---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, May 18, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 98

                            Headlines

7415 CORAL: Pardo Sues Over Property's ADA Non-Compliance
AAA COOPER: Smith Suit Removed to N.D. California
AETREX INC: Website Denies Equal Access for Blind Users, Suit Says
AGENUS INC: Olsen Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal to 1st Circuit
AIRSLATE INC: Venegas Suit Removed to N.D. California

AIRSOUTH LLC: Rice Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ALCLEAR LLC: Scott Suit Removed to C.D. California
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to May 18
AMAZON.COM INC: Wolf & Correia Sue Over Sunscreens' Heavy Metals
AMENITY HEALTH INC: Jackson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website

AMERICA'S CUSTOM: Underpays Warehouse Employees, Ruiz Suit Claims
AMERICAN CRUISE: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Miller Says
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Landa Says
AMERITAS MUTUAL: August Suit Removed to N.D. California
AMOS SWEETS: Faces Ford Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website

ANEJO OF MARGARITEVILLE: Casallas Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Booker Says
APPLE INC: Faces Stithem Suit Over Health Plan's Tobacco Surcharge
ASC ORTHO: Fails to Secure Personal, Health, Info, Zorn Says
ATLAS ENERGY: Continues to Defend Ayers Derivative Suit in Delaware

AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE: Gritsavage Appeals ERISA Suit Dismissal
AUTONATION INC: Miller Files Suit in C.D. California
BABY NEEDS: Visually Impaired Can't Access Website, See Suit Says
BAILEY'S BLOSSOMS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, See Alleges
BANK OF AMERICA: Agrees to $2.25MM ATM Fee Class Action Settlement

BANNER HEALTH: Hannum Files Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
BAREWEB INC: Hampton Sues Over Blind Users' Equal Access to Website
BAY EQUITY: Valentine Suit Removed to N.D. California
BAYSIDE DENTAL: Lund Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach
BEARD STRUGGLE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Bennett Says

BELLI WELLI INC: Taylor Suit Removed to E.D. California
BELNICK LLC: Faces Rice Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store
BERING TIME: Mueller Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
BEST BUY: Standing Order Entered in Palomo Class Action
BEST CHI: Blind Users Face Barriers to Website Access, Royal Says

BLUE SAS: Morris Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BOUQS COMPANY: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
BRADFORD EXCHANGE LTD: Medina Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
BRADY COMPANIES: Jiunti Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BRIARCLIFF APARTMENTS: Underpays Maintenance Staff, Plascencia Says

BUZZMARKETING LLC: Gray Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Cheesecake Funk Balks at Shell Eggs Price-fixing
CALEEL + HAYDEN: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Bahena Says
CAMILLE ROSE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Jackson Alleges
CANPOTEX LTD: Vohs Alleges Price-Fixing Conspiracy on Fertilizers

CARDCONNECT LLC: Malaga Cove Suit Removed to C.D. California
CARNIVAL CORP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Stavropoulos Alleges
CATALYST PHARMACEUTICALS: M&A Investigates Sale to Angelini Pharma
CENTRAL PORTFOLIO: Solano Files Suit in E.D. Washington
CENTURION INDUSTRIES: Shotwell Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime

CF INDUSTRIES: Sued Over NPK Fertilizer Price-Fixing Conspiracy
CHEMOURS COMPANY: Willkie Secures Dismissal of Class Action Suit
CHIME FINANCIAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Walsh Says
CHUBBY CATTLE: Sanchez Seeks Restaurant Servers' Unlawful Tip Pool
CIRQUE DU SOLEIL: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

CLARKSTON COMFORT: Gregory Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Caregivers
CONCORA CREDIT: Gonzales Sues Over Unlawful Spamming
COOKEVILLE REGIONAL MEDICAL: Dirscherl Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee
COPELAND ENTERPRISES: Katzeff Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing
COUNTRY WINE: Faces Barlow Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website

CURIOUS ELIXIRS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Wood Alleges
D.G. SMITH ENTERPRISES: Reid Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
DARDEN CORPORATION: Cowan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
DATADOG INC: Gallegos Seeks OT Wages for Account Executives
DAVID PETRUSHKA: Ramos Law Bid for Leave to File FAC Tossed

DEALMACHINE OPERATIONS: Illegally Collects Personal Info, Coln Says
DEEP FOODS: Orcel Suit Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website
DENTAL SERVICE: Levenson Sues Over Unlawful Monopsony
DISNEY DTC LLC: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
DLC LABORATORIES INC: Brown Files Suit in E.D. New York

DNA COMPREHENSIVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sutton Alleges
DOMINIUM MANAGEMENT: Penland Appeals Court Order in Consumer Suit
DRAGONFLY ENERGY: Berdner Suit Removed to N.D. California
DTE ENERGY: Glenn Files FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
EASTSIDE GOLF INC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website

ELECTROLUX HOME: Stern Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
ELEIKO SPORT: See Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
ELEVANCE INC: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid in Trustees ERISA Suit
ELSEVIER INC: Joins AI Class Action Lawsuit Against Meta
EPIC SYSTEMS: Fox Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California

EXTRA SPACE: Faces Reyes Suit Over SCRA Violations
FASHION NOVA: Medina Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
FCA US LLC: Beltran Sues Over Breach of Consumer Trust
FISERV INC: Sicav Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
FITNESS CHAMPS: Faces Yen Nee Suit Over Decline of Stock Price

FORD MOTOR: Court Modifies Case Schedule in Nelson Class Suit
FOREST HILL MANAGEMENT: Ramirez Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. California
FORTUNE MEDIA: Faces Sorkin Suit Over Digital Tracking Practices
FULLBEAUTY BRANDS: Walker Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers
GIBSON COUNTY, TN: Westmoreland Files Suit Over Unpaid Wages

GLADE OPTICS: Cazares Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
GLOBANT SA: Faces Ohio Suit Over Artificially Inflated Stock Price
GOLDEN ADULT: Kim Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
GOLUB CORP: Chabot Suit Seeks Proper Wages for Co-Managers
GOOGLE LLC: Turner Suit Removed to E.D. California

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Class Cert Hearing Extended to Sept. 29
GRAYROBINSON PA: Reinhart Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info
GUARDIAN LIFE: Faces Sloan ERISA Suit Over Fiduciary Breaches
GVC LTD: Roman Sues Over Employees' Layoff Without Advance Notice
HIMS INC: Hoagland-Sweeney Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII

HOME DEPOT: Faces Wilbert Class Action Lawsuit Over Flock's ALPRs
HPC INDUSTRIAL SERVICES: Moss Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
IDAHO: Jackson-Edney Challenges Law Over Sex-Designated Restrooms
IKEA NORTH AMERICA: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
IMERYS FILTRATION: Abney Suit Removed to C.D. California

INNOVATIVE PARTNERS: Grethe Sues Over Bogus Health Insurance Plan
INSTRUCTURE INC: Faces Sarkis Class Action Suit Over Data Breaches
INSTRUCTURE INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Peterman Says
INTUIT INC: Faces Heck Suit Over Unlawful Lending Practices
JACKSON HEWITT: Faces Perez Suit Over Unlawful Lending Practices

JAMAICA FISH MARKET: Sohom Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
JC RESORTS: Renteria-Vera Sues Over Private Data Breach
JEFFERSON COUNTY: Disabled Can't Access Properties, Donnie Claims
JJCW HOLDINGS: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Vanderjagt Says
JUNIPER COMMUNITIES: Louis Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation

KATE QUINN: Youngren Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website
KOCH FERTILIZER: DeLine Balks at Fertilizer Price-Fixing Scheme
KREG ENTERPRISES: Battle Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers
LAND O'LAKES: Navarrette Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif.
LEDCOR INDUSTRIES: Underpays Company Employees, Sampley Alleges

LUCID GROUP: Consolidated Fiduciary Derivative Suit Stayed in Del.
LUCID GROUP: Continues to Defend Fiduciary Derivative Suit in Cal.
LUCID GROUP: Continues to Defend Fiduciary Derivative Suit in Del.
MARATHON PETROLEUM: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Verduzco Claims
MARLEY'S MONSTERS: Ramirez Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website

MARY KAY INC: Carter Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MATTRESS FIRM INC: Santiago Files Suit in W.D. Washington
MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA: Prochaska Suit Removed to S.D. California
MCLANE COMPANY INC: Robert Files Suit in Wash. Super. Ct.
MED ONE CAPITAL: Ledesma Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

MEDTRONIC INC: Faces Kiser Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info
METROPOLITAN FOODS: Aguilar Sues Over Wage and Hour Violations
METROPOLITAN PEDIATRIC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Suit Says
MGP INGREDIENTS: City Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 10th Cir.
MIGHTYCAUSE CORP: Faces Raaf Suit Over Donations' Ambiguous Fees

MINKA LIGHTING: Lopez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
MISSION CEVICHE: Tellez Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
MNTN INC: Rider Sues For Unlawful Tracking of Users' Communications
MRS BPO LLC: Soto Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
MRS BPO: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in McGonigle Suit

MSI COMPUTER CORP: Benson Files Suit in C.D. California
MUNICIPAL CREDIT UNION: Boyd Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
NATIONAL RAILROAD: Hardy Sues Over Customers' Compromised Info
NAVIENT CORPORATION: Seeks Leave to File Opposition Surreply
NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT: Gamero Suit Removed to C.D. California

NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE: Brown Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
NOBU RESTAURANT: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Shestopal Alleges
NUTRIEN AG: Conspires to Raise Fertilizers' Prices, Hatfield Says
NYHK W 40: Sandoval Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
OLIVE GARDEN HOLDINGS: Cody Suit Removed to C.D. California

OPENAI GLOBAL: Discloses Users' Private Info to Meta, Google
ORTHOFIX MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Texas
ORTHOFIX MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Shareholder Derivative Suit
OURA RING: Fomin Files Suit Over Defective Oura Ring Products
PANERA LLC: Rivera Suit Removed from State Court to C.D. Cal.

PANTHERS PETROLEUM: Underpays Company Employees, Fernandes Says
PENTAIR WATER POOL AND SPA: Toledo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Chantix MDL in New York
PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Zantac OTC MDL
PHIBRO-TECH INC: Amaro Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

PHOENIX RETAIL: Imposes Hidden Charges on Consumers, Williams Says
PINNACLE INTERNATIONAL: McDowell Balks at Unlawful Fees
PROGENESIS INC: Cruz Suit Removed to S.D. California
PSYCHPLUS MEDICAL: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Ross Claims
PUBLIC SERVICE: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in Maryland

QUIDELORTHO CORP: Faces Shareholder, Derivative Suits over PCR Test
RANGER STATION SUPPLY: Flesher Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
RB HEALTH (US): Robinson Files Suit in C.D. California
REGENCELL BIOSCIENCE: Matassa Sues Over Decline of Stock Price
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Burton Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages

RESTORATION HARDWARE: Iniguez Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Bid to Amend Pleadings in Thrower Due July 31
RETAIL OPERATORS: Andrisani Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
RHEEM MANUFACTURING: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Gallegos Says
ROCKET QUOTE LLC: Henderson Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida

RODENBURG LLP: Bourne et al. Sue Over Unprotected Private Info
RODENBURG LLP: Leibel Sues Over Data Security Incident and Breach
SALSBURY INDUSTRIES: Douglass Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
SANTA CLARA, CA: Adame Seeks to Recover Proper Overtime Wages
SCHELL & KAMPETER: Vilekar Sues Over Dog Food's Cardiac Damage Risk

SD BULLION INC: Medina Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
SHAREABLY MEDIA: Mueller Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
SHARK ZEN: Williams Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers
SISKIYOU COUNTY, CA: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to August 3
SMART OILFIELD: Hibbs Class Suit Seek Overtime Pay Under FLSA

SONY INTERACTIVE: Faces Walker Class Suit Over Unlawful Tariffs
SOUTHERN NEVADA: Our Lady Class Suit Removed to D. Nev.
STONY BROOK WHOLE: Thorne Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
STRINGKING INC: Cruz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SUZUKI MOTOR: Appeals Court Order to Remand Lopez Suit to State Ct.

TARGET CORP: Sassano Sues Over Coffee Creamer Powder's False Labels
TBON LLC: Puroll Class Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
TD BANK: Recommendation Sustained in Part in Nelipa Class Suit
TEAM CLEAN: Class Certification Bid Filing in Burton Due Nov. 27
TECH GEAR 5.7 INC: Walker Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website

TIGI LINEA: Bishop Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
TITAN MANUFACTURING: Removes Sanders Suit to C.D. Calif.
TK CANZ: Aird Sues Over Race Discrimination in the Workplace
TOTAL SWEETENERS: Casillas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TRADER JOE'S: Smith Sues Over Whole Bean Coffee's Deceptive Label

TRANE TECHNOLOGIES: Reliable AC Alleges Antitrust Law Breaches
TRIMED INC: Weiss Sues Over Failure to Protect Clients' Info
TRUE BLUE CAR WASH: Bauza Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
TURNING POINT: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Thorne Suit Says
TZ INSURANCE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Spoofed Sales Calls

UMZU LLC: Harriel Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Messages
UNDER ARMOUR: ClassAction.org Investigates Marketing Emails
UNILEVER UNITED: Ripa Appeals Consumer Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
UNIQLO USA: Trinh Sues Over Unlawful Retention of IEEPA Tariffs
UNIQUE VINTAGE: Anderson Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website

UNITED STATES: Silva Sues Over Denied DACA Application Renewal
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Apex Physical Suit Removed to S.D. Texas
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Bello Therapy Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Desert ABA Suit Removed to D. Arizona
UPPER DECK: Battle Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store

UPSTART HOLDINGS: Sornchai Derivative Suit Stayed
URBAN RESOURCE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Williams Suit Says
URGENT HOME SERVICES: Rojas Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
US HEALTH & WELLBEING: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
US RENAL CARE: Moyseyenko Suit Removed to C.D. California

VAIL RESORTS: Bisaillon Appeals Suit Dismissal to 10th Circuit
VAN VREEDE: Morris Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
VICTOR COMMUNITY SUPPORT: Solis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
VICTORIA'S SECRET & CO: Salazar Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio
WARNER BROS: Court Stays Consolidated Complaint

WEATHERBEETA USA: Blind Users Can't Access Website, See Suit Claims
WOODFORDS FAMILY: Faces Beaudreau Suit Over Private Data Breach
WORTHINGTON STEEL: Latimore Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
YUVIKA INC: Faces Nepomnishy Over Unsolicited Text Messages
ZUMIEZ INC: Gonzales Suit Removed to E.D. California

ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Haber Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
[] Ana Tagvoryan Joins Manatt Phelps as Litigation Partner

                            *********

7415 CORAL: Pardo Sues Over Property's ADA Non-Compliance
---------------------------------------------------------
NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. 7415 CORAL WAY LLC; and
LE LUCERNE BREAD INC. D/B/A LUCERNE BAKERY, Defendants, Case No.
1:26-cv-23059 (S.D. Fla., April 30, 2026) is a class action seeking
for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and
costs pursuant to Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff found the Defendants' commercial property and bakery
business located within the commercial property to be rife with ADA
violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the
commercial property and bakery business located within the
commercial property, says the suit.

The 7415 Coral Way LLC owns and operates a commercial property at
7415 SW 24th Street, Miami, FL 33155. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
           ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
           7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104
           Miami, FL 33144
           Telephone: (786) 361-9909
           Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
           E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com
                   jr@ajperezlawgroup.com
                   mds@ajperezlawgroup.com

AAA COOPER: Smith Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as William Geovonnie Smith Jr., an individual,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AAA
COOPER TRANSPORTATION, an Alabama Corporation; and DOES 1 TO 50,
Case No. 26CV168629 was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Alameda, to the United States
District Court for Northern District of California on May 1, 2026,
and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-03968.

The Plaintiff's putative class claims arise from allegations that
Defendant failed to comply with California's wage and hour laws.
Specifically Plaintiff alleges the following claims: failure to pay
minimum wages (including reporting time wages) under Labor Codes;
failure to pay overtime wages under Labor Codes; failure to
authorize and permit rest breaks under Labor Code; failure to
provide meal periods under Labor Codes; failure to maintain
accurate employment records under Labor Codes; failure to pay wages
timely during employment under Labor Codes; failure to pay final
wages at separation under Labor Codes; failure to indemnify
necessary business expenses under Labor Codes; failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements under Labor Codes; and  unlawful
business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code
Section 17200.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Babak Yousefzadeh, Esq.
          Hailey N. Oberst, Esq.
          Alexis S. Cherry, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          A Limited Liability Partnership
          Including Professional Corporations
          Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4109
          Phone: 415.434.9100
          Facsimile: 415.434.3947
          Email: byousefzadeh@sheppard.com
                 hoberst@sheppard.com
                 acherry@sheppard.com

AETREX INC: Website Denies Equal Access for Blind Users, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
TANISIA BOWMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Aetrex, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:26-cv-5047 (N.D. Ill., April 30, 2026) is a civil rights action
against the Defendant  for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its Website https://www.aetrex.com/ to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Bowman and other
blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Bowman's
rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").

The complaint relates that Bowman attempted to complete a purchase
on the Website on April 15, 2026. However, while navigating the
Website using her screen reader, Bowman encountered multiple
accessibility barriers that prevented her from completing her
purchase. The Website contains access barriers that deny full and
equal access to Bowman. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will
continue in the future to discriminate against Bowman and members
of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in
the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities,
privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of the
Website in violation of the ADA and/or its implementing
regulations, says the suit.

Bowman 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 Tanisia Bowman is a visually-impaired and legally blind
person who requires screen-reading software to read website content
using the computer.

Defendant Aetrex, Inc. provides to the public the Website, which
provides consumers access to an array of goods and services,
including, the ability to purchase a range of sneakers, sandals,
boots, clogs, wedges, orthotic insoles, arch support inserts,
memory foam insoles, and everyday foot health 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

AGENUS INC: Olsen Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal to 1st Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
BYRON OLSEN is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his
lawsuit entitled Byron Olsen, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Agenus Inc., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-12299-AK, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this is a
federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a
class consisting of all persons and entities other than the
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Agenus securities
between January 23, 2023 and July 17, 2024, both dates inclusive,
seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.

On Apr. 8, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, which the Plaintiff moved to oppose on
June 6, 2025.

On Mar. 24, 2026, Judge Angel Kelley entered an Order granting the
Defendants' motion to dismiss.

The Court agrees with the Defendants that the Plaintiff has failed
to plead facts with particularity establishing false or misleading
statements, a strong inference of scienter, or loss causation. The
case is dismissed. The Plaintiff's request for leave to amend is
also denied.

The appellate case is captioned as Olsen v. Agenus Inc. et al.,
Case No. 26-1421, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit, filed on April 23, 2026. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant BYRON OLSEN, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, is represented by:

       Brian Calandra, Esq.
       Emily C. Finestone, Esq.
       POMERANTZ LLP
       600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
       New York, NY 10016
       Telephone: (212) 661-1100
       Email: bcalandra@pomlaw.com
              efinestone@pomlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees AGENUS INC., et al. are represented by:

       Anne Conroy, Esq.
       ROPES & GRAY
       1211 Avenue of the Americas
       New York, NY 10036
       Telephone: (212) 596-9125
       Email: anne.conroy@ropesgray.com

               - and -

       Chimso Okoji, Esq.
       ROPES & GRAY LLP
       2099 Pennsylvania Ave NW
       Washington DC 20006
       Telephone: (202) 508-4716
       Email: chimso.okoji@ropesgray.com

               - and -

       Daniel V. McCaughey, Esq.
       James R. Drabick, Esq.
       ROPES & GRAY LLP
       Prudential Tower
       800 Boylston Street
       Boston, MA 02199
       Telephone: (617) 951-7681
       Facsimile: (617) 235-9507
       Email: Daniel.McCaughey@ropesgray.com
              James.Drabick@ropesgray.com

AIRSLATE INC: Venegas Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Olivia Venegas, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. airSlate, Inc., Does 1-50,
inclusive, Case No. 26-cv-177832 was removed from the Alameda
County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on April 30, 2026.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-03852 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

airSlate Inc. is a global SaaS technology company specializing in
no-code document workflow automation, e-signature, and document
management solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christine Marie Reilly, Esq.
          MANATT PHELPS & PHILLIPS LLP
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 312-4237
          Fax: (310) 312-4224
          Email: creilly@manatt.com

AIRSOUTH LLC: Rice Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
DUSTIN RICE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v.  AIRSOUTH LLC, DEFENDANT, Case No.
3:26-cv-00305-DPJ-MTP (S.D. Miss., April 30, 2026) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendant employed Plaintiff as an hourly, non-exempt employee
from approximately August of 2024 to
approximately April of 2026. Throughout his employment, the
Defendant subjected Plaintiff to the unlawful pay practices that
resulted to systematic underpayment of overtime wages and mandatory
weekly deduction that constitutes a kickback of wages that reduces
the employees' compensation below the amount required by the FLSA.

Based in Mendenhall, MS, Airsouth LLC does business as AirSouth
Cooling and Heating and provides HVAC installation, repair, and
maintenance services to residential and commercial customers
throughout central Mississippi. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       William "Jack" Simpson, Esq.
       SIMPSON, PLLC
       100 Parkgate Dr., Ext., Ste. 205
       Tupelo, MS 38801
       Telephone: (662) 913-7811
       E-mail: jack@simpson-pllc.com

ALCLEAR LLC: Scott Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Asha Lee Scott, an individual on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. ALCLEAR, LLC; and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV10112 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District
of California on May 1, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-02304.

On March 27, 2026, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant
which sets forth the following eleven causes of action: failure to
pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime; failure to pay
reporting time pay; meal period liability; rest break liability;
failure to provide accurate wage statements; failure to timely pay
wages upon termination; failure to timely pay wages when due;
failure to keep required payroll records; failure to reimburse
necessary business expenses; and unfair business practices.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Eric J. Gitig, Esq.
          Martin P. Vigodnier, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2800
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
          Phone: (213) 689-0404
          Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
          Email: Eric.Gitig@jacksonlewis.com
                 Martin.Vigodnier@jacksonlewis.com

ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to May 18
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEXIN TANG, an individual;
RYAN JAMES ROBERTSON, an individual; and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY; ALLSTATE
INDEMNITY COMPANY; ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK INDEMNITY COMPANY, et al.,
Case No. 2:25-cv-09734-JFW-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Walter
entered an order granting the stipulated briefing and hearing
schedule for the Plaintiffs' class certification motion.

The Plaintiffs' deadline to file a motion for class certification
is continued to May 18, 2026.

The hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is
set for July 13, 2026 at 1:30 p.m.

