP, PC 725 S Figueroa St., Ste. 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5404 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com EXAMWORKS LLC: Smith Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL SMITH, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, v. EXAMWORKS, LLC, and GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 8:21-cv-02746-PX (D. Md.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the following Class: "(1) All persons in the United States who were called with a pre-recorded voice message by ExamWorks (or any party on behalf of ExamWorks); (2) to their cellular telephone provided to ExamWorks by GEICO; (3) during the four-year period prior to filing the complaint in this action through the date of certification; and (4) where the called party did not provide the cellular number called to ExamWorks." The Plaintiff can prove his claim through the same evidence used to prove every other class members' claim -- Examworks' call records, showing it received his number from Geico, he received 10 prerecorded calls to his phone number and the testimony from Examworks and GEICO that they did not have any policy, practice, or procedure for obtaining express consent for prerecorded calls. Through this evidence, the Plaintiff advances his not only his own claim but the claims of every other absent class member. ExamWorks provides medical claim management services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V6PDdR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy J. Sostrin, Esq. Keith James Keogh, Esq. KEOGH LAW, LTD. 55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3390 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 726-1092 Facsimile: (312) 726-1093 E-mail: keith@keoghlaw.com tsostrin@keoghlaw.com - and - Peter A. Holland, Esq. HOLLAND LAW FIRM 914 Bay Ridge Road, Ste. 230 Annapolis, MD 21403 Telephone: (410) 280-6133 Facsimile: (410) 280-8650 E-mail: peter@hollandlawfirm.com - and - Christopher P. Martineau, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER P. MARTINEAU Rosedale Towers 1700 Highway 36 West, Suite 620 Roseville, MN 55113 Telephone: (612) 767-7790 Facsimile: (612) 379-0480 E-mail: cmartineau@jmlegal.com F5 INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Derivative Suit -------------------------------------------------------- F5, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated stockholder derivative suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Two stockholder derivative lawsuits related to the Securities Class Action that were filed in February 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. In the first lawsuit, a plaintiff filed a stockholder derivative complaint, purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain of the Company's officers and directors, alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment, and requesting restitution and money damages, including reasonable attorneys fees, expert fees, and other costs. In the second lawsuit, a plaintiff filed a verified stockholder derivative complaint, purportedly on behalf of the Company against certain of the Company's officers and directors, alleging violations of federal securities laws, breaches of fiduciary duty, and related state law claims, as well as a claim for contribution under Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 21D of the Exchange Act for any liability the Company may incur as a result of the Securities Class Action, and requesting monetary damages, including interest, reasonable attorneys fees, expert fees, and other costs, and certain reforms to F5's corporate governance. On March 11, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington consolidated the two stockholder derivative actions under the caption In re F5 Inc. Derivative Litigation, and the action is in its early stages, with the parties in the consolidated action negotiating a case schedule in accordance with the court's consolidation order. F5, Inc. is a U.S.-based multi-cloud application security and delivery company that provides networking, security, and application management solutions for enterprises and service providers worldwide. The company offers hardware, software, and cloud-based services designed to optimize the performance, availability, and security of applications across on-premises and cloud environments. F5 INC: Continues to Defend Smith Securities Class Suit in Wash. ---------------------------------------------------------------- F5, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Smith securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. It is defending a putative securities class action captioned Smith v. F5, Inc., et al., filed by Matthew Smith on December 19, 2025, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, purportedly on behalf of individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between October 28, 2024 and October 27, 2025. The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers made false or misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 regarding the Company's cybersecurity capabilities, and requests monetary damages, including interest, reasonable attorney fees, expert fees, and other costs. On March 13, 2026, the court appointed Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds voor het Bakkersbedrijf and Stichting Bedrijfstakpensioenfonds voor de Zoetwarenindustrie as lead plaintiffs, and lead plaintiffs will file an amended complaint by May 20, 2026. The Company intends to vigorously defend this claim. F5, Inc. is a U.S.-based multi-cloud application security and delivery company that provides networking, security, and application management solutions for enterprises and service providers worldwide. The company offers hardware, software, and cloud-based services designed to optimize the performance, availability, and security of applications across on-premises and cloud environments. FASHION NOVA INC: Shavies Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fashion Nova, Inc. The case is styled as Charleen Shavies, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fashion Nova, Inc. doing business as: Fashion Nova, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-03523-JCS (N.D. Cal., April 24, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Fashion Nova -- https://www.fashionnova.com/ -- is the top online fashion store for women.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Faythe E. Gutierrez, Esq. PLG DAMAGE ATTORNEYS, PLLC 2750 SW 145th Avenue #509 Miramar, FL 33027 Phone: (305) 506-4746 Email: fgutierrez@plgdamage.com FCA US LLC: Humphreys Files Suit in E.D. Michigan ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against FCA US LLC. The case is styled as Lisa Humphreys, Jaron Humphreys, Martin Carrillo, and all others similarly situated v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-11384-BRM-CI (E.D. Mich., April 21, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. FCA US LLC -- https://fcagroup-me.com/ -- designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Scott H. Morgan, Esq. KLEIN THOMAS LEE & FRESARD 100 N. Broadway, Suite 1600 Saint Louis, MO 63102 Phone: (314) 602-6283 Email: scott.morgan@kleinthomaslaw.com FLEXIBLE FINANCE: Castillo Sues Over Unwanted Text Messages ----------------------------------------------------------- ARNOLD CASTILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLEXIBLE FINANCE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-02178 (C.D. Cal., April 28, 2026) seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, and any other available legal or equitable remedies in connection with the Defendant's abusive telephone marketing practices that violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. To promote its goods, services, and/or properties, the Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging and continues to text message consumers after they have opted out of Defendant's solicitations. Moreover, Defendant's unlawful conduct has resulted in the intrusion upon seclusion, invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of Plaintiff and members of the Class, says the suit. Flexible Finance, Inc. is a financial technology company headquartered in New York, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com FORD MOTOR: Recalls F-150 Pickup Trucks Due to Gearshift Issue -------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Ford Motor Company is recalling nearly 1.4 million F-150 pickup trucks. Why: The recall is due to a gearshift malfunction that could increase the risk of a crash. Where: The recall is active in the United States. Ford is recalling nearly 1.4 million F-150 trucks due to a gearshift malfunction that poses a significant safety risk. The issue involves a loss of signal between the transmission range sensor and the powertrain control module, which can cause the transmission to unexpectedly downshift into second gear, potentially leading to a loss of vehicle control. The recall, announced by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on April 14, affects 2015-2017 model year Ford F-150 vehicles equipped with six-speed automatic transmissions that were manufactured between March 12, 2014, and August 18, 2017. Ford has identified two injuries and one accident that may be related to this issue. Recall: Drivers can look for warning signs The recall notice highlights that affected vehicle owners might observe an illuminated malfunction indicator light or a wrench light on their dashboard, signaling an issue with the transmission range sensor. This warning is crucial for drivers to recognize potential problems before they escalate into dangerous situations. Ford has taken steps to address the issue by planning to update the powertrain control module software at no charge to the vehicle owners. Interim letters notifying owners of the safety risk will be mailed starting April 27, with additional communications to follow once a permanent remedy is available, expected by July 2026. Vehicle owners are encouraged to contact Ford customer service for further assistance and to schedule repairs at authorized Ford or Lincoln dealers. For more information about the Ford recall, consumers can visit the NHTSA website or contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Currently, Ford is facing two class action lawsuits over issues with the F-150 truck. A lawsuit filed in Illinois last year alleged Ford failed to disclose an oil consumption defect. Meanwhile, an Illinois federal judge ruled that Ford cannot dismiss allegations its 2017-2020 model year trucks have defective transmissions that shift harshly and cause the vehicles to jerk and lunge between gears. [GN] FORTREA HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Deslande Shareholder Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Fortrea Holdings Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Deslande shareholder class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On June 2, 2025, a purported shareholder class action complaint captioned Lucas Deslande v. Fortrea Holdings Inc., et al., No. 1:25-sv-04630 was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming the Company and certain of its current and former officers as defendants. The complaint alleges that defendants made omissions and misrepresentations to investors that they claim violated certain securities laws. The Construction Industry Laborers Pension Fund and City of Pontiac Reestablished General Employees Retirement System were appointed as lead plaintiffs on September 3, 2025, and the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 10, 2025. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on January 28, 2026. Lead plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss on March 19, 2026. The Company filed its reply to the lead plaintiffs' opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss on April 9, 2026. The Company believes it has valid defenses to the claims alleged and intends to vigorously defend itself, but there is no guarantee that the Company will prevail. The case is at a very early stage and the Company is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with this action. Fortrea Holdings Inc. is a global contract research organization providing clinical development, patient access, and technology-enabled solutions to pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device companies. The company supports drug development across a range of therapeutic areas from early-phase studies through post-approval services. FRESHWORKS INC: Stockholder Derivative Suit Stayed -------------------------------------------------- Freshworks Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Northern District of California stayed a stockholder derivative suit pending securities class action. A purported stockholder derivative complaint was filed on March 20, 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint names as defendants our current directors, as well as Freshworks, as nominal defendant, and asserts state and federal claims based on some of the same alleged misstatements as the securities class action complaint. The derivative complaint seeks unspecified damages, attorneys fees, and other costs. On June 21, 2023, the court stayed the case in light of the pending securities class action, and on October 16, 2023, the court extended the stay in light of the pending securities class action. The Company and the other defendants continue to vigorously defend against the claims in this action. Freshworks Inc. is a customer engagement software company that provides cloud-based solutions for customer support, sales, marketing, and IT service management to businesses of all sizes worldwide. The company is headquartered in San Mateo, California. FRESHWORKS: Wins Summary Judgment in IPO Suit --------------------------------------------- Freshworks Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2026, that a purported Company stockholder filed a securities class action complaint on November 1, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against us, certain of our current officers and directors, and underwriters of our initial public offering (IPO). On February 8, 2023, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On April 14, 2023, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by making material misstatements or omissions in offering documents filed in connection with our IPO. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, fees, costs, and rescission on behalf of purchasers and/or acquirers of common stock issued in our IPO. On September 28, 2023, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss. On January 16, 2025, the company filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted and entered. Freshworks Inc. is a customer engagement software company that provides cloud-based solutions for customer support, sales, marketing, and IT service management to businesses of all sizes worldwide. The company is headquartered in San Mateo, California. FRONTIER COOPERATIVE: Hussein Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUMAYA HUSSEIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Frontier Cooperative, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04798 (N.D. Ill., April 28, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.auracacia.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Hussein and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This case concerns Defendant's policy and practice of denying Plaintiff and other visually impaired individuals access to the goods and services offered by the website. Due to Defendant's failure and refusal to remove access barriers to the website, visually impaired individuals have been and are being denied equal access to Defendant as well as to the numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public through the website. The website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff Hussein and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccessible contact information, changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, 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, says the suit. Plaintiff Hussein 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. Frontier Cooperative operates the website that offers essential oils, skincare oils, aromatherapy blends, bath and body products, and natural fragrance products.[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 FULL POWER: Gonzalez Files FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- LEOSANDOR COGLE GONZALEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FULL POWER CONCRETE SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, FULL POWER CONCRETE SERVICES, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation and NORMAN J. GUEVARA, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-23073-JEM (S.D. Fla., April 30, 2026) is a collective action against the Defendant for wage and hour violations arising out of Defendants' intentional misclassification of its truck drivers as independent contractors, and for unpaid overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The complaint relates that the Defendants assigned Plaintiff trips for the delivery of concrete to residential and commercial construction sites located in Miami‑Dade County, Broward County, and the Florida Keys. The Defendants failed to comply with the FLSA because they intentionally misclassified Mr. Cogle and other drivers as independent contractors. Specifically, during Plaintiff's employment with Defendants, Defendants compensated Plaintiff on a day‑rate basis that paid straight‑time compensation for all hours worked each day, regardless of the number of hours worked in a workweek. Although Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff proper additional overtime premium for those hours. Defendants were aware of the overtime requirements of the FLSA and, through written communications sent to Plaintiff and other workers via WhatsApp, informed workers that they would not be paid overtime compensation. Defendants knew or showed reckless disregard for whether their conduct violated the FLSA, and their failure to pay overtime compensation was therefore willful. As a result of the Defendants' acts, Plaintiff and other employees were not properly compensated pursuant to the law. Defendants' failure to pay FLSA-required overtime was willful within the meaning of the FLSA. By reason of the said intentional, willful, and unlawful acts of Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered damages plus incurring costs and reasonable attorneys' fees and is entitled to damages as provided by Section 216 of the FLSA, says the suit. As a result of the Defendants' willful disregard of the FLSA, Plaintiff is entitled to liquidated damages, the complaint contends. Plaintiff LEOSANDOR COGLE GONZALEZ was employed with Defendants as a concrete truck driver from January 13, 2025 through April 8, 2026. Defendants, FULL POWER CONCRETE SOLUTIONS, LLC, and FULL POWER CONCRETE SERVICES, INC, are Florida companies that provide concrete preparation, pumping, and delivery services for residential and commercial construction projects, with their headquarters in Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Suhaill M. Morales, Esq. Philip F. McManus, Esq. SMM Law P.A. 7900 NW 155 St., Suite 203 Miami Lakes, FL 33016 Telephone: 305-518-7026 E-mail: smorales@smmlawfirm.com philip@smmlawfirm.com GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY: Fuller Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gastroenterology & Hepatology of Central New York, P.C. The case is styled as Robin Fuller, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Gastroenterology & Hepatology of Central New York, P.C., Case No. 004493/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Onondaga Cty., April 24, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Torts - Other Negligence (Data Breach Class Action). Gastroenterology & Hepatology of Central New York P.C. -- https://gandhofcny.com/ -- is a dedicated healthcare provider specializing in the prevention and treatment of gastrointestinal disorders.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alyssa Tolentino, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Ave., Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (929) 632-0267 Email: atolentino@sirillp.com GENEDX HOLDINGS: Scinto 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 Connecticut stayed the Scinto derivative suit pending resolution of or announcement of a settlement in the Helo putative class action. On June 25, 2024, a substantially similar stockholder derivative suit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, styled Scinto v. Schadt, et al., 3:24-cv-01100 (D. Conn.). 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, gross mismanagement, and violations of Sections 14(a) and 10(b) of the Exchange Act. The Company is named only as a nominal defendant, and the complaint seeks damages on the Company's behalf, as well as corporate governance reforms and other relief. On September 2, 2025, the court issued an order staying this suit until the final resolution of or announcement of a settlement in the Helo class action. 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. GENERAC POWER: Dawson Seeks to Certify Florida Resident Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES W. DAWSON, Jr., and EDMOND C. HILL, Jr., individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC., a Wisconsin Corporation, Case No. 8:24-cv-02412-KKM-LSG (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class, defined as follows: "All Florida residents who purchased a Generac home standby generator, models 22KW and 24 KW, between 2020 – 2024, designed with a rear airflow vent that failed to provide power during a hurricane or rain event." (the "Class Generators"). In this situation there is no better way to obtain justice for the victims of Generac's breach of warranty. No individual plaintiff could afford the cost of the experts or pay an hourly rate to a law firm to prosecute their individual case, because the cost of the litigation far exceeds the cost of an individual generator. The damages sought by all the plaintiffs are the same. They want to be made whole and obtain reliable backup power. While the price of individual generators and installation may differ, this issue should not preclude predominance. On Oct. 18, 2024, the Plaintiffs initiated this products liability action against the Defendants, alleging the Plaintiffs suffered damages when they purchased defective home standby generators designed, manufactured, marketed, and distributed by the Defendants. The Defendant designs, manufactures, and sells a wide range of generators. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vr1Z4t at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Reginald J. Clyne, Esq. Kimare S. Dyer, Esq. Eddie L. Holiday III, Esq. QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER, P.A. 9300 South Dadeland Blvd., 4th Floor Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 670-1101 Facsimile: (305) 670-1161 E-mail: reginald.clyne@qpwblaw.com kimare.dyer@qpwblaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Janelly Crespo, Esq. Jose M. Espinosa, Esq. Matthew Goldberg, Esq. Timothy Pfenninger, Esq. Joseph Baker, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2500 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 423-8504 E-mail: janelly.crespo@us.dlapiper.com jose.espinosa@us.dlapiper.com matthew.goldberg@us.dlapiper.com timothy.pfenninger@us.dlapiper.com joseph.baker@us.dlapiper.com GENERAL LOGISTICS: Patten Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against General Logistics Systems US, Inc. The case is styled as Gabriel Kekoa-Shaw Patten, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. General Logistics Systems US, Inc., Case No. CU26-03800 (Cal. Super. Ct., Solano Cty., April 21, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." General Logistics Systems B.V. (GLS) -- https://gls-group.com/US/en/home/ -- is a parcel services provider operating in Europe and North America.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Blvd. Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (818) 962-6465 Fax: (818) 962-6469 Email: alindsay@d.law GENERAL MOTORS: Class Cert Filing in Harrison Extended to July 24 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANNY HARRISON, et al., v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-12927-LJM-APP (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Laurie J. Michelson entered an order extending case schedule by one month: Event Deadline Expert discovery for class July 10, 2026 certification completed: Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file July 24, 2026 motion for class certification: Deadline for GM's opposition to the Sept. 4, 2026 Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and GM's Daubert motions re: Plaintiffs' class certification experts: Deadline for the Plaintiffs' reply Oct. 16, 2026 brief in support of class certification, Plaintiffs' opposition to GM's Daubert motions re: Plaintiffs' class certification experts, and the Plaintiffs' Daubert motions for GM's class certification experts: The Defendant is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bDnGwO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq. Dana E. Fraser, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 West University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 Facsimile: (248) 652-2852 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com dal@millerlawpc.com def@millerlawpc.com - and - Russell D. Paul, Esq. Amey J. Park, Esq. Natalie Lesser, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: rpaul@bm.net apark@bm.net nlesser@bm.net - and - Cody R. Padgett, Esq. Abigail Gertner, Esq. Majdi Hijazin, Esq. Nate Kiyam, Esq. Shahin Rezvani, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: cody.padgett @capstonelawyers.com abigail.gertner@capstonelawyers.com majdi.hijazin@capstonelaywers.com nate.kiyam@capstonelaywers.com shahin.rezvani@capstonelaywers.com - and - Steven Calamusa, Esq. Geoffrey Stahl, Esq. Rachel Bentley, Esq. GORDON & PARTNERS, P.A. 4114 Northlake Blvd., Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 799-5070 Facsimile: (561) 799-4050 E-mail: scalamusa@fortheinjured.com gstahl@fortheinjured.com rbentley@fortheinjured.com The Defendant is represented by: Susan M. Clare, Esq. Adam Reinke, Esq. J. Franklin Sacha, Jr., Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree Street NE Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 572-4600 Facsimile: (404) 572-5100 E-mail: sclare@kslaw.com areinke@kslaw.com fsacha@kslaw.com - and - Laura C. Baucus, Esq. Michael P. Cooney, Esq. DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC 39577 Woodward Avenue, Suite 300 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (248) 203-0700 E-mail: lbaucus@dykema.com mcooney@dykema.com - and - Justin B. Weiner, Esq. Andrew M. Mast, Esq. BUSH SEYFERTH PLLC 100 W. Big Beaver, Suite 400 Troy, MI 48084 Telephone: (248) 822-700 E-mail: weiner@bsplaw.com mast@bsplaw.com GENERAL MOTORS: Noboa Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- MANUEL NOBOA, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC D/B/A GM FINANCIAL, Defendant, Case No. 246993832 (Fla. Cir., 11th Judicial, Miami-Dade Cty., April 28, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. Between approximately December 1, 2026 and December 5, 2026, the Defendant placed nine phone calls to Plaintiff, all in an attempt to collect a debt from Plaintiff. Upon information and belief, the Defendant has communicated with other members of the Class in a similar harassing frequency. In doing so, the Defendant willfully communicated with Plaintiff and members of the Class in such a way that can be reasonably expected to harass or abuse Plaintiff and members of the Class, says the suit. General Motors LLC, d/b/a GM Financial, provides personal and commercial auto loan financing offers and lease programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell D. Hansen, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (734) 730-9959 E-mail: mitchell@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com GEORGIA HERITAGE: Bauer Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Georgia Heritage Federal Credit Union. The case is styled as Donna Bauer, on behalf of her adult son, Paul Bauer, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Georgia Heritage Federal Credit Union, Case No. SPCV26-00639-MO (Ga. Super. Ct., Chatham Cty., April 24, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Tort - Other Professional Negligence. Georgia Heritage Federal Credit Union -- https://gaheritagefcu.org/ -- offers savings, checking, loans, and digital banking solutions to help members across Georgia thrive financially.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Casondra R. Turner, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: cturner@milberg.com HALOGENT LLC: Hampton Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- PHYLLIS HAMPTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Halogent, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-4799 (N.D. Ill., April 28, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://www.exposedskincare.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Hampton and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Hampton's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The complaint relates that Hampton has made an attempt to complete a purchase on the Website. On December 23, 2025, Phyllis Hampton searched online for skincare products that would help her thoroughly clean her skin and improve skin tone and texture. Thus, she discovered the Defendant's Website, Exposedskincare.com, a brand known for its acne treatment solutions and products designed to promote clearer, healthier skin. During her search, Hampton encountered positive customer reviews highlighting the effectiveness of the products and improvements in users' skin conditions, which encouraged her to explore the Website further and consider making a purchase. While browsing the available options, Hampton became interested in the Ultimate Kit, a full-spectrum clear skin routine, and attempted to purchase it. However, while navigating the Website using a keyboard and screen reader, she encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from independently completing the purchase. The Website thus contains access barriers that deny full and equal access to Hampton, who would otherwise use the Website and who would otherwise be able to fully and equally enjoy the benefits and services of the Website in Illinois State and throughout the United States. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Hampton and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of the Website in violation of the ADA and/or its implementing regulations. Hampton seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff Phyllis Hampton is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Halogent, LLC provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a selection of acne treatment and skincare products, including cleansers, serums, moisturizers, masks, and treatment kits.[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 HARVEST POWER LLC: Fudol Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Harvest Power LLC. The case is styled as Ibrahim Fudol, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Harvest Power LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-02411-BMC (E.D.N.Y., April 21, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Harvest Power -- https://harvestpowersolar.com/ -- is one of the largest residential and commercial solar providers in New York State, and has expanded operations to surrounding States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (813) 340-8838 Email: zane@jibraellaw.com HILTON RESORTS: Parties in Galvez Seek Initial Nod of Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIE GALVEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. HILTON RESORTS CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-02147-CDS-BNW (D. Nev.), the Parties ask the Court, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to enter an order: (1) Preliminarily approving the class and collective action settlement between the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and unnamed Doe entities; (2) Preliminarily certifying the Rule 23 and 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) Class for purposes of settlement; (3) Vacating the hearing on this Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and Collective Action Settlement, currently scheduled on May 11, 2026, at 11:00 a.m., Las Vegas Courtroom 6B; and (4) Approving the manner and form of Notice and proposed distribution plan to class members. The Plaintiff defined her FLSA Collective Class as: "All persons employed by Defendant who were subject to the Defendant's Timeshare Salesperson Compensation Plan, and/or any substantially similar commission-only compensation plan, at any time within 3 years from the date of filing this action until judgment." The Plaintiff defined her FRCP 23 Classes as: The Nevada Class: "All persons employed by the Defendant who were subject to the Defendant's Timeshare Salesperson Compensation Plan, and/or any substantially similar commission-only compensation plan, in the state of Nevada at any time within 3 years from the date of filing this action until judgment." The Continuation Wage Subclass: "All Nevada Class Members who are former employees and who were separated from employment within 2 years from the date of filing this action until judgment." For the purpose of settling this case, the Parties stipulate and agree to the certification of the following Settlement Class: Class: "The Plaintiff and all non-exempt hourly employees who worked for the Defendant or other Released Parties as non-exempt hourly employees subject to the Defendant's Timeshare Compensation Plan between Nov.18, 2021, through March 31, 2026." The Parties have come to a settlement in this action for a total maximum settlement amount of $1,300,000.00 to be paid to class members on a claims-made basis, with any unclaimed amounts to be returned to the Defendant. On Nov.18, 2024, the Plaintiff Julie Galvez filed a putative class action complaint. The Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint on Feb. 3, 2025, wherein she added a federal Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA") collective action claim as well as raised additional claims against the Defendant. Hilton is a global hospitality company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xVtUPb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark R. Thierman, Esq. Joshua D. Buck, Esq. Leah L. Jones, Esq. THIERMAN BUCK 325 W. Liberty Street Reno, NV 89501 Telephone: (775) 284-1500 Facsimile: (775) 703-5027 E-mail: mark@thiermanbuck.com josh@thiermanbuck.com leah@thiermanbuck.com The Defendants are represented by: Montgomery Y. Paek, Esq. Amy L. Thompson, Esq. Andrew S. Clark, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 8474 Rozita Lee Avenue, Suite 200 Las Vegas, NV 89113.4770 Telephone: (702) 862-8800 Facsimile: (702) 862-8811 E-mail: mpaek@littler.com athompson@littler.com asclark@littler.com IMPAC MORTGAGE: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Martinez Says -------------------------------------------------------------- FERNANDO MARTINEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IMPAC MORTGAGE HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-01009 (C.D. Cal., April 29, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to properly secure and safeguard a wide variety of documents ("Documents") and sensitive private information of Plaintiff and Class Members that were negligently maintained and exposed by Defendant in a recent data breach (the "Data Breach"). The complaint relates that the Defendant collected and maintained the Documents and Private Information belonging to Plaintiff and the putative Class Members, who provided it to Defendant, directly or indirectly. On March 20, 2024, Defendant detected suspicious activity within its IT Network. The Defendant's investigation revealed that between February 21, 2024, and March 20, 2024, unauthorized actors gained access to Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive information including their names and Social Security numbers (collectively, "Private Information"). Despite Defendant's discovery of the Data Breach on March 20, 2024, Defendant did not begin informing impacted individuals until March 27, 2026 – over two years after Defendant's initial discovery. As a result of the disclosure, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered concrete injuries in fact including, but not limited to: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) theft of their Documents and Private Information; (iii) lost or diminished value of the Documents and Private Information; (iv) loss of benefit of the bargain; (v) actual misuse of the compromised data (vi) statutory damages; (vii) nominal damages; and (viii) the continued and certainly increased risk to their Private Information, says the suit. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and Class Members, seeks relief under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code including restitution to Plaintiff and Class Members of money or property that Defendant may have acquired by means of its unlawful, and unfair business practices, disgorgement of all profits accruing to Defendant because of its unlawful and unfair business practices, declaratory relief, attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive or other equitable relief. Plaintiff Fernando Martinez is a resident and citizen of Miami, Florida and is a Data Breach victim. Defendant Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. is a mortgage brokering and real estate solutions company offering mortgage lending, servicing, portfolio loss mitigation, real estate services, and the management of the securitized long-term mortgage portfolio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: cardoso@kolawyers.com INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES: Files Supplemental Bid to Dismiss Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Integra LifeSciences 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 5, 2026, that a securities class action complaint, captioned Pembroke Pines Firefighters & Police Officers Pension Fund v. Integra LifeSciences Holdings Corporation, No. 23-cv-20321 (D.N.J.), was filed on September 12, 2023, by a purported stockholder of the Company in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain of the Company's current and former executive officers. The Pembroke Litigation, brought on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who purchased or acquired the Company's common stock between March 11, 2019 and May 22, 2023, inclusive, alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on purportedly materially false and misleading statements and omissions relating to certain quality systems issues identified by the FDA at the Company's Boston facility, the Company's efforts to remediate those issues, and the Company's forecasts for certain products in its Tissue Reconstruction segment. The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other costs. The Company believes that it has strong defenses to the allegations in the Pembroke Litigation and intends to continue to defend the matter vigorously. On July 1, 2025, the class action complaint was dismissed without prejudice. The plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on August 14, 2025, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on October 14, 2025. On March 16, 2026, the plaintiffs filed their Supplemental Amended Complaint, in response to which the Company filed its Supplemental Motion to Dismiss on April 3, 2026. Integra LifeSciences Holdings Corp is a global medical technology company that designs, manufactures, and markets surgical, neurologic, and regenerative care products. Its portfolio serves hospitals, surgery centers, and clinicians focused on neurosurgery, extremity reconstruction, and wound care. INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES: Leverett Derivative Suit Stayed ----------------------------------------------------- Integra LifeSciences 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 5, 2026 that the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey stayed the Leverett derivative suit pending resolution of the motion to dismiss in the Pembroke litigation. On May 13, 2025, derivative lawsuit captioned Leverett v. Integra LifeSciences Holding Corp. et al, No. 3:2025-cv-04214 (D.N.J.) was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The action purports to assert derivative claims on behalf of the Company against its current Board of Directors and certain of its current or former officers and directors, alleging that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties and harmed the Company by making false and misleading statements and omissions relating to certain quality systems issues identified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) at the Company's Boston, Massachusetts manufacturing facility, the Company's efforts to remediate those issues, and the Company's forecasts for certain products in its Tissue Reconstruction segment. The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other costs. The Company believes that it has strong defenses to the allegations in these lawsuits and intends to defend the matters vigorously. The derivative action have been stayed pending resolution of the motion to dismiss in the Pembroke litigation. Integra LifeSciences Holdings Corp. is a global medical technology company that designs, manufactures, and markets surgical, neurologic, and regenerative care products. Its portfolio serves hospitals, surgery centers, and clinicians focused on neurosurgery, extremity reconstruction, and wound care. INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES: Simpkins Derivative Suit Stayed ----------------------------------------------------- Integra LifeSciences 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 5, 2026 that the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey stayed the Simpkins derivative suit pending resolution of the motion to dismiss in the Pembroke litigation. On May 16, 2025, derivative lawsuit captioned Simpkins v. Integra LifeSciences Holding Corp. et al, No. 3:2025-cv-04446 (D.N.J.) was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The action purports to assert derivative claims on behalf of the Company against its current Board of Directors and certain of its current or former officers and directors, alleging that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties and harmed the Company by making false and misleading statements and omissions relating to certain quality systems issues identified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) at the Company’s Boston, Massachusetts manufacturing facility, the Company’s efforts to remediate those issues, and the Company’s forecasts for certain products in its Tissue Reconstruction segment. The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other costs. The Company believes that it has strong defenses to the allegations in these lawsuits and intends to defend the matters vigorously. The derivative action had been stayed pending resolution of the motion to dismiss in the Pembroke litigation. Integra LifeSciences Holdings Corp. is a global medical technology company that designs, manufactures, and markets surgical, neurologic, and regenerative care products. Its portfolio serves hospitals, surgery centers, and clinicians focused on neurosurgery, extremity reconstruction, and wound care. INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Continues to Defend Artuso Pastry Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- International Paper 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 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Artuso Pastry class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. It was named as one of 12 containerboard producers that were named as defendants in a purported class action complaint filed on July 29, 2025, captioned Artuso Pastry Foods Corp v. Packaging Corp. of America (N.D. Ill.), which alleges a civil violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act. The complaint alleges that the defendants, beginning on November 1, 2020, through the time of filing, conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices of containerboard products and finished packaging products made from containerboard, and that the alleged class consists of persons who purchased containerboard products directly from one or more defendants for use or delivery in the United States during the period November 1, 2020, to the present. The complaint seeks to recover an unspecified amount of treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys fees, and actual damages on behalf of the purported class. International Paper Co. is a global producer of renewable fiber-based packaging, pulp and paper products, serving customers worldwide with industrial and consumer packaging solutions. The company operates manufacturing facilities across North America, Latin America, Europe and North Africa. JAMES MITCHELL: Court Dismisses Kaso Class Suit w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PHILIP KASO, et al., v. JAMES L. MITCHELL, in his official capacity as Superintendent of West Virginia State Police, Case No. 2:25-cv-00603 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Berger entered an order granting the Defendant James L. Mitchell's motion to dismiss case. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction be terminated as moot, and that this matter be dismissed without prejudice. The Court further orders that the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a sur-reply in further opposition to the Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted and the attached plaintiffs' sur-reply in further opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss be filed. The Court directs the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to any unrepresented party. In enacting the $125 annual Registry Fee, the West Virginia legislature did not explicitly distinguish between indigent and non-indigent registrants. It simply imposed the same fee as to all registrants. The legislature is not required to articulate its rationale for the legislation. Because the legislature could have believed the fee to be a reasonable method of both defraying the costs of administering the sex offender registry and funding mental health services for the State Police, it passes rational basis muster. To the extent the Plaintiffs contend that indigent and nonindigent registrants are treated differently, the Court finds that the legislature had a potential rational basis for limiting the costs and burdens associated with the fee by imposing a flat fee on every individual required to register, without establishing a process for exemptions. Ultimately, the Fourteenth Amendment claim(s) rest on the premise that the Constitution requires an indigency exception for governmental fees or monetary charges. The Plaintiffs have cited no authority for that proposition. Because the Defendants are not required to evaluate a registrant’s ability to pay prior to imposing the fee or entering a judgment lien, due process does not require that a hearing be provided. Therefore, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim that the Registry Fee violates the Fourteenth Amendment. The Defendant’s motion to dismiss should accordingly be granted, and the motion for a preliminary injunction must be terminated as moot. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion and order dated May 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Xjzuzf at no extra charge.[CC] JT4 LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Abelyan Due August 20, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN ABELYAN, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JT4, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-00783-KES-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered a class certification scheduling order as follows: Pleading Amendment: Aug. 3, 2026 Discovery Deadlines: Initial Disclosures: May 7, 2026 Fact Discovery: May 4, 2027 Mid-Discovery Status Conference: Nov. 4, 2026 Expert Disclosures: May 18, 2027 Rebuttal Disclosures: June 1, 2027 Expert Discovery: July 2, 2027 Class Certification Motion Deadlines: Filing: Aug. 20, 2027 Opposition: Sept. 10, 2027 Reply: Sept. 24, 2027 Hearing: Oct. 8, 2027, at 10:30 a.m The Plaintiff initiated this putative class action with the filing of a complaint in state court on Nov. 18, 2025, before the Defendant removed the case to this Court on Jan. 29, 2026. The Plaintiff seeks on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated (i.e., a class of individuals who are or previously were employed by Defendant in California as non-exempt employees from Nov. 18, 2021, through a date as determined by the Court), damages arising from the Defendant's failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide required meal periods and rest periods, and other labor violations. Jt4 provides professional engineering services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=75E1NX at no extra charge.