The Defendant's deadline to file an opposition to the class
certification motion is set for June 8, 2026.

The Plaintiffs' deadline to file a reply in support of the motion
for class certification is set for June 22, 2026.

Allstate is an American insurance company.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ab0lDP at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Maro Burunsuzyan, Esq.
          David L Scott, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARO BURUNSUZYAN
          800 North Brand Boulevard, 8th Floor
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 507-5188
          Facsimile: (818) 507-5199
          E-mail: marob@marolaw.com
                  davids@marolaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mark D. Campbell, Esq.
          Katherine Segarini-Jeffries, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (424) 285-8330
          Facsimile: (424) 204-9093
          E-mail: mdcampbell@shb.com
                  ksegarini@shb.com

AMAZON.COM INC: Wolf & Correia Sue Over Sunscreens' Heavy Metals
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Wolf and Elizabeth Correia, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Amazon.com, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01479 (W.D.
Wash., April 30, 2026) asserts claims under the Washington Consumer
Protection Act and Washington common law.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action against Amazon for deceptive
business practices, including the omissions, regarding the presence
of heavy metals in the sunscreen products. Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs seek injunctive and monetary relief on behalf of the
proposed Class, including (i) requiring Amazon to fully disclose
the presence of heavy metals in its marketing, advertising, and
labeling of sunscreen products; (ii) requiring Amazon to test all
sunscreen products' ingredients and final products for heavy
metals; and (iii) restoring monies to the members of the proposed
Class.

Headquartered in Seattle, WA, Amazon.com, Inc. operates as a
multinational consumer goods and technology
company. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

           Raphael Janove, Esq.
           JANOVE PLLC
           115 Broadway, 5th Floor
           New York, NY 10006
           E-mail: Raphael@Janove.Law

AMENITY HEALTH INC: Jackson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated v. AMENITY HEALTH, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-03646
(S.D.N.Y., May 2, 2026), is brought against the Defendants for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully and equally accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its services offered thereby, is a violation of
the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA"). Because the Defendant's website, www.medcline.com,
including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively,
the "Website" or "Defendant's website"), is not equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, the Defendant deprives blind
and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer.

AMENITY HEALTH, INC., operates the MedCline online retail store, as
well as the MedCline interactive Website and advertises, markets,
and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: dana@gottlieb.legal
                 michael@gottlieb.legal
                 jeffrey@gottlieb.legal

AMERICA'S CUSTOM: Underpays Warehouse Employees, Ruiz Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BYRON RUIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICA'S CUSTOM BROKERS, INC., JORGE J.
SAM, and ANNETTE SAM, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-22679 (S.D.
Fla., April 17, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a warehouse
employee from approximately March 3, 2021, to April 7, 2026.

America's Custom Brokers, Inc. is a custom brokerage and logistics
firm based in Miami, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
      Alexis Mena-Glasgow, Esq.
      SIMPSON & MENA, PA
      2250 SW Third Avenue, Suite 501
      Miami, FL 33129
      Telephone: (305) 912-7665
      Email: alexis@simpsonmenalaw.com

AMERICAN CRUISE: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Miller Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
DESIREE MILLER, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. AMERICAN CRUISE LINES, Case No. 1:26-cv-01225-JPW (M.D.
Pa., May 6, 2026) seeks to redress the Defendant's violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act,
and Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.

The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant failed to pay her and those
similarly situated earned overtime wages in violation of the FLSA
and Pennsylvania Wage Laws.

The Plaintiff is an adult individual whom Defendant employed in its
service.

The Defendant employs individuals to service its customers
throughout North America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manali Arora, Esq.
          Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          123 South 22nd Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 995-2733

AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Landa Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
KATHERINE LANDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 0:26-cv-02371-ECT-DTS (D. Minn., April 27, 2026) is a class
action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se,
breach of contract, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment,
breach of fiduciary duty, and declaratory relief.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated individuals stored within its network
systems following a data breach on or around March 22, 2026. 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.

Ameriprise Financial, Inc. is a financial services firm based in
Minneapolis. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
      Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
      Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
      CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
      100 Washington Ave S., Ste. 1700
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612) 339-7300
      Email: bbleichner@chesnutcambronne.com
             pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com

              - and -

      Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
      KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA
      One West Las Olas Blvd, Ste 500
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 332-4200
      Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
      Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com

              - and -

      Leanna A. Loginov, Esq.
      SHAMIS & GENTILE PA
      14 NE 1st Ave, Ste. 705
      Miami, FL 33132
      Telephone: (305) 479-2299
      Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com

AMERITAS MUTUAL: August Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Timothy August, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. AMERITAS MUTUAL HOLDING COMPANY,
Case No. 26CV03516 was removed from the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Mendocino, to the United States
District Court for Northern District of California on April 30,
2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-03812.

The Plaintiff filed the Complaint on behalf of himself and "all
citizens of California who declined consent to 'Marketing' and/or
'Analytics' cookies and tracking technologies on Ameritas'
cookie banner and whose information was disclosed to Third Parties"
(the "Putative Class"). The Plaintiff asserts the following causes
of action: invasion of privacy in violation of California Penal
Code Sections 631, 632, and 638.51; breach of contract; and unfair
competition in violation of California Business and Professions
Code Section 17200.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Charles K. Chineduh, Esq.
          MAYNARD NEXSEN LLP
          2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 650
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310.596.4500
          Email: Charles.Chineduh@maynardnexsen.com

AMOS SWEETS: Faces Ford Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA FORD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Amos Sweets Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:26-cv-04942 (N.D. Ill., April 29, 2026) is a civil rights action
against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, https://www.amossweets.com to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Ford and
other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

Plaintiff Ford browsed and intended to make an online purchase of a
box of gummies on the website. Despite her efforts, however, she
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 the Defendant remedies the numerous access
barriers on its website, Ford and Class Members will continue to be
unable to independently navigate, browse, use, and complete a
purchase on the website.

Because Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and
visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff Ford
seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's
policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class
Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination.

Amos Sweets Inc. operates the website that offers a variety of
sweet products, including gummy varieties and juice-filled
candies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David B. Reyes, Esq.
          EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
          4903 Avenue N
          Brooklyn, NY 11234
          Office: (844) 731-3343
          Direct: (718) 554-0237
          E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law

ANEJO OF MARGARITEVILLE: Casallas Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anejo of
Margaritaville Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Sandy
Casallas, Yimi Duarte, Cara Hull, David Miranda, Gigi Cruz, Jaedyn
Kochanowski, and other similarly situated individuals v. Anejo of
Margaritaville Corporation d/b/a Anejo Cocina Mexicana; Cresencio
Prado a/k/a Chencho; JOSE JESUS VALENCIA; Blanca Carolina Valencia
alias Chencho doing business as Anejo Cocina Mexicana; Case No.
2026-11749-CICI (Fla. Cir. Ct., Volusia Cty., May 4, 2026).

The nature of suit is stated as "Discrimination, Employment or
Other."

Anejo of Margaritaville Corporation doing business as Anejo Cocina
Mexicana -- https://anejococinamexicana.com/ -- offers authentic
Mexican cuisine made with only the freshest ingredients, so you can
indulge in the rich and spicy flavors of Mexico.[BN]

ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Booker Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARTRELL DESAMONTA BOOKER, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Anheuser-Busch, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:26-cv-04921 (N.D. Ill., April 29, 2026) accuses the
Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The case arises from Defendant's failure and refusal to remove
access barriers to its website, https://www.shopbeergear.com. With
these access barriers, Defendant denies the visually impaired users
access to goods, services and information made available through
the website by preventing them from freely navigating the website.

Based in Saint Louis, MO, Anheuser-Busch, LLC owns and operates the
website which sells beer-themed clothing and accessories. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Michael Ohrenberger, Esq.
         EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
         4903 Avenue N
         Brooklyn, NY 11234
         Telephone: (844) 731-3343
                    (716) 281-5496
         E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law

APPLE INC: Faces Stithem Suit Over Health Plan's Tobacco Surcharge
------------------------------------------------------------------
MICKEY A. STITHEM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE INC. and THE APPLE INC.
BENEFITS ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Defendants, Case No.
5:26-cv-03273 (N.D. Cal., April 17, 2026) is a class action against
the Defendants for unlawful surcharge in violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act and breach of fiduciary duty.

The case arises from Apple's practice of charging a tobacco
surcharge under the Apple Health and Welfare Benefit Plan that
unjustly forces certain employees to pay higher premiums for their
health insurance. The 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, Apple'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, Apple enriched itself at the expense of the Plan, says
the suit.

Apple Inc. is a global technology company with its principal place
of business in Cupertino, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
      Michael Connett, Esq.
      SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
      700 S. Flower Street, Suite 1000
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (212) 532-1091
      Email: mconnett@sirillp.com

ASC ORTHO: Fails to Secure Personal, Health, Info, Zorn Says
------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD ZORN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ASC ORTHO MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC D/B/A ALIGNED
ORTHOPEDIC PARTNERS, Case No. 8:26-cv-01768 (D. Md., May 5, 2026)
is a class action against AOP for its failure to properly secure
Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information
and personal health information.

On April 17, 2026, AOP disclosed that "an unknown actor gained
unauthorized access to its email environment" and gained access to
its patients' health records. According to the complaint, AOP
failed to comply with industry standards to protect information
systems that contain PII and PHI. The Plaintiff seeks, among other
things, orders requiring AOP to fully and accurately disclose the
nature of the information that has been compromised and to adopt
sufficient security practices and safeguards to prevent incidents
like the disclosure in the future.

The Plaintiff seeks remedies including compensation for time spent
responding to the Data Breach and other types of harm, free credit
monitoring and identity theft insurance, and injunctive relief,
including substantial improvements to AOP's data security policies
and practices.

Plaintiff Zorn is a resident of Rockville, Maryland, and has
recently been a patient of AOP.

AOP is a network of orthopedic practices with locations in
Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Panida A. Anderson, Esq.
          Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP  
          1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 499-1476
          E-mail: panderson@baileyglasser.com
                  bcohen@baileyglasser.com

ATLAS ENERGY: Continues to Defend Ayers Derivative 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
derivative suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

A derivative 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.


AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE: Gritsavage Appeals ERISA Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
REID GRITSAVAGE is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing
his lawsuit entitled Reid Gritsavage, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Auto-Owners Insurance
Company, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00973, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Michigan.

The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violation of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

The appellate case is captioned as Reid Gritsavage v. Auto-Owners
Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 26-1391, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on April 23, 2026.
[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant REID GRITSAVAGE, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, is represented by:

       Brock Specht, Esq.
       NICHOLS KASTER
       80 S. Eighth Street, Suite 4700
       Minneapolis, MN 55402
       Telephone: (612) 256-3200

Defendants-Appellees AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. are
represented by:

       Daniel Brookins, Esq.
       Ashley Yuill, Esq.
       WARNER NORCROSS & JUDD
       150 Ottawa Avenue, N.W., Suite 1500
       Grand Rapids, MI 49503
       Telephone: (616) 752-2000

AUTONATION INC: Miller Files Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AutoNation, Inc. The
case is styled as Steffan Miller, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. AutoNation, Inc., Case No.
3:26-cv-03718-GC-TJB (C.D. Cal., April 14, 2026).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

AutoNation, Inc. -- https://www.autonation.com/ -- is an American
automotive retailer based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER P.A.
          50 Main Street, Ste. 475
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Phone: (914) 874-0710
          Fax: (914) 206-3656
          Email: pfraietta@bursor.com

BABY NEEDS: Visually Impaired Can't Access Website, See Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AARON SEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BABY NEEDS INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:26-cv-00800-JPH-MKK (S.D. Ind., April 23, 2026) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://elegantbaby.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not
limited to: inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing
of content without advance warning, inaccurate alt-text on
graphics, inaccessible dropdown menus, redundant links where
adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that
transactions be performed solely with a mouse.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired individuals.

Baby Needs Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services
in Indiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Jason B. Marshall, Esq.
       EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
       68-29 Main Street,
       Flushing, NY 11367
       Telephone: (463) 777-4196
       Email: jmarshall@ealg.law

BAILEY'S BLOSSOMS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, See Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AARON SEE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Bailey's Blossoms LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:26-cv-873 (S.D. Ind., April 30, 2026) is a civil rights action
against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its Website ttps://www.baileysblossoms.com to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by See and other
blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of See's
rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").

The complaint relates that Aaron See has made an attempt to
complete a purchase on the Website on November 11, 2025. However,
See encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented him
from completing the transaction. The Website contains access
barriers that deny full and equal access to See. As such, Defendant
discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate
against See and members of the proposed class and subclass on the
basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods,
services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations,
and/or opportunities of the Website in violation of the ADA and/or
its implementing regulations, says the suit.

Plaintiff Aaron See is a visually-impaired and legally blind person
who requires screen-reading software to read website content using
the computer.

Defendant Bailey's Blossoms LLC provides to the public the Website,
which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services,
including, the ability to purchase a wide range of dresses,
rompers, jumpsuits, tops, bottoms, matching sets, and accessories
such as bows, tights, and bags.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jason B. Marshall, Esq.
     EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
     4903 Avenue N,
     Brooklyn, NY 11234
     Telephone: (463) 777-4196
     E-mail: jmarshall@ealg.law

BANK OF AMERICA: Agrees to $2.25MM ATM Fee Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Toth of ClaimDepot reports that Bank of America account
holders whom the company charged more than one out-of-network
balance inquiry fee during a single visit to an FCTI-owned ATM
located in a 7-Eleven store between May 1, 2018, and Nov. 16, 2021,
may be eligible to claim a cash payment from a class action
settlement.

Bank of America, N.A. agreed to pay $2.25 million to resolve a
class action lawsuit alleging it improperly charged customers two
out-of-network balance inquiry fees for a single balance inquiry at
certain ATMs in 7-Eleven stores.

Who can file a claim?

Class members must meet all of the following criteria:

-- They are or were a Bank of America account holder in the United
States.

-- Bank of America charged them more than one out-of-network
balance inquiry fee during the same visit to an FCTI Inc.-owned ATM
located in a 7-Eleven store.

-- The transaction(s) occurred between May 1, 2018, and Nov. 16,
2021.

-- They did not make a valid claim and receive payment in Weiss v.
FCTI Inc., Case No. 37-2024-00016908-CU-BT-NC.

Individuals who received an email or postcard notice about the
settlement are likely class members.

There are two categories of class members:

-- Current account holders: Individuals who still have an open
Bank of America account

-- Past account holders: Individuals who closed their Bank of
America account after receiving fee charges

How much can class members get?

Pro rata payment: Each class member will receive an equal, pro rata
share of the net settlement fund, which is the total settlement
amount minus attorneys' fees and costs, settlement administration
costs and service awards.

How to claim a Bank of America payout

Current account holders do not need to take any action. The
settlement administrator will automatically send payment if the
settlement receives final approval.

Past account holders must submit a claim to receive payment. They
can file online using the online claim form or download, print and
complete the PDF claim form and mail it to the settlement
administrator.

Settlement administrator's mailing address: Schertzer v. Bank of
America, c/o Kroll Settlement Administration, PO Box 225391, New
York, NY 10150-5391

Required information

To file an online claim, class members must provide the class
member ID from the settlement notice they received.

Payout options

-- Electronic payment (online claims only)
-- Paper check (default or if filing by mail)

$2.25 million settlement fund breakdown

The $2,250,000 settlement fund includes:

-- Settlement administration costs: To be determined
-- Attorneys' fees: Up to $675,000
-- Attorneys' costs: Up to $35,000
-- Service awards to class representative: Up to $25,000
-- Payments to eligible class members: The remainder of the fund

Important dates

-- Deadline to file a claim: June 29, 2026
-- Deadline to request exclusion: July 7, 2026
-- Final fairness hearing: Aug. 21, 2026

When is the Schertzer v. Bank of America payout date?

The settlement administrator will distribute payments after the
court resolves any appeals and grants final approval of the
settlement.

Why did this class action settlement happen?

The class action lawsuit alleged Bank of America breached its
contract with customers by charging two out-of-network balance
inquiry fees for a single balance inquiry at FCTI-owned ATMs in
7-Eleven stores.

Bank of America denied any wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid
the cost and uncertainty of continued litigation.

Settlement Open for Claims

Award: Pro rata share
Deadline: June 29, 2026 [GN]

BANNER HEALTH: Hannum Files Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
-------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Hannum, individually and as a representative of a class of
participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Banner Health
Master Health and Welfare Plan, Plaintiff vs. Banner Health;
Lockton Companies, LLC; and BCInsourcing LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2:26-cv-02944-JJT (D. Ariz., April 28, 2026) is a class action
against the Defendants for: failure to conduct any competitive
bidding, benchmarking, or market testing of Lockton and BCI's
compensation; failure to evaluate whether the commissions were
reasonable given the services provided; failure to compare the
Aetna commissions to readily available market benchmarks from
comparable employer plans; and failure to monitor whether the
commission rates remained reasonable as premiums more than tripled
over the class period.

The complaint relates that the Plaintiff enrolled in the Plan's
accident insurance, critical illness insurance, and hospital
indemnity insurance from 2020 through 2022. During this period,
Plaintiff Craig Hannum paid approximately $47.45 in premiums for
these coverages. Plaintiff enrolled because Banner Health's
benefits materials--bearing the Banner Health logo and integrated
into the same enrollment portal as medical and dental
coverage--presented these products as part of Banner Health's
official benefits package.  Between September 2020 and May 2023,
Banner Health deducted from his paychecks for that coverage. What
Plaintiff Craig Hannum did not know--what Banner Health never told
him--is that for every dollar taken from his paycheck,
approximately thirty-four cents went to broker commissions. He did
not want to pay thirty-four cents of every dollar for brokerage
services. He wanted insurance at a reasonable price.

The Plaintiff alleges that he was injured because he paid for
brokerage commissions that did not benefit him in any way. He could
have purchased essentially the same level of insurance coverage at
a much lower cost without exorbitant brokerage commissions.
Plaintiff alleges that Banner Health breached its fiduciary duties
of prudence and loyalty under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") by selecting and maintaining a
supplemental health insurance program that caused the Plan and
participants to pay unreasonably high premiums for the level of
coverage provided and for causing the Plan and participants to pay
grossly unreasonable broker commissions. Banner Health must restore
all losses suffered by the Plan and pay Plaintiff equitable
restitution.

The Plaintiff further alleges that the supplemental insurance and
commission arrangements constituted a series of prohibited
transactions under ERISA because Lockton, BCI, and Aetna were
parties in interest who furnished services to the Plan and Lockton
received objectively excessive compensation, directly or
indirectly; further alleges that Lockton knowingly participated in
Banner Health's breaches of fiduciary duty and in the prohibited
transactions, and seek disgorgement of all excessive compensation
received by Lockton pursuant to ERISA; and further alleges that BCI
knowingly participated in Banner Health's breaches of fiduciary
duty and in the prohibited transactions, and seek disgorgement of
all excessive compensation received by BCI and seek disgorgement of
all excessive compensation received by Lockton pursuant to ERISA.

Plaintiff Craig Hannum was employed by Banner Health as an
Operations Consultant from September 2020 to May 2023.

Defendant Banner Health is a national healthcare system with its
principal place of business in Phoenix, Arizona.

Defendant Lockton is a national benefits brokerage and consulting
firm with numerous offices throughout the United States.

Defendant BCInsourcing LLC is a benefits administration and
enrollment services entity. Banner Health is a fiduciary of the
Plan within the meaning of ERISA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gary A. Gotto, Esq.
     Ron Kilgard, Esq.
     Keller Rohrback L.L.P.
     3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400
     Phoenix, AZ 85012
     Telephone: (602) 248-0088
     Facsimile: (602) 248-2822
     E-mail: ggotto@kellerrohrback.com
             @kellerrohrback.com

          - and -

     Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
     BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
     1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Suite 540
     Washington, DC 20007
     Telephone: (202) 463-2101
     Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
     E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com

BAREWEB INC: Hampton Sues Over Blind Users' Equal Access to Website
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PHYLLIS HAMPTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BAREWEB, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:26-cv-04758 (N.D. Ill., April 27, 2026) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and declaratory relief.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.barenecessities.com, contains access barriers which
hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of
their online goods, content, and services offered to the public
through the website. The accessibility issues on the website
include but not limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy,
inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content
without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements,
inaccurate alt-text on graphics, the denial of keyboard access for
some interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be
performed solely with a mouse.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired individuals.

Bareweb, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in
Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Alison Chan, Esq.
       EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
       4903 Avenue N.
       Brooklyn, NY 11234
       Telephone: (844) 731-3343
       Email: Achan@ealg.law

BAY EQUITY: Valentine Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jasmine Valentine, individually, and on
behalf of other similarly situated employees v. BAY EQUITY LLC;
ROCKET MORTGAGE, LLC; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No.
CV0009316 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Sacramento, to the United States District
Court for Northern District of California on May 1, 2026, and
assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-03939.

The Class Action Complaint alleges the following causes of action:
Minimum Wages; Unpaid Overtime; Meal Break Violations; Rest Break
Violations; Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment; Wage Statement
Violations; Untimely Final Wages; Failure to Reimburse Necessary
Business Expenses; in Violation of Labor Codes and Violation of
Business & Professions Code Section 17200.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ryan H. Crosner, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-457-0442
          Email: ryan.crosner@ogletree.com

               - and -

          Carolyn B. Hall, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: 415-442-4810
          Email: carolyn.hall@ogletree.com

               - and -

          Courtney S. Patton, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2800
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Phone: 916-840-3150
          Facsimile: 916-840-3159
          Email: courtney.patton@ogletree.com

BAYSIDE DENTAL: Lund Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Sydney Lund, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. BAYSIDE DENTAL, Case No. 2:26-cv-01481 (W.D. Wash., April 30,
2026), is brought arising from a cyberattack that occurred on or
around January 5, 2026, resulting in a data breach of sensitive
information in the possession and custody and/or control of
Defendant (the "Data Breach").

The Data Breach resulted in unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration,
and theft of current and former patients' highly personal
information, including their personally identifying information
("PII") as well as protected health information ("PHI") including
but not limited to: full name, date of birth, medical treatment
information, medical diagnostic information, prescription
information, patient number, and dates of service. Plaintiff refers
to both PII and PHI collectively as "Sensitive Information."