[CC] JUSTICE BRAND: Teperson Sues Over Fictitious Reference Prices ------------------------------------------------------------- TRISHA TEPERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUSTICE BRAND HOLDINGS, LLC and BLUESTAR ALLIANCE LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-02535-WQH-DDL (S.D. Cal., April 21, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising Law, and the California Legal Remedies Act, rescission/failure of consideration, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. The case arises from the Defendants' deceptive business practice of advertising fictitious reference prices and corresponding phantom discounts on their e-commerce website shopjustice.com. According to the complaint, through their false and misleading marketing, advertising, and pricing scheme, the Defendants mislead consumers into believing they are receiving a good deal and induce them into making a purchase. In reality, the practice artificially inflates the true market price for these items by raising consumers' internal reference price, and therefore the value, ascribed to these products by consumers. The practice enables retailers, like the Defendants, to sell their goods above their true market price. Consumers, including the Plaintiff, are damaged by the inflated market price that is established by the false-discounting scheme. Justice Brand Holdings, LLC is a retail company with its principal executive offices in New York, New York. Bluestar Alliance LLC is a retail company with its principal executive offices in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott G. Braden, Esq. Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. Alexandra R. Stasio, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 9171 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 180 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 762-1910 Facsimile: (619) 313-1850 Email: scott@lcllp.com todd@lcllp.com alexandras@lcllp.com KAX BOX: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cole Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ MORGAN COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KAX BOX LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-04112-SLD-RLH (C.D. Ill., April 28, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Cole and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Defendant's website contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. However, the Defendant failed to take actions to correct these access barriers. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Based in Dover, DE, Kax Box LLC owns and operates the website, https://naokimatcha.com, which offers Japanese matcha products for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 (718) 554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law LAUREL EYE CLINIC: Cook Sues Over Unprotected Private Information ----------------------------------------------------------------- CYNTHIA COOK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAUREL EYE CLINIC, LLP, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00108-MRH (W.D. Pa., April 28, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former patients' sensitive information, including names, dates of birth, driver's license numbers, usernames and passwords, health insurance information, financial account/routing numbers, and Social Security numbers. Despite Defendant's duty to safeguard the private information of its current and previous patients, and/or their family members, Plaintiff and Class Members' private information was compromised in a data breach when, on or about January 26, 2025, Defendant experienced a network disruption that impacted the functionality and access of its systems. In addition, despite learning about the breach in January of 2025, the Defendant waited until April 22, 2026, to begin notifying impacted individuals of the unauthorized access, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment and declaratory judgment arising from the data breach. The Plaintiff also seeks damages and injunctive relief, including the adoption of reasonably sufficient practices to safeguard the private information in Defendant's custody to prevent incidents like the data breach from reoccurring in the future, and for Defendant to provide identity theft protective services to Plaintiff and Class Members for their lifetimes. Based in Brookville, PA, Laurel Eye Clinic, LLP is a medical practice specializing in ophthalmology that provides diagnostic, surgical, and other eye-care services to patients. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor Pittsburgh PA, 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: nickc@lcllp.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Stephen E. Connolly, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 609-6910 Facsimile: (267) 609-6955 E-mail: jerry@lcllp.com steve@lcllp.com LG ELECTRONICS: Tracks Smart TV Users, Cazares Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ LEONA CAZARES, MICHAEL WALSH, and LAURA WILLIS-ALBRIGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC. and ALPHONSO INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-03840-SVK (N.D. Cal., April 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its tracking of Smart TV users. According to the complaint, Alphonso works in concert with LG to receive, process, and monetize data derived from consumers' television viewing activity. Unbeknownst to consumers, LG Smart TVs incorporate the LG ACR Tools, which capture snippets of audio and video from whatever content is displayed on the screen, generate a unique digital "fingerprint," and transmit that fingerprint and related data to Alphonso and other third parties. These systems operate continuously and automatically, enabling Defendants to determine precisely what a user is watching, in real time. In connection with this monitoring, LG collects and transmits persistent identifiers associated with the television and the household, including IP addresses, device identifiers, and other unique identifiers that enable LG, Alphonso, and their partners to distinguish and recognize devices--and individuals--over time. LG and Alphonso combine consumers' viewing activity with these identifiers--and with additional identifiers obtained from other sources, such as hashed email addresses and mobile advertising IDs--to link the television to other devices associated with the same individual or household, including smartphones, tablets, and computers. Through these practices, Defendants construct cross-device linkages and identity profiles that associate specific individuals and households with detailed records of their viewing behavior tracked across platforms and contexts. As a result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered numerous injuries, including: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) lack of trust in communicating with electronics retailers; (iii) emotional distress and heightened concerns related to the release of Sensitive Information to third parties, (iv) loss of benefit of the bargain; (v) diminution of value of the Sensitive Information; (vi) statutory damages; and (vii) continued and ongoing risk to their Sensitive Information, says the suit. The Plaintiffs seek, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, to remedy these harms and assert the following statutory and common law claims against Defendants: invasion of privacy – intrusion upon seclusion; invasion of privacy – public disclosure of private facts; invasion of privacy in violation of the California Constitution; violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"); violation of the Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act ("CDAFA"); violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"); violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA"); negligence; breach of implied contract; violation of the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); unjust enrichment; and injunctive relief. Plaintiff Leona Cazares purchased one LG Smart TV in 2018 and another in 2025. Since each purchase she has used each LG Smart TV regularly within her home in Banning, California. Defendant LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. manufactures and sells internet-connected televisions used by millions of consumers across the United States. Defendant Alphonso Inc. is an advertising and data analytics company that provides ACR technology, content recognition services, and cross-device advertising infrastructure.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melisa A. Rosadini-Knott, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE LLP 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90010-1923 Telephone: (323) 982-4109 E-mail: mrosadini@peifferwolf.com - and - Brandon M. Wise, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE LLP One US Bank Plaza, Suite 1950 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 833-4825 E-mail: bwise@peifferwolf.com - and - Andrew R. Tate, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE LLP 235 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (314) 669-3600 E-mail: atate@peifferwolf.com LKQ CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 22 --------------------------------------------------------- The National Law Review reports that Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against LKQ Corporation ("LKQ" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:LKQ). Such investors are advised to contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980, (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. The class action concerns whether LKQ and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. You have until June 22, 2026, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class if you purchased or otherwise acquired LKQ securities during the Class Period. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. In February 2023, LKQ announced plans to acquire its competitor, Uni-Select Incorporated ("Uni-Select"), including Uni-Select's United States operating subsidiary, FinishMaster. On April 23, 2024, LKQ lowered its financial guidance, citing slow demand in its North American segment, where FinishMaster was being integrated. LKQ also announced that CEO Dominick Zarcone, who oversaw the Uni-Select acquisition, was leaving the Company. On this news, LKQ's stock price fell $7.28 per share, or 14.9%, to close at $41.65 per share on April 23, 2024. Then, on July 25, 2024, LKQ reported disappointing earnings for its second fiscal quarter of 2024. LKQ revealed that it had missed revenue estimates for the quarter and further lowered its financial guidance for the rest of the fiscal year, again blaming slowing demand on its North American segment. On these disclosures, LKQ's stock price fell $5.53 per share, or 12.4%, to close at $38.95 per share on July 25, 2024. On October 24, 2024, LKQ revealed that the FinishMaster business was, in fact, losing business, including major customers, to LKQ's competitors. LKQ revealed that these losses began "pre-acquisition or pre-closing and leading into post-acquisition." Then, on April 24, 2025, LKQ revealed that its North American market segment, where FinishMaster was now fully integrated, had continued to lose market share due to competitors consistently undercutting LKQ on price, causing LKQ to miss revenue and margin targets. Following these disclosures, LKQ's stock price fell $4.87 perf share, or 11.6%, to close at $37.26 per share on April 24, 2025. Finally, on July 24, 2025, LKQ disclosed that its worsening market share losses had caused the Company to miss margin targets again. On this news, LKQ's stock price fell $6.88 per share, or 17.8%, to close at $31.73 per share on July 24, 2025. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. [GN] LOS ANGELES COUNTY: Underpays DCFS Social Workers, Russell Says --------------------------------------------------------------- TANYA RUSSELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a legal subdivision of the State of California, and DOES 1–10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-04645 (C.D. Cal., April 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for remedies arising out of Defendants' non-payment of overtime. Plaintiff TANYA RUSSELL was employed as a non-exempt social worker by Defendant in the LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES (a "DCFS Social Worker"). The complaint relates that the Defendant frequently required, suffered, and/or permitted DCFS Social Workers, including Plaintiff, to work more than 40 hours per week without paying them all overtime compensation required by the United States Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). This overtime was worked, without limitation, during uncompensated break and meal periods, traveling and in the field, and/or outside of the office. The Defendant's unlawful conduct has been repeated and consistent throughout the limitations period and during Plaintiff's employment as a DCFS Social Worker, asserts the complaint. Pursuant to the FLSA, the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated are entitled to damages in the amount of all unpaid overtime from three years immediately preceding the filing of this action; they also are entitled to liquidated damages, plus interest and costs as allowed by law, and such other legal and equitable relief as the Court deems just and proper; and they further are entitled to recover attorney fees and costs, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks all the foregoing remedies for herself and for all others similarly situated. Defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES is a legal subdivision of the State of California. Defendants DOES 1-10, inclusive, are sued herein under fictitious names.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Megan A. Richmond, Esq. MEGAN A. RICHMOND, APC 7911 Herschel Ave., Suite 300 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (714) 349-0555 Facsimile: (619) 577-4250 E-mail: Megan@therichmondfirm.com - and - Leonard H. Sansanowicz, Esq. Alyze R. Salan, Esq. SANSANOWICZ LAW GROUP, P.C. 21031 Ventura Blvd., Ste 701 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Telephone: (818) 639-8510 Facsimile: (818) 639-8511 E-mail: leonard@law-slg.com alyze@law-slg.com LUCID GROUP: Consolidated Fiduciary Derivative Suit Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------- Lucid Group, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Northern District of California stayed the consolidated breach of fiduciary duty derivative suit. On January 29, 2025, February 7, 2025 and August 6, 2025, three other derivative lawsuits were filed in the Northern District of California. These cases raise claims such as a breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty. The court has granted the parties stipulation to consolidate and stay the cases. Lucid Group, Inc. is an electric vehicle manufacturer focused on the design, engineering, and production of luxury electric cars and related energy storage solutions. The company is headquartered in Newark, California. LUCKY STRIKE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Anticompetitive Scheme ----------------------------------------------------------------- Katya Schwenk of JACOBIN reports that a collection of avid bowlers across the country has filed a class-action lawsuit against private equity–backed bowling giant Bowlero, which has been rebranding as Lucky Strike Entertainment, accusing the company of a "multi-year anticompetitive scheme to consolidate bowling centers," which has led to skyrocketing bowling prices, deteriorating lanes, and "the veritable destruction of the decades-old pastime of bowling in America," according to court documents reviewed by the Lever. In 2024, the Lever exposed the wide-ranging impacts of the Bowlero takeover, which bowlers say has led to a decline in quality at many beloved local bowling haunts. The lawsuit, filed Wednesday, May 6, in Washington state federal court, charges Bowlero with violating federal antitrust law and state consumer protection laws as it bought up hundreds of bowling alleys around the country in its "quest to become the 'Starbucks' of bowling." Along with damages, the suit asks the court to unwind Bowlero's acquisitions of bowling centers and the Professional Bowling Association, the premier organization for bowling as a sport, and block further consolidation. Bowlero, which has been rebranding as Lucky Strike Entertainment, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Bowlero's expansion was bankrolled by private equity, the opaque industry known for stripping its investments for parts. The suit claims the company saw the country's long history of independent bowling alleys as a "fragmented market ripe for roll-up." According to the lawsuit, Bowlero's empire has grown from six locations in 2012 to nearly 350 today, amounting to roughly 35 percent of US bowling revenue. In some markets, the company reportedly now controls 95 percent of all bowling lanes. The company went public in 2021. By that point, Bowlero had also acquired the Professional Bowling Association, which includes thousands of members and hosts professional tournaments watched by millions of viewers every year. The lawsuit claims Bowlero CEO Thomas Shannon saw the association "as an infomercial," allowing the company to flood televised games with logos and ads. And as it consolidated the market, Bowlero executives allegedly planned to "use our scale to drive procurement synergies," securing preferential deals with suppliers like Sysco Foods, QubicaAMF bowling balls, and Kegel lane maintenance not available to its competitors. The complaint further alleges that once Bowlero acquired bowling centers, it employed algorithmic dynamic pricing and other strategies to drive up costs for consumers and wring more profit from local alleys. According to the suit, Bowlero slashed weekday hours and aimed to use dynamic pricing "to fill the centers on the weekends at the highest price we can," in the alleged words of President Lev Ekster. One bowler allegedly spent $284 for two hours of bowling at a Bowlero location in Seattle. Another bowler said a California Bowlero center tried to charge him $400 to go bowling over the holidays with his family, prompting him to note, "The bowling alley felt to me like the last egalitarian, fun, middle-American thing . . . and for [Bowlero's pricing practices] to reach its tentacles into that realm felt pretty appalling." At the same time, the company, which has also begun acquiring amusement and water parks, allegedly cut operating hours and reduced maintenance while pushing alcohol and promoting gambling, according to the lawsuit. The company held its quarterly earnings call, in which its executives touted its rollout of new "AI initiatives," including in pricing. [GN] MARQETA INC: Consolidated Derivative Suit Stayed ------------------------------------------------ Marqeta, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2026, that United States District Court for the Northern District of California stayed a consolidated derivative suit pending developments in the consolidated Securities Actions. In addition, three related shareholder derivative lawsuits are pending. On Feb. 4, 2025, a putative shareholder derivative lawsuit, captioned Smith v. Khalaf, et al., was filed in the same court against certain of the companys current and former officers and its board of directors (as then constituted), and names the company as a nominal defendant. This lawsuit asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duties and violations of federal securities laws, among other claims, between the time period of May 7, 2024, and Nov. 4, 2024, under similar theories as the Securities Actions. Two other substantially similar putative shareholder derivative lawsuits, captioned Ojserkis v. Khalaf, et al., and Preciado v. Khalaf, et al., were filed on Feb. 21, 2025, and Feb. 27, 2025, respectively. All three putative shareholder derivative suits have been consolidated into one lawsuit captioned In re Marqeta, Inc. Derivative Litigation. The consolidated derivative action is currently stayed pending developments in the consolidated Securities Actions. Marqeta, Inc. is a modern card issuing platform provider that enables businesses to create and manage payment cards and embedded finance solutions through its open API-driven infrastructure. The company serves fintechs, digital banks, and enterprises seeking to launch and scale innovative payment and card programs globally. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. is a leading theatrical exhibition company and one of the largest movie theater operators in the world, serving audiences through cinemas primarily in the United States and Europe. The Company offers a variety of movie-going experiences and related food, beverage, and premium services. MARQETA INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Marqeta, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. It is defending consolidated securities class action litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California arising from two putative securities class actions, captioned Wai v. Marqeta, Inc., et al., and Ford v. Marqeta, Inc., et al. The Wai lawsuit was filed on Dec. 9, 2024, and the Ford lawsuit was filed on Dec. 10, 2024, in the same court against the company and certain of its current and former officers, including its former chief executive officer and its chief financial officer, alleging violations of federal securities laws, including Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The lawsuits assert that during their respective putative class periods, the defendants made false or misleading statements relating to the company's performance or revenue and gross profit expectations, and seek to recover damages on behalf of shareholders who acquired shares of the company's common stock during those periods. The Securities Actions have been consolidated into one consolidated securities litigation captioned In re Marqeta, Inc. Securities Litigation, and the court has appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel in the matter. On April 10, 2025, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint, which alleges a putative class period between Feb. 28, 2024, and Nov. 4, 2024. The company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on May 15, 2025. Marqeta, Inc. is a modern card issuing platform provider that enables businesses to create and manage payment cards and embedded finance solutions through its open API-driven infrastructure. The company serves fintechs, digital banks, and enterprises seeking to launch and scale innovative payment and card programs globally. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. is a leading theatrical exhibition company and one of the largest movie theater operators in the world, serving audiences through cinemas primarily in the United States and Europe. The Company offers a variety of movie-going experiences and related food, beverage, and premium services. MASIMO CORP: Continues to Defend Derivative Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------------- Masimo Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending April 4, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from consolidated stockholder derivative suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. On May 1, 2024, a purported stockholder of the Company, Linda McClellan, filed a derivative action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against certain of the Company’s current and former executives and directors, and the Company as nominal defendant. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Company by allowing or permitting false or misleading statements to be disseminated regarding the performance of the Company’s healthcare business and the success of the Company’s legacy Sound United business. The complaint also asserts causes of action for violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act) (15 U.S.C. S 78j(b)) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets. On May 16, 2024, a purported stockholder of the Company, Dianne Himmelberger, filed a similar derivative action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. On July 22, 2024, the Court consolidated the derivative actions and stayed them until the motion to dismiss the Securities Class Action has been (i) denied in whole or in part, and no amended complaint is subsequently filed; or (ii) granted with prejudice, and any appeals pertaining to the motion to dismiss have concluded, or the time for seeking appellate review has passed with no further action from the Securities Class Action parties. On March 14, 2025, the Court lifted the stay. On March 23, 2026, the parties filed a joint motion to stay the derivative actions in light of the transaction announced on February 16, 2026, through which Masimo will become a wholly owned subsidiary of Danaher Corporation (the Merger). On March 25, 2026, the Court granted the stay, which will expire ten calendar days after the earliest of (a) the closing of the Merger; (b) termination of the Merger Agreement; or (c) Sept. 15, 2026. In addition to the derivative actions, the Company has received two shareholder requests under Delaware law demanding, among other things, that the Company take certain actions in response to alleged breaches of fiduciary duty relating to the same matters at issue in the Securities Class Action and the derivative actions, one of which was subsequently withdrawn, and the Company's Board has formed a review committee, currently consisting of Dr. Solomon and Ms. Lane, to consider and assess the remaining demand. Masimo Corp. is a global medical technology company that develops, manufactures and markets noninvasive patient monitoring technologies, medical devices and audio products. The company serves hospitals, health care providers and consumers worldwide. MASIMO CORP: Discovery in Vazquez Class Suit Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------- Masimo Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending April 4, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2026, that discovery is ongoing for Vazquez class suit. A putative class action complaint filed on August 22, 2023 by Sergio Vazquez against the Company and members of its management alleging violations of the federal securities laws. On November 14, 2023, the Court appointed Boston Retirement System, Central Pennsylvania Teamsters Pension Fund-Defined Benefit Plan, and Central Pennsylvania Teamsters Pension Fund-Retirement Income Plan 1987 as lead plaintiffs. The lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 12, 2024. The amended complaint alleges that the Company and members of its management, from May 4, 2022 through August 8, 2023, disseminated materially false and misleading statements and/or concealed material adverse facts relating to the performance of its healthcare business and the success of the Company s legacy Sound United business. The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint on April 29, 2024. On November 5, 2024, the Court granted the motion in part, allowing the surviving claims to proceed to discovery. The parties engaged in a mediation on May 28, 2025. On July 11, 2025, the parties informed the Court that they have reached a settlement in principle. On August 14, 2025, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement, which the Court granted on February 2, 2026. A Settlement Hearing is scheduled for May 11, 2026. Masimo Corp is a global medical technology company that develops, manufactures and markets noninvasive patient monitoring technologies, medical devices and audio products. The company serves hospitals, health care providers and consumers worldwide. MEDTRONIC INC: Fails to Secure Private Info, Jennings Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- Robin Jennings, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Medtronic Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-02414 (D. Minn., April 29, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to keep Plaintiff's and Class Members' Sensitive Private Information secure. The complaint relates that in the course of providing its services, Medtronic collected substantial information regarding individuals, including Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI") (collectively "Sensitive Private Information"). Specifically, for a number of its medical devices, Medtronic requires physicians and customers to register the device with Medtronic. By collecting and storing Plaintiff's and Class members' Sensitive Private Information, Defendant assumed equitable and legal duties to implement adequate data security measures to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class members' information from unauthorized access and disclosure. Defendant, however, breached these duties by implementing inadequate data security measures, creating a foreseeable risk of harm to Plaintiff and the Class that materialized during the Data Breach, and further resulting in the access and exfiltration of Plaintiff's and Class members' Sensitive Private Information by cybercriminals. In April 2026, a group of cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's computer systems, accessed and exfiltrated file repositories that contained Plaintiff's and Class Members' Sensitive Private Information (the "Data Breach"). As a result of the intrusion, cybercriminals were able to access and exfiltrate Sensitive Private Information belonging to affected individuals. The information compromised in the breach likely included, among other things, the type of medical device, patient names, patient addresses, patient phone numbers, following physicians, and social security card numbers. Such information is highly valuable to identity thieves and can be used to commit fraud, identity theft, medical identity theft, and other forms of misuse. Individuals whose information was exposed therefore face an ongoing and heightened risk of identity theft, financial fraud, and other harms resulting from the breach. Medtronic has not yet begun notifying the millions of impacted individuals that had been included in the breach, says the suit. The Plaintiff therefore seeks injunctive relief requiring Defendant to implement reasonable and appropriate data security measures, improve breach detection and response protocols, limit the collection and retention of Sensitive Private Information to that which is reasonably necessary for legitimate business purposes and delete all data that is no longer reasonably necessary for Defendant to have in its possession, custody and control, provide appropriate data security training for employees, undergo periodic third-party security assessments, and comply with applicable data protection and notification obligations to prevent Plaintiff's significant, imminent, and ongoing risk of future harm. Plaintiff Robin Jennings is a recipient of a Medtronic device, whose Sensitive Private Information was collected, stored, and maintained by Defendant. Defendant Medtronic Inc. is a global medical technology company that develops, manufactures, and sells devices and therapies used to treat a wide range of chronic and acute medical conditions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Michael L. Laird, Esq. Madison M. DeMaris, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com michael.laird@zimmreed.com madison.demaris@zimmreed.com METAFIT PHARMA: Laplante Balks at Unsolicited Commercial Email Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------ BRADY LAPLANTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. METAFIT PHARMA SOLUTIONS LLC, a California LLC, d/b/a TrimRx.com, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-02701-AGS-MMP (S.D. Cal., April 28, 2026) arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful spamming and invasion of privacy in violation of the California Business & Professions Code and the California Trap and Trace Law. The Defendant funds a network of affiliate marketers who blanket Americans with illegal spam. They deploy 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, spam recipients like Plaintiff are funneled to Defendant's website at TRIMRX.COM, where Defendant installs a web of illegal tracking pixels on their devices. Those tracking technologies enable Defendant and its partners to monitor visitors' behavior across the internet, converting a single deceptive email into ongoing digital surveillance. The Defendant has not established and implemented, with due care, practices and procedures reasonably designed to effectively prevent unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisements that are in violation of the Business & Professions Code that would justify a reduction in liquidated damages, says the suit. Metafit Pharma Solutions LLC, a California LLC, d/b/a TrimRx.com, owns and operates a telehealth platform, TrimRx.com. It is a limited liability company incorporated in California.[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 MITSUBISHI CHEMICAL: Sigala Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mitsubishi Chemical Carbon Fiber and Composites, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Mario Sigala, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mitsubishi Chemical Carbon Fiber and Composites, Inc., Does 1-10, Case No. 26CV010318 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April 24, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Mitsubishi Chemical Carbon Fiber and Composites (MCCFC) -- https://mccfc.com/ -- is one of the global leaders in carbon fiber manufacturing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie Osganian, Esq. Kane Moon, Esq. MOON LAW GROUP, PC 725 S Figueroa St., Ste. 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5404 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com josganian@moonlawgroup.com MY GOALS SOLUTIONS: Shavies Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against My Goals Solutions Inc. The case is styled as Charleen Shavies, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. My Goals Solutions Inc. doing business as: Goals Aesthetics and Plastic Surgery, Case No. 3:26-cv-03517-TSH (N.D. Cal., April 24, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. My Goals Solutions Inc. doing business as Goals Plastic Surgery -- https://goalsplasticsurgery.com/ -- has grown into the nation's leading brand in aesthetics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Faythe E. Gutierrez, Esq. PLG DAMAGE ATTORNEYS, PLLC 2750 SW 145th Avenue #509 Miramar, FL 33027 Phone: (305) 506-4746 Email: fgutierrez@plgdamage.com NATIONAL MANAGEMENT: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Cabriales Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARIA ANGELICA CABRIALES and EDITH CABRIALES, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL MANAGEMENT RESOURCES CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-1376 (N.D. Tex., April 29, 2026) is a civil action against the Defendant for its violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the federal Portal-to-Portal Pay Act (collectively "FLSA") because it did not pay Plaintiffs time and one-half their respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 during each and every seven-day workweek. The complaint relates that the Plaintiffs regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per seven-day workweek as employees of Defendant. However, Defendant regularly reduced the time Plaintiffs reported worked per workweek in their time records which resulted in Plaintiffs not being paid all overtime wages owed in violation of the FLSA. The Defendant employed numerous other hourly paid custodial and maintenance employees at Nelson University who were subject to the same practices, policies, and/or procedures as Plaintiffs concerning unpaid overtime wages, says the suit. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, seek all damages available pursuant to the FLSA including unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, reasonable legal fees, costs, and post-judgment interest. Plaintiffs Maria Angelica Cabriales and Edith Cabriales were employed by Defendant at Nelson University in Ellis County, Texas as hourly paid maintenance and custodial workers. Defendant National Management Resources Corporation provides custodial and maintenance services to third parties.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Allen R. Vaught, Esq. VAUGHT FIRM, LLC 1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (972) 707-7816 Facsimile: (972) 920-3933 E-mail: avaught@txlaborlaw.com NEW JERSEY: Graham Files Suit in N.J. Sup. Ct. ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against State of New Jersey Department of Corrections, et al. The case is styled as Travis Graham, Lionel Nash, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. State of New Jersey Department of Corrections; Victoria L. Kuhn, State of New Jersey Department of Corrections Commissioner; Erin Nardelli, State of New Jersey Department of Corrections Deputy Commissioner; Kelly Daniels, Esq., Assistant Commissioner of the State of New Jersey Department of Corrections Special Investigation Division; Timathy Gonzalez, Director of the State of New Jersey Department of Corrections Special Investigation Division; John Doe #1-10, fictitious names; Case No. L-000961-26 (N.J. Sup. Ct., Mercer Cty., April 24, 2026). The case type is stated as "Civil Rights." The New Jersey Department of Corrections (NJDOC) -- https://www.nj.gov/corrections/pages/index.shtml -- is the government agency responsible for operations and management of prison facilities in the U.S. state of New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alyssa Tolentino, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Ave., Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (929) 632-0267 Email: atolentino@sirillp.com NEXTFOODS INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Lopez Says -------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR LOPEZ, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. NEXTFOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03529 (S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on February 25, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Probiotic Supplement from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and visually-impaired consumers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the goods, and services Defendant offers to the public on its Website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff VICTOR LOPEZ is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant NEXTFOODS, INC. operates the Good Belly online retail store, as well as the Good Belly interactive Website that provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's: probiotic supplements, as well as other types of goods, pricing, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and internet pricing specials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212-228-9795 Facsimile: 212-982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal NIKE INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Tariff-Related Overcharges ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shubhendu Vimal, writing for Yahoo Finance, reports that Nike is facing a proposed US class action alleging it raised prices to cover tariff costs and has not committed to returning those funds after the tariffs were struck down. The case was filed in federal court in Portland, Oregon, and concerns import tariffs imposed by US President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. In February, the US Supreme Court invalidated the tariffs. Reuters reported that Nike disclosed it paid around $1bn in tariffs on imported goods linked to those measures. According to the plaintiffs, the company raised prices on some footwear by $5 to $10 and on certain apparel lines by $2 to $10 to offset those costs. With the tariffs now overturned, consumers argue Nike is due refunds from the federal government and say that money should go back to shoppers instead of being kept by the company. The complaint states: "Nike has made no legally binding commitment to return tariff-related overcharges to the consumers who actually paid them. "Unless restrained by this court, Nike stands to recover the same tariff payments twice -- once from consumers through higher prices and again from the federal government through tariff refunds." Nike is one of several companies facing comparable consumer cases, alongside Costco and Ray-Ban sunglasses maker EssilorLuxottica, in relation to tariff-linked price changes. The lawsuit comes as Nike is also dealing with other legal and regulatory matters. In February, US regulators asked a court to order Nike to provide documents connected to alleged discrimination against White employees. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said it was examining allegations that the company carried out systemic bias through its hiring practices and diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. Separately, Nike said last month it would cut 1,400 jobs across its global workforce as part of efforts to streamline operations during an extended period of weak sales. Equating to just under 2% of the company's total headcount, the cuts are expected to affect mainly technology roles across North America, Asia and Europe. "Nike faces proposed US class action over tariff pricing -- report" was originally created and published by Retail Insight Network, a GlobalData owned brand. [GN] NOORI CHICKEN: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Williams Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- DARNELL WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Noori Chicken Franchising LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-4822 (N.D. Ill., April 28, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://noorichicken.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Williams and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Williams' rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The complaint relates that Williams wanted to order freshly prepared Korean-style fried chicken for takeout, having heard that has a crispier texture and more complex flavors compared to traditional fried chicken. Therefore, he began searching online for a trusted restaurant in his area. While browsing, Williams discovered the Defendant's website, Noori Chicken, which offers a variety of Korean-style fried chicken dishes, sides, and beverages. After reviewing the restaurant's positive ratings and customer feedback praising the food quality, bold flavors, and variety of sauces, Williams decided to explore the Website, including its menu and offerings, with the intent to place an online order. However, while navigating the Website using his screen reader, Williams encountered accessibility barriers that significantly hindered his ability to proceed with his intended order. The Website thus contains access barriers that deny full and equal access to Williams, who would otherwise use the Website and who would otherwise be able to fully and equally enjoy the benefits and services of the Website in Illinois State and throughout the United States. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Williams and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of the Website in violation of the ADA and/or its implementing regulations. Williams seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff Darnell Williams is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Noori Chicken Franchising LLC provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to browse a wide selection of Korean-style fried chicken dishes, sides, and beverages, place orders online, and view location details and contact information.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N, Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 716-281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law NORTH MOUNTAIN: Plaintiff Must File Amended Complaint by May 18 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mathews M Valliaveetil, v. North Mountain Healthcare LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-03928-KML (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Lanham entered an order that the motion to dismiss is granted with leave to amend. No later than May 18, 2026, the plaintiff shall file an amended complaint. If no amended complaint is filed, the plaintiff's claim regarding health insurance will be the only claim that proceeds. The parties are directed to meet, confer, and develop a Rule 26(f) Joint Case Management Report, which must be filed within 4 weeks of the date of this order. Valliaveetil does not identify an employment contract or Arizona statute violated by his termination, and he does not allege he was terminated in retaliation for asserting rights that state law protects. The wrongful termination claim is dismissed. Valliaveetil appears to agree in acknowledging he is seeking $16,225.20 for unprovided working hours. Valliaveetil has not identified the legal basis by which he believes he is owed money for hours he did not work. The wage claims are dismissed. In 2021, Valliaveetil began working as a nurse for the parent entity of North Mountain. In 2024, he began working at the North Mountain location, and he received a positive employee evaluation on March 21, 2024. On March 28, 2025, Valliaveetil was fired. A copy of the Court's order dated May 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rd2Jy7 at no extra charge.[CC] NOVELIS CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Daft Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------- COLLIN DAFT, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NOVELIS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-00999 (N.D. Ohio, April 28, 2026) seeks all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant at its facility in Uhrichsville, Ohio, as an hourly, non-exempt employee furnace operator from July 2024 to April 2026. During their employment with Defendant, Plaintiff and other similarly situated production/manufacturing employees were required to arrive at their respective facilities before the scheduled start of their shifts to engage in mandatory pre-shift meetings. However, the Defendant did not compensate them for the time they spent engaging in mandatory pre-shift meetings, says the suit. Novelis Corporation manufactures and distributes aluminum products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd, Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com sdraher@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com ONE SOURCE: Faces Hayes Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------- PARRISHA HAYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ONE SOURCE MEDICAL GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-01246 (M.D. Fla., April 28, 2026) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information that was impacted in a data breach. On or around March 7, 2026, the Defendant experienced unauthorized access to its IT network that resulted in the exfiltration of data stored on the IT network. Since the data breach occurred, the notorious ransomware group "Genesis" has claimed responsibility for the data breach. According to the complaint, the Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the private information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. The Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the private information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of herself, and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the data breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. One Source Medical Group, LLC is an Accreditation Commission for Health Care-accredited supplier of durable medical equipment and supplies, specializing in diabetes management, enteral nutrition, and incontinence products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tonyia J. Johnson, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: tjohnson@shamisgentile.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com PLUM DELUXE: Cruz Sues Over Website's ADA Non-Compliance -------------------------------------------------------- GABRIELA CRUZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Plum Deluxe LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00748 (E.D. Wis., April 28, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.plumdeluxe.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Defendant's website contains significant access barriers that make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website. The Defendant failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its discriminatory conduct, which continues to violate Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, says the suit. Headquartered in Portland, OR, Plum Deluxe LLC owns and operates the website which offers tea products for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 (718) 554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law POET TECHNOLOGIES: Jones Balks at Undisclosed Material Info ----------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POET TECHNOLOGIES INC., SURESH VENKATESAN, and THOMAS MIKA, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-04717 (D.N.J., April 28, 2026) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and other persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded POET securities between April 1, 2026 and 08:57 AM ET on April 27, 2026, inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendant's violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendants released statements that were materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose the adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operations and prospects, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) POET Technologies misrepresented its tax status due to it likely being deemed a passive foreign investment company under U.S. tax laws which, if not properly reported by each U.S. stockholder, would have negative tax implications for those U.S. stockholders; (2) the foregoing tax issue would, if discovered, make POET Technologies a less attractive investment than it would otherwise be, thus threatening POET Technologies' valuation; (3) Defendant Thomas Mika, despite affirming that he was not violating a non-disclosure agreement, in fact violated a business agreement by speaking about POET Technologies' business agreements in a public interview, thus endangering POET Technologies' business prospects, and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about POET Technologies' business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On this news, the price of POET stock fell $7.15 per share, or 47.3%, to close at $7.95 on April 27, 2026. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common shares, the Plaintiff and the other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Poet Technologies Inc. is a design and development company offering photonic integrated packaging solutions based on the POET Optical Interposer(TM), a platform that allows the integration of electronic and photonic devices onto a single chip using wafer-level semiconductor manufacturing techniques.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. One Gateway Center, Suite 2600 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 313-1887 Facsimile: (973) 833-0399 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com PORSCHE SE: Faces Class Suit Over Repair Services Market Monopoly ----------------------------------------------------------------- Earl Lee of AutoBlog reports that lawsuit alleges Porsche created an illegal monopoly by restricting repairs to authorized dealers only. Software and tools needed for repairs are inaccessible to independent repair providers, raising costs. "Only Defendant [Porsche] and its dealers were able to 'clear the code' to reset the oil indicator." Forced Back into the Dealer An antitrust class-action lawsuit was filed against Porsche, alleging an illegal monopoly in repair services. The plaintiff filed the lawsuit after hitting a software wall following a routine oil change on his Porsche from a third-party service provider. The class-action lawsuit, as reported by Car Complaints, alleges that vehicle owners are forced to return to Porsche dealers for repairs and maintenance. The design of the cars essentially locks them into obtaining repairs and maintenance at higher costs at Porsche dealerships instead of hiring a third-party or independent repair provider. The Affected Vehicles The affected vehicles are those sold by Porsche between January 1, 2021, and the present. The lawsuit stemmed from a software block that occurred after a routine oil change, so it's unclear whether the Cayenne Electric, Macan Electric, or Taycan models are to be counted. Basically, all Porsche sports cars and SUVs from MY2021 and up, and the kicker is that all of this started with a Cayenne, not a 911. According to the lawsuit, "all persons and entities in the United States who paid a Porsche-authorized dealer to perform repairs or maintenance services on Affected Vehicles." The plaintiff states that Porsche designs vehicles so that only Porsche dealers can work on them. That means that diagnostic data, calibration, software, and other tools required to work on these cars are exclusive to the dealer. Apart from hand tools, dealers bust out laptops and tablets to communicate with the car's systems, ensure everything is in working order, and complete the job. Porsche "allegedly" conspired with dealerships to design its cars from the ground up to create this service and repair monopoly, which is unlawful and uncompetitive, according to the plaintiff, Fleet Savage Systems, who happens to own a Porsche Cayenne. Suing Over an Oil Light Per the plaintiff's account, Florida-based Fleet Savage Systems took the Cayenne to an independent repair facility in June 2025. On the job order was an oil change and an oil filter replacement. After getting all the fluids sorted, the independent mechanic said that he couldn't reset the oil life monitor due to restrictions set by Porsche. "Only Defendant [Porsche] and its dealers were able to 'clear the code' to reset the oil indicator. This resulted in an effective monopoly maintained by Defendants upon service and repairs, including oil changes, which Defendants perform at a far higher price than IRPs [independent repair providers]. Plaintiff was forced to pay a higher price for routine maintenance at one of Defendant's co-conspirator Dealerships." -- Fleet Salvage Systems, Inc. v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc. Because of the software wall the plaintiff had to contend with, a class action was filed, stating that Porsche had allegedly made it impossible for owners to contract independent repair businesses because they're unable to access the vehicles' systems. The class action also states that owners can save money by taking their service and repair outside the dealerships, and that Porsche has made that option unavailable to its consumers. According to the class action, Porsche dealers can maintain a 100% market share of repair and vehicle maintenance services and charge high prices. Porsche purportedly makes even more profit through parts and component sales. [GN] PORTILLO'S INC: Settlement in PAGA Class Suit for Court OK ---------------------------------------------------------- Portillo's Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 29, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2026, that a former team member from one of the Company's two California restaurants filed a class action lawsuit in 2024 alleging wage and hour violations, unfair competition, and claims under the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). The parties agreed to settlement terms in November 2025, subject to court approval, and as of March 29, 2026, a $0.8 million litigation reserve has been recorded in accounts payable on its condensed consolidated balance sheet. Portillo's Inc. is a fast-casual restaurant company known for Chicago-style hot dogs, Italian beef sandwiches, burgers, and other classic American fare. The company operates restaurants across several states, offering both dine-in and off-premises dining options. PUBLIC SERVICE: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in Maryland -------------------------------------------------------------- Public Service Electric & Gas 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 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from an antitrust laws violation class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. In July 2025, a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against 26 nuclear generation power companies, including PSEG, and two consulting companies. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated federal antitrust laws by conspiring to fix the compensation and exchange information regarding compensation for nuclear generation workers. The alleged class includes all persons employed in nuclear power generation by the defendants and their subsidiaries from 2003 until the present, and the relief sought includes treble damages. PSEG cannot predict the outcome of this matter. Public Service Electric & Gas Co. is a regulated gas and electric utility based in New Jersey, providing electric and natural gas service to residential, commercial and industrial customers across its service territory. The company is a subsidiary of Public Service Enterprise Group Inc., an energy company involved in regulated utility operations and power generation. RAG & BONE: Transmits Spam Texts to Market Products, Verduzco Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ CARLOS VERDUZCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RAG & BONE HOLDINGS LLC d/b/a RAG & BONE HOLDINGS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-02527-LL-VET (S.D. Cal., April 21, 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. Rag & Bone Holdings LLC is a clothing and accessories company based in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Faythe Gutierrez, Esq. PLG DAMAGE ATTORNEYS 2750 SW 145th Avenue, #509 Miramar, FL 33027 Email: service@plgdamage.com RANGE VIEW: Must Participate in Scheduling Conference, Court Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Aurandt v. Range View Management LLC et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-05785 (W.D. Wash., Filed Sept 4, 2025), the Hon. Judge Benjamin H. Settle entered an order directing the Defendants to participate in a FRCP 26(f) scheduling conference with plaintiff. The parties shall jointly propose a class certification briefing schedule by May 18, 2026, notwithstanding any pending motions. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Range View provides debt relief and mortgage services.[CC] REDBUBBLE INC: Henderson Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH HENDERSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Redbubble Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04806 (N.D. Ill., April 28, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.redbubble.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Henderson and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff Henderson browsed and intended to make an online purchase of a phone case on the website. Despite his efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. Unless Defendant remedies the numerous access barriers on its website, Plaintiff Henderson and Class Members will continue to be unable to independently navigate, browse, use, and complete a purchase on the website, says the suit. Plaintiff Henderson 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. Redbubble Inc. operates the website that offers art prints, clothing, stickers, home decor, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law REVTRAK INC: Fact Discovery in Bradley Closes on April 6, 2027 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bradley v. RevTrak Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-03066 (C.D. Ill., Filed Feb. 25, 2026), the Hon. Judge Colleen R. Lawless entered an order setting the following deadlines: -- Initial disclosures due by Aug. 20, 2026 -- Amendment of pleadings by Nov. 4, 2026 -- Additional parties joined by Nov. 4, 2026 -- Fact discovery closes April 6, 2027 -- Disclosure of affirmative experts and expert reports by April 20, 2027 -- Affirmative experts deposed by May 5, 2027 -- Disclosure of rebuttal experts and rebuttal expert reports by May 20, 2027 -- Rebuttal expert deposed by July 5, 2027 -- Expert discovery closed Aug. 4, 2027 -- Motion for class certification due Sept. 3, 2027 -- Response to motion for class certification due Oct. 4, 2027 -- Reply in support of motion for class certification due Nov. 2, 2027 -- Daubert motions due Nov. 2, 2027 -- Responses to Daubert motions due Dec. 7, 2027 -- Replies in support of Daubert motions due Jan. 6, 2028 The nature of suit states Statutory Actions. RevTrak operates as a provider of payment processing solutions.[CC] ROADELO LLC: Sends Unwanted Telemarketing Texts, Sutton Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- KATY-BROOKS SUTTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROADELO LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01156 (W.D. Tex., April 21, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Texas Business and Commerce Code. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of placing unsolicited text messages to the cellular telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers in an attempt to promote its auto insurance products without obtaining prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's action, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages. Roadelo LLC is an auto insurance provider based in Lewes, Delaware. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark L. Javitch, Esq. JAVITCH LAW OFFICE 3 East 3rd Avenue, Suite 200 San Mateo, CA 94401 Telephone: (650) 781-8000 Email: mark@javitchlawoffice.com RODENBURG LLP: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Chase Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTOPHER CHASE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RODENBURG LLP d/b/a RODENBURG LAW FIRM, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00137-ARS (D.N.D., April 30, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. The complaint relates that the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") -- together "PII/PHI" -- about its current and former clients. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach on August 26, 2025. Because of Defendant's Data Breach, the following types of PII/PHI were compromised: Names; Social Security Numbers; Dates of Birth; Financial Institution Information (including payment card numbers); and Medical conditions or treatment information. In total, Defendant injured 81,307 persons (including current and former clients)--via the exposure of their PII/PHI--in the Data Breach. And yet, Defendant waited over until April 21, 2026, before it began notifying the class--a full 231 days after the Data Breach was discovered. In the aftermath of the Data Breach, Plaintiff suffered from a spike in spam and scam emails, text messages and phone calls. Plaintiff suffered imminent and impending injury arising from the substantially increased risk of fraud, misuse, and identity theft—all because Defendant's Data Breach placed Plaintiff's PII right in the hands of criminals, says the suit. In addition to injunctive relief, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the other Class Members, also seeks compensatory damages for Defendant's invasion of privacy, which includes the value of the privacy interest invaded by Defendant, the costs of future monitoring of their credit history for identity theft and fraud, plus prejudgment interest and costs. Plaintiff Christopher Chase is a citizen of North Dakota and a Data Breach victim. Defendant Rodenburg LLP d/b/a Rodenburg Law Firm is a North Dakota based law firm that specializes in the consumer and commercial collections practice area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, 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: raina@straussborrelli.com ROTO-ROOTER SERVICES: Nohle Seeks Conditional Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRIS NOHLE, ANTHONY GARDYNSKI, JOEY HAINES, DAQUELL SIMMONS, BRANDON HOFFERT, COLE PENDOCK, MICHAEL TERRIZZI, KYLE ROBINSON, KALOB ROBERTS, and ZACHARY KRAJEWSKI on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. ROTO-ROOTER SERVICES COMPANY, INC., ROTO-ROOTER PLUMBING & DRAIN SERVICE, FIRST DOWN BROWN PLUMBING LLC, and MARK STEPOWOY, and RYAN WILLBANKS, Individually, Case No. 5:25-cv-01688-AJB-CBF (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Conditionally certifying a collective action on behalf of: "all current and former service Technicians, who were paid on a commission basis, and entitled to but not paid overtime when they were paid and/or were subjected to unlawful deductions and adjustments from pay, and who worked for either First Down Brown Plumbing, LLC in New York, who worked for any franchise of Roto-Rooter Services Company, Inc., in New York, who worked for any franchise of Roto-Rooter Plumbing & Drain Service in New York, and who worked for any Roto-Rooter franchise in New York owned or operated by Mark Stepowoy and/or Ryan Willbanks or in which Mark Stepowoy and/or Ryan Willbanks holds or held an interest, within the past three (3) years prior to the filing of the Verified Complaint on Dec. 3, 2025"; and 2. Directing that the First Down Brown Plumbing, LLC and Roto-Rooter Services Company, Inc., in New York, Roto-Rooter Plumbing & Drain Service produce to the Plaintiffs' counsel, a computer readable data file containing the full names, last known mailing address, last known telephone numbers, dates of employment, location of employment, and last four (4) digits of their Social Security number, for all potential opt-in plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs' motion will be heard in the United States District Court, Northern District of New York, James T. Foley Courthouse, and/or if assigned for a report and recommendation, before the assigned Magistrate Judge Carla B. Freedman, on any date to be set by the Court, and that responsive papers are due on May 8, 2026 and reply papers due on May 15, 2026 as previously scheduled by the Magistrate. Roto-Rooter provides plumbing repair and maintenance services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ELSWWT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carol A. Crossett, Esq. TULLY RINCKEY PLLC 420 Lexington Avenue, Ste. 1601 New York, NY 10170 Telephone: (646) 813-2966 E-mail: ccrossett@tullylegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Aaron Warshaw, Esq. OGLETREE & DEAKINS 1270 Avenue of the Americas, 24th Floor New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 492-2083 E-mail: aaron.warshaw@ogletree.com - and - Robert C. Whitaker, Jr., Esq. James P. Young, Esq. HANCOCK ESTABROOK, LLP 1800 AXA Tower I 100 Madison Street Syracuse, NY 13202 Telephone: (315) 565-4500 E-mail: rwhitaker@hancocklaw.com jyoungs@hancocklaw.com - and - Eamon F. Millar, Esq. Jonathan E. Hansen, Esq. Adam H. Cooper, Esq. MONACO COOPER LAMME & CARR, PLLC 1881 Western Ave., Ste. 200 Albany, NY 12203 Telephone: (518) 445-8825 E-mail: emillar@mclclaw.com jhansen@mclclaw.com acooper@mclclaw.com SEABOARD CORP: Continues to Defend DPP MDL in Minnesota ------------------------------------------------------- Seaboard Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending April 4, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the DPP MDL in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. In addition, additional standalone direct action plaintiffs filed similar actions in federal courts throughout the country, several of which named Seaboard Corporation as a defendant, and those actions filed in courts other than the District of Minnesota have been conditionally transferred to Minnesota for pretrial proceedings pursuant to an order by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. On June 12, 2023, Seaboard Foods entered into a settlement agreement with the putative direct purchaser plaintiff class (the DPP Class). The settlement with the DPP Class does not cover the claims of (a) direct action plaintiffs (DPPs) that opted out of Seaboard's settlement with the DPP Class and are continuing direct actions; (b) other direct purchasers that opted out of the settlement (Other Opt-Outs) and may in the future file actions against Seaboard; (c) the Commercial and Industrial Indirect Purchaser Class (the CIIP Class); or (d) the End User Consumer Indirect Purchaser Plaintiff Class (the EUCP Class). Subsequent to the settlement with the DPP Class, Seaboard settled with some of the DPPs and Other Opt-Outs. Seaboard continues to litigate against the DPPs it has not settled with, but Seaboard will consider additional reasonable settlements where they are available. On June 18, 2024 and June 20, 2024, Seaboard Foods entered into settlement agreements with the CIIP Class and the EUCP Class, with the settlement with the EUCP Class remaining subject to court approval. Seaboard Foods entered into settlement agreements with the state of Alaska on Aug. 7, 2024, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico on Jan. 2, 2025, and the state of New Mexico on Sept. 26, 2025. On March 31, 2025, the Minnesota District Court denied the defendants motion for summary judgment. Absent reconsideration or another change in circumstance, cases pending in the Minnesota District Court will proceed to trial and cases pending in other jurisdictions will be remanded to the courts in which the actions were brought. Seaboard has settled all actions originally brought in the Minnesota District Court, but it is uncertain when the Minnesota District Court will remand the cases, including Seaboard's, pending in other jurisdictions or when trials for those cases will be scheduled. Seaboard Corp. is a diversified agribusiness and transportation company engaged in pork production and processing, commodity trading and milling, marine transportation, and power generation operations worldwide. The company conducts its pork segment primarily through Seaboard Foods, a vertically integrated producer and exporter of pork products. SELENE FINANCE: More Time for Class Cert Bid Filing Sought ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTEL ENGLAND, KAREN MEYERS, and ANGELA JOYNERPERRY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. SELENE FINANCE, LP, Case No. 1:23-cv-00847-TDS-JEP (M.D.N.C.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for an extension of the class certification deadline up through and including July 10, 2026. The Parties are working to schedule the depositions of the Plaintiffs to occur in May and June and are working to finalize those dates. However, these depositions will not occur until after the current class certification deadline. The Plaintiff requires written discovery and deposition testimony to satisfy burden under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file their motion for class certification has not yet expired. This extension will not affect any other deadlines under the Court's Scheduling Order, including the discovery deadline of Sept. 4, 2026, and the dispositive motion deadline of Oct. 2, 2026. The Plaintiffs commenced this action against the Defendant Selene Finance, LP in this Court on or about Oct. 4, 2023 asserting claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). The Defendant filed Motion to Dismiss the Complaint and supporting memorandum on Dec. 22, 2023. Selene operates as a residential mortgage company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Jl9d6r at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott C. Harris, Esq. Michael Dunn, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DeMAY, PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 E-mail: sharris@brysonpllc.com mdunn@brysonpllc.com - and - Edward Maginnis, Esq. Karl S. Gwaltney, Esq. MAGINNIS HOWARD 7706 Six Forks Road, Suite 101 Raleigh, NC 27615 Telephone: (919) 526-0450 Facsimile: (919) 882-8763 E-mail: kgwaltney@carolinalaw.com emaginnis@carolinalaw.com The Defendant is represented by: D. Kyle Deak, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP 305 Church at North Hills Steet Ste. 1200 Raleigh, NC 27609 Telephone: (919) 835-4133 E-mail: kyle.deak@troutman.com SERVBANC HOLDCO: Chicago Capital Alleges Securities Law Breaches ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHICAGO CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SERVBANC HOLDCO, INC. as successor in interest to IF BANCORP, INC., SERVBANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, WALTER H. HASSELBRING, III, PAMELA J. VERKLER, ALAN D. MARTIN, JOSEPH A. COWAN, WAYNE A. LEHMANN, RICHARD S. STENZINGER, DENNIS C. WITTENBORN, RODNEY E. YERGLER, and SCOTT J. DWORSCHAK, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-04873 (N.D. Ill., April 28, 2026), alleges violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 14a-9 of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Plaintiff's claims arise in connection with the Board's solicitation of IF Bancorp shareholders to vote in favor of a merger transaction--based on false representations of the consideration shareholders would receive--pursuant to which IF Bancorp would merge with and into ServBanc Holdco, Inc. Allegedly, the Board authorized the filing of a false and misleading definitive proxy on Schedule 14A with the SEC. the Proxy made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) due to IF Bancorp's required Loan renewal, there was no meaningful likelihood that the Company's tangible common equity would exceed the Merger Consideration Threshold; (ii) accordingly, the Proxy's statements concerning the Merger Consideration and Special Dividend were misleading insofar as they overstated the likelihood that IF Bancorp shareholders would receive the Special Dividend; and (iii) as a result, Defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times, says the suit. Headquartered in Phoenix, AZ, ServBanc Holdco operates as the bank holding company for Servbank, National Association. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - David J. Schwartz, Esq. DJS LAW GROUP LLP 274 White Plains Road, Suite 1 Eastchester, NY 10709 Telephone: (914) 206-9742 E-mail: david@djslawllp.com SEXTANT LIMITED: Cazares Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- AMELIA CAZARES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Sextant Limited USA, Inc., d/b/a Piglet in Bed, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00753-PP (E.D. Wis., April 28, 2026), arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://us.pigletinbed.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. Despite readily available accessible technology, Defendant has chosen to rely on an exclusively visual interface that provides no meaningful accommodations for screen-reading software users. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for the Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Sextant Limited USA, Inc. owns and operates the website which offers bedding products, sleepwear, and home items for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 (718) 554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law SHOALS TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Kissimmee Utility Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Shoals Technologies Group, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Kissimmee Utility class suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division. On May 15, 2024, respectively, a class action complaint was filed in the same court against the Company and certain current and former officers, but these complaints also named as defendants the Company's Board of Directors, and the selling stockholders and underwriters of the Company's secondary public offering. While the allegations are largely similar to the first complaint, the new complaint also alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The case wase captioned Kissimmee Utility Authority Employees Retirement Plan v. Shoals Technologies Group, Inc. Shoals Technologies Group, Inc. is a provider of electrical balance-of-systems solutions for solar energy and energy storage projects, offering components and systems that improve installation efficiency and performance. The company serves utility-scale, commercial and industrial renewable energy markets in the United States and internationally. SHOALS TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Oklahoma Pension Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Shoals Technologies Group, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from Oklahoma Pension class suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division. On May 8, 2024, a class action complaint was filed in the same court against the Company and certain current and former officers, but the complaint also named as defendants the Company's Board of Directors, and the selling stockholders and underwriters of the Company's secondary public offering. While the allegations are largely similar to the first complaint, the new complaint also alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The case was captioned Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System v. Shoals Technologies Group, Inc. Shoals Technologies Group, Inc. is a provider of electrical balance-of-systems solutions for solar energy and energy storage projects, offering components and systems that improve installation efficiency and performance. The company serves utility-scale, commercial and industrial renewable energy markets in the United States and internationally. SHOALS TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Westchester Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Shoals Technologies Group, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Westchester securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division. On March 21, 2024, a purported stockholder filed a putative securities class action against the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, captioned Westchester Putnam Counties Heavy & Highway Laborers Local 60 Benefits Fund v. Shoals Technologies Group, Inc., et al. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions relating to the wire insulation shrinkback matter. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, recovery of fees and costs, and other relief that the court may find appropriate. Shoals Technologies Group, Inc. is a provider of electrical balance-of-systems solutions for solar energy and energy storage projects, offering components and systems that improve installation efficiency and performance. The company serves utility-scale, commercial and industrial renewable energy markets in the United States and internationally. SIERRA FORESTRY: Cyphers Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sierra Forestry Consulting, LLC. The case is styled as Gary Cyphers, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sierra Forestry Consulting, LLC, Case No. MCV098737 (Cal. Super. Ct., Madera Cty., April 21, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Sierra Forestry Consulting -- https://sierraforestry.com/ -- specializes in providing professional services in the forestry, utilities, arboriculture, GIS, and land management industries.[BN] SINGLESTORE INC: Lyons Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Singlestore, Inc. The case is styled as John Lyons, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Singlestore, Inc., Does 1 through 15, Inclusive, Case No. CGC26636175 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., April 21, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." SingleStore -- https://www.singlestore.com/ -- is a provider of a database for operational analytics and cloud-native applications.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Wendy L.R. Miele, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-927-9270 Email: wmiele@taulersmith.com SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS: Grabar Law Probes Securities Fraud Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- What is Happening? Grabar Law Office is investigating claims on behalf of shareholders of Skyworks Solutions, Inc. (NASDAQ: SKWS) as a securities fraud class action has survived a motion to dismiss. The investigation concerns whether certain officers and directors breached the fiduciary duties they owed to the company. If you purchased Skyworks Solutions, Inc. (NASDAQ: SKWS) shares prior to July 30, 2024, and still hold shares today, you can seek corporate reforms, the return of funds back to the company, and a court approved incentive award at no cost to you whatsoever. Please visit https://grabarlaw.com/the-latest/skyworks-shareholder-investigation/, contact Joshua Grabar at jgrabar@grabarlaw.com, or call 267-507-6085 to learn more. Why? Key allegations of a federal securities fraud class action complaint filed against Skyworks Solutions, Inc. (NASDAQ: SKWS) and certain of its officers have now survived a motion to dismiss. The underlying complaint alleges that Skyworks, through certain of its officers, provided investors with material information concerning Skyworks' expected revenue for the fiscal year 2025. Defendants' statements included, among other things, confidence in Skyworks' ability to expand its mobile business and capitalize on its growth potential by investing in new technologies to diversify its portfolio of offerings. It is alleged that Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of Skyworks' client base; notably, that its long-standing relationship with Apple, its largest customer, did not guarantee that Apple would maintain its business relationship with Skyworks for its anticipated iPhone launch. Additionally, the Complaint alleges Defendants oversold Skyworks' position and ability to capitalize on AI in the smartphone upgrade cycle. On May 6, 2026, the United States District Court for the Central District of California determined that: "Plaintiffs have shown with the requisite plausibility through their confidential witnesses, competitor statements, and analyst reports that material omissions could have been made." Further, "the allegations in the complaint, taken collectively, give rise to a cogent and compelling inference of scienter that is at least as strong as any opposing innocent inference." What Can You Do Now? If you purchased Skyworks Solutions, Inc. (NASDAQ: SKWS) shares prior to July 30, 2024, and still hold shares today, you are encouraged to visit https://grabarlaw.com/the-latest/skyworks-shareholder-investigation/, contact Joshua Grabar at jgrabar@grabarlaw.com, or call 267-507-6085. You can seek corporate reforms, the return of funds back to the company, and a court approved incentive award at no cost to you whatsoever. Contact: Joshua H. Grabar, Esq. Grabar Law Office One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (267) 507-6085 Email: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com [GN] SOLVENTUM CORP: Continues to Defend Bair Hugger Patient MDL ----------------------------------------------------------- Solventum 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 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Bair Hugger patient MDL in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. 3M is a named defendant in over 8,500 lawsuits in the United States and one Canadian putative class action with a single named plaintiff, alleging that they underwent various joint arthroplasty, cardiovascular, and other surgeries and later developed surgical site infections due to the use of the Bair Hugger patient warming system. Under the terms of the Separation and Distribution Agreement by and between Solventum and 3M, Solventum has agreed to indemnify 3M for uninsured liabilities related to the Bair Hugger patient warming system, to manage the litigation, and pay for legal expenses. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") has consolidated all cases pending in federal courts to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to be managed in a multi-district litigation ("MDL") proceeding. In July 2019, the court excluded several of the plaintiffs’ causation experts, and granted summary judgment for 3M in all cases pending at that time in the MDL; however, those decisions were subsequently reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The parties are actively litigating several MDL bellwether and state court cases, with trials anticipated in 2026. Solventum Corp. is a global health care technology company that develops, manufactures, and markets medical and surgical supplies, dental and orthodontic products, and health information technologies. The company was spun off from 3M Company and focuses on solutions aimed at improving patient outcomes and health care delivery. SPARTAN RACE: Stokes Seeks Conditional Cert of FLSA Collective -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAYANNAH WOODY-STOKES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. SPARTAN RACE, INC., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00267-GBW (D. Del.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), granting conditional certification of the following FLSA collective: "All persons employed by the Defendants in the positions of Festival Event Staff, Branding Lead, Build Crew Leader, Build Crew Laborer, Festival Support, Excavator, Festival Lead, Kids Lead, and/or Base Camp Manager who worked for the Defendants and either: (a) were paid on a salary basis at any point from Dec. 23, 2022 to July 1, 2024; or (b) were paid on an hourly basis at any point from Dec. 23, 2022 to the present ("Putative Collective Members")." Delaware Counsel for the Plaintiffs has conferred with Delaware Counsel for the Defendant, and Delaware Counsel for Defendant has indicated the Defendant opposes this Motion. Spartan promotes race events. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 1, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q8LI4x at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick C. Gallagher, Esq. JACOBS & CRUMPLAR, P.A. 10 Corporate Circle, Suite 301 New Castle, DE 19720 Telephone: (302) 656-5445 E-mail: pat@jcdelaw.com - and - Michael Groh, Esq. Mary Kramer, Esq. MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000 1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 273-1054 Facsimile: (215) 525-0210 E-mail: mgroh@phillyemploymentlawyer.com mkramer@phillyemploymentlawyer.com - and - Garrett Kaske, Esq. Troy L. Kessler, Esq. Tana Forrester, Esq. KESSLER MATURA P.C. 534 Broadhollow, Suite 275 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 499-9100 E-mail: tkessler@kesslermatura.com gkaske@kesslermatura.com tforrester@kesslermatura.com SPHERE ENTERTAINMENT: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sphere Entertainment 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 5, 2026, that the Court entered an order on September 27, 2021, consolidating four complaints filed by purported former stockholders of MSG Networks Inc., creating a consolidated action captioned In re MSG Networks Inc. Stockholder Class Action Litigation, C.A. No. 2021-0575-KSJM (the MSG Networks Litigation). That the consolidated plaintiffs filed their Verified Consolidated Stockholder Class Action Complaint on October 29, 2021, asserting claims on behalf of a putative class of former MSG Networks Inc. stockholders against each member of the board of directors of MSG Networks Inc. and the controlling stockholders prior to the Networks Merger. That plaintiffs alleged the MSG Networks Inc. board of directors and controlling stockholders breached their fiduciary duties in negotiating and approving the Networks Merger and sought, among other relief, monetary damages for the putative class and plaintiffs attorneys fees. Sphere Entertainment Co. is a live entertainment and media company focused on next-generation immersive venues and productions, including the Sphere venue in Las Vegas, as well as related content, technology and entertainment assets. STEVEN MADDEN: Verduzco Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts ----------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS VERDUZCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STEVEN MADDEN, LTD. d/b/a STEVEN MADDEN, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-02529-GPC-GC (S.D. Cal., April 21, 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. Steven Madden, Ltd. is a company that markets shoes and fashion accessories in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Faythe Gutierrez, Esq. PLG DAMAGE ATTORNEYS 2750 SW 145th Avenue, #509 Miramar, FL 33027 Email: service@plgdamage.com SUNRUN INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Banks Due Jan. 30, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as PEGGY BANKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SUNRUN INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-07877-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Tigar entered an amend scheduling order: Event Deadline Discovery cut-off: Aug. 14, 2026 Last day to file dispositive motions: Sept. 29, 2026 Last day to file motion for class Jan. 30, 2027 certification: Last day to file opposition to class Mar. 15, 2027 certification: Last day to file reply in further support Apr. 5, 2027 of class certification: The Plaintiff filed the Complaint on Nov. 11, 2024. Sunrun moved to strike parts of the Complaint on Jan. 27, 2025, which the Court denied on May 5, 2025. Sunrun is a home solar panel and battery storage company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k0kYok at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Lauri A. Mazzuchetti, Esq. Glenn T. Graham, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 7 Giralda Farms, Suite 340 Madison, NJ 07940 Telephone: (973) 503-5900 Facsimile: (973) 503-5950 E-mail: lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com ggraham@kelleydrye.com SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Korver Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Korver federal securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. A federal securities class action originally filed on August 28, 2024, in the Southern District of New York by named plaintiff Darren Korver against Sage Therapeutics, Inc. and individuals Barry E. Greene and Kimi Iguchi, both of whom are former officers of Sage. Pursuant to a statutorily prescribed process, the court appointed two new class representatives, Steamfitters Local 449 Pension & Retirement Security Funds and Trust of the Retirement System of the UPR, who filed an amended complaint on March 3, 2025, against the original defendants and five additional former officers of Sage. The amended complaint in the Securities Class Action alleges violations of U.S. securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks an as-yet unspecified amount of damages allegedly sustained by parties who purchased Sage Therapeutics stock between April 12, 2021 and July 23, 2024, as well as applicable attorneys’ fees and costs. On April 17, 2025, Sage Therapeutics, along with all of the individual defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the Securities Class Action in the Southern District of New York. On February 18, 2026, plaintiffs filed a letter with the court seeking leave to amend their complaint and asking the court to refrain from deciding the motion to dismiss pending the court's decision on the request to file an amended complaint. On March 10, 2026, defendants submitted a letter to the court joining plaintiffs request of February 18, 2026. On April 3, 2026, the parties filed a stipulation, which the court so ordered on April 9, 2026, permitting plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by July 15, 2026. Lead plaintiffs opposition to the motion to dismiss is due by August 31, 2026, and defendants reply in further support of their motion is due by September 22, 2026. Related derivative actions remain stayed pending the resolution of this motion. Sage denies any allegations of wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend against the Securities Class Action. Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and commercializing therapeutics for the treatment of central nervous system disorders. The company markets a portfolio of neurology products and pursues additional indications through its research and development programs. SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS: Matton Derivative Suit Stayed ------------------------------------------------------- Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York stayed the Matton derivative suit pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the Securities Class Action. On May 13, 2025, plaintiff shareholder Jurgen Matton commenced derivative litigation in the Southern District of New York, purportedly on behalf of Sage Therapeutics, against sixteen current and former officers and directors of Sage Therapeutics (the Matton Derivative Litigation). Based significantly on the allegations underlying the Securities Class Action, the Matton Derivative Litigation alleges violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets, and seeks unspecified damages and various equitable relief. The derivative action remains stayed pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss in the Securities Class Action. Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and commercializing therapeutics for the treatment of central nervous system disorders. The company markets a portfolio of neurology products and pursues additional indications through its research and development programs. SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS: Pizzelanti Derivative Suit Stayed ----------------------------------------------------------- Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York stayed the Pizzelanti derivative suit pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the Securities Class Action. On May 22, 2025, plaintiff shareholder Joseph Pizzelanti commenced derivative litigation in the Southern District of New York, purportedly on behalf of Sage Therapeutics, against sixteen current and former officers and directors of the company (the Pizzelanti Derivative Litigation). Based significantly on the allegations underlying the Securities Class Action, the Pizzelanti Derivative Litigation alleges violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets, and seeks unspecified damages and various equitable relief. The derivative action remains stayed pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss in the Securities Class Action. Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and commercializing therapeutics for the treatment of central nervous system disorders. The company markets a portfolio of neurology products and pursues additional indications through its research and development programs. SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS: Zhu Derivative Suit Stayed ---------------------------------------------------- Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York stayed the Zhu derivative suit pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the Securities Class Action. A shareholder derivative action filed in the Southern District of New York, purportedly on behalf of Sage or Sage Therapeutics. On March 26, 2025, plaintiff shareholder Qingping Zhu commenced derivative litigation against sixteen current and former officers and directors of Sage (the Zhu Derivative Litigation). Based significantly on the allegations underlying the Securities Class Action, the Zhu Derivative Litigation alleges violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets, and seeks unspecified damages and various equitable relief. On April 14, 2025, the Southern District of New York granted a stay of the Zhu Derivative Litigation pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the Securities Class Action. Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and commercializing therapeutics for the treatment of central nervous system disorders. The company markets a portfolio of neurology products and pursues additional indications through its research and development programs. SUPERPLAY LTD: Parties Must Propose Class Cert Briefing Schedule ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Morrow v. Superplay Ltd., Case No. 3:25-cv-06101 (W.D. Wash., Filed Dec. 08, 2025), the Hon. Judge Benjamin H. Settle entered an order directing the parties to jointly propose a class certification briefing schedule by May 18, 2026, notwithstanding the defendant's pending motion to dismiss. The nature of suit states Diversity-Other Contract. Superplay operates as a software company.[CC] TABB INC: Ojo Files TCPA Suit in D. New Jersey ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TABB, Inc. The case is styled as Arthur Ojo, individually and all others similarly situated v. TABB, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-04011-SRC-JBC (D.N.J., April 15, 2026). The nature of suit is stated Other P.I. for Personal Injury. TABB Inc. -- https://www.tabb-inc.com/ -- provides student background investigation and pre-employment screening service.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory Sonam Mullens, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (341) 217-0550 Email: gmullens@stranchlaw.com TAQUERIA EL GALLO: Faces Hernandez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ISABEL VILLEGAS HERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TAQUERIA EL GALLO GIRO CORP. d/b/a TAQUERIA EL GALLO GIRO, and JAVIER DAMIAN, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-02522 (E.D.N.Y., April 28, 2026) is a civil action for damages and other redress based upon willful violations that Defendants committed of Plaintiff's rights pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants required Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did work, in excess of 40 hours each workweek, or virtually each week. Yet in exchange, the Defendants paid Plaintiff on an hourly basis at her regular rate of pay for each hour that she worked, which was below the minimum wage that New York law required per hour of work. Thus, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at the rate of one and one-half times her regular rate, or one and one-half times the minimum wage rate, if greater, for the hours that she worked over 40 in a week, in violation of the FLSA's and the NYLL's overtime provisions, or at least at the minimum wage rate per hour worked, in violation of the NYLL's minimum wage provisions. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a food truck worker from September 13, 2019 until September 13, 2024. The Defendants are a New York corporation that operates a Mexican restaurant and food trucks based out of Queens, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edgar M. Rivera, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 TEACHERS INSURANCE: Carfora Files Motion to Quash Subpoena ---------------------------------------------------------- John Carfora, Sandra Putnam, and Juan Gonzales (aka Gonzalez), individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated individuals v. TEACHERS INSURANCE AND ANNUITY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, and TIAA CREF INDIVIDUAL & INSTITUTIONAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:26-mc-00058-JDB (D. Colo., April 15, 2026), is brought for Non-Party Georgetown University's Notice of Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena or Motion for protective order. Pursuant to Rule 45(d)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, non-party Georgetown University ("Georgetown" or the "University"), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby moves this Court for an order quashing the subpoena to testify at a deposition in a civil action (the "Subpoena" or "Deposition Subpoena") served on the University on April 6, 2026 in the above captioned action (the "Action") or, in the alternative, for a Protective Order limiting the scope of the Subpoena.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: E. Brantley Webb, Esq. Reginald Goeke, Esq. Sarah M. Martin, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1101 Phone: 202.263.3000 Email: bwebb@mayerbrown.com rgoeke@mayerbrown.com smartin@mayerbrown.com TEMPUS AI: Continues to Defend GIPA Class Suit in Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------- Tempus AI, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Genetic Information Privacy Act (GIPA) class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On February 12, 2026, a lawsuit was filed against the company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, followed by three companion cases filed thereafter in the same court, alleging violations of the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act, other state privacy laws, and certain common law claims, seeking class action status, and that the company believes the lawsuits to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself. Tempus AI, Inc. is a technology company focused on using artificial intelligence and data analytics to advance precision medicine, offering clinical diagnostic testing and related services primarily in oncology and other disease areas. The company partners with health care providers, life sciences companies and researchers to generate and analyze real-world data to inform patient care and drug development. TENARIS BAY: Case Management Order Entered in Painter Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN PAINTER, v. TENARIS BAY CITY, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-01395-RJC (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Robert J. Colville entered a case management order as follows: 1. The parties shall move to add new parties or amend the pleadings by Nov. 6, 2026. 2. The parties shall complete class certification fact discovery by Dec. 18, 2026. All interrogatories, depositions and requests for admissions and/or production of documents shall be served within sufficient time to allow responses to be completed prior to the close of fact discovery. 3. The Plaintiff's expert reports as to class certification are due on or before Nov. 6, 2026. The Defendant's expert reports as to class certification are due on or before Dec. 4, 2026. Depositions of class certification experts shall take place on or before Dec. 18, 2026. 4. The parties shall complete the ADR process they selected by Oct. 7, 2026. Discovery is not stayed pending ADR. 5. The Plaintiff shall file his motion for class certification by Jan. 15, 2027. The Defendant shall file its Response by Feb. 12, 2027. The Plaintiff may file a Reply by Feb. 26, 2027. The Defendant specializes in producing Oil Country Tubular Goods (OCTG) for the energy sector. A copy of the Court's order dated May 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vRkdod at no extra charge.[CC] TEXAS: Faces Ruiz Suit Over Violation of Constitutional Rights -------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS ALFONSO RUIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RAMSEY ENGLISH CANTU, et al., Defendants, Case No. DR-26-CV-00033 (W.D. Tex., April 21, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the United States Constitution, the Texas Constitution, the Texas Open Meetings Act, and other applicable laws. The case arises from the Defendants' willful violations of the Court's Temporary Injunction entered in Diaz v. Cantu, Case No. 2:23-cv-00060 (W.D. Tex. 2023), affirmed by the Fifth Circuit in Case No. 24-50088. According to the complaint, the Defendants engage in an ongoing scheme to circumvent Texas Constitution voter approval requirements, strip assets from the distressed Maverick County Housing Finance Corporation (HFC) while it faces bankruptcy, and award illegal benefits to private developers through unconstitutional Memoranda of Understanding. As a result of the Defendants' unlawful actions, the Plaintiff and similarly situated citizens have been harmed. Defendants Ramsey English Cantu, Yolanda Ramon, Roxy Rios, Olga Ramos, and Roberto Ruiz comprise the current Maverick County Commissioners Court of Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Luis Alfonso Ruiz, Esq. 1610 Buckley Ave. Eagle Pass, TX 78852 Telephone: (830) 968-3966 Email: crezbon79@gmail.com TEXAS: L.M.L. Suit Seeks Certify Noncitizen Class ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as L.M.L. and K.G.S., on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, v. FREEMAN F. MARTIN, in his official capacity as Director of the State of Texas Department of Public Safety, Case No. 1:26-cv-01170-DAE (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class of all noncitizens who are subject to S.B.4's felony reentry and removal provisions based on a prior removal, exclusion, or denial of admission under federal immigration law. S.B.4 threatens thousands of noncitizens across Texas. The class raises the uniform legal question of whether the statute is preempted by federal immigration law. And the Plaintiffs' claims are typical of all other class members, because they all face the same harms under the same preempted law. Because the Plaintiffs challenge state conduct that applies broadly and uniformly to all members of the class, and because they seek declaratory and injunctive relief that would redress the class-wide harm, Rule 23(b)(2) is satisfied. The proposed class representatives, L.M.L. and K.G.S., seek certification of a Plaintiff Class defined as: "All noncitizens who now or in the future enter, attempt to enter, or are found in the state of Texas after they have been denied admission to or excluded, deported, or removed from the United States, or after they have departed from the United States while an order of exclusion, deportation, or removal was outstanding." A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FG6FYF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David A. Donatti, Esq. Adriana C. Piñon, Esq. Carolina Rivera Nelson, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF TEXAS Houston, TX 77288 Telephone: (713) 942-8146 Facsimile: (713) 942-8966 E-mail: ddonatti@aclutx.org apinon@aclutx.org criveranelson@aclutx.org - and - Daniel Hatoum, Esq. Kate Gibson Kumar, Esq. Daniel Woodward, Esq. Dustin Rynders, Esq. TEXAS CIVIL RIGHTS PROJECT Alamo, TX 78516 Telephone: (956) 787-8171 ext. 208 E-mail: daniel@texascivilrightsproject.org kate@texascivilrightsproject.org danny@texascivilrightsproject.org dustin@texascivilrightsproject.org - and - Cody Wofsy, Esq. Spencer Amdur, Esq. Hannah Steinberg, Esq. Kathryn Huddleston, Esq. Omar Jadwat, Esq. Lee Gelernt, Esq. Grace Choi, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT 425 California Street, 7th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 343-0770 Facsimile: (332) 220-1702 E-mail: cwofsy@aclu.org samdur@aclu.org hsteinberg@aclu.org khuddleston@aclu.org ojadwat@aclu.org lgelernt@aclu.org gchoi@aclu.org TICKETMASTER LLC: Abbott Can File Documents Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAWN ABBOTT, et al., v. TICKETMASTER, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-10757-GW-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wu entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' application to file documents under seal attached to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and motion for leave to amend to add additional Plaintiffs/class representatives and to intervene. Ticketmaster is an American ticket sales and distribution company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=X6AOMX at no extra charge.[CC] TRAFCO LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Vaughn Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- KENDRICK VAUGHN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Trafco LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-4809 (N.D. Ill., April 28, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://gardeninminutes.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Vaughn and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Vaughn's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The complaint relates that Vaughn has attempted to complete a purchase on the Website. He was searching for garden beds to create a more organized, manageable space for growing plants. On March 20, 2026, while searching on Google, Vaughn discovered Defendant's Website, Gardeninminutes.com, which appeared among the top search results. After reviewing positive customer feedback and online reviews praising the Website and its gardening products for their quality and durability, he decided to visit the Website to explore the available products and make a purchase. However, while navigating the Website with a keyboard and screen reader, Vaughn encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented him from completing the purchase independently. The Website thus contains access barriers that deny full and equal access to Vaughn, who would otherwise use the Website and who would otherwise be able to fully and equally enjoy the benefits and services of the Website in Illinois State and throughout the United States. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Vaughn and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of the Website in violation of the ADA and/or its implementing regulations. Vaughn seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Plaintiff Kendrick Vaughn is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Trafco LLC provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a selection of raised bed gardening products, including raised garden beds, raised garden bed bundles, watering systems, expansion packs, garden hoses, hose valves and splitters, and tomato cages.[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 TRANSMEDICS GROUP: Continues to Defend Jewik Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- TransMedics Group, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Jewik class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. on February 14, 2025, a class action captioned Jewik v. TransMedics Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-10385, was filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint purported to assert claims pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act), as amended, and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, seeking unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's shares between February 28, 2023 and January 10, 2025 (the Class Period). On April 2, 2025, another purported stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit. In addition, on April 2, 2025, another purported stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company and certain of its current and former officers, also in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Collins v. TransMedics Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-10778). The Collins complaint alleged claims substantially similar to those alleged in the Jewik action and also sought unspecified damages. On May 22, 2025, the court consolidated the Jewik and Collins actions and appointed the Peace Officers' Annuity and Benefit Fund of Georgia and Oguzhan Altun as lead plaintiffs (the "Lead Plaintiffs"). On August 8, 2025, Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. Like the earlier-filed complaints, the amended complaint purports to assert claims pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's shares during the Class Period. Lead Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages allegedly caused by purported misstatements and omissions contained in the Company's 2022 Annual Report, certain earnings calls, and other public statements. The amended complaint claims these alleged statements and omissions operated to artificially inflate the price paid for the Company's common stock during the Class Period. On October 7, 2025, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim. Lead Plaintiffs filed their response to the motion on November 21, 2025, and defendants filed a reply in further support of their motion on December 22, 2025. The Company cannot anticipate when the court will rule on that motion. TransMedics Group, Inc. is a medical technology company that has developed and commercializes the Organ Care System, a proprietary platform designed to improve outcomes for solid organ transplantation. The company focuses on enabling the transport, preservation, and assessment of donor organs for patients in need of heart, lung, and liver transplants. TVG-MEDULLA LLC: Discloses Patient Info to TikTok, Tlaib Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- MOHAMAD TLAIB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TVG-MEDULLA, LLC d/b/a CHIRO ONE WELLNESS CENTERS, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04491 (N.D. Ill., April 21, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Electronic Communication Privacy Act. The case arises from the Defendant's interception and disclosure of patient information from its website to third parties, including TikTok, without prior consent. According to the complaint, the Defendant installed tracking technology such as the TikTok Pixel on its website, www.chiroone.com, to intercept communications sent and received by the Plaintiff and Class members on its website. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful practice, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages. TVG-Medulla, LLC, doing business as Chiro One Wellness Centers, is a chiropractic care provider with its headquarters in Oak Brook, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. Stephen A. Beck, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 Email: swestcot@bursor.com sbeck@bursor.com UL SOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend Martucci Class Suit in Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------------- UL Solutions Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Martucci class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On February 11, 2026, a putative class action complaint was filed against UL LLC, UL Solutions Inc., UL Standards and Engagement and UL Research Institutes (collectively, the Defendants) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, captioned John Martucci, on behalf of himself and the Putative Class v. Underwriters Laboratories Inc., et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-01561. The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain combination-listed single databus burglar and fire alarm system control units (the Alarm Systems) tested by the Defendants have defects that the Defendants concealed from and/or failed to disclose to consumers and that the Defendants listed the Alarm Systems as compliant with UL and National Fire Protection Association 72 standards when they were not compliant with such standards. The complaint seeks an order certifying a nationwide class and a New Jersey subclass; compensatory, actual, treble, statutory, punitive, and/or other damages; equitable relief, including restitution and disgorgement of profits; injunctive relief; declaratory relief; and pre and post judgment interest, attorneys fees and costs. The Company currently believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against this action. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time. UL Solutions Inc. is a global safety science company that provides testing, inspection, certification, auditing and advisory services to help customers innovate and bring products to market. The company also develops safety standards and offers software and data-driven solutions aimed at supporting regulatory compliance and product safety across multiple industries. UNION PACIFIC: Black Seeks OK of Revised Class Area Map ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FAYE BLACK and JEANNINE TOLSON individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Case No. 6:23-cv-01218-EFM-ADM (D. Kan.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting revised Class Area Map in support of Motion for Class Certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3). In the alternative, the Plaintiff requests certification of any alternative class or subclasses that the Court deems appropriate. To address the Court's concerns regarding uncertainties with non-detections at high detection limits and the reliance on outdated data, while at the same time accounting for limited data and the temporal and spatial variability in the groundwater system, the Plaintiff submits the following revision to the Class Area Map. The Revised Class Area Map reflects homes that, as indicated by the most recent sampling, exceeds the vapor intrusion screening limit. This revision removes portions of the Class Area where uncertainty may exist due to limited or outdated sampling results and provides the Court with a firm and objectively ascertainable basis for defining the class. The Revised Class Area now identifies a Class Area for certification that includes 1,754 residential properties exceeding 1.2 µg/L. On September 30, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Class Certification. Union is a Class I freight-hauling railroad. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7Yjegb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William R. Griffin, Esq. Greg A. Drumright, Esq. Elisabeth M. Wilder, Esq. MARTIN, PRINGLE, OLIVER, WALLACE & BAUER, L.L.P. 645 E. Douglas, Suite 100 Wichita, KS 67202 Telephone: (316) 265-9311 Facsimile: (316) 265-2955 E-mail: wrgriffin@martinpringle.com gadrumright@martinpringle.com emwilder@martinpringle.com - and - Ryan D. Ellis, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM, P.C. 10940 W. Sam Houston Pkwy N Houston, TX 77064 Telephone: (713) 659-5200 Facsimile: (713) 659-2204 E-mail: Ryan.Ellis@lanierlawfirm.com - and - Christopher T. Nidel, Esq. Jonathan Nace, Esq. William W. Cowles, Esq. NIDEL & NACE, P.L.L.C. One Church Street, Suite 802 Rockville, MD 20850 Telephone: (202) 780-5153 E-mail: chris@nidellaw.com jon@nidellaw.com will@nidellaw.com - and - Steven J. German, Esq. GERMAN RUBENSTEIN, LLP 19 West 44th Street, Suite 1500 New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 704-2020 UNIQURE NV: Continues to Defend Scocco Class Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------- UniQure N.V. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Scocco class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. A class action complaint captioned Christopher Scocco v. uniQure N.V., et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-01124, was filed on February 10, 2026 against the Company, certain of its executive officers and another party in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint purports to assert claims pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's ordinary shares between September 24, 2025 and October 31, 2025. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages allegedly caused by purported false and misleading statements and omissions with respect to the Company's Phase I/II study of AMT-130 and the timing of the potential BLA filing for AMT-130. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims in this action. UniQure N.V. is a biotechnology company focused on developing gene therapies for patients with severe genetic and other diseases, leveraging its proprietary technology platform and manufacturing capabilities. UNITED STATES: Families Block DOJ Requests for Hospital Records --------------------------------------------------------------- Glad Law reports that eleven families have moved for a class action to block the US Department of Justice (DOJ) from obtaining sweeping access to private, protected health information about transgender youth from hospitals across the country. The filing comes in response to escalating efforts by DOJ to force hospitals and providers to turn over patients' private medical records, including personal identifying information, despite federal court orders prohibiting the government from obtaining that information from multiple hospitals. DOJ has issued at least 20 essentially identical subpoenas to hospitals across the country demanding they turn over extensive protected medical records of individuals under 18 who have received transgender health care. The subpoenas demand a wide range of sensitive information, including patient dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and home addresses. Courts have condemned these demands, stating they lack any proper investigative purpose and amount to unlawful overreach, intimidation, and harassment of patients. Despite this, DOJ has aggressively accelerated its efforts to get patients' protected information. Late last week, DOJ filed a petition in the Northern District of Texas to enforce a subpoena against Rhode Island Hospital. That petition was granted within hours and without any notice to patients. Families argued in a filing that without class-wide protection, DOJ will continue unlawfully extracting transgender minors' protected information hospital by hospital, faster than any individual can go to court to stop them. "The Department of Justice has turned its investigative power into a weapon against families and it has to stop. Federal courts have been clear: these subpoenas have no legitimate purpose, they are designed to harass and intimidate in order to further a political agenda. Medical privacy isn't optional, and it should chill every one of us to see people's private, protected information handed over to the federal government," said GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law) Legal Director Josh Rovenger. "This case takes aim at a dangerous and chilling example of government overreach. The Trump administration should not be able to demand access to and review private medical records -- for no legitimate purpose. This is a grave threat to family and medical privacy and cannot go unchallenged," said National Center for LGBTQ Rights Legal Director Shannon Minter. "History has shown what happens when the government collects lists of the members of groups it disfavors. We cannot allow that history to repeat itself," said Brown, Goldstein & Levy LLP Attorney Eve Hill. In re: Administrative Subpoenas to Children's Hospitals was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The families filing on behalf of the class have transgender children who have received care at hospitals across the country including Children's National Hospital, Connecticut Children's Medical Center, Michigan Medicine, and Rady Children's Hospital. [GN] UPSTART HOLDINGS: Consolidated Exchange Act Derivative Suit Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------------ Upstart Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio stayed the consolidated Exchange Act derivative suit until resolution of the class action. On July 28, 2022, a derivative lawsuit was filed in United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, captioned OConnor v. Huber et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02961-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio). The OConnor action includes allegations similar to those in the Crain complaint, and names as defendants each of the Company’s current board members and its Chief Financial Officer. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. The OConnor action includes claims for violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets. The OConnor action seeks unspecified monetary damages and an accounting from the individual defendants. The OConnor action also seeks unspecified corporate governance and internal procedure modifications, punitive damages, and legal fees. On October 7, 2022, a second derivative lawsuit was filed in United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, captioned Chung v. Huber et al., No. 2:22-cv-03620-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio). The Chung action includes allegations similar to those in the OConnor complaint, and names as defendants each of the Company’s current board members, a former board member, and its Chief Financial Officer. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. The Chung action includes claims for violation of Section 10(b), 14(a), and 21D of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets. The Chung action seeks unspecified monetary damages, restitution, and attorney’s fees and costs from the individual defendants. It also seeks corporate governance and internal procedure modifications. On December 12, 2022, in response to a joint motion by the parties, the Court consolidated the OConnor and Chung derivative matters, appointed co-lead counsel, and stayed the consolidated case until resolution of the related securities class action. On April 24, 2024, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed an amended complaint that includes allegations similar to those in the initial OConnor complaint, names the same defendants along with an additional Company executive and another former board member, brings the same claims as the initial OConnor complaint and adds claims under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9, for contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act, and for abuse of control and gross mismanagement, and seeks similar relief, with the matter remaining stayed until resolution of the class action. Upstart Holdings, Inc. is a financial technology company that uses artificial intelligence and machine learning to power a cloud-based lending platform for banks and credit unions. The Company focuses on personal and auto loans, aiming to expand access to affordable credit while reducing risk and costs for its lending partners. UPSTART HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Crain Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Upstart Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Crain securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. On July 26, 2022, a lawsuit was filed in United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, captioned Crain v. Upstart Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02935-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio) against the Company, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer, alleging that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements or omissions about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Crain lawsuit claims unspecified damages and legal fees. On August 16, 2022, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved lead counsel in the Crain action. On December 5, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint naming the same defendants as the previous complaint, along with two Company executives, as well as Third Point LLC and its CEO and Third Point Ventures LLC and its managing partner, a former Upstart board member. The consolidated amended complaint brought the same claims as the previous complaint and added a claim under Section 20A of the Exchange Act. On February 24, 2023, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On September 29, 2023, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the Upstart defendants motion and granting the motion filed by Third Point LLC and its CEO and Third Point Ventures LLC. On November 7, 2023, the Upstart defendants filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court denied on August 5, 2024. On February 2, 2024, Lead Plaintiff Universal-Investment-Gesellschaft mbH and plaintiffs Kathy Brooks and Kevin Crain filed a motion for an order to certify this matter as a class action, appoint themselves as class representatives, and approve their selection of Motley Rice LLC and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as co-class counsel, which motion the Court granted on March 27, 2025. On December 6, 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint, which motion the Court granted on September 29, 2025, and the first amended complaint added back as defendants Third Point LLC and its CEO and Third Point Ventures LLC. On November 14, 2025, Third Point LLC, its CEO, Third Point Ventures LLC, and its managing partner moved to dismiss the claims asserted against them in the first amended complaint, which motion plaintiffs opposed on January 8, 2026, and on January 29, 2026, Third Point LLC, its CEO, Third Point Ventures LLC, and its managing partner filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss. No hearing has been set on the motion to dismiss, and the Company believes the remaining claims in the action are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. UPSTART HOLDINGS: Hsu Derivative Suit Stayed -------------------------------------------- Upstart Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2026, that the United States District Court for the Southern District of Delaware stayed the Hsu derivative suit until resolution of the securities class action. On February 3, 2023, a third derivative lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Hsu v. Girouard, et al., 1:23-cv-00132-UNA (D. Del.), which includes allegations similar to those in the consolidated derivative matter pending in Ohio, names as defendants each of the Company's current board members, a former board member, and its Chief Financial Officer, names the Company as a nominal defendant, asserts claims for violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and for breach of fiduciary duties, seeks unspecified monetary damages, restitution, and attorneys fees and costs from the individual defendants, and seeks corporate governance and internal procedure modifications, and which the Court stayed on February 16, 2023, in response to a joint stipulation and proposed order, until resolution of the related securities class action. Upstart Holdings, Inc. is a financial technology company that uses artificial intelligence and machine learning to power a cloud-based lending platform for banks and credit unions. The Company focuses on personal and auto loans, aiming to expand access to affordable credit while reducing risk and costs for its lending partners. UPSTART HOLDINGS: Okhai Derivative Suit Stayed ---------------------------------------------- Upstart Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2026, that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware stayed the Okhai derivative suit until resolution of the securities class action. On April 5, 2023, a fifth derivative lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Okhai v. Girouard, et al., C.A. No. 2023-0401-BWD (Del. Ch.), which includes allegations similar to those in the consolidated derivative matter pending in Ohio, names as defendants the Company's current board members, two former board members, its Chief Financial Officer, and two current or former Company executives, as well as Third Point LLC and Third Point Ventures LLC, asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting such alleged breaches, and unjust enrichment, and seeks equitable and/or injunctive relief, restitution, and attorneys’ fees and costs from the individual defendants. On August 3, 2023, in response to a motion to stay by the defendants in the Okhai action, the Court stayed the Okhai action until resolution of the motion to dismiss in the related securities class action, and following the issuance of the September 29, 2023 order on the motion to dismiss in the related securities class action, on November 16, 2023, in response to a joint stipulation and proposed order submitted by the parties, the Court stayed the Okhai action until resolution of the motion for reconsideration of that order. Following denial of the motion for reconsideration in the related securities class action, the parties in the Okhai action finished briefing and argued the defendants motion to continue the stay, and on October 24, 2024, the Court continued the stay until February 1, 2025. On January 31, 2025, the parties submitted to the Court a proposed schedule for briefing defendants motion to continue the stay, and on April 11, 2025, in response to a joint stipulation and proposed order submitted by the parties, the Court ordered that the case remain stayed pending plaintiffs filing a consolidated amended complaint on or before May 7, 2025, after which defendants filed a renewed motion to stay, with subsequent developments to be discussed elsewhere. Upstart Holdings, Inc. is a financial technology company that uses artificial intelligence and machine learning to power a cloud-based lending platform for banks and credit unions. The Company focuses on personal and auto loans, aiming to expand access to affordable credit while reducing risk and costs for its lending partners. UPSTART HOLDINGS: Romanyshyn Derivative Suit Stayed --------------------------------------------------- Upstart Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2026, that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware stayed the Romanyshyn derivative suit action pending the outcome of the motion to stay in the related Okhai derivative action. On October 13, 2023, a sixth derivative lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Romanyshyn v. Girouard, et al., C.A. No. 2023-1029-BWD (Del. Ch.). The Romanyshyn action includes allegations similar to those in the consolidated derivative matter pending in Ohio and names as defendants current and former directors and Company executives, as well as Third Point LLC and its CEO, and Third Point Ventures LLC. The Romanyshyn action asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and seeks unspecified monetary damages, restitution, and attorneys fees and costs from the individual defendants, as well as corporate governance and internal procedure modifications. On November 3, 2023, in response to a joint stipulation and proposed order submitted by the parties, the Court stayed the Romanyshyn action pending the outcome of the motion to stay in the related Okhai derivative action. Upstart Holdings, Inc. is a financial technology company that uses artificial intelligence and machine learning to power a cloud-based lending platform for banks and credit unions. The Company focuses on personal and auto loans, aiming to expand access to affordable credit while reducing risk and costs for its lending partners. UPSTART NETWORK: Class Cert. Bids in Asher Due Feb. 26, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHER BRONSTIN v. UPSTART NETWORK, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01410-JKM (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Munley entered a case management order as follows: Amended Pleadings: July 31, 2026 Discovery: Feb. 26, 2027 Dispositive motions: Feb. 26, 2027 The Plaintiff expert reports: Nov. 6, 2026 The Defendant expert reports: Jan. 8, 2027 Supplemental experts: Jan. 29, 2027 Class certification motions: Feb. 26, 2027 Upstart is an AI lending platform that partners with banks and credit unions to provide consumer loans. A copy of the Court's order dated May 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JPMXNE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW 2657 Mt. Carmel Ave. Glenside, PA 19038 Telephone: (215) 225-5529 - and - Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 The Defendant is represented by: Jackson Burrow, Esq. Joshua H.Threadcraf, Esq. BURR & FOREMAN 420 North 20th Street, Suite 3400 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 251-3000 UREVO WELLNESS: Nonato Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- JOSE NONATO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Urevo Wellness US Co., LTD, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04813 (N.D. Ill., April 28, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. The civil rights action arises out of Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.urevo.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. Accordingly, Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Plaintiff also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Urevo Wellness US Co., Ltd. owns and operates the website which sells smart fitness equipment, including walking pads, recovery devices, and mats. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law VAER LLC: Thorne Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------- BRAULIO THORNE, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VAER, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03479 (S.D.N.Y., April 28, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.vaerwatches.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant failed to make its website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, depriving blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and New York General and Business Law. Headquartered in Venice, CA, Vaer, LLC owns and operates the website which offers watches for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal VIRTU FINANCIAL: Seeks Leave to File Opposition Sur-Reply --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Virtu Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:23-cv-03770-NGG-CHK (E.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting them leave to submit the enclosed sur-reply in further opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, to address arguments and evidence regarding the issue of price impact offered by the Plaintiff for the first time in its reply memorandum of law and rebuttal expert report. The Defendants, who bear the burden of rebutting price impact, Goldman Sachs Grp., Inc. v. Arkansas Tchr. Ret. Sys., 594 U.S. 113, 127 (2021), should be afforded an opportunity to respond to the Plaintiff's new theories and evidence regarding price impact. Indeed, this Court has granted leave to file a sur-reply in similar circumstances. Granting leave to file the Defendants' sur-reply is also consistent with the United States Supreme Court's directive that courts should consider "all evidence relevant to price impact" at the class certification stage. In line with that directive, the Defendants reiterate the request that the Court hold an evidentiary hearing on these issues. Virtu is an American high-frequency trading company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GQnmcb at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Alison R. Benedon, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019-6064 Telephone: (212) 373-2009 E-mail: abenedon@paulweiss.com WASHINGTON FINE: Branson Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA BRANSON and CHERIE BURKE, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. WASHINGTON FINE WINE & SPIRITS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company doing business as TOTAL WINE & MORE; and DOES 1-20, Case No. 2:24-cv-00589-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the Plaintiff's proposed class, appointing the Plaintiffs Lisa Branson and Cherie Burke as class representatives, and appointing Emery|Reddy and Tousley Brain Stephens as class counsel. The Plaintiff moves to certify the following Class: "All individuals who, from Jan. 1, 2023, through July 26, 2025, applied for a job opening in Washington State with Washington Fine Wine & Spirits, LLC, where the job posting did not disclose the wage scale or salary range for the position." Because the Defendant's liability does not turn on its own or any applicants' subjective intent, there are no individualized defenses or liability issues that would predominate. The Defendant's affirmative defenses already apply broadly to the class as they challenge the legality of the statute, not facts specific to any individual class member, other than Ms. Branson and Ms. Burke. Indeed, it would be uneconomical for individual class members to litigate independently. Class certification will greatly benefit the many applicants to Defendant’s job postings that failed to include information regarding the wage scale or salary range for the position—all of whom had their civil rights violated by this omission Total Wine is an online and brick and mortar retailer of wine, spirits, beer, and other products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 4, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dQ1eB9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. EMERY | REDDY, PLLC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 442-9106 E-mail: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com - and - Rebecca L. Solomon, Esq. Kim D. Stephens, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 E-mail: rsolomon@tousley.com kstephens@tousley.com WATTS REGULATOR: Cordero Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Daniel E. Cordero, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WATTS REGULATOR CO., a Massachusetts corporation, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, Case No. CV2026-0643 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Yolo, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on April 28, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01656-CSK to the proceeding. The complaint, which is the pleading that sets forth the claims for relief upon which this action may be removed, asserts the following causes of action against Removing Defendant: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime compensation; failure to provide meal periods; failure to authorize and permit rest breaks; failure to indemnify necessary business expenses; failure to timely pay final wages at termination; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and unfair business practices. Watts Regulator Co., founded in 1874 in Massachusetts, is a major manufacturer of valves, plumbing, and heating products. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ndubisi A. Ezeolu, Esq. Marlin Y. Gillespie, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 515 South Flower Street, Forty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 430-3400 Facsimile: (213) 430-3409 Email: ndubisi.ezeolu@tuckerellis.com marlin.gillespie@tuckerellis.com WREN MANUFACTURING: Crompton Files FLSA Suit in D. Delaware ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wren Manufacturing, Inc., et al. The case is styled as William Crompton, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Wren Manufacturing, Inc., Wren New Jersey, Inc., Wren Connecticut, Inc., Wren Kitchens New York, Inc., Wren Pennsylvania, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-00479-UNA (D. Del., April 24, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Wren Kitchens -- https://www.wrenkitchens.com/ -- is a privately owned British designer, manufacturer, and retailer of fitted kitchens, and fitted bedrooms.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Huggett, Esq. MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 800 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 888-1112 Fax: (302) 888-1119 Email: jhuggett@margolisedelstein.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Has $239.0MM Total Reserves at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ashland Inc. has total reserves for asbestos claims of $239 million and $258 million at March 31, 2026 and September 30, 2025, respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Ashland Inc. is subject to liabilities from claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos. Such claims result from indemnification obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection with the sale of Riley and the acquisition of Hercules in November 2008. Although Riley, a former subsidiary, was neither a producer nor a manufacturer of asbestos, its industrial boilers contained some asbestos-containing components provided by other companies. Hercules, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Ashland, has liabilities from claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos. Such claims typically arise from alleged exposure to asbestos fibers from resin encapsulated pipe and tank products sold by one of Hercules’ former subsidiaries to a limited industrial market. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/mp4a7nrv ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Has 484 Product Liability Cases ------------------------------------------------------------------ Colgate-Palmolive Company has been named as a defendant in civil actions alleging that certain of its talcum powder products were contaminated with asbestos and/or caused mesothelioma and other cancers, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "As of March 31, 2026, there were 484 individual cases pending against the Company in state and federal courts throughout the United States, as compared to 453 cases as of December 31, 2025. During the three months ended March 31, 2026, 74 new cases were filed and 43 cases were resolved by voluntary dismissal, settlement or judgment in favor of the Company. The value of the settlements in the periods presented was not material, either individually or in the aggregate, to such period's results of operations." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/2yy5ubne ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Defends Exposure Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------------- Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., is one of many defendants in a substantial number of lawsuits filed throughout the U.S. by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. As of March 31, 2026, the Company's accrual for pending and future asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was $175, including $112 for unasserted claims. It is reasonably possible that the actual loss could be in excess of the Company's accrual. However, the Company is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss in excess of its accrual due to uncertainty in the following assumptions that underlie the Company's accrual and the possibility of losses in excess of such accrual: the amount of damages sought by the claimant (which was not specified for approximately 83% of the claims outstanding at the end of 2025), the Company and claimant's willingness to negotiate a settlement, the terms of settlements of other defendants with asbestos-related liabilities, the bankruptcy filings of other defendants (which may result in additional claims and higher settlements for non-bankrupt defendants), the nature of pending and future claims (including the seriousness of alleged disease, whether claimants allege first exposure to asbestos before or during 1964 and the claimant's ability to demonstrate the alleged link to Crown Cork), the volatility of the litigation environment, the defense strategies available to the Company, the level of future claims, the rate of receipt of claims, the jurisdiction in which claims are filed, and the effect of state asbestos legislation (including the validity and applicability of the Pennsylvania legislation to non-Pennsylvania jurisdictions, where the substantial majority of the Company's asbestos cases are filed). A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/565nw5mj ASBESTOS UPDATE: Paramount Skydance Faces 18,050 Exposure Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Paramount Skydance Corporation is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various personal injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which allegedly occurred as a result of exposure caused by various products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally prior to the early 1970s, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "As of March 31, 2026, we had pending approximately 18,050 asbestos claims, as compared with approximately 17,490 as of December 31, 2025. During the first quarter of 2026, we received approximately 830 new claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket approximately 270 claims. We report claims as closed when we become aware that a dismissal order has been entered by a court or when we have reached agreement with the claimants on the material terms of a settlement. Settlement costs depend on the seriousness of the injuries that form the basis of the claims, the quality of evidence supporting the claims and other factors. Our total costs for settlement and defense of asbestos claims after insurance recoveries and net of tax, were approximately $23 million for the Successor period from August 7 - December 31, 2025, $11 million and $34 million for the Predecessor periods from January 1 - August 6, 2025, and the year ended December 31, 2024, respectively. Our costs for settlement and defense of asbestos claims may vary year to year and insurance proceeds are not always recovered in the same period as the insured portion of the expenses." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/2z5c3hak ASBESTOS UPDATE: Smurfit Faces 770 PI Lawsuits as of March 31 ------------------------------------------------------------- Smurfit Westrock plc has been named as a defendant in asbestos-related personal injury litigation, primarily in relation to the historical operations of certain companies they have acquired, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "As of March 31, 2026, there were approximately 770 such lawsuits. We believe that we have substantial insurance coverage, subject to applicable deductibles and policy limits, with respect to asbestos claims. We also believe we have valid defenses to these asbestos-related personal injury claims and intend to continue to contest these matters vigorously. Should the Company’s litigation profile change substantially, or if there are adverse developments in applicable law, it is possible that the Company could incur significantly more costs resolving these cases. We record asbestos-related insurance recoveries that are deemed probable. In assessing the probability of insurance recovery, we make judgments concerning insurance coverage that we believe are reasonable and consistent with our historical dealings and our knowledge of any pertinent solvency issues surrounding the insurers. The Company currently does not expect the resolution of pending asbestos litigation and proceedings to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. As of March 31, 2026, the Company had estimated liabilities in respect of these matters of $83 million and estimated insurance recoveries of $51 million." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/2u3cj98j ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $684MM Liability at March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Union Carbide Corporations's total asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims and defense and processing costs was $684 million at March 31, 2026 ($708 million at December 31, 2025), according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Union Carbide is and has been involved in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the past several decades. These suits principally allege personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos‑containing products and frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The alleged claims primarily relate to products that Union Carbide sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on Union Carbide's premises, and Union Carbide's responsibility for asbestos suits filed against a former Union Carbide subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc. In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure, or that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to Union Carbide's products. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/88s2fxnx ********* 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 ***