On April 22, 2026, almost four months after the Breach first
occurred, Defendant finally began notifying Class Members about the
Data Breach ("Breach Notice"). Defendant delayed informing Class
Members even though Plaintiff and thousands of Class Members had
their most sensitive personal information accessed, exfiltrated,
and stolen, causing them to suffer ascertainable losses in the form
of the loss of the benefit of their bargain and the value of their
time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the
attack. Defendant Breach Notice intentionally obfuscated the nature
of the breach and the threat it posted—how the breach happened,
and why Defendant continues to delay notifying victims that hackers
had gained access to highly private Sensitive Information.

The Defendant knew or should have known that each victim of the
Data Breach deserved prompt and efficient notice of the Data Breach
and assistance in mitigating the effects of PII and PHI misuse. In
failing to adequately protect Plaintiff's and the Class's Sensitive
Information, failing to adequately notify them about the breach,
and by obfuscating the nature of the breach, Defendant violated
state and federal law and harmed thousands of its current and
former patients.

The Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class are victims of
Defendant's negligence and inadequate cyber security measures.
Specifically, Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class trusted
Defendant with their Sensitive Information. But Defendant betrayed
that trust. Defendant failed to properly use up-to-date security
practices to prevent the Data Breach, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a former patient and Data Breach victim.

The Defendant is a dental clinic with location in Rowlett, Texas
and Anacortes, Washington that boasts that it "knows that dental
patients put a great deal of trust in their providers and expect
warmth, honesty, and excellence in the care provided."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
          One Magnificent Mile
          980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
          Chicago IL, 60611
          Phone: (872) 263-1100
          Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
          Email: sam@straussborrelli.com

BEARD STRUGGLE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Bennett Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LIVINGSTON BENNETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. The Beard Struggle Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:26-cv-5029 (N.D. Ill., April 30, 2026) is a civil rights
action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its Website https://www.thebeardstruggle.com
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Bennett and
other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of
Bennett's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA").

The complaint relates that Bennett attempted to complete a purchase
on the Website on December 29, 2025. However, he encountered
multiple accessibility barriers that prevented him from completing
the transaction independently. The Website contains access barriers
that deny full and equal access to Bennett. As such, Defendant
discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate
against Bennett and members of the proposed class and subclass on
the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations
and/or opportunities of the Website in violation of the ADA and/or
its implementing regulations, says the suit.

Bennett 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 Livingston Bennett is a visually-impaired and legally
blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website
content using the computer.

Defendant The Beard Struggle Inc. provides to the public the
Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and
services, including, the ability to purchase a variety of heated
beard straighteners, oils, balms, washes, conditioners, grooming
kits, combs, brushes, styling products, 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

BELLI WELLI INC: Taylor Suit Removed to E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Kimberly Taylor, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. BELLI WELLI INC., a California
corporation and Does 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 26CV007875 was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for
Eastern District of California on May 4, 2026, and assigned Case
No. 2:26-cv-01712-TLN-CSK.

The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges Belli Welli falsely advertises
itself as containing "No Artificial Colors or Flavors," even
though, the product allegedly contains manufactured citric acid.
The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of all individuals in the
country who purchased the Belli Welli products that contained the
"no artificial flavors" labeling as well as a subclass of
individuals who purchased the products in California. The Plaintiff
brings a claim for damages under the California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act (CLRA). The Plaintiff also seeks restitution under
both California's False Advertising Law (FAL); and California's
Unfair Competition Law (UCL).[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          William P. Cole, Esq.
          Matthew R. Orr, Esq.
          Cole Kroshus, Esq.
          AMIN WASSERMAN GURNANI, LLP
          515 South Flower St., 18th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 933-2330
          Fax: (312) 884-7352
          Email: wcole@awglaw.com
                 morr@awglaw.com
                 ckroshus@awglaw.com

BELNICK LLC: Faces Rice Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LUCAS RICE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BELNICK, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:26-cv-00712 (E.D. Wis., April 23, 2026) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and declaratory relief.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.foldingchairs4less.com, contains access barriers which
hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of
their online goods, content, and services offered to the public
through the website. The accessibility issues on the website
include but not limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy,
inaccessible contact information, unclear labels for interactive
elements, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, inaccurate drop-down
menus, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL
address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely
with a mouse.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired individuals.

Belnick, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in
Wisconsin. [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
       Email: Dreyes@ealg.law

BERING TIME: Mueller Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
TARA NICOLE MUELLER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Bering Time Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:26-cv-871 (S.D. Ind., April 30, 2026) is a civil rights action
against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its Website https://beringtime.com to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Mueller and other
blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Mueller's
rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").

The complaint relates that Mueller attempted to complete a purchase
on the Websitep on February 10, 2026. However, she encountered
multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from completing
the transaction independently. The Website contains access barriers
that deny full and equal access to Mueller. As such, Defendant
discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate
against Mueller 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.

Mueller 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 Tara Nicole Mueller is a visually-impaired and legally
blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website
content using the computer.

Defendant Bering Time Inc. 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 watches and
jewelry products, including wristwatches, rings, bracelets,
necklaces, earrings, charms, and jewelry sets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jason B. Marshall, Esq.
     EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
     4903 Avenue N,
     Brooklyn, NY 11234
     Telephone: (463) 777-4196
     E-mail: jmarshall@ealg.law

BEST BUY: Standing Order Entered in Palomo Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN PALOMO, v. BEST
BUY STORES L.P., Case No. 2:26-cv-04654-WLH-BFM (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Hsu entered a standing order as follows:

The case has been assigned to United States District Judge Wesley
L. Hsu. Both the Court and all counsel bear responsibility for the
progress of litigation in this Court. "Counsel," as used in this
Order, includes attorneys and parties who have elected to appear
without an attorney and are representing themselves in this civil
litigation.

Counsel for the plaintiff must immediately serve this Order on all
parties, including any new parties to the action. If this case was
removed from state court, the defendant that removed the case must
serve this Order on all other parties.

Only individuals may represent themselves. A corporation or other
entity must be represented by counsel.

The Plaintiff(s) shall promptly serve the Complaint in accordance
with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant to
Fed R. Civ. P. 4(l). A

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(3), L.R. 5-4, and General Order
10-07, counsel shall electronically file (e-file) all filings.

All discovery matters are referred to the assigned United States
Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge’s initials follow the
Judge’s initials next to the case number.

Motions must be filed in accordance with L.R. 6 and 7. Judge Hsu
hears civil motions on Fridays beginning at 1:30 p.m.

The Defendant is a major subsidiary of Best Buy Co., Inc.,
operating as a leading specialty retailer of consumer electronics,
appliances, and mobile devices.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MfVnKk at no extra
charge.[CC]

BEST CHI: Blind Users Face Barriers to Website Access, Royal Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY ROYAL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Best Chi Pie, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:26-cv-4972 (N.D. Ill., April 30, 2026) is a civil rights action
against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its Website https://chicagos-pizza.com to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Royal and other
blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Royal's
rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").

The complaint relates that Royal has made an attempt to place an
online order on the Website on October 16, 2025. However, he
encountered multiple accessibility barriers that hindered his
ability to complete the order. The Website contains access barriers
that deny full and equal access to Royal. As such, Defendant
discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate
against Royal and members of the proposed class and subclass on the
basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods,
services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or
opportunities of the Website in violation of the ADA and/or its
implementing regulations, says the suit.

Royal 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 Anthony Royal is a visually-impaired and legally blind
person who requires screen-reading software to read website content
using the computer.

Defendant Best Chi Pie, Inc. provides to the public the Website,
which provides consumers access to an array of services, including,
the ability to explore a wide selection of Italian-American dishes,
including pizza, pasta dishes, sandwiches, burgers, salads,
appetizers, and sides such as fries, breadsticks, garlic bread, and
dipping sauces. On the Website, visitors can also place orders
online for pickup or delivery, purchase gift cards, and access
available coupons.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David B. Reyes, Esq.
     EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
     4903 Avenue N
     Brooklyn, NY 11234
     Office: 844-731-3343
     Direct: 718-554-0237
     E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law

BLUE SAS: Morris Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BLUE SAS. The case is
styled as Lindsey Morris, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. BLUE SAS, Case No. 26CV185173 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Alameda Cty., April 30, 2026).

The case type is stated as "Other Commercial/Business Tort (Not
Fraud/ Breach of Contract)."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James M. Treglio, Esq.
          POTTER HANDY, LLP
          100 Pine Street Suite 1250
          San Diego, CA 92111
          Phone: (415) 534-1911
          Fax: (888) 422-5191
          Email: jimt@potterhandy.com

BOUQS COMPANY: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Bouqs Company, Case No. 0:26-cv-02435-NEB-ECW (D.
Minn., April 30, 2026), is brought arising because Defendant's
Website (www.bouqs.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is
not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who
have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory
mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and
services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the
"ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim
under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action
under the Minnesota Human Rights Act ("MHRA").

The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is
responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning
the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her
experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past
year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the
Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital
barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and
equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes
available to its sighted Website users.

Still, the Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to
access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or
shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant
offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and
operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully
accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with
vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class
have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to
be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to
provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is
compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore
disabled under the ADA.

The Defendant offers flowers and accessories for sale including,
but not limited to, flower bouquets, bulk flowers, plants, gifts,
and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
          Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
          Jason Gustafson, Esq.
          THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
          80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (763) 515-6110
          Email: chad@throndsetlaw.com
                 pat@throndsetlaw.com
                 jason@throndsetlaw.com

BRADFORD EXCHANGE LTD: Medina Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Bradford
Exchange, Ltd. The case is styled as John Medina, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Bradford
Exchange, Ltd., Case No. 3:26-cv-02732-JES-SBC (S.D. Cal., April
30, 2026).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

The Bradford Exchange -- https://www.bradfordexchange.com/ -- is an
American producer and seller of collectible goods, jewelry, sports
memorabilia and apparel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Faythe Gutierrez, Esq.
          PLG DAMAGE ATTORNEYS, PLLC
          2750 SW 145th Avenue #509
          Miramar, FL 33027
          Phone: (305) 506-4746
          Email: fgutierrez@plgdamage.com

BRADY COMPANIES: Jiunti Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brady Companies, LLC.
The case is styled as Sheena Monique Jiunti, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Brady Companies, LLC,
Case No. CU26-04144 (Cal. Super. Ct., Solano Cty., April 30,
2026).

The case type is stated as "Other Commercial/Business Tort (Not
Fraud/ Breach of Contract)."

Brady Companies LLC is a construction company based in Las Vegas,
Nevada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Suh, Esq.
          SUH LAW GROUP APC
          3810 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1212
          Los Angeles, CA 90010-3227
          Phone: 213-385-7347
          Fax: 213-383-3323
          Email: suhlawgroup@gmail.com

BRIARCLIFF APARTMENTS: Underpays Maintenance Staff, Plascencia Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR HUGO PLASCENCIA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRIARCLIFF APARTMENTS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04714 (N.D. Ill., April 24, 2026) is a
class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked as a maintenance worker at Briarcliff
Apartments in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

Briarcliff Apartments, LLC is an owner and operator of apartments,
headquartered in Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
      Francisco Fernandez del Castillo, Esq.
      DEL CASTILLO LAW GROUP, LLC
      11 E. Adams Street, Suite 1401
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 216-0111
      Email: francisco@delcastillolawgroup.com

BUZZMARKETING LLC: Gray Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Buzzmarketing, LLC.
The case is styled as Danielle Lynette Gray, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Buzzmarketing, LLC d/b/a
Fasttrack Relief, Case No. 2:26-cv-04653 (C.D. Cal., April 30,
2026).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Buzzmarketing, LLC doing business as Fast Track Debt Relief --
https://www.fasttrackdebtrelief.com/ -- is one of the nation's
leading provider of debt relief services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Pamela Erin Prescott, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Fax: (800) 520-5523
          Email: pamela@kazlg.com

CAL-MAINE FOODS: Cheesecake Funk Balks at Shell Eggs Price-fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cheesecake Funk LLC d/b/a Cheesecake Funk, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cal-Maine
Foods, Inc., Rose Acre Farms, Inc., Versova Holdings, LLC,
Hillandale Farms of Pa., Inc., Hillandale-Gettysburg, LLC,
Hillandale Farms East, Inc., and Hillandale Farms, Inc., Daybreak
Foods, Inc., Urner Barry Publications, Inc. d/b/a Expana, Egg
Clearinghouse, Inc., United Egg Producers, and John Does 1-10.
Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00400 (W.D. Wis., April 29, 2026)
alleges that Defendants have conspired to fix, raise, maintain, or
stabilize prices for conventional fresh shell eggs from at least
January 1, 2022, until Defendants' unlawful conduct and its
anticompetitive effects ceases.

According to the complaint, Defendant and publisher Urner Barry
collects, analyzes, and disseminates current information to its
food industry customers in the egg, poultry, meat, seafood, plant
protein, and related segments. Urner Barry provides actionable,
competitive information related to the egg market to the Egg
Producer Defendants and other egg producers.

Egg Producer Defendants reported inflated assessments of egg prices
to Urner Barry. Urner Barry then published price quotes using the
information provided by its subscribers, including the Egg Producer
Defendants. It also used transaction prices from Defendant ECI's
private online spot market for egg trading.

The Defendants attributed rising prices during the Class Period to
Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1, which caused the culling of
millions of layer hens from late 2021. However, HPAI does not
solely account for the egg prices increases observed during the
Class Period. Instead, the Defendants' blame on HPAI was and is
pretextual, and neither HPAI nor input costs account for
Conventional Shell Egg price increases over the Class Period.
Relevant egg production input costs actually fell while egg prices
continued to increase, says the suit.

Further, egg prices dropped after March 2025, only when Defendants'
alleged misconduct became public through the revelation of the
Department of Justice's investigation of the industry for price
fixing, with Cal-Maine, Rose Acre, and Urner Barry reportedly among
those under scrutiny.

Plaintiff Cheesecake Funk LLC d/b/a Cheesecake Funk is a Minnesota
limited liability company with its principal place of business in
Excelsior, Minnesota. During the Class Period, the Plaintiff
purchased Conventional Shell Eggs in Minnesota indirectly from one
or more Defendants including, but not limited to, Defendant Rose
Acre Farms' jointly owned Opal Foods, for its own business use in
commercial food preparation. By paying artificially inflated prices
for Conventional Shell Eggs, the Plaintiff allegedly suffered
antitrust injury as a direct result of the antitrust violations
alleged herein.

Defendants Cal-Maine, Rose Acre, Versova, Hillandale, and Daybreak
are the five biggest egg producers in the United States and own
almost half of all egg-laying commercial hens.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abou B. Amara, Jr., Esq.
          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
          Joshua J. Rissman, Esq.
          Melanie Miller Kapanke, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          120 So. Sixth St., Ste. 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: aamara@gustafsongluek.com
                  dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com  
                  mlooby@gustafsongluek.com
                  jrissman@gustafsongluek.com
                  mmiller@gustafsongluek.com

CALEEL + HAYDEN: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Bahena Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY BAHENA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Caleel + Hayden, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:26-cv-5033 (N.D. Ill., April 30, 2026) is a civil rights action
against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its Website https://www.gloskinbeauty.com/ to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Bahena and other
blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Bahena's
rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").

The complaint relates that Bahena has made an attempt to complete a
purchase on the Website on April 2, 2026. However, while navigating
the website using a keyboard and screen reader, Bahena encountered
multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from efficiently
navigating and independently completing the purchase. The Website
thus contains access barriers that deny full and equal access to
Bahena. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the
future to discriminate against Bahena and members of the proposed
class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal
enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of the Website in
violation of the ADA and/or its implementing regulations, says the
suit.

Bahena seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's
Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

Plaintiff Ashley Bahena is a visually-impaired and legally blind
person who requires screen-reading software to read website content
using the computer.

Defendant Caleel + Hayden, 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 skincare and
cosmetic products, including cleansers, serums, moisturizers,
foundations, and treatment solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alison Chan, Esq.
     EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
     4903 Avenue N
     Brooklyn, NY 11234
     Office: 844-731-3343
     Direct: 929-442-2154
     E-mail: Achan@ealg.law

CAMILLE ROSE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Jackson Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
SYLINIA JACKSON, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated v. CAMILLE ROSE L.L.C., Case No. 1:26-cv-03687
(S.D.N.Y., May 5, 2026) sues the Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
www.camillerose.com to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Plaintiff
contends.

During the Plaintiff’s visits to the Website, the last occurring
on March 4, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Rosemary Water Daily
Strengthening Mist 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, the suit says.

The Plaintiff attempted to purchase a Rosemary Water Daily
Strengthening Mist but was unable to locate pricing and was not
able to add the item[s] to the cart due to broken links, pictures
without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant’s
Website, which prevented her from doing so.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually impaired consumers.

The Defendant operates the Camille Rose online retail store, as
well as the Camille Rose interactive Website and advertises,
markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the
United States.[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

CANPOTEX LTD: Vohs Alleges Price-Fixing Conspiracy on Fertilizers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Vohs, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CANPOTEX LTD.; CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.;
KOCH AGRONOMIC SERVICES, LLC; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS; THE MOSAIC CO.;
and YARA INTERNATIONAL ASA, Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-04040
(N.D. Iowa, April 30, 2026) accuses the producers and sellers of
nitrogen, phosphate, and potassium fertilizers (collectively, "NPK
Fertilizers") of conspiring to fix the prices of NPK Fertilizers
products sold in the United States and its territories from January
1, 2020 to the present.

Allegedly, the contract, combination, or conspiracy consisted of an
agreement among Defendants to fix, raise, stabilize, or maintain at
artificially high levels the prices they charged for NPK
Fertilizers in the United States and its territories. The Plaintiff
brings this case under Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act to
recover damages, costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees; to
enjoin Defendants' anti-competitive conduct; and for such other
relief available for Defendants' violations of Sections 1 and 3 of
the Sherman Act.

Headquartered in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, Canpotex Limited
is a private jointly owned export company that produces potash
minerals used in NPK Fertilizers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         David M. Dahlmeier, Esq.
         Barry S. Sackett, Esq.
         Amanda M. Williams, Esq.
         Casey D. Marshall, Esq.
         100 South 5th Street, Suite 1500
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-1254
         Telephone: (612) 333-3000
         Facsimile: (612) 333-8829
         E-mail: ddahlmeier@bassford.com
                 bsackett@bassford.com
                 awillilams@bassford.com
                 cmarshall@bassforrd.com

CARDCONNECT LLC: Malaga Cove Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Malaga Cove Ranch Market, Inc., and others
similarly situated v. CARDCONNECT, LLC, a Delaware corporation;
FISERV, INC., a Wisconsin corporation; and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive, Case No. 26STCV05117 was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the
United States District Court for Central District of California on
May 1, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-04747.

The Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated California's Unfair
Competition statute and committed negligent misrepresentation,
fraud, fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment, conversion, money
had and received, breach of contract (express or implied), breach
of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and
promissory estoppel when Defendants allegedly increased their
merchant processing fees despite representing they would not do
so.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          John W. Peterson, Esq.
          POLSINELLI PC
          501 Commerce Street, Suite 1300
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Phone: (615) 259-1510
          Facsimile: (615) 259-1573
          Email: john.peterson@polsinelli.com

               - and -

          Grant L. Royal, Esq.
          POLSINELLI LLP
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 556-1801
          Facsimile: (310) 556-1802
          Email: groyal@polsinelli.com

CARNIVAL CORP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Stavropoulos Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BLADIMIROS STAVROPOULOS, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 1:26-cv-22793-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 22, 2026) is a an
action against the Defendant as a result of a recent cyberattack
and data breach involving personally identifiable information
suffered by Defendant (the "Data Breach").

According to the complaint, by obtaining, collecting, using, and
deriving a benefit from Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private
Information, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to ensure
the protection of that Private Information, and it knew or should
have known that it was thus responsible for protecting Plaintiff's
and Class Members' Private Information from disclosure.

As a result, the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members
was compromised through disclosure to an unauthorized third party.
Plaintiff and Class Members have a continuing interest in ensuring
that their information is and remains safe, and they should be
entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief, says the suit.

Carnival PLC owns and operates cruise ships. The Company offers
cruise vacations in North America, Continental Europe, the United
Kingdom, South America, and Australia. [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
          Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com


CATALYST PHARMACEUTICALS: M&A Investigates Sale to Angelini Pharma
------------------------------------------------------------------
Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates
PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a law firm headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Catalyst
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: CPRX) related to its sale to
Angelini Pharma S.p.A. Under the terms of the proposed transaction
Catalyst shareholders are expected to receive $31.50 per share in
cash. Is it a fair deal?

Visit link for more info
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/catalyst-pharmaceuticals-inc/. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should
talk to a lawyer and ask:

     1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
     2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
     3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?

About Monteverde & Associates PC

Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.

No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above
listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional
information free of charge, please visit our website or contact
Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.

Contact:

     Juan Monteverde, Esq.
     MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
     The Empire State Building
     350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
     New York, NY 10118
     Tel: (212) 971-1341
     jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN]

CENTRAL PORTFOLIO: Solano Files Suit in E.D. Washington
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central Portfolio
Control Inc. The case is styled as Efrain Solano, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Central Portfolio
Control Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-03079-TOR (E.D. Wash., April 30,
2026).

The nature of suit is stated as Motion to Quash.

Central Portfolio Control -- https://cpcrecovery.com/ -- is a
nationally licensed collection agency focused on the recovery of
distressed accounts receivable portfolios.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
          14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

CENTURION INDUSTRIES: Shotwell Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Shotwell, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CENTURION INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No.
1:26-cv-00217 (N.D. Ind., May 4, 2026), is brought to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees,
costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").

In addition to the base rate of pay, Defendant incorporated various
types of non-discretionary pay into its payment structure. For
example, Defendant promised and paid their hourly employees Per
Diem Pay, Prevailing Wage Pay, and other non-discretionary
remuneration. As non-exempt employees, Defendant's hourly employees
were entitled to full compensation for all overtime hours worked at
a rate of 1.5 times their "regular rate" of pay, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly
employee.

Centurion Industries, Inc. is an Indiana corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kimberly D. Jeselskis, Esq.
          JESELSKIS BRINKERHOFF AND JOSEPH, LLC
          320 North Meridian Street, Suite 428
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Phone: (317) 220-6290
          Facsimile: (317) 220-6291
          Email: kjeselskis@jbjlegal.com

               - and -

          Alana Karbal, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Town Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Phone: (248) 355-0300
          Facsimile: (248) 936-2143
          Email: akarbal@sommerspc.com

CF INDUSTRIES: Sued Over NPK Fertilizer Price-Fixing Conspiracy
---------------------------------------------------------------
GILMAN FEED COMPANY, INC., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.; CF
INDUSTRIES INC.; KOCH, INC., KOCH INDUSTRIES, LLC; KOCH AG & ENERGY
SOLUTIONS, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER, LLC; KOCH AGRONOMIC SERVICES, LLC;
NUTRIEN LTD.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC.; THE MOSAIC COMPANY;
CANPOTEX LTD.; YARA INTERNATIONAL ASA; and YARA NORTH AMERICA,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-05099 (N.D. Ill., May 1, 2026)
arises from Defendants' ongoing conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain,
and/or artificially stabilize prices for NPK Fertilizers in the
United States from at least January 1, 2021 through the time that
their misconduct and its anticompetitive effects cease.

The complaint relates that the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct
and unlawful agreements have caused the prices paid for NPK
Fertilizers in the United States to rise to, and stay at,
supracompetitive levels. The sharp increases in NPK Fertilizer
prices dates back to 2021 when overall prices increased by more
than 60%, a number that included an increase of 95% for nitrogen
and an increase of more than 70% for potassium (potash). Combined
with Defendants' conduct, the structure and characteristics of the
U.S. market for NPK Fertilizers supports a reasonable inference
that the Defendants entered into an illegal conspiracy.

As a result of Defendants' unlawful agreements, Plaintiff Gilman
Feed and all other United States direct purchasers of NPK
Fertilizers (including agricultural retailers, fertilizer mixers,
members of farming associations, farm and planting
partnerships/companies, and individual farmers/growers) were
harmed.  Plaintiff and Class members paid more for NPK Fertilizers
than they otherwise would have and thus suffered antitrust injury
and damages. The overcharges paid by Plaintiff and members of the
Class for NPK Fertilizers constitutes antitrust injury and harm to
competition under the federal antitrust laws, says the suit.

The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit on behalf of itself and all
members of the proposed Class seeking both monetary and injunctive
relief for harms arising from Defendants' unlawful and ongoing
agreement to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the prices for NPK
Fertilizers sold and purchased throughout the United States and its
territories, from January 1, 2021 to the present day, in violation
of the Sherman Act.

Plaintiff Gilman Feed Company, Inc. is a dealer for agricultural
feed, seed, fertilizers, and chemicals with a principal place of
business at 400 North Railroad Avenue, Gilman, Wisconsin.

Defendants are some of the largest producers and sellers of
nitrogen (N) fertilizers, phosphorus (P) fertilizers, and potassium
(K) fertilizers (collectively referred to herein as "NPK
Fertilizers") in the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nicholas J. Elia, Esq.
     Keith J. Verrier, Esq.
     Austin B. Cohen, Esq.
     LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
     510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
     Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697
     Telephone: (215) 592-1500
     E-mail: nelia@lfsblaw.com
             kverrier@lfsblaw.com
             acohen@lfsblaw.com

CHEMOURS COMPANY: Willkie Secures Dismissal of Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Willkie recently secured a victory for client Sameer Ralhan, the
former Chief Financial Officer of The Chemours Company, in a
proposed securities class action filed against Chemours and several
former executives in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware.  

Judge Richard G. Andrews dismissed the amended complaint in its
entirety against all defendants, with leave to amend. Plaintiffs
had alleged that defendants violated the federal securities laws by
failing to disclose that Chemours improperly delayed payables and
accelerated receivables to manipulate Chemours' "free cash flow," a
non-GAAP metric. In granting the motions to dismiss, Judge Andrews
ruled that the plaintiffs failed to properly plead the existence of
any materially misleading statement or omission, because the
company had already disclosed the variable timing of payments and
collections and it was not material whether the variable timing was
"intentional" in nature. The Court also held that because
plaintiffs did not adequately plead a primary violation of the
securities laws, plaintiffs failed to allege Section 20(a) control
person claims against the individual defendants.

While the Court granted plaintiffs leave to amend, its finding that
no material misrepresentation exists largely precludes any viable
repleading, rendering consideration of the remaining issues
unnecessary.

The Willkie team was led by partners Michael Schachter and Todd
Cosenza and included counsel Samantha Prince and associate Kathryn
Garrett. [GN]

CHIME FINANCIAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Walsh Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL WALSH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHIME FINANCIAL, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:26-cv-03278 (N.D. Cal., April 17, 2026) is a class action against
the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, invasion of
privacy, breach of implied contract, violations of California's
Unfair Competition Law, California Customer Records Act, and the
California Consumer Privacy Act, and declaratory and injunctive
relief.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its
network systems following a data breach in or around April 2026.
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.

Chime Financial, Inc. is a financial technology company, with its
principal place of business in San Francisco, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
      Tina Wolfson, Esq.
      Jeff S. Westerman, Esq.
      Lisa M. Cintron, Esq.
      AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
      2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500
      Burbank, CA 91505
      Telephone: (310) 474-9111
      Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
      Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
             jwesterman@ahdootwolfson.com
             lcintron@ahdootwolfson.com

              - and -

      Bradley K. King, Esq.
      AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
      521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
      New York, NY 10175
      Telephone: (917) 336-0171
      Facsimile: (917) 336-0177
      Email: bking@ahdootwolfson.com

CHUBBY CATTLE: Sanchez Seeks Restaurant Servers' Unlawful Tip Pool
------------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEEN MATEO SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHUBBY CATTLE DUNWOODY, LLC and
CHUBBY GROUP, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-02121-VMC (N.D. Ga.,
April 18, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act including unlawful tip
pool, unlawful tip credit, and dual jobs and application of tip
credit to non-tipped work.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a server at Chubby
Dunwoody since August 2025.

Chubby Cattle Dunwoody, LLC is a restaurant owner and operator
based in Atlanta, Georgia.

Chubby Group is a food and beverage holding company based in
Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
      Christopher B. Hall, Esq.
      HALL & LAMPROS, LLP
      300 Galleria Parkway, Suite 300
      Atlanta, GA 30339
      Telephone: (404) 876-8100
      Facsimile: (404) 876-3477
      Email: chall@hallandlampros.com

CIRQUE DU SOLEIL: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cirque Du Soleil,
Inc. The case is styled as Myles Garcia, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Cirque Du Soleil, Inc., Case No.
26CV185180 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., April 30, 2026).

The case type is stated as "Other Commercial/Business Tort (Not
Fraud/ Breach of Contract)."

Cirque du Soleil -- https://www.cirquedusoleil.com/ -- is a
Canadian entertainment company and the largest contemporary circus
producer in the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James M. Treglio, Esq.
          POTTER HANDY, LLP
          100 Pine Street Suite 1250
          San Diego, CA 92111
          Phone: (415) 534-1911
          Fax: (888) 422-5191
          Email: jimt@potterhandy.com

CLARKSTON COMFORT: Gregory Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Caregivers
---------------------------------------------------------------
KATIE GREGORY and VALERIE WALKER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CLARKSTON COMFORT CARE LLC
d/b/a SERENE GARDENS OF CLARKSTON, Defendant, Case No.
2:26-cv-11380-SJM-KGA (E.D. Mich., April 27, 2026) is a class
action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs Gregory and Walker were employed by the Defendant as
caregivers from July 2022 through February 2026 and from April 2024
through February 2025, respectively.

Clarkston Comfort Care LLC, doing business as Serene Gardens of
Clarkston, is an assisted living and memory care facility located
in Clarkston, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
       Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
       Paulina R. Kennedy, Esq.
       SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, PC
       One Town Square, 17th Floor
       Southfield, MI 48076
       Telephone: (248) 355-0300
       Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com
              pkennedy@sommerspc.com

CONCORA CREDIT: Gonzales Sues Over Unlawful Spamming
----------------------------------------------------
ARIANNA GONZALES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONCORA CREDIT INC., a Delaware
corporation, d/b/a MILESTONEGOLDCARD.COM, Defendant, Case No.
2:26-cv-04567 (C.D. Cal., April 29, 2026) accuses the Defendant of
unlawful spamming and invasion of privacy.

Allegedly, the Defendant sent deceptive spam emails that contain
false and misleading subject lines, spoofed domains, and falsified
headers. In addition, spam recipients like Plaintiff are funneled
to Defendant's website at milestonegoldcard.com, where Defendant
installs a web of illegal tracking pixels on their devices. Those
tracking technologies enable Defendant and its surveillance
partners to monitor visitors' behavior across the internet,
converting a single deceptive email into ongoing digital
surveillance.

Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful
conduct and asserts claims for California intrusion upon seclusion
and for violations of the California Business and Professions Code
and the California Trap and Trace Law.

Headquartered in Oregon, Concora Credit Inc. offers credit card,
bankcard, consumer lending, and finance services. [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

COOKEVILLE REGIONAL MEDICAL: Dirscherl Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cookeville Regional
Medical Center. The case is styled as Renee Dirscherl, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cookeville
Regional Medical Center, Case No. 2:26-cv-00031 (M.D. Tenn., May 4,
2026).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract.

Cookeville Regional Medical Center -- https://crmchealth.org/ -- is
the premier healthcare institution in the Upper Cumberland region
of Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq.
          MILBERG, PLLC
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Phone: (865) 247-0080
          Fax: (865) 522-0049
          Email: ahoneycutt@milberg.com

COPELAND ENTERPRISES: Katzeff Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jodi Katzeff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. COPELAND ENTERPRISES, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-11741-WGY
(D. Mass., April 15, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") as a result of the Defendant's
unsolicited telemarketing.

To promote its services, Defendant engages in aggressive
unsolicited telemarketing, harming thousands of consumers in the
process. Defendant utilizes aggressive marketing to push its
products and services without regards to consumers' rights under
the TCPA. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to
halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the
invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the
daily life of thousands of individuals. Plaintiff also seeks
statutory damages on behalf of herself and members of the class,
and any other available legal or equitable remedies, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person who was a resident of Bristol
County, Massachusetts.

The Defendant is a vehicle dealership corporation engaged in the
sale of high-performance vehicles to consumers, based out of
Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Fax: (508) 318-8100
          Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com

COUNTRY WINE: Faces Barlow Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL BARLOW, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated Plaintiff v. Country Wine & Spirits, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:26-cv-04939 (N.D. Ill., April 29, 2026) arises from
Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website, https://cwspirits.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. Accordingly, the Plaintiff
seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's
policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers. Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, the
Plaintiff also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class
Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says
the suit.

Based in Ramona, CA, Country Wine & Spirits, Inc. owns and operates
the website which offers spirits and wines curated gift sets,
cocktail kits, bar accessories, and limited-edition bottles. [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

CURIOUS ELIXIRS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Wood Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL WOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CURIOUS ELIXIRS LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:26-cv-04660 (N.D. Ill., April 24, 2026) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and declaratory relief.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://curiouselixirs.com/, contains access barriers which hinder
the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their
online goods, content, and services offered to the public through
the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but
not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading
hierarchy, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing
of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive
elements, inaccurate drop-down menus, the denial of keyboard access
for some interactive elements, and the requirement that
transactions be performed solely with a mouse.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired individuals.

Curious Elixirs LLC is a company that sells online goods and
services in Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Alison Chan, Esq.
       EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
       4903 Avenue N.
       Brooklyn, NY 11234
       Telephone: (844) 731-3343
       Email: Achan@ealg.law

D.G. SMITH ENTERPRISES: Reid Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against D.G. Smith
Enterprises, Inc. The case is styled as Austin Reid, individually,
and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. D.G. Smith
Enterprises, Inc., Does 1-25, Case No. 26CV010763 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., May 1, 2026).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."

D.G. Smith Enterprises, Inc. was founded in 1987. The Company's
line of business includes the retail sale of prepared foods and
drinks for on-premise consumption.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Miriam Schimmel, Esq.
          BLACKSTONE LAW, APC
          8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442
          Phone: 310-622-4278
          Fax: 855-786-6356
          Email: mschimmel@blackstonepc.com

DARDEN CORPORATION: Cowan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Darden Corporation.
The case is styled as Herman Cowan, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Darden Corporation, Case No.
26CV185219 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., April 30, 2026).

The case type is stated as "Other Commercial/Business Tort (Not
Fraud/ Breach of Contract)."

Darden Restaurants -- https://www.darden.com/ -- is the premier
full-service dining company, operating over 1800 location.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James M. Treglio, Esq.
          POTTER HANDY, LLP
          100 Pine Street Suite 1250
          San Diego, CA 92111
          Phone: (415) 534-1911
          Fax: (888) 422-5191
          Email: jimt@potterhandy.com

DATADOG INC: Gallegos Seeks OT Wages for Account Executives
-----------------------------------------------------------
MASON GALLEGOS and DANIEL SANTIAGO, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. DATADOG, INC., Case No.
609627/2026 (N.Y. Super., Nassau Cty., May 6, 2026) seeks to
recover overtime compensation for Plaintiffs and similarly situated
individuals who have worked as Commercial Account Executives for
Datadog anywhere in the United States.

According to the complaint, the Defendant classified its CAEs as
"exempt" from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and applicable state laws, including during their training
period. During such relevant period solicited and served
Defendant's business clients and potential clients for a majority
of the time "from the desk," remotely, or sometimes at a Defendant
location.

The Defendant allegedly failed to pay Gallegos overtime wages
during any work week for the hours he worked as an CAE in excess of
40 each work week, including during his training, says the suit.

The Defendant's "platform integrates and automates infrastructure
monitoring, application performance monitoring, log management,
real-user monitoring, and many other capabilities to provide
unified, real-time observability and security for our customers'
entire technology stack," according to its website.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
           SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.  
           1177 Avenue of the Americas 5th Floor
           New York, NY 10036
           Telephone: (800) 616-4000
           Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
           E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com

                - and -

           Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
           Alan Quiles, Esq.
           SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.  
           622 Banyan Trail, Suite 200  
           Boca Raton, FL 33431
           Telephone: (561) 447-8888  
           Facsimile: (561) 447-8831

DAVID PETRUSHKA: Ramos Law Bid for Leave to File FAC Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THE RAMOS INJURY FIRM,
LLC, d/b/a RAMOS LAW, v. DAVID PETRUSHKA, individually and as
Personal Representative of Estate of Naomi Petrushka, Case No.
1:25-cv-00036-NYW-CYC (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Wang entered
denying the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file first amended
complaint and jury demand.

Ramos Law provides no adequate explanation for this delay in
seeking amendment.

Because Ramos Law lacks good cause under Rule 16(b)(4) to amend
after the Scheduling Order deadline, the Court need not consider
whether amendment would be permissible under Rule 15(a). The Motion
to Amend is denied.

Ramos Law alleges that it performed "extensive" legal work on the
insurance claim, resulting in an insurance payment of over $9
million to Mr. Petrushka and his siblings. Ramos Law sought a
contingent fee on the bodily insurance benefits that comprised
nearly $5 million of the insurance payment. Mr. Petrushka disputes
that the Fee Agreement entitles Ramos Law to this fee.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8azOtD at no extra
charge.[CC]
 


DEALMACHINE OPERATIONS: Illegally Collects Personal Info, Coln Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
OUEDIA COLN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DEALMACHINE OPERATIONS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:26-cv-01728 (D. Colo., April 23, 2026) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Colorado's Prevention of
Telemarketing Fraud Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's practice of compiling and
commercially disseminating the cellular telephone numbers of
Colorado residents without their explicit, affirmative consent.
According to the complaint, the Defendant operates the DealMachine
platform, a data aggregator, which collects and lists personal
information without explicit consent. The DealMachine monetizes
this personal data, including the cell phone numbers of Colorado
residents, through its publicly accessible directory, thereby
profiting from the unauthorized disclosure of private information,
suit says.

DealMachine, Inc. is a software company with its principal place of
business in Indianapolis, Indiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
      Adam C. York, Esq.
      CROSNER LEGAL, PC
      1021 West Adams St., Ste. 200
      Chicago, IL 60607
      Telephone: (866) 276-7637
      Facsimile: (310) 510-6429

DEEP FOODS: Orcel Suit Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN ORCEL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. DEEP FOODS, INC, Case No. 2:26-cv-05047 (N.D. Ill., May 5, 2026)
arises because the Defendant's s website, www.deepindiankitchen.com
is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who
have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory
mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and
services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and
its implementing regulations, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in
Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become,
and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a
civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota; damages, and a
damage multiplier.

The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website,
offering features which should allow all consumers to access the
goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of
such goods throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com

DENTAL SERVICE: Levenson Sues Over Unlawful Monopsony
-----------------------------------------------------
Stanley Levenson, DMD, and South Shore Dentistry, LLC, on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated v. DENTAL SERVICE OF
MASSACHUSETTS INC. d/b/a Delta Dental of Massachusetts (DDMA), Case
No. (Mass. Commonwealth, Suffolk Cty., April 30, 2026), is brought
involving DDMA's unlawful, anticompetitive, and unfair misuse of
monopsony power in the Massachusetts market for dental goods and
services.

The Defendant obtained and maintains this market power as a result
of its coordinated and lawful conspiratorial agreement with other
companies that comprise the "Delta Dental" System not to compete
among the various separate Delta Dental entities throughout the
United States. The Defendant holds well in excess of 50% of the
market for dental goods and services in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. The Defendant secured this power in Massachusetts by
agreeing to the Artificial Territorial Division of the United
States among DDMA and other Delta dental licenses that have been
assigned exclusive geographic territories throughout the U.S.
(collectively, the "Delta Dental State Insurers").

DDMA has abused and is abusing its market dominance to: restrict
competition with the other Delta Dental State insurers when
operating under the "Delta Dental" brand (the "Market Allocation
Mechanism"); reduce the amount of reimbursement paid by DDMA to
dentists and dental practices in Massachusetts who arc reimbursed
by Delta Dental insurance (the "Price Fixing Mechanism"), and
participate in a conspiracy to restrict competition among DDMA and
the other Delta Dental State Insurers when operating under
non-"Delta Dental" brands (the "Output Restrictions").

The unlawful agreement among the Defendant and other Delta Dental
entities has harmed both dentist and dental practices--like the
named Plaintiff here--that accept Delta Dental insurance
(collectively, the "Dental Providers") and consumers. The Defendant
has artificially suppressed its reimbursement to dental providers
in Massachusetts, but rather than pass those savings along to
consumers, the Defendant has continued to raise consumer premiums.

Accordingly, this suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs to
vindicate the rights of thousands of Massachusetts Dental Providers
who have been systematically under-reimbursed by the Defendant as a
result of the Defendant's participation in a monopsonistic
antitrust conspiracy in violation of the Massachusetts Antitrust
Act and related unfair and anticompetitive practices in violation
of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Law, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are dental services providers and citizens of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The Defendant is a not for profit 501(c)(4) corporation that
provides insurance plans for dental goods and services in
Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Harvey J. Wolkoff, Esq.
          John F. Ferraro, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          111 Huntington Avenue. Suite 520
          Boston, MA 02199
          Phone: (617) 712-7100
          Email: harvcywolkoff@quinncmanucl.com
                 johnfcrraro@quinncmanucl.com

                - and -

          Leonid Feller, P.C., Esq.
          191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700
          Chicago. IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 705-7400
          Email: leonidfcllcr@quinncmanucl.com

                - and -

          Ronald J. Aranoff, Esq.
          Jay S. Handlin, Esq.
          Reuben R. Bauer, Esq.
          WOLLMUTH MAHER & DEUTSCH LLP
          500 Fifth Avenue - 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10110
          Phone: (212) 382-3300
          Email: raranoff@wmd-law.com
                 jhandlin@wmd-law.com
                 rbaucr@wmd-law.com

                - and -

          Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
          Michael S. Smith, Esq.
          Elizabeth F. Quinby, Esq.
          PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS. LLP
          One City Center
          P.O. Box 9546
          Portland, ME 04112-9546
          Phone: (207) 791-3000
          Email: ghanscl@prcti.com
                 msmith@preti.com
                 equinby@preti.com

                - and -

          Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
          Gregory Aronson, Esq.
          Elana Katcher, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          800 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212)687-1980
          Email: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
                 garenson@kaplanfox.com
                 ckatchcr@kaplanfox.com

                - and -

          William P. Creasman, Esq.
          CARNEY, BATES, AND PULLIAM, PLLC
          One Allied Drive. Suite 1400
          Little Rock, AK 72201
          Phone: (501) 312-8500
          Email: wcrcasman@cbplaw.com

                - and -

          Stanley D. Bernstein, Esq.
          Stephanie M. Beige, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP
          10 East 40th Street
          New York. NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 779-1414
          Email: bcrnstcin@bcrnlicb.com
                 bcigc@bcrnlicb.com

                - and -

          William G. Caldes, Esq.
          Mary Ann Giorno Geppert, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215)496-0300
          Email: bcaldcs@srkattorncys.com
                 mgcppcrt@srkattorncys.com

                - and -

          John R. Malkinson, Esq.
          MALKINSON & HALPERN, P.C.
          33 North Dearborn Street, Suite 1540
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312)427-9600
          Email: jmalkinson@mhtriallaw.com

                - and -

          Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
          Patrick F. Madden, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 875-3000
          Fax:(215)875-4604
          Email: ccramcr@bm.net
                 pmadden@bm.net

                - and -

          Ryan McDevitt, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue. Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206)623-1900
          Email: rmcdcvitt@kcllcrrohrback.com

                - and -

          Simon B. Paris, Esq.
          SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, & BENDESKY, P.C.
          1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 575-3986
          Email: sparis@smbb.com

                - and -

          Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRA1FMAN P.C.
          135 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200
          Montvale, NJ 07645
          Phone: (866) 971-0927
          Email: mcmcrt@kgglaw.com

                - and -

          David P. McLafferty, Esq.
          MCLAFFERTY LAW FIRM, P.C.
          923 Fayette Street
          Conshohocken. PA 19428
          Phone: (610) 940-4000 ext. 12
          Email: dmclafferty@mclaffcrtylaw.com

DISNEY DTC LLC: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Disney DTC LLC. The
case is styled as Myles Garcia, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Disney DTC LLC, Case No. 26CV185200 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., April 30, 2026).

The case type is stated as "Other Commercial/Business Tort (Not
Fraud/ Breach of Contract)."

Walt Disney Direct-to-Consumer & International (DTCI) was a
business segment and subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company
consisting of Disney streaming services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James M. Treglio, Esq.
          POTTER HANDY, LLP
          100 Pine Street Suite 1250
          San Diego, CA 92111
          Phone: (415) 534-1911
          Fax: (888) 422-5191
          Email: jimt@potterhandy.com

DLC LABORATORIES INC: Brown Files Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DLC Laboratories,
Inc. The case is styled as Kaira Brown, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. DLC Laboratories, Inc., Case
No. 1:26-cv-02658-JRC (E.D.N.Y., May 4, 2026).

The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending.

DLC Labs -- https://dlclabs.com/ -- offers a wide range of health
and beauty products, including moisturizers, acne treatments,
essential oils, dietary supplements, and first aid items.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Innessa Melamed Huot, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 983-9330
          Fax: (212) 983-9331
          Email: ihuot@faruqilaw.com

DNA COMPREHENSIVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sutton Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE SUTTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DNA COMPREHENSIVE THERAPY SERVICES, LLC.
d/b/a ELITE DNA BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Defendant, Case No.
3:26-cv-03547-MCR-HTC (N.D. Cal., April 22, 2026) seeks to recover
from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a therapist.

Comprehensive Therapy Services Inc provides health care services.
The Company offers physical therapy, pilates training, visceral
manipulation, biofeedback, massage therapy, and acupuncture
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexis Mena-Glasgow, Esq.
          SIMPSON & MENA, P.A.
          2250 SW Third Avenue, Suite 501
          Miami, FL 33129
          Telephone: (305) 912-7665
          Email: alexis@simpsonmenalaw.com


DOMINIUM MANAGEMENT: Penland Appeals Court Order in Consumer Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RANETTA PENLAND is taking an appeal from a court order in the
lawsuit entitled RaNetta Penland, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Dominium Management
Services, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 27-cv-24-11462, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit
alleges that the Defendants are engaged in unlawful inflation of
residential tenant's utility bills.

The appellate case is captioned as RaNetta Penland v. Dominium
Management Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 26-0678, in the
Minnesota Court of Appeals, filed on April 17, 2026. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant RANETTA PENLAND, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, is represented by:

       Thomas John Lyons, Jr., Esq.
       CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER PA
       367 Commerce Court
       Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
       Telephone: (612) 200-1495

               - and -

       Carl Eric Christensen, Esq.
       Christopher John Wilcox, Esq.
       CHRISTENSEN SAMPSEL PLLC
       305 North Fifth Avenue, Suite 375
       Minneapolis, MN 55401
       Telephone: (612) 260-7694

Defendants-Respondents DOMINIUM MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, et al.
are represented by:

       Matthew Robert Mcbride, Esq.
       Quin Courtney Seiler, Esq.
       WINTHROP & WEINSTINE
       Capella Tower, Suite 3500
       225 South Sixth Street
       Minneapolis, MN 55402
       Telephone: (612) 604-6400

              - and -

       Cassandra Batchelder Merrick, Esq.
       MADEL PA
       434 Lake Street
       Excelsior, MN 55331
       Telephone: (612) 605-0630

DRAGONFLY ENERGY: Berdner Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as John Berdner and Jeff Domich, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DRAGONFLY ENERGY
HOLDINGS CORP. D/B/A/ BATTLE BORN, a Nevada Corporation, Case No.
26CV01247 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Sonoma, to the United States District
Court for Northern District of California on April 30, 2026, and
assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-03855.

The Plaintiffs assert the following causes of action against
Dragonfly: Violation of State Consumer Protection Statutes (by
Plaintiffs and the Multi-State Consumer Protection Class); Breach
of Express Warranty (by Plaintiffs and the Nationwide Class, and
alternatively the California Class); Breach of Implied Warranty of
Merchantability (by Plaintiffs and the Nationwide Class, and
alternatively the Multi-State Implied Warranty Non-Privity Class
and the California Class); Breach of Implied Warranty of
Merchantability, Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (by Plaintiffs
and the California Class); Violations of California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act (by Plaintiffs and the California Class); Violations
of California Unfair Competition Law (by Plaintiffs and the
California Class); Violations of the California False Advertising
Law (by Plaintiffs and the California Class); Unjust
Enrichment/Quasi-Contract (by Plaintiffs and the California
Class).[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Patrick J. Neville, Esq.
          Juliette P. White, Esq.
          Kaitlynn B. Morgan, Esq.
          PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER
          201 South Main Street, Suite 1800
          Post Office Box 45898
          Salt Lake City, Utah 84145-0898
          Phone: (801) 532-1234
          Email: PNeville@parsonsbehle.com
                 JWhite@parsonsbehle.com
                 KMorgan@parsonsbehle.com

                - and -

          Sarah Ferguson, Esq.
          PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER
          50 W. Liberty Street, Suite 750
          Reno, NV 89501
          Phone: (775) 323-1601
          Email: sferguson@parsonsbehle.com

DTE ENERGY: Glenn Files FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
OSCAR GLENN, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees,
Plaintiff v. DTE ENERGY COMPANY, and its subsidiaries and
divisions, Defendant,  Case No. 2:26-cv-11462-LVP-CI (E.D. Mich.,
May 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The complaint relates that the Plaintiff, and similarly situated
employees, earn various types of routine and non-discretionary pay
as part of their compensation. There are other differentials,
premiums, bonuses, and other non-overtime compensation that
Plaintiff, and similarly situated employees, earn each week. As
non-exempt employees, under the FLSA, the Plaintiff, and similarly
situated employees, were entitled to full compensation for all
overtime hours worked "not less than one and one-half times the
regular rate at which [they were] employed," contends the
complaint.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has failed to adequately
compensate Plaintiff, and all employees similarly situated to
Plaintiff, for overtime pay under the FLSA. Specifically,
Plaintiff, and similarly situated employees, has not been paid one
and one-half times the "regular rate" for their overtime hours.

The Plaintiff seeks all past due compensation, liquidated damages,
attorneys fees, and all other relief to which they are entitled by
law.

Plaintiff Oscar Glenn is employed at DTE Energy. He works as a
Field Service Technician within DTE Gas Company.

Defendant DTE Energy Company is a corporate entity comprised of a
number of subsidiaries: DTE Gas Company, DTE Corporate Services
LLC, DTE Electric Securitization Funding I and II, LLC, DTE
Sustainable Generation Holdings, LLC, and DT Midstream.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard G. Mack, Esq.
     Jacob Porcarelli, Esq.
     MILLER COHEN, PLC
     7700 Second Avenue, Suite 335
     Detroit, MI 48202
     Telephone: (313) 964-4454
     Facsimile: (313) 964-4490
     E-mail: richardmack@millercohen.com
             jporcarelli@millercohen.com

EASTSIDE GOLF INC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Eastside Golf, Inc., Case No. 0:26-cv-02433 (D. Minn.,
April 30, 2026), is brought arising because Defendant's Website
(www.eastsidegolf.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is
not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who
have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory
mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and
services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the
"ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim
under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action
under the Minnesota Human Rights Act ("MHRA").

The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is
responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning
the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her
experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past
year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the
Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital
barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and
equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes
available to its sighted Website users.

Still, the Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to
access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or
shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant
offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and
operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully
accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with
vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class
have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to
be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to
provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is
compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore
disabled under the ADA.

The Defendant offers men's golf apparel for sale including, but not
limited to, tops, bottoms, polos, sweaters, vests, outerwear,
shorts, shoes, bags, accessories, and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
          Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
          Jason Gustafson, Esq.
          THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
          80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (763) 515-6110
          Email: chad@throndsetlaw.com
                 pat@throndsetlaw.com
                 jason@throndsetlaw.com

ELECTROLUX HOME: Stern Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID STERN is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his
lawsuit entitled David Stern, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Electrolux Home Products,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-8204, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this is an
action for actual damages, equitable relief, including restitution,
injunctive relief, and disgorgement of profits, and all other
relief available on behalf of the Plaintiff and all
similarly-situated individuals and entities who own or have owned
refrigerators sold by the Defendant allegedly containing a defect.

On May 6, 2025, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

On July 31, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, which Judge Sanket J. Bulsara granted on
Mar. 19, 2026. The Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice.
The Plaintiff's leave to amend is denied and the case is closed.

The appellate case is styled as Stern v. Electrolux Home Products,
Inc., Case No. 26-1007, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, filed on April 17, 2026. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant DAVID STERN, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, is represented by:

       Lisa R. Considine, Esq.
       NAGEL RICE, LLP
       103 Eisenhower Parkway
       Roseland, NJ 07068

Defendant-Appellee ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC. is represented
by:

       Michael Timothy Williams, Esq.
       WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP
       370 17th Street, Suite 4500
       Denver, CO 80202

ELEIKO SPORT: See Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------
AARON SEE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Eleiko Sport Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:26-cv-00860-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind., April 30, 2026) accuses the
Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff maintains that the Defendant violated the ADA by
failing to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website,
https://eleiko.com to be fully accessible to and independently
usable 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 reader software users, says the suit.

Headquartered in Austin, TX, Eleiko Sport Inc. owns and operates
the website which offers strength training equipment for sale.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Jason B. Marshall, Esq.
         EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
         4903 Avenue N,
         Brooklyn, NY 11234
         Telephone: (463) 777-4196
         E-mail: jmarshall@ealg.law

ELEVANCE INC: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid in Trustees ERISA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ELEVANCE, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
denying their motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled
Trustees of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied
Craftworkers Local 1 Connecticut Health Fund, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Elevance, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-1541, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
brought this action against the Defendants, alleging breaches of
fiduciary obligations in violation of Sections 404 and 406 of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

On Sept. 30, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration, which Judge Sarah F. Russell denied on Mar. 20, 2026.

The Court finds that the Defendants' conduct in this litigation
demonstrates they knowingly relinquished their right to arbitrate
the claims asserted by the Local 1 Fund by acting inconsistently
with that right.  

The appellate case is styled as Trustees of the International Union
of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers Local 1 Connecticut Health
Fund v. Elevance, Inc., Case No. 26-1061, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 23, 2026.
[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
BRICKLAYERS AND ALLIED CRAFTWORKERS LOCAL 1 CONNECTICUT HEALTH
FUND, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, are represented by:

       Gregg David Adler, Esq.
       LIVINGSTON, ADLER, PULDA, MEIKLEJOHN & KELLY, PC
       557 Prospect Avenue
       Hartford, CT 06105

              - and -

       Shanon Jude Carson, Esq.
       BERGER MONTAGUE PC
       1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
       Philadelphia, PA 19103

Defendants-Appellants ELEVANCE, INC., et al. are represented by:

       Matthew H. Geelan, Esq.
       CARMODY TORRANCE SANDAK & HENNESSEY LLP
       741 Boston Post Road, Suite 306
       Guilford, CT 06437

ELSEVIER INC: Joins AI Class Action Lawsuit Against Meta
--------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Gibney, writing for nature, reports that a scientific
publisher has joined the dozens of firms and individuals suing
artificial-intelligence companies over their alleged use of
copyrighted works in training AI models.

Elsevier Inc. -- which publishes thousands of journals, including
Cell and The Lancet -- was part of a class-action lawsuit filed on
5 May against technology company Meta and its chief executive Mark
Zuckerberg in the Southern District of New York. Also named as
plaintiffs on the lawsuit are book-publishing giants Hachette and
Macmillan, and the US fiction author and lawyer Scott Turow. The
publishers allege that Meta obtained and reproduced copyrighted
works in developing its large language model (LLM) Llama.

"This case is the first AI action brought by major publishing
houses, who have their own story to tell about Meta's flagrant
violation of their rights," said the Association of American
Publishers in a statement.

The case mirrors those of authors and media companies -- including
The New York Times -- suing AI firms on similar grounds. Some cases
have been settled but, overall, they have yet to establish a clear
precedent on whether it is legal to use copyrighted works to train
an LLM. A Meta spokesperson has said the company would "fight this
lawsuit aggressively".

Although AI firms are cagey about their training data, it is widely
assumed that paywalled research papers, as well as open-access
ones, formed part of the billions of web pages that models were
trained on.

Training data

To train Llama, the lawsuit alleges that Meta used the Common Crawl
data set, a sample of billions of web pages made by trawling the
Internet, which the plaintiffs say is likely to have included
unauthorized copies of copyrighted works, such as scientific
abstracts and paywalled papers.

The publishers also allege that Meta downloaded and torrented
(sourced using a file-sharing method) works from sites including
LibGen, a database of books, research papers and textbooks; and
Sci-Hub, a repository that gives free access to millions of
research articles and books regardless of copyright. Both sites
have been the subject of legal challenges. Much of the evidence
relies on e-mails between Meta employees that were revealed during
a separate case in which several book authors sued Meta last year
(Kadrey v. Meta).

Meta has suggested that it will argue that training on copyrighted
documents constitutes 'fair use', a copyright exemption in US law.
"AI is powering transformative innovations, productivity and
creativity for individuals and companies, and courts have rightly
found that training AI on copyrighted material can qualify as fair
use," its spokesperson said. [GN]

EPIC SYSTEMS: Fox Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Epic Systems
Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Edward Fox, Suzanne
Bryan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Epic Systems Corporation, Reid Hospital & Health Care Services,
Inc., Health Gorilla, Inc., Mammoth Path Solution, LLC, Case No.
2:26-cv-04674 (C.D. Cal., April 30, 2026).

The nature of suit is stated Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

Epic Systems Corporation -- https://www.epic.com/ -- is an American
privately held healthcare software company based in Verona,
Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

EXTRA SPACE: Faces Reyes Suit Over SCRA Violations
--------------------------------------------------
Desiree Reyes, on behalf of herself and all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Extra Space Storage, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 6:26-cv-06494 (W.D.N.Y., April 30, 2026) arises out of
Defendant's violations of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.

On or about October 22, 2024, Plaintiff Reyes, a servicemember,
agreed with Extra Space to rent a storage unit at the Extra Space
facility located on 3635 Berry Fields Rd, Geneva, NY, 14456. This
agreement granted Extra Space a lien on any personal property
Plaintiff stored in the Unit. However, Extra Space enforced its
lien for storage on Plaintiff's property while she was on active
duty service without a court order, in violation of the SCRA.

Headquartered in Salt Lake City, UT,. Extra Space Storage, Inc.
owns and operates self-storage facilities in the United States,
including throughout New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Brian L. Bromberg, Esq.
         BROMBERG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
         99 Main Street
         Nyack, NY, 10960
         Telephone: (212) 248-7906
         E-mail: brian@bromberglawoffice.com

                 - and -

         Vildan A. Teske, Esq.
         Lee Owen, Esq.
         TESKE LAW PLLC
         80 South Eight Street, Ste. 900
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Telephone: (612) 767-0521
         E-mail: teske@teskelaw.com
                 owen@teskelaw.com

FASHION NOVA: Medina Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fashion Nova, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as John Medina, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Fashion Nova, LLC, Fashion Nova
Holdings, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-02734-LL-VET (S.D. Cal., April 30,
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 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: Beltran Sues Over Breach of Consumer Trust
------------------------------------------------------
Martin Beltran, Paul Gioffre and Terry Dean Myers, individuals, on
behalf of themselves, the general public, and those similarly
situated v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-03899-SK (N.D. Cal., May
1, 2026), is brought concerning egregious violations of consumer
privacy and breach of consumer trust in violation of California
law. When consumers visit Defendant's ecommerce websites
(including, www.jeep.com (the "Jeep Website"), www.dodge.com (the
"Dodge Website"), www.chrysler.com (the "Chrysler Website"),
www.ramtrucks.com (the "Ram Website"), www.fiatusa.com (the "Fiat
Website"), www.alfaromeousa.com (the "Alfa Romeo Website"),
www.mopar.com (the "Mopar Website"), and www.stellantisfleet.com
(the "Stellantis Website"), each a "Website" and collectively the
"Websites"), Defendant displays to them a popup cookie consent
banner.

The Defendant's cookie banner (which is similar in form and
function on each of the Websites) discloses that the Website uses
cookies but expressly gives users the option to control how they
are tracked and how their personal data is used. Like most internet
websites, Defendant designed the Websites to include resources and
programming scripts from third parties that cause those parties to
place cookies and other similar tracking technologies on visitors'
browsers and devices and/or transmit cookies along with user data.
Unlike many websites, however, Defendant affirmatively represented
that users could browse the Websites without being tracked,
followed, or targeted by third-party data brokers and advertisers.
Those representations were false.

The Third Parties analyze and aggregate this user data across
websites and time for their own purposes and financial gain,
including, creating consumer profiles containing detailed
information about a consumer's behavior, preferences, and
demographics; creating audience segments based on shared traits
(such as Millennials, Californians, tech enthusiasts, etc.); and
performing targeted advertising and marketing analytics. Further,
the Third Parties share user data and/or user profiles to unknown
parties to further their financial gain.

This type of tracking and data sharing is exactly what visitors to
the Websites sought to avoid when they clicked or selected the
"Cookie Settings" link and then proceeded to select "Opt-Out of
Cookies" and/or toggled off "Performance Cookies," "Functional
Cookies," "Targeting Cookies," and "Social Media Cookies" in the
Website's Cookie Settings. Defendant falsely told users of the
Websites that it respected their privacy choices and would refrain
from tracking and data sharing when users opted out of cookies.
Despite receiving clear notice of users' lack of consent, Defendant
ignored those choices and violated state statutes and tort duties
owed to Plaintiffs and those similarly situated users of the
Websites, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs accessed the Websites.

FCA US LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Auburn Hills, Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          Marie A. McCrary, Esq.
          Todd Kennedy, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 639-9090
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
          Email: seth@gutridesafier.com
                 marie@gutridesafier.com
                 todd@gutridesafier.com

FISERV INC: Sicav Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Cypanga Sicav SIF, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly-situated v. Fiserv, Inc., Michael P.
Lyons, Robert W. Hau, Case No. 2:25-cv-01716 was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
May 4, 2026.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-03672-JHR to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities for
Securities Exchange Act.

Fiserv -- https://www.fiserv.com/ -- is a global fintech and
payments company with solutions for banking.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas Livezey Laughlin, IV, Esq.
          SCOTT & SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Phone: (212) 223-6444
          Email: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Amanda F. Lawrence, Esq.
          SCOTT & SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          156 South Main Street
          P.O. Box 192
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Phone: (860) 537-5537
          Fax: (860) 537-4432
          Email: alawrence@scott-scott.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Alexander J. Willscher, Esq.
          Brian T. Frawley, Esq.
          Julia A. Malkina, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
          125 Broad St
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 558-4104

FITNESS CHAMPS: Faces Yen Nee Suit Over Decline of Stock Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
LIM YEN NEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FITNESS CHAMPS HOLDINGS LTD., JOYCE LEE JUE
HUI, KOH YONG MONG, TEOH SIEW THIM, BANCROFT CAPITAL, LLC, ONESTOP
ASSURANCE PAC, and JOHN DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No.
1:26-cv-03182 (S.D.N.Y., April 17, 2026) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding Fitness Champs Holdings Ltd.'s
(FCHL) business, operations, and prospects in order to trade FCHL
securities at artificially inflated prices between September 3,
2025, and September 23, 2025. Specifically, the Defendants failed
to disclose to investors that: (1) FCHL was the subject of a market
manipulation and fraudulent promotion scheme involving social-media
based misinformation and impersonators posing as financial
professionals; (2) FCHL's public statements and risk disclosures
omitted any mention of the realized risk of fraudulent trading or
market manipulation used to drive the Company's stock price; (3) as
a result, FCHL securities were at unique risk of a sustained
suspension in trading by NASDAQ and severe volatility-induced
decline; (4) the sole underwriter on the Initial Public Offering
(IPO), Bancroft, had conducted numerous microcap IPOs that suffered
volatility-induced declines resulting from market manipulation
schemes; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

When the truth emerged, the Company's stock price collapsed 84.6
percent to close at $1.07 per share on September 23, 2025, down
from $6.95 per share on September 22, 2025.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the suit.

Fitness Champs Holdings Ltd. is a Cayman Islands incorporated
holding company with principal executive offices in Singapore.

Onestop Assurance PAC is the auditor of Fitness Champs Holdings
Ltd., headquartered in Singapore.

Bancroft Capital LLC is a financial services company, headquartered
in Fort Washington, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Benjamin Y. Kaufman, Esq.
       Matthew M. Guiney, Esq.
       Patrick Donovan, Esq.
       WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
       270 Madison Avenue
       New York, NY 10016
       Telephone: (212) 545-4600
       Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
       Email: kaufman@whafh.com
              guiney@whafh.com
              donovan@whafh.com

FORD MOTOR: Court Modifies Case Schedule in Nelson Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Trevor Nelson, et al. v.
Ford Motor Co., Case No. 2:24-cv-02231-DAD-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Drozd entered an order adopting the Parties' stipulation
to modify the scheduling order and file consolidated briefing in
part:

The court modifies the case schedule and sets a briefing schedule
for the Plaintiffs' anticipated motions for class certification as
follows:

-- Expert discovery shall be completed no later than May 29,
    2026;

-- The Plaintiffs' motions for class certification shall be
    filed no later than June 22, 2026;

-- The Defendant's oppositions to the Plaintiffs' motions for
    class certification shall be filed no later than July 15,
    2026;

-- The Plaintiffs' replies, if any, shall be filed no later
    than July 29, 2026;

All other dates and deadlines remain unchanged;

-- The parties' request to file consolidated and extended
    briefing with respect to the Plaintiffs' anticipated
    motions for class certification is denied without
    prejudice; and

-- The Clerk of the Court is directed to docket this order in
    2:20-cv-01796-DADCKD and 2:24-CV-02231-DAD-CKD.

The court will deny the parties' request for extended briefing
because the court is denying the parties' request to file
consolidated briefing. The court will consider future requests
regarding extended briefing should the parties provide sufficient
explanation for such requests.

Ford is an American multinational automobile manufacturer.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 12, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xxwDki at no extra
charge.[CC]

FOREST HILL MANAGEMENT: Ramirez Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forest Hill
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Rogelio Ramirez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Forest Hill Management, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-03394-EGC (E.D.
Cal., May 4, 2026).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Forest Hill Management -- https://www.theforesthillmanagement.com/
-- is a financial services firm specializing in debt collection and
portfolio management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW PA
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (305) 975-3320
          Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com

FORTUNE MEDIA: Faces Sorkin Suit Over Digital Tracking Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM SORKIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FORTUNE MEDIA (USA) CORPORATION, Case No. 1:26-cv-03772
(S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2026) is a class action complaint against Fortune
Media for opaque digital tracking practices posing a profound
threat to Americans' privacy.

According to the complaint, the unauthorized collection of a
person's browsing activity, website interactions, and device
identifiers constitutes an invasion of the most basic expectation
of privacy in one's online life. When a company affirmatively
represents that users may control whether their data is sold,
shared, or tracked, but then secretly sells, shares, and tracks
that data anyway, the misconduct is especially egregious.

Like many modern websites, the Website displayed a banner upon
navigation to the Website, which purported to give users meaningful
control over the Website's sharing and/or sale of their personal
data with third parties (Privacy Banner), the lawsuit says.

Plaintiff Sorkin used Defendant's Website to read articles and
watch videos.

Fortune owns and operates the website located at
https://fortune.com, which provides users with access to online
articles, videos, and other multimedia content covering business,
finance, technology, leadership, and related news and informational
programming. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark S. Reich, Esq.
          Gary Ishimoto, Esq.
          Christopher V. DeVivo, Esq.
          Michael N. Pollack, Esq.
          Albulena Uka, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail: mreich@zlk.com
                  gishimoto@zlk.com
                  cdevivo@zlk.com
                  mpollack@zlk.com
                  auka@zlk.com

FULLBEAUTY BRANDS: Walker Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers
------------------------------------------------------------------
LEAH WALKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FULLBEAUTY BRANDS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:26-cv-04677 (N.D. Ill., April 24, 2026) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and declaratory relief.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://shop.dia.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not
limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy, ambiguous link texts,
changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate alt-text on
graphics, inaccessible dropdown menus, and the requirement that
transactions be performed solely with a mouse.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired individuals.

Fullbeauty Brands, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and
services in Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Alison Chan, Esq.
       EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
       4903 Avenue N.
       Brooklyn, NY 11234
       Telephone: (844) 731-3343
       Email: Achan@ealg.law

GIBSON COUNTY, TN: Westmoreland Files Suit Over Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
JOE WESTMORELAND,  Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff vs.  GIBSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE,
Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01094 (W.D. Tenn., April 29, 2026) is a
collective action to recover wages and damages owed under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The complaint relates that the Defendant hired the named Plaintiff
and Plaintiff class members to work in various law enforcement
positions with the Gibson County Sheriff's Department located in
Gibson County, Tennessee. The named Plaintiff and Plaintiff class
members are scheduled to work 40 hours per week as part of their
regular duty assignments. In addition to their regular 40 hour per
week schedules, Defendant has, for approximately 10 years,
maintained and enforced a policy requiring certain law enforcement
officers, including the named Plaintiff and the Plaintiff class
members, to perform on-call duty consisting of three 16 hour shifts
per month, for a total of 48 hours of on-call duty per month, in
addition to their regular duty hours. Defendant actively enforces
its on-call policy. If an on-call officer fails to respond to a
call-in within the required 30 minutes, Defendant dispatches a
fellow officer to the non-responding officer's residence to
determine the reason for the failure to appear. This enforcement
mechanism confirms that Defendant exercises control over the named
Plaintiff and the Plaintiff class members throughout the entirety
of each on-call shift.

The complaint notes that there are numerous similarly situated
current and former employees of Defendant who were required to
perform uncompensated on-call duty on a regular basis and were
compensated improperly for minimum wage and overtime work in
violation of the FLSA and who would benefit from the issuance of a
Court Supervised Notice of the instant lawsuit and the opportunity
to join in the present lawsuit. Similarly situated employees are
known to Defendant, are readily identifiable by Defendant, and can
be located through Defendant's records, adds the complaint.

Plaintiff Joe Westmoreland has been employed with the Gibson County
Sheriff's Department since 2000 and holds the rank of Lieutenant.

Defendant Gibson County, Tennessee is a governmental entity duly
incorporated under the laws of the State of Tennessee, is subject
to the requirements and prohibitions in the FLSA and is and was the
employer of all relevant individuals working in the law enforcement
operations conducted by the Defendant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael L. Weinman, Esq.
     WEINMAN & ASSOCIATES
     112 S. Liberty Street, Suite 224
     P. O. Box 266
     Jackson, TN 38302
     Telephone: 731-423-5565
     Facsimile: 731-423-5372
     E-mail: mike@weinmanthomas.com

GLADE OPTICS: Cazares Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
AMELIA CAZARES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Glade Optics, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:26-cv-00767-JPS (E.D. Wis., April 29, 2026) arises from the
Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website, https://www.shopglade.com to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired individuals.

Despite readily available accessible technology, the Defendant has
chosen to rely on an exclusively visual interface that provides no
meaningful accommodations for Plaintiff and other screen-reading
software users. As a result, only Defendant’s sighted customers
can independently browse, select, and buy online without the
assistance of others. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for
Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Headquartered in Darien, CT, Glad Optics, Inc. owns and operates
the website which sells eyewear and accessories, including ski
goggles, sunglasses, and snow sports lenses. [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

GLOBANT SA: Faces Ohio Suit Over Artificially Inflated Stock Price
------------------------------------------------------------------
OHIO CARPENTERS' PENSION FUND, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GLOBANT SA, MARTIN MIGOYA,
JUAN IGNACIO URTHIAGUE, and PATRICIA POMIES, Defendants, Case No.
1:26-cv-03405 (S.D.N.Y., April 24, 2026) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding Globant's business, operations,
and prospects in order to trade Globant common stock at
artificially inflated prices between February 15, 2024, and August
14, 2025. Had the Plaintiff and other members of the Class known
the truth, they would not have purchased or otherwise acquired them
at the inflated prices that were paid. As a result of the
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the
Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages.

Globant SA is an international technology company based in
Luxembourg. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq.
       Donald A. Broggi, Esq.
       SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
       The Helmsley Building
       230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor
       New York, NY 10169
       Telephone: (212) 223-6444
       Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
       Email: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
              dbroggi@scott-scott.com

                - and -

       Jacob B. Lieberman, Esq.
       SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
       156 S. Main Street
       Colchester, CT 06415
       Telephone: (860) 537-5537
       Email: jlieberman@scott-scott.com

GOLDEN ADULT: Kim Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hang Kwon Kim and Jung Ho
Lee, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
Golden Adult Day Care, Inc., Paul Park, and Eunice Park, Case No.
2:26-cv-00392-MEF-CF (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs, on a return date to
be set by the Court, will move the Court for an Order pursuant to
29 U.S.C. section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA):

  1. Conditionally certifying as a collective action on behalf of:

     "All current and former drivers who worked for the Defendant
     Golden Adult Day Care, Inc. at any time within the past three

     (3) years";

  2. Authorizing notice to the collective members and approving
     the Plaintiff's proposed notice of lawsuit and consent to
     join form;

  3. Directing the Defendants to produce, in electronic and
     importable format, the following information for all
     potential collective members within 14 days of the entry of
     the Order: a. Full names; b. Last known mailing addresses; c.

     Email addresses; d. Last known telephone numbers; and e.
     Dates of employment;

  4. Authorizing dissemination of notice via U.S. Mail, e-mail,
     and text message; and

  5. Tolling the statute of limitations for potential opt-in
     plaintiffs from the date of filing of this Motion until the
     close of the opt-in period.

Golden is a predominantly Korean medical day care.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 5, 2026, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ETNywW at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ryan J. Kim, Esq.
          RYAN KIM LAW, P.C.
          222 Bruce Reynolds Blvd., Suite 490
          Fort Lee, NJ 07024

GOLUB CORP: Chabot Suit Seeks Proper Wages for Co-Managers
----------------------------------------------------------
STACY CHABOT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE GOLUB CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
1:26-cv-00925-ECC-DJS (N.D.N.Y., April 29, 2026) seeks all
available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Between approximately January 2022 and September 2023, the
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Co-Manager (CM) at several
Price Chopper stores in Massachusetts, including Gardner,
Shrewsbury, Milford, and Webster. Allegedly, the Plaintiff and all
other similarly situated CMs were required to work more than 40
hours in a workweek while employed by Defendant in order to
complete their job duties. However, in accordance with Defendant's
policy, pattern, and/or practice, they were misclassified as exempt
from overtime compensation and were not paid at the mandated rate
of time-and-one-half for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek, says the suit.

Headquartered in New York, The Golub Corporation owns and operates
Price Chopper and Market 32 supermarkets. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Conway, Esq.
          CONWAY LEGAL, LLC
          1700 Market Street, Suite 1005
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 278-4782
          Facsimile: (215) 278-4807
          E-mail: jconway@conwaylegalpa.com

                  - and -

          Daniel Levin, Esq.
          Zanetta Moore-Driggers, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          E-mail: dlevin@lfsblaw.com
                  zmooredriggers@lfsblaw.com

GOOGLE LLC: Turner Suit Removed to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jennifer Turner, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. GOOGLE LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Case No. MCV098498 was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Madera, to the
United States District Court for Eastern District of California on
April 30, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-at-01982.

The Plaintiff alleges, on behalf of a putative class, that Google
violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA") by
collecting users' personal information and disclosing it to
advertisers through its real-time bidding auction system without
the users' consent.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          McGregor W. Scott, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1500
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Phone: (916) 321-4800
          Email: mscott@kslaw.com

                - and -

          Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1180 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1600
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: (404) 572-4636
          Email: zmcentyre@kslaw.com

                - and -

          Laura E. Harris, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1290 Avenue of the Americas, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10104
          Phone: (212) 790-5360
          Email: lharris@kslaw.com

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Class Cert Hearing Extended to Sept. 29
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE CHING INSURANCE,
INC., v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No.
8:23-cv-03033-PX (D. Md.), the Plaintiff and the Defendants ask the
Court to enter an order granting their motion to modify the
existing case schedule, in order to account for the Plaintiffs'
motion to exclude the expert testimony of Andrew K.G. Hildreth,
Ph.D., filed on April 30, 2026.

The Parties jointly request that the Court modify the current case
schedule and enter an order with case deadlines as follows:

             Requirement                      Proposed Dates

  The Defendants' response to motion to        June 30, 2026
  exclude the testimony of Andrew K.G.
  Hildreth, Ph.D.:

  The Defendants' reply in support of          July 30, 2026
  motion for summary judgment:

  The Defendants' reply in support of          July 30, 2026
  motion to exclude the testimony of
  Dr. Branko Jovanovic:

  Rule 26(e)(2) supplementation of             Aug. 28, 2026
  disclosures and responses:

  The Plaintiff's reply in support of          Aug. 31, 2026
  motion to exclude the testimony of
  Andrew K.G. Hildreth, Ph.D.:

  Hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for        Sept. 29, 2026, or
  class certification and motion to            at the Court's
  exclude Andrew K.G. Hildreth, Ph.D.,         earliest
  and on the Defendant's motion for            convenience
  summary judgment and motion to exclude       thereafter
  Dr. Branko Jovanovic:

This is a complex commercial class action brought against
Defendants by a GEICO insurance agency on behalf of itself and
putative classes of current and former GEICO insurance agencies
alleging claims for Breach of Contract – Termination (Count I),
Unjust Enrichment – Termination and Renewal Commissions (Count
II), Breach of Contract – Renewal Commissions (Count III), and
Unjust Enrichment – Misappropriation of Commissions (Count IV).

The Defendant is an American vehicle insurance company.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 5, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IFgBjA at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          John E. Tangren, Esq.
          Daniel R. Schwartz, Esq.
          Eaghan S. Davis, Esq.
          Diandra S. Debrosse Zimmerman, Esq.
          Eli Hare, Esq.
          Kenneth P. Abbarno, Esq.
          Justin J. Hawal, Esq.
          Eviealle J. Dawkins, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT LLP
          10 North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-7900
          E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com  
                  jtangren@dicellolevitt.com  
                  dschwartz@dicellolevitt.com  
                  edavis@dicellolevitt.com  
                  fu@dicellolevitt.com
                  ehare@dicellolevitt.com
                  kabbarno@dicellolevitt.com
                  jhawal@dicellolevitt.com  
                  edawkins@dicellolevitt.com

                - and -

          Benjamin Crump, Esq.
          Gabrielle Higgins, Esq.
          Brendan H. Chandonnet, Esq.
          BEN CRUMP LAW, PLLC
          122 South Calhoun Street
          Tallahassee, FL 32301
          Telephone: (800) 691-7111
          E-mail: ben@bencrump.com
                  gabrielle@bencrump.com
                  brendan@bencrump.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq.
          Jennifer A. Riley, Esq.
          Justin Donoho, Esq.
          Tiffany E. Alberty, Esq.
          Zev Grumet-Morris, Esq.
          Tristan Alexander Dietrick, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          190 S. LaSalle St., Suite 3700
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 499-6700
          Facsimile: (312) 499-6701
          E-mail: gmaatman@duanemorris.com
                  jariley@duanemorris.com
                  jrdonoho@duanemorris.com
                  tealberty@duanemorris.com
                  zgrumetmorris@duanemorris.com
                  tdietrick@duanemorris.com

GRAYROBINSON PA: Reinhart Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
JASON REINHART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GRAYROBINSON, PA, Defendant, Case No.
6:26-cv-00926 (M.D. Fla., April 27, 2026) is a class action against
the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied
contract, breach of fiduciary duty, 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 from March 5, 2025, through March 24, 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, says the suit.

GrayRobinson, PA is a law firm with its principal place of business
in Orlando, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
      Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
      Caroline Herter, Esq.
      KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA
      One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 332-4200
      Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
             herter@kolawyers.com

GUARDIAN LIFE: Faces Sloan ERISA Suit Over Fiduciary Breaches
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARK SLOAN, individually and as representative of ERISA-governed
employee welfare benefit plan and on behalf of all similarly
situated plans v. THE GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,
Case No. 5:26-cv-03070 (E.D. Pa., May 6, 2026) concerns a system
implemented by the Defendant which inherently inflicts fiduciary
breaches across all Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
governed plans in which Defendant acts as the claims administrator.


The ERISA claims administrator is the party responsible for
determining benefit decisions underneath ERISA insurance plans.
Upon information and belief, the Defendant has implemented a
pattern of legally impermissible coverage denials across all of the
ERISA governed plans in which Defendant acts as the claims
administrator. Specifically, the Defendant invites plan
participants to elect life insurance coverage, accepts and retains
premiums corresponding to those elections, and treats coverage as
"active" for purposes of billing.

The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America operates as an
insurance company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Wentz, Esq.
          Joseph E. Mattia, Esq.
          THE BOONSWANG LAW FIRM
          1500 Sansom St., Suite 200
          Philadelphia, PA 19102

GVC LTD: Roman Sues Over Employees' Layoff Without Advance Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL ROMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GVC LTD., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03432
(S.D.N.Y., April 27, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant
for violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
Act and the New York State Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification.

The case arises from the Defendant's action of terminating the
employment of the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees as a
result of a mass layoff ordered by the Defendant on or about June
26, 2025, without providing adequate advance notice as required by
the WARN Act and the New York WARN Act.

GVC Ltd. is a school bus service company, headquartered in Bronx,
New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
       Gregory S. Mullens, Esq.
       Mariah S. England, Esq.
       STRANCH JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
       The Freedom Center
       223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
       Nashville, TN 37203
       Telephone: (615) 254-8801
       Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
              gmullens@stranchlaw.com
              mengland@stranchlaw.com

HIMS INC: Hoagland-Sweeney Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Hoagland-Sweeney, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HIMS, INC. and HIMS & HERS HEALTH, INC., Case
No. 4:26-cv-03157-KAW (NN.D. Cal., April 15, 2026), is brought for
its failure to properly secure and safeguard Representative
Plaintiff's and/or Class Members' personally identifiable
information stored within Defendant's information network,
including, without limitation, dates of birth and medical
information (these types of information, inter alia, being
thereafter referred to, collectively, as "personally identifiable
information" or "PII").

The Defendant acquired, collected and stored Representative
Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. Therefore, at
all relevant times, Defendant knew or should have known that
Representative Plaintiff and Class Members would use Defendant's
services to store and/or share sensitive data, including highly
confidential Private Information.

The Defendant disregarded the rights of Representative Plaintiff
and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly and/or
negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable
measures to ensure that Representative Plaintiff's and Class
Members' Private Information was safeguarded, failing to take
available steps to prevent an unauthorized disclosure of data, and
failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols,
policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for
internal use.

As a result, Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private
Information was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and
unauthorized third party—an undoubtedly nefarious third party
seeking to profit off this disclosure by defrauding Representative
Plaintiff and Class Members in the future. Representative Plaintiff
and Class Members have a continuing interest in ensuring their
information is and remains safe and are entitled to injunctive and
other equitable relief, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a victim of the Data.

Hims, Inc. is a for-profit enterprise with a principal place of
business located in San Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
          Laura Van Note Esq.
          COLE & VAN NOTE
          555 12th Street, Suite 2100
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Phone: (510) 891-9800
          Email: sec@colevannote.com
                 lvn@colevannote.com

HOME DEPOT: Faces Wilbert Class Action Lawsuit Over Flock's ALPRs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN WILBERT, ASHLEY GRIMES, and LAUREN MORRILL, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A.,
INC., a Delaware Corporation and THE HOME DEPOT, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, Case No. 4:26-cv-04122 (N.D. Cal., May 6, 2026)
alleges that the Defendants installed Flock's ALPRs across many, if
not all, of its properties in California, resulting in Plaintiffs
and Class Members being tracked by Flock's mass surveillance
network.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to properly and
timely inform Plaintiffs and Class Members that their Vehicle
Tracking Data was being captured, time-stamped, and recorded, and
additionally failed to notify Plaintiffs and Class Members that the
resulting data being aggregated enabled the long-term tracking of
Plaintiffs and Class Members' individual movements.

Flock Group, Inc. is a technology company that specializes in
automatic license plate recognition systems, commonly referred to
as Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs). ALPRs are advanced
camera systems that can automatically detect and record an
individual's "Vehicle Tracking Data," and then aggregate and use
that information to track an individual's movements.

The Defendants are corporations collectively engaged in the
ownership and operation of Home Depot retail home improvement
stores throughout the United States. The Defendants own and operate
Home Depot's retail store locations nationwide, including 233
stores in California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Connett, Esq.
          Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
          Albert J. Asciutto, Esq.
          SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
          700 S. Flower Street, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (772)783-8436
          E-mail: mconnett@sirillp.com
                  tbean@sirillp.com
                  aasciutto@sirillp.com

HPC INDUSTRIAL SERVICES: Moss Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HPC Industrial
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Derek Moss, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. HPC Industrial
Services, LLC, Case No. 26CUB01477 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty.,
April 15, 2026).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."

HPC Industrial -- https://www.hpc-industrial.com/ -- is the only
industrial cleaning company with a fully invested, dedicated
Technology Center.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Nourmand, Esq.
          THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM APC
          8822 W Olympic Blvd.
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3614
          Phone: 310-553-3600
          Fax: 310-553-3603
          Email: mnourmand@nourmandlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alexander Chemers, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART PC
          400 South Hope Street Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 239-9800
          Fax: (213) 239-9045
          Email: alexander.chemers@ogletree.com

IDAHO: Jackson-Edney Challenges Law Over Sex-Designated Restrooms
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EMILIE JACKSON-EDNEY; DANIEL DOE; DIEGO FABLE; AMELIA MILETTE;
PETER POE; and ZOEY WAGNER, Plaintiffs v. RAUL LABRADOR, in his
official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Idaho, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00261-AKB (D. Idaho, April 29,
2026) is a class action arising out of Idaho's recent enactment of
House Bill 752, that is considered as one of the most punitive and
broadest-sweeping laws in the U.S. to restrict restroom use by
transgender people.

Set to go into effect on July 1, 2026, the law prohibits
transgender people from using sex-designated restrooms aligned with
their gender identity in all government-owned buildings and places
of public accommodation. A violation of H.B. 752 carries harsh
criminal penalties including imprisonment for up to one year for a
first offense and up to five years for a repeat offense. H.B. 752
presents transgender Idahoans with an impossible choice: use a
restroom that does not align with their gender identity and risk
severe physical and psychological harms, or continue to use
restrooms in public in accordance with their gender identity and
risk a criminal record and imprisonment, notes the complaint.

Plaintiffs Emilie Jackson-Edney, Daniel Doe, Diego Fable, Amelia
Milette, Peter Poe, and Zoey Wagner are transgender Idahoans who
have used restrooms in public that align with their gender
identity, including in government-owned buildings and places of
public accommodation, for years without issue. Like any
non-transgender Idahoans, the Plaintiffs need to use restrooms
while they are in public, and they wish to continue doing so
without being subject to life-changing criminal penalties or
physical and psychological harm for simply using the restroom.

This suit seeks a declaration that H.B. 752, as applied to
restrooms, violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of
the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and
seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief maintaining the
status quo in Idaho. Relief is necessary on a class-wide basis to
prevent harm to thousands of transgender people who use restrooms
in government-owned buildings and places of public accommodation in
Idaho.

Raul Labrador is the Attorney General of Idaho, sued in his
official capacity.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Emily Croston, Esq.
          Paul Southwick, Esq.
          ACLU OF IDAHO FOUNDATION
          P.O. Box 1897
          Boise, ID 83701
          Telephone: (208) 344-9750
          E-mail: ecroston@acluidaho.org
                  psouthwick@acluidaho.org

               - and -

          Barbara Schwabauer, Esq.
          Eleanor Matheson, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          915 15th Street N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          E-mail: bschwabauer@aclu.org
                  ematheson@aclu.org

               - and -

          Chase Strangio, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 549-2500
          E-mail: cstrangio@aclu.org

               - and -

          Samuel L. Linnet, Esq.
          ALTURAS LAW GROUP, PLLC
          111 N 1st Avenue, Suite 2I
          PO Box 2975
          Hailey, ID 83333
          Telephone: (208) 788-6688
          E-mail: sam@alturaslawgroup.com

               - and -

          Peter C. Renn, Esq.
          Kell L. Olson, Esq.
          Tara L. Borelli, Esq.
          A.D. Sean Lewis, Esq.
          Charlie Ferguson, Esq.
          LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, INC.
          800 South Figueroa St., Suite 1260
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 382-7600
          Facsimile: (855) 535-2236
          E-mail: prenn@lambdalegal.org
                  kolson@lambdalegal.org
                  tborelli@lambdalegal.org   
                  alewis@lambdalegal.org
                  cferguson@lambdalegal.org

               - and -

          Katherine M. Forster, Esq.
          Kyle A. Groves, Esq.
          Jannet Gomez, Esq.
          MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          350 South Grand Ave., 50th Fl.
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3426
          Telephone: (213) 683-9100
          Facsimile: (213) 687-3702
          E-mail: katherine.forster@mto.com
                  kyle.groves@mto.com
                  jannet.gomez@mto.com

               - and -

          J. Max Rosen, Esq.
          Qian Zhe (Danny) Zhang, Esq.
          MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          560 Mission Street, 27th Fl.
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2907
          Telephone: (415) 512-4000
          Facsimile: (415) 512-4077
          E-mail: max.rosen@mto.com
                  danny.zhang@mto.com

IKEA NORTH AMERICA: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against IKEA North America
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Myles Garcia, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. IKEA North America
Services, LLC, Case No. 26CV185201 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.,
April 30, 2026).

The case type is stated as "Other Commercial/Business Tort (Not
Fraud/ Breach of Contract)."

IKEA -- https://www.ikea.com/ -- offers a selection of services
which are delivery, assembly, installation and financing options
for all the help customers might need with the products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James M. Treglio, Esq.
          POTTER HANDY, LLP
          100 Pine Street Suite 1250
          San Diego, CA 92111
          Phone: (415) 534-1911
          Fax: (888) 422-5191
          Email: jimt@potterhandy.com

IMERYS FILTRATION: Abney Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Tyler Abney, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v. IMERYS
FILTRATION MINERALS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 26CV01060 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa
Barbara, to the United States District Court for Central District
of California on April 30, 2026, and assigned Case No.
2:26-cv-04711.

On February 13, 2026, Plaintiff filed an unverified Class Action
Complaint against Defendant which sets forth the following ten
causes of action: Unpaid Overtime; Unpaid Meal Period Premiums;
Unpaid Rest Period Premiums; Unpaid Minimum Wages; Final Wages Not
Timely Paid; Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment; Non-Compliant
Wage Statements; Failure To Keep Requisite Payroll Records;
Unreimbursed Business Expenses; all in violation of California
Labor Codes and Violation of California Business & Professions Code
Section 17200.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Adam Y. Siegel, Esq.
          Lilia V. Kavarian, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2800
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
          Phone: (213) 689-0404
          Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
          Email: Adam.Siegel@jacksonlewis.com
                 Lilia.Kavarian@jacksonlewis.com

INNOVATIVE PARTNERS: Grethe Sues Over Bogus Health Insurance Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PETER M. GRETHE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INNOVATIVE PARTNERS LP, Defendant, Case No.
7:26-cv-03438 (S.D.N.Y., April 27, 2026) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act and the New York General Business Law,
and unjust enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendant's deceptive and fraudulent
statements and omissions to convince consumers to pay a monthly
health insurance premium in exchange for nonexistent health
insurance coverage. Moreover, the Defendant made it difficult or
impossible to cancel membership in the plan and kept charging the
monthly premiums to consumers' credit or other payment cards
despite requests from the consumer to cancel the fictitious plan.
As a result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and
similarly situated consumers suffered damages.

Innovative Partners LP is a limited partnership with its principal
place of business in Coral Springs, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Nicolas Diefenbacher, Esq.
       THE DIEFENBACHER LAW FIRM
       180 Riverside Boulevard, #3A
       New York, NY 10069

INSTRUCTURE INC: Faces Sarkis Class Action Suit Over Data Breaches
------------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTI SARKIS, on behalf of herself, her minor child G.S., and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSTRUCTURE, INC., Case No.
2:26-cv-00380 (D. Utah, May 6, 2026) arises from a data breaches
affecting students, teachers, and educational staff in the United
States.

According to the complaint, between approximately April 25, 2026
and April 30, 2026, an unauthorized criminal threat actor exploited
a vulnerability in Defendant's Canvas learning management system
and exfiltrated approximately 3.65 terabytes of personal
information belonging to approximately 275 million students,
teachers, and staff at nearly 9,000 educational institutions
worldwide.

The Defendant has confirmed that the compromised information
includes names, email addresses, student identification numbers,
and the contents of private communications between students,
between students and teachers, and among other Canvas users (PII).

Canvas is the dominant learning management system in the United
States. It is used by more than 40% of higher education
institutions in North America and by thousands of K-12 school
districts, including Plaintiff's child's school in the State of
Kansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason R. Hull, Esq.
          MARSHALL OLSON & HULL, PC
          Ten Exchange Place, Suite 350
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 456-7655
          E-mail: Jhull@Mohtrial.Com

               - and -

          James J. Rosemergy, Esq.
          CAREY & DANIS, LLC
          8235 Forsyth, Suite 1100
          St. Louis, Mo 63105
          Telephone: (314) 725-7700
          E-mail: Jrosemergy@Careydanis.Com

               - and -

          Beena M. Mcdonald, Esq.  
          CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER &
          DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
          One Haverford Centre
          361 W. Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, Pa 19041
          Telephone: (610) 642-8500
          E-mail: Bmm@Chimicles.com

INSTRUCTURE INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Peterman Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
JABON PETERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. INSTRUCTURE, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-00374 (D. Utah, May
5, 2026) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who
entrusted the Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable
Information that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant
recently experienced.

The Plaintiff's claims arise from Defendant's failure to properly
secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it,
and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that
information.

INSTRUCTURE, INC. is a web-based learning management system that
provides services for schools. It is used by learning institutions,
educators, and students to access and manage online course learning
materials and communicate about skill development and learning
achievement.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason R. Hull, Esq.
          MARSHALL OLSON & HULL, PC
          Ten Exchange Place, Suite 350
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 456-7655
          E-mail: Jhull@Mohtrial.com

               - and -

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A.
          One W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, Fl 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          E-mail: Ostrow@Kolawyers.com

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger. Esq.
          MILBERG, PLLC
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (866) 252-0878
          E-mail: Gklinger@Milberg.com

               - and -

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI
          BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, Nj 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          E-mail: Jcecchi@Carellabyrne.com

INTUIT INC: Faces Heck Suit Over Unlawful Lending Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
ISABELLE HECK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INTUIT, INC. d/b/a TURBOTAX, INTUIT
FINANCING INC., MVB BANK, INC., and WEBBANK, Defendants, Case No.
5:26-cv-03712 (N.D. Cal., April 29, 2026) seeks to protect
Plaintiff and other active-duty military service members and their
dependents from TurboTax's unlawful lending practices which violate
the Military Lending Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are in the business of
tax refund advance lending through the TurboTax Refund Advance
product -- a short-term, high-speed loan offered by Defendants,
allowing taxpayers to receive a portion of their anticipated
federal refund shortly after filing their return, often the same
day.

To receive a Refund Advance Loan, consumers are required to (i)
e-file their federal tax return through TurboTax, and (ii)
currently have or open a Credit Karma Money Spend (checking)
account with banking services provided by MVB Bank, Inc., into
which loan proceeds are deposited and through which repayment is
collected. While Defendants represent the Refund Advance Loan
carries no interest or loan fees, repayment is structured through a
deposit account issued by Defendants' banking partner -- the Credit
Karma Money Spend account services issued by MVB -- into which
Defendants direct the Internal Revenue Service to deposit the
borrower's refund and from which Defendants automatically deduct
the loan principal and ancillary TurboTax fees before releasing any
remainder to the borrower.

The Defendants' loans violate the Military Lending Act in at least
five ways: by (i) charging interest above the 36% statutory
Military Annual Percentage Rate cap; (ii) failing to provide credit
disclosures required by the MLA; (iii) including a purported class
action ban and waiver of jury trial; (iv) including a mandatory
binding arbitration clause; and (v) using a method of access to a
deposit, savings, or other financial account maintained by the
borrower as security for the obligation, says the suit.

The Plaintiff, a U.S. Army veteran and a dependent of an
active-duty military member, has used Defendants' tax services and,
at relevant times, has obtained a Refund Advance loan.

Intuit, Inc. d/b/a TurboTax is a leading provider of tax return
preparation and electronic filing services in the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          Gabriel Mandler, Esq.
          Omer Kremer, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          1925 Century Park E #1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
                  gabriel@edelsberglaw.com
                  omer@edelsberglaw.com

JACKSON HEWITT: Faces Perez Suit Over Unlawful Lending Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL ALLEN PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. JACKSON HEWITT, INC., and REPUBLIC BANK &
TRUST COMPANY, Case No. 2:26-cv-01545 (W.D. Wash., May 6, 2026)
seeks to protect active-duty military service members and their
families from Jackson Hewitt's unlawful lending practices which
violate the Military Lending Act.

Through its tax preparation platform, Jackson Hewitt markets and
facilitates short-term, refund-based consumer loans known as Refund
Anticipation Loans, including Early Tax Refund Advance loans and No
Fee Tax Refund Advance loans. These products allow taxpayers to
receive a portion of their anticipated federal tax refund shortly
after filing -- often within one day -- by extending credit that is
repaid directly from the borrower's tax refund.

These loans are repaid by a covered borrower's anticipated federal
income tax refund, which is intercepted and applied to the loan
balance when the refund is issued by the Internal Revenue Service.
The loan disclosures and agreements expressly provide that
repayment of the RAL will occur automatically through deduction
from the borrower’s federal tax refund, requiring the borrower to
authorize Defendants and their partners to access and control those
funds. Although Defendants may represent that certain RAL products
carry no interest or stated loan fees, repayment is structured
through refund processing systems and intermediary accounts over
which Defendants and their partners exercise control, enabling the
extraction of value from the transaction, says the suit.

For ETRA loans, the Defendants impose finance charges and disclose
an annual percentage rate of approximately 35.96% based on a short
loan duration, while for NFTRA loans, Defendants characterize the
loans as "0% APR" despite the presence of associated fees and
conditions tied to the tax preparation and refund process.

Jackson Hewitt is one of the nation's largest providers of
in-person and online tax return preparation and electronic filing
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
          TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
          1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 682-5600
          Facsimile: (206) 682-2992
          E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com

               - and -

          Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
          Domenica M. Russo, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR  
          KANE CONWAY & WISE LLP
          One US Bank Plaza, Suite 1950  
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 833-4827
          E-mail: bwise@peifferwolf.com
                  drusso@peifferwolf.com

               - and -

          Victor J. Sandoval, Esq.
          David S. Almeida, Esq.
          ALMEIDA LAW GROUP
          111 W Ocean Boulevard, Suite 426
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (916) 235-3616
          E-mail: victor@almeidalawgroup.com
                  david@almeidalawgroup.com

               - and -

          ALMEIDA LAW GROUP
          849 W. Webster Ave.
          Chicago, IL 60614
          Telephone: (916) 235-3616          

JAMAICA FISH MARKET: Sohom Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Zacarias Yaxon Sohom, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. JAMAICA FISH MARKET & SEAFOOD CORP. (D/B/A
JAMAICA FISH MARKET), and HAI LIN (A/K/A HARRY LIN), Case No.
1:26-cv-02573 (E.D.N.Y., April 30, 2026), is brought for unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law (the
"NYLL"), and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the
New York Commissioner of Labor (herein the "Spread of Hours Wage
Order"), including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate minimum wage, spread of hours pay and overtime
compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants
failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and
failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked,
either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime
premium. Further, Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the
required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he worked over
10 hours per day. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice
of requiring the Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of
40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime
compensation required by federal and state law and regulations,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed as a kitchen assistant and delivery
worker.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a seafood market, located
in Richmond Hill, New York under the name "Jamaica Fish
Market."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620

JC RESORTS: Renteria-Vera Sues Over Private Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
ROSEMARY RENTERIA-VERA, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JC RESORTS LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 3:26-cv-02767-H-DEB (S.D. Cal., April 30, 2026) arises from
Defendant's failure to protect its current and former employees’
private information.

On or around January 19, 2026, the Defendant was hacked in the data
breach. However, Defendant waited over until April 28, 2026, before
it began notifying the class--a full 98 days after the data breach
was discovered. Moreover, the Defendant deprived the Class of the
opportunity to try and mitigate their injuries in a timely manner.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings nine causes of action:
negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach
of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, invasion of
privacy, unjust enrichment, declaratory judgment, and for
violations of  California’s Unfair Competition Law and the
California Consumer Privacy Act.

JC Resorts LLC owns and operates four boutique resorts and 18 golf
courses throughout California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Andrew G. Gunem, Esq.
       Carly M. Roman, Esq.
       STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
       980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
       Chicago, IL 60611
       2261 Market Street, Ste 22946
       San Francisco, CA 94114
       Telephone: (872) 263-1100
       Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
       E-mail: agunem@straussborrelli.com
               croman@straussborrelli.com

JEFFERSON COUNTY: Disabled Can't Access Properties, Donnie Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BROTHER DONNIE X, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JEFFERSON COUNTY RACING ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00692-ACA (N.D. Ala., April 27, 2026)
is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its facilities to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
persons with disabilities. The Defendant has continued to
discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block
them from access and use of its properties. The Plaintiff and
similarly situated disabled individuals encountered architectural
barriers in common areas such entrance access, parking areas, and
public restrooms.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek injunctive relief to remove
the existing architectural barriers to the physically disabled when
such removal is readily achievable for the place of public
accommodation.

Jefferson County Racing Association, Inc. is a commercial property
owner and operator in Birmingham, Alabama. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       John Allen Fulmer II, Esq.
       FULMER LAW FIRM, PC
       217 Country Clb. Pk., Suite 606
       Birmingham, AL 35213
       Telephone: (205) 534-2081
       Email: jaf@jafulmerlaw.com

               - and -

       Edward I. Zwilling, Esq.
       LAW OFFICE OF EDWARD I. ZWILLING, LLC
       4000 Eagle Point Corporate Drive
       Birmingham, AL 35242
       Telephone: (205) 822-2701
       Email: edwardzwilling@zwillinglaw.com

JJCW HOLDINGS: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Vanderjagt Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
SUSIE VANDERJAGT, on behalf of herself and all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JJCW HOLDINGS, INC. dba New Sparkles
Cleaning Services, a Florida Corporation, and JOSEPH HARRINGTON, an
individual; Defendants, Case No. 6:26-cv-00944-JSS-NWH (M.D. Fla.,
April 29, 2026) is a class action seeking recovery of unpaid
overtime compensation owed to Plaintiff, and all those similarly
situated to Plaintiffs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), the Florida Minimum Wage Act ("FMWA"), and claims under
the Equal Pay Act for unequal pay based upon sex.

The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated cleaners were required to report to Defendants' office to
begin their workday, where they picked up company‑owned vehicles,
equipment, and cleaning supplies used to perform their job duties.
Plaintiff regularly worked hours for Defendants' benefit that were
not recorded or paid, including travel time between job sites, time
spent performing required job‑related tasks, and time spent
attending mandatory meetings. In many workweeks, Plaintiff worked
in excess of 40 hours but was not paid overtime compensation at
one‑and‑one‑half times her regular rate of pay. Defendants
also routinely paid Plaintiff for fewer hours than she actually
worked, resulting in Plaintiff receiving compensation that fell
below the applicable minimum wage in numerous work weeks.

The complaint alleges that throughout her employment, Plaintiff was
classified by Defendants as an independent contractor, despite the
fact that Defendants exercised substantial control over the manner
and means of Plaintiff's work.

Plaintiff, therefore, seeks recovery of unpaid wages, including
unpaid straight‑time wages, minimum wage shortfalls, and overtime
premiums, together with an equal amount as liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, and costs as permitted under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Susie Vanderjagt was employed by Defendants as a domestic
cleaner beginning on February 1, 2024, and continuing until her
termination on April 16, 2026.

Defendant JJCW Holdings, Inc. was an employer of Plaintiff with a
principal place of business at 5565 Schenck Ave, Suite 1,
Rockledge, FL 32955.

Defendant Joseph Harrington is the current sole owner, operator,
and officer of Defendant JJCW.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gabriel T. Roberts, Esq.
     SCOTT LAW TEAM, LLC
     250 South Central Boulevard, Suite 205
     Jupiter, FL 33458
     Telephone: (561) 653-0008
     Facsimile: (561) 653-0020
     Primary e-mail: GRoberts@scottlawteam.com
     Secondary e-mail: mail@scottlawteam.com
                       www.ScottLawTeam.com

JUNIPER COMMUNITIES: Louis Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
--------------------------------------------------------------
MACKENZIE LOUIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUNIPER COMMUNITIES, JUNIPER VILLAGE OF
CHATHAM, LLC, JUNIPER PARTNERS, LLC, LYNN SYSOCK, and ABC
Corporations 1-5 (fictitious names describing presently unknown
business entities), Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-04778 (D.N.J.,
April 29, 2026) seeks reinstatement, front pay, back pay,
compensatory damages, compensation for mental anguish, punitive
damages, disbursements, costs, reasonable attorneys' fees, and
pre-judgment interest, in order to redress the unlawful retaliation
by Defendants against Plaintiff in violation of the Conscientious
Employee Protection Act and the New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination, and unlawful race discrimination directed by all
Defendants against Plaintiff in violation of the NJLAD.

The Plaintiff formerly worked as a Wellness Nurse for the Juniper
Defendants at Juniper Village of Chatham, reporting to Defendant,
Lynn Sysock, for the period from April 2023 through January 24,
2025, and has opted-in this lawsuit.

She also brings this action against Defendants to recover unpaid
wage compensation, liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys'
fees, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and under the New
Jersey State Wage and Hour Law, to redress monetary deprivations in
the Plaintiff's and collective Class' earned wages as a result of
Defendants' violations of statutorily mandated compensation
provisions and record keeping requirements.

Juniper Communities provides senior living and assisted living
services, memory care and personal care services across retirement
communities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James J. Cutro, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES J. CUTRO, PC
          1199 Route 22 East, Suite 304
          Mountainside, NJ 07092
          Telephone: (908) 408-5600
          Facsimile: (908) 408-5620

KATE QUINN: Youngren Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------
DUSTIN YOUNGREN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Kate Quinn Organics, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-05180 (N.D.
Ill., May 5, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website,
https://katequinn.com to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and
visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to the goods and services the website provides to their
non-disabled customers through its website. The Defendant's denial
of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of
its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its
physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the
ADA.

Yet, the website contains significant access barriers that make it
difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired
customers to use the website. The access barriers make it
impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a
transaction on the website, says the suit.

The Defendant provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, price specials and other programs offered by Three Bird
Nest.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Ohrenberger, Esq.
          EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
          68-29 Main Street
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Telephone: (844) 731-3343
          Facsimile: (630) 478-0856
          E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law

KOCH FERTILIZER: DeLine Balks at Fertilizer Price-Fixing Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD F. DELINE (d/b/a DELINE FARMS NORTH, DELINE FARMS SOUTH, AND
DELINE FARMS PARTNERSHIP), individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KOCH FERTILIZER, LLC; KOCH
AGRONOMIC SERVICES, LLC; NUTRIEN LTD.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC.,
THE MOSAIC COMPANY; CANPOTEX LTD.; CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.; CF
INDUSTRIES INC.; CF INDUSTRIES NITROGEN, LLC; YARA INTERNATIONAL
ASA; and YARA NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:26-cv-04951 (N.D. Ill., April 29, 2026) arises from the
Defendants' conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and artificially
preserve prices for nitrogen fertilizers, phosphorus fertilizers,
and potassium (collectively, the "NPK Fertilizers") from at least
January 1, 2021, through the time that Defendants' misconduct and
its anticompetitive effects cease.

Beginning in or around 2021, NPK Fertilizer prices departed from
norms and increased at unprecedented rates. Prices spiked
dramatically throughout 2021 and 2022, purportedly (according to
Defendants) due to various global events and economic factors.
However, NPK fertilizer prices remained elevated well after the
supply shocks Defendants claimed were responsible subsided. These
inflated prices are a result of Defendants' conspiracy, as alleged
in this complaint.

As a direct result of Defendants' conspiracy to fix, raise,
maintain, or manipulate prices and the supply of NPK Fertilizers,
DeLine Farms and similarly situated Class Members have suffered and
continue to suffer significant harm. DeLine Farms brings this
action on behalf of all indirect purchasers of NPK Fertilizers in
the U.S. to seek remedies for injuries inflicted by Defendants'
conspiracy.

The Defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of
1890 and state antitrust laws. DeLine Farms seeks damages,
injunctive relief, disgorgement of unlawfully obtained profits, and
full reimbursement of the costs incurred in pursuing this action,
including reasonable attorneys' fees, says the suit.

The Defendants are among the largest manufacturers and sellers of
NPK Fertilizers in the U.S. and are direct competitors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
          Jennifer W. Sprengel, Esq.
          Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
          Kaitlin Naughton, Esq.
          Henry Visser Melville, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 782-4880
          Facsimile: (312) 782-4485
          E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com
                  knaughton@caffertyclobers.com
                  jsprengel@caffertyclobes.com
                  dherrera@caffertyclobes.com
                  hmelville@caffertyclobes.com

KREG ENTERPRISES: Battle Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRE BATTLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KREG ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:26-cv-04754 (N.D. Ill., April 27, 2026) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, declaratory relief, and negligent infliction of
emotional distress.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.kregtool.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not
limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order,
inaccurate heading hierarchy, 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.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired individuals.

Kreg Enterprises, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and
services in Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Uri Horowitz, Esq.
       14441 70th Road
       Flushing, NY 11367
       Telephone: (718) 705-8706
       Facsimile: (718) 705-8705
       Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com

LAND O'LAKES: Navarrette Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case GEORGE NAVARRETTE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. LAND O'LAKES, INC. and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. VCU331344, was removed from the Superior
Court of California, County of Tulare, to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California on April 24,
2026.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:26-cv-03153-JLT-SAB to the proceeding.

The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violations of
California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions
Code.

Land O'Lakes, Inc. is an agricultural cooperative based in
Minnesota. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                
      
      Joan B. Tucker Fife, Esq.
      Andrew Xavier, Esq.
      WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
      101 California Street, 21st Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 591-1000
      Facsimile: (415) 591-1400
      Email: JFife@winston.com
             AXavier@winston.com

              - and -

      Emilie C. Woodhead, Esq.
      WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
      333 S. Grand Ave., 38th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 615-1700
      Facsimile: (213) 615-1750
      Email: EWoodhead@winston.com

LEDCOR INDUSTRIES: Underpays Company Employees, Sampley Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
GARY SAMPLEY, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. LEDCOR INDUSTRIES (USA) INC., and DOES 1-10 inclusive,
Defendants, Case No.  3:26-cv-02711-JES-JLB (S.D. Cal., April 29,
2026) is a class and collective action to recover unpaid wages and
other damages from Ledcor Industries (USA) Inc. (Ledcor), for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Nevada law.

The complaint relates that Sampley and the other Hourly Employees
regularly work more than 40 hours in a workweek. However, Ledcor
does not pay Sampley and the other Hourly Employees for all hours
worked, including overtime hours. Rather, Ledcor requires Sampley
and the other Hourly Employees to put on protective clothing and
safety gear necessary to perform their job duties and attend safety
meetings, "off the clock," on its (or its client's) premises, prior
to the start of their shifts. Likewise, Ledcor requires Sampley and
the other Hourly Employees to change out of and store their safety
gear and protective clothing "off the clock" following the end of
their shifts (collectively Ledcor's "pre/post shift off the clock
policy"). But Ledcor does not pay Sampley and the other Hourly
Employees for this time before and after their shifts. Ledcor
automatically rounds Sampley's and the other Hourly Employees'
hours to reflect only their prescheduled shifts, despite these
employees working beyond their prescheduled shifts, for Ledcor's
primary benefit and to the detriment of the employees (Ledcor's
"rounding policy"). Ledcor pays them non-discretionary bonuses,
including production bonuses and safety bonuses, that it fails to
include in their regular rates of pay for overtime purposes
(Ledcor's "bonus pay scheme"). Lastly, Ledcor pays Sampley and the
other Hourly Employees "per diems," based on the number of days and
hours these employees actually work, but Ledcor excludes these "per
diems" from their regular rates of pay for overtime purposes
(Ledcor's "per diem pay scheme").

The complaint alleges that Ledcor's pre/post shift off the clock
policy, rounding policy, bonus pay scheme, and per diem pay scheme
violate the FLSA and Nevada law by depriving Sampley and the other
Hourly Employees of overtime at rates of at least 1.5 times their
regular rates of pay--based on all remuneration--for hours worked
in excess of 40 in a workweek. Ledcor's wage policies and schemes
violate Nevada law by depriving Sampley and other Hourly Employees
of timely payment of earned wages for all hours worked, including
overtime hours, upon termination of their employment, says the
suit.

Plaintiff Gary Sampley was employed by Ledcor as one of its Hourly
Employees.

Defendant Ledcor is a Washington corporation headquartered in San
Diego engaged in residential and non-residential construction.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lance H. Kirk, Esq.
     LIONHEART LAW, PC
     205 16th St., Apt. B
     Huntington Beach, CA 92648
     Telephone: 714-462-0997
     E-mail: lkirk@calplaw.onmicrosoft.com

LUCID GROUP: Consolidated Fiduciary Derivative Suit Stayed in Del.
------------------------------------------------------------------
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 District of Delaware stayed the
consolidated breach of fiduciary duty derivative suit.

Between February 28, 2025, and March 7, 2025, two other derivative
lawsuits were also filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware. 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.  They were
consolidated into a single action and are currently stayed.

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.



LUCID GROUP: Continues to Defend Fiduciary Derivative Suit in Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Company
continues to defend itself from a breach of fiduciary duty
derivative suit in the Superior Court of California, Alameda
County.

On July 11, 2022, a derivative case was filed in the Superior Court
of California, Alameda County, and is currently stayed. 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.

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.





LUCID GROUP: Continues to Defend Fiduciary Derivative Suit in Del.
------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Company
continues to defend itself from breach of fiduciary duty derivative
suits in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

Between September 2024 and December 2024, three other derivative
lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery.  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. Two were consolidated into a single action.

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.





MARATHON PETROLEUM: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Verduzco Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS VERDUZCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MARATHON PETROLEUM COMPANY LP d/b/a MARATHON
PETROLEUM COMPANY LP, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-02545-WQH-JLB
(S.D. Cal., April 22, 2026) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice
of making unsolicited calls.

Marathon Petroleum Company LP provides oil refining, marketing, and
pipeline transportation services. The Company offers gasoline,
distillates, lubricants, heavy oil, petroleum coke, and fuel
products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Faythe Gutierrez, Esq.
          PLG DAMAGE ATTORNEYS
          2750 SW 145th Avenue #509
          Miramar, FL 33027
          Email: serviceemail@plg.com


MARLEY'S MONSTERS: Ramirez Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROSEMARIE RAMIREZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. MARLEY'S MONSTERS, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-05205 (N.D.
Ill., May 5, 2026) arises because the Defendant's s website,
www.luxurywatchesusa.com, is not fully and equally accessible to
people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both
the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective
communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations,
and the Minnesota Human Rights Act.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in
Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become,
and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a
civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota; damages, and a
damage multiplier.

The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website,
offering features which should allow all consumers to access the
goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of
such goods throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com

MARY KAY INC: Carter Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mary Kay, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Christina Carter, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Mary Kay, Inc., Does 1 Through
50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC26636130 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco
Cty., April 20, 2026).

The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints (Class
Action Complaint)."

Mary Kay Inc. -- https://www.marykay.com/ -- is an American
privately owned multi-level marketing company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert W. Spencer, Esq.
          KELLER GROVER LLP
          1965 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94103
          Phone: 415-543-1305
          Email: rspencer@kellergrover.com

MATTRESS FIRM INC: Santiago Files Suit in W.D. Washington
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mattress Firm, Inc.
The case is styled as John Santiago, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Mattress Firm, Inc., Case No.
3:26-cv-05437-DGE (W.D. Wash., April 23, 2026).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Mattress Firm, Inc. -- https://www.mattressfirm.com/ -- is an
American mattress store chain founded on July 4, 1986.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas R. Major, Esq.
          NICK MAJOR LAW PLLC
          450 Alaskan Way S., Ste. 200
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Phone: (206) 410-5688
          Fax: (206) 237-8747
          Email: nick@nickmajorlaw.com

MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA: Prochaska Suit Removed to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Micah Prochaska, Patrick Sandoval, Tina
Rogers, Sharmee T. Anderson, Russell J. Quinn, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Mazda Motor of
America, Inc. doing business as: Mazda North American Operations,
Does 1 through 100 inclusive, Case No. 25CU050019C was removed from
Superior Court, San Diego County, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California on May 1, 2026.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-02777-RSH-MSB to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Prod. Liability.

Mazda Motor of America, Inc. -- https://www.mazdausa.com/ -- offers
new and used cars, vans, trucks, sport utility vehicles, parts, and
accessories, as well as financing, maintenance, and repair
services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew Daniel Bluth, Esq.
          Christopher Ross Rodriguez, Esq.
          John Richard Ternieden, Esq.
          SINGLETON SCHREIBER, LLP
          1414 K Street, Suite 470
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Phone: (916) 248-8478
          Fax: (619) 255-1515
          Email: abluth@singletonschreiber.com
                 crodriguez@singletonschreiber.com
                 jternieden@singletonschreiber.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christian Siddoway VanDenBerghe, Esq.
          Jeffrey A Swedo, Esq.
          GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
          5 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Phone: (949) 255-6950
          Email: cvandenberghe@grsm.com

               - and -

          Spencer Peter Hugret, Esq.
          GORDON & REES LLP - SAN FRANCISCO
          315 Pacific Avenue, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 986-5900
          Fax: (415) 986-8054
          Email: shugret@grsm.com

MCLANE COMPANY INC: Robert Files Suit in Wash. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New York Life
Insurance Company, et al. The case is styled as Robert,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
McLane Company, Inc. and McLane Northwest, Case No. 26-2-07998-1
(Wash. Super. Ct., Pierce Cty., April 21, 2026).

The case type is stated as "Employment."

McLane -- https://www.mclaneco.com/ -- is one of the largest and
most stable distribution leaders in the United States, delivering
restaurant and retail solutions for convenience stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Alan Nauheim, Esq.
          NAUHEIM LAW OFFICE
          101 Sycamore Ave.
          Charleston, SC, 29407
          Phone: 843-534-5084
          Fax: 843-350-3572
          Email: david@nauheimlaw.com

MED ONE CAPITAL: Ledesma Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Med One Capital
Funding, LLC. The case is styled as Silvia Salinas Ledesma, an
individual, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Med One Capital Funding, LLC, Does 1-100, Case No.
26CV010705 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April 30, 2026).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."

Med One Group -- https://www.medonegroup.com/ -- is the top medical
equipment financing, leasing and rental company in the USA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justen A. Lipeles, Esq.
          1060 Aviation Blvd, 100
          Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
          Phone: 310-322-2211

MEDTRONIC INC: Faces Kiser Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
HART KISER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MEDTRONIC, INC., Defendant, Case No.
0:26-cv-02411 (D. Minn., April 29, 2026) seeks to hold Defendant
responsible for the harms it caused Plaintiff and similarly
situated persons in the preventable data breach of Defendant's
inadequately protected computer network.

On April 17, 2026, the notorious ransomware gang "ShinyHunters"
listed Defendant on its leak website, stating that they obtained
more than 9 million records containing highly sensitive personally
identifiable information and protected health information from
Defendant's IT Network. By taking possession and control of
Plaintiff's and Class members' personal information, the Defendant
assumed a duty to securely store and protect the personal
information of Plaintiff and the Class.   

The complaint asserts that the Defendant breached this duty and
betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and Class members by failing to
properly safeguard and protect their personal information, thus
enabling cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate,
compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, release, steal, misuse,
and/or view it.

The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit to hold Defendant
responsible for its negligent failure to use statutorily required
or reasonable industry cybersecurity measures to protect Class
members' personal information.

Medtronic, Inc. is a global leader in healthcare technology,
operating in over 150 countries with 95,000+ employees. Founded in
1949, the company focuses on engineering medical devices that treat
over 70 health conditions, ranging from cardiac, neurovascular, and
surgical robotics to insulin pumps.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
          STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
          One Magnificent Mile
          980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (872) 263-1100
          Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
          E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com

               - and -

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
          One W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301  
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com

METROPOLITAN FOODS: Aguilar Sues Over Wage and Hour Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOEL AGUILAR, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and
the Class, Plaintiff v. METROPOLITAN FOODS, INC. d/b/a DRISCOLL
FOODS, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-04808 (D.N.J., April 29, 2026)
accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the New Jersey Wage Payment Law, and the New Jersey Wage and Hour
Law.

The Plaintiff brings claims for relief as a collective action  on
behalf of all non-exempt employees, including warehouse workers,
factory line workers, scanners, drivers, packers, among others.
Moreover, Plaintiff alleges that he and others similarly situated
are entitled to recover from Defendant: (1) unpaid wages, including
overtime wages, (2) unpaid overtime premiums; (3) liquidated
damages; and (4) attorneys' fees and costs.

Headquartered in New Jersey, Metropolitan Foods, Inc. is a
foodservice distributor primarily operating in the Northeast of the
United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       C.K. Lee, Esq.
       James Jackson, Esq.
       LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
       148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
       New York, NY 10011
       Telephone: (212) 465-1180
       Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

METROPOLITAN PEDIATRIC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Z. S. and Z. S. (minors) through parent KARIE STRAUSS, next friend,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. METROPOLITAN PEDIATRIC SPECIALISTS, PA d/b/a
METROPOLITAN PEDIATRICS, Defendant, Case No. 27-CV-26-7040 (D.
Minn., April 27, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for
negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach
of fiduciary duty, 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 on or about April 8, 2026. 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.

Metropolitan Pediatric Specialists, PA, doing business as
Metropolitan Pediatrics, is a professional association with its
principal place of business in Edina, Minnesota. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
      Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
      Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
      CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
      100 Washington Ave S., Suite 1700
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612) 339-7300
      Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
             pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com

              - and -

      Gary E. Mason, Esq.
      Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
      MASON & PERRY LLP
      5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640
      Washington, DC 20015
      Telephone: (202) 429-2290
      Email: gmason@masonllp.com
             dperry@masonllp.com

MGP INGREDIENTS: City Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 10th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF ATLANTA GENERAL EMPLOYEES' PENSION FUND, et al. are taking
an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled City
of Atlanta General Employees' Pension Fund, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MGP
Ingredients, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-CV-02153-JWB-BGS, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.

The Plaintiffs bring securities fraud claims against the Defendants
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in connection with
statements made in MGP Ingredients' quarterly earnings releases and
on earnings calls during the alleged class period.

On May 15, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on July 15, 2025.

On Mar. 25, 2026, Judge John W. Broomes entered an Order granting
the Defendants' motion to dismiss.

The Court agrees with the Defendants that the Plaintiff has failed
to plead facts with particularity establishing false or misleading
statements, a strong inference of scienter, or loss causation. The
case is dismissed. The Plaintiff's request for leave to amend is
also denied.

The Court concludes that given the corporate structure, business
practices, compensation schemes of MGP, and the actions of the
individual Defendants, it is far more likely that the Defendants
poorly handled quickly changing circumstances and market conditions
affecting their business. This alone does not merit a finding of
scienter to defraud. Without scienter by the individual Defendants,
the Plaintiffs cannot plead a violation of the securities laws
alleged in Count I and Count II of the complaint by either the
company or the individual Defendants. Therefore, the Defendants'
motion to dismiss must be granted.

The appellate case is captioned as City of Atlanta General
Employees' Pension Fund, et al. v. MGP Ingredients, et al., Case
No. 26-3079, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit, filed on April 24, 2026. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants CITY OF ATLANTA GENERAL EMPLOYEES' PENSION
FUND, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, are represented by:

       Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
       Steven B. Singer, Esq.
       SAXENA WHITE
       7777 Glades Road, Suite 300
       Boca Raton, FL 33434
       Telephone: (561) 394-3399

               - and -

       Norman Siegel, Esq.
       STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON
       460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
       Kansas City, MO 64112
       Telephone: (816) 714-7100

Defendants-Appellees MGP INGREDIENTS, INC., et al. are represented
by:

       Janet A. Gochman, Esq.
       Jonathan Youngwood, Esq.
       SIMPSON, THACHER & BARTLETT
       425 Lexington Avenue
       New York, NY 10017
       Telephone: (212) 455-2000

               - and -

       J. Emmett Logan, Esq.
       STINSON
       1201 Walnut Street, Suite 2900
       Kansas City, MO 64106
       Telephone: (816) 842-8600

MIGHTYCAUSE CORP: Faces Raaf Suit Over Donations' Ambiguous Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
KATHLEEN RAAF, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. MIGHTYCAUSE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:26-cv-01960 (D.
Colo., May 6, 2026) is a class action brought to protect donors who
give money in good faith to support causes about which they care
deeply, only to have additional funds diverted to Mightycause
through a deceptive website interface design in which Mightycause
automatically adds ambiguous fees to donations without affirmative
consumer assent.

Accordingly, each time a customer makes an online donation through
its website, Mightycause applies negative options, automatically
adding on supposedly optional fees to charitable donations and thus
jacking up the cost of each charitable contribution. Non
conspicuous negative options are per se deceptive according to the
Federal Trade Commission. Mightycause's negative options are
deceptive, as they are designed to be hard for consumers to find
and remove, the lawsuit contends.

Moreover, Mightycause's add-on fees are deceptively misdescribed
and their disclosure is delayed until very late in the checkout
process for charitable donations. In sum, Mightycause employs dark
patterns -- including preselected, automatically added Fee amounts,
misleading interface design, and deceptively named and described
add-on fees -- to extract additional money from donors who believe
they are donating only to the intended charitable recipient.

The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Westminster Colorado,
who has made charitable donations on websites that offer
Defendant's widget.

The Defendant operates an online fundraising and donation platform
used nationwide. Defendant’s platform processes donations and
derives revenue from Fees added to those donations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amanda J. Rosenberg, Esq.
          Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          KALIELGOLD PLLC
          490 43rd Street, No. 122
          Oakland, CA 94609  
          E-mail: arosenberg@kalielgold.com
                  sgold@kalielgold.com
                  jkaliel@kalielpllc.com

MINKA LIGHTING: Lopez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------
The case ELIZABETH LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. MINKA LIGHTING, LLC, FERGUSON ENTERPRISES,
LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2601506, was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside,
to the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on April 27, 2026.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:26-cv-02153 to the proceeding.

The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violations of
California Labor Code's Private Attorney Generals Act.

Minka Lighting, LLC is a manufacturer of decorative indoor and
outdoor lighting and ceiling fans based in California.

Ferguson Enterprises, LLC is a supplier of commercial and
residential plumbing supplies based in Virginia. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                
      
      Chris A. Jalian, Esq.
      PAUL HASTINGS LLP
      515 South Flower Street, 25th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 683-6000
      Facsimile: (213) 627-0705
      Email: chrisjalian@paulhastings.com

               - and -

      Eric Distelburger, Esq.
      PAUL HASTINGS LLP
      101 California Street, 48th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 856-7000
      Facsimile: (415) 856-7100
      Email: ericdistelburger@paulhastings.com

MISSION CEVICHE: Tellez Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wren Manufacturing,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Edgardo Tellez, Jaime Naranjo
Paredes, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and
the Class v. Mission Ceviche, LLC doing business as: Mission
Ceviche; Mission Ceviche UES LLC doing business as: Mission
Ceviche; Mission Ceviche Canal LLC doing business as: Mission
Ceviche; Mission Ceviche Nomad LLC doing business as: Mission
Ceviche doing business as: Sub-Mission; Jose Luis Chavez; Brice
Mastroluca; Case No. 1:26-cv-03601-JGK (S.D.N.Y., April 30, 2026).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Mission Ceviche -- https://missionceviche.com/ -- offers an upscale
dining experience featuring modern Peruvian cuisine in New York
City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 west 24th Street, Ste. 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Phone: (212) 465-1180
          Fax: (212) 465-1181
          Email: cklee@leelitigation.com

MNTN INC: Rider Sues For Unlawful Tracking of Users' Communications
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PATTI RIDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MNTN, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:26-cv-01682-CSK (E.D. Cal., April 30, 2026) accuses the Defendant
of intercepting the contents of Plaintiff's and its other website
users' communications with online retailers, direct-to-consumer
brands, and other commercial platforms, identifying individuals and
compiling detailed profiles about them without their knowledge or
consent.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant captures user information
for the purposes of building and maintaining a massive identity
graph that resolves identities across devices. The Plaintiff brings
this action on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
individuals whose personal information was intercepted, collected,
and disclosed by MNTN through its tracking pixel and real-time
bidding participation without their knowledge or consent. The
Plaintiff alleges claims for unjust enrichment and for violations
of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Section 1 of the
California Constitution, and the California Invasion of Privacy
Act.

MNTN, Inc. is a connected television performance advertising
company headquartered in Austin, TX. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Victor J. Sandoval, Esq.
          ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
          3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1121
          Los Angeles, CA 90066
          Telephone: (562) 534-5907
          E-mail: victor@almeidalawgroup.com

MRS BPO LLC: Soto Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MRS BPO, LLC. The
case is styled as Luis A. Soto, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MRS BPO, LLC, Case No.
1:25-cv-21380-XXXX (D.N.J., April 30, 2026).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

MRS -- http://www.mrsbpo.com/-- is a full service accounts
receivable management (ARM) firm with a unique combination of
experience, technology, and compliance management processes
powering industry-leading debt recovery solutions that enhance
brand and reputation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kayla Nicole Kershen, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (989) 574-5262
          Email: kkershen@shamisgentile.com

MRS BPO: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in McGonigle Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW MCGONIGLE, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. MRS BPO
LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-15811-RMB-EAP (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Pascal
entered an amended scheduling order as follows:

-- No later than May 18, 2026, the Defendant shall serve its
    supplemental responses to the Plaintiffs' discovery requests.

-- No later than May 18, 2026, the parties shall serve their
    supplemental initial disclosures.

-- Pretrial factual discovery will expire on Oct. 16, 2026.

-- Depositions of proposed expert witnesses shall be concluded by

    Jan. 15, 2027.

-- Class certification and dispositive motions shall be filed
    with the Clerk of the Court no later than Feb. 16, 2027.

-- The Court will conduct a telephone status conference on Aug.
    11, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.

MRS BPO is a third-party debt collection agency.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2E0T4U at no extra
charge.[CC]

MSI COMPUTER CORP: Benson Files Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MSI Computer Corp.
The case is styled as Lonnie Benson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. MSI Computer Corp., Case No.
2:26-cv-03978-BFM (C.D. Cal., April 14, 2026).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

MSI Computer Corp. -- https://us.msi.com/ -- develops and
manufactures computers and related components.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO AND RATHOD LLP
          412 H. St. NE
          Washington, DC 20002
          Phone: (202) 470-3520
          Email: jrathod@classlawdc.com

               - and -

          William Blair Castle, Esq.
          Kevin Jason Cole, Esq.
          KJC LAW GROUP, A.P.C.
          9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1000
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Phone: (310) 861-7797
          Email: blair@kjclawgroup.com
                 kevin@kjclawgroup.com

MUNICIPAL CREDIT UNION: Boyd Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Chantel Boyd, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. MUNICIPAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 1:26-cv-03633
(S.D.N.Y., May 1, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid wages and to
remedy violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA")
and the New York labor law and applicable Wage Orders
(collectively, "NYLL") by the Defendants.

The Defendants have engaged in a common practice of requiring
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to work without proper
pay, including substantial overtime work. Upon information and
belief, Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff, Class
Members, and FLSA Collective Members were entitled to receive
minimum, regular, and overtime wages for all hours worked and that
they were not receiving minimum, regular, and overtime wages for
all hours worked. The Defendants knew or should have known that
Plaintiff, Class Members, and FLSA Collective Members were entitled
to reimbursement of all necessary business-related expenses and
that they were not being reimbursed for all necessary
business-related expenses, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt worker for Defendants.

The Defendants operate a state-chartered credit union in New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sabine Jean, Esq.
          Jonathan Apsan, Esq.
          LAWYERS for JUSTICE, P.C.
          217 Broadway, Suite 511
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (516) 587-8423
          Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
          Email: s.jean@calljustice.com
                 j.apsan@calljustice.com

NATIONAL RAILROAD: Hardy Sues Over Customers' Compromised Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
JACINDA HARDY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION
d/b/a AMTRAK, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01434 (D.D.C., April 27,
2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of contract, breach of implied contract,
unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and declaratory
relief.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated individuals stored within its network
systems following a data breach in or around April 2026. 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.

National Railroad Passenger Corporation, doing business as Amtrak,
is a provider of railway transportation headquartered in
Washington, D.C. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
      Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
      Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
      MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
      412 H. Street NE
      Washington, DC 20002
      Telephone: (202) 470-3520
      Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
      Email: jrathod@classlawdc.com
             nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com

NAVIENT CORPORATION: Seeks Leave to File Opposition Surreply
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JILL BALLARD, REBECCA
VARNO, and MARK POKORNI, on behalf of themselves and the class
members described herein, v. NAVIENT CORPORATION, NAVIENT
SOLUTIONS, INC. and NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No.
3:18-cv-00121-JFS-PJC (M.D. Pa.), the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order granting them leave to file a surreply in opposition
to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The Reply is replete with new evidence and arguments not contained
within the Plaintiffs' initial brief in support of class
certification.

Navient requests leave to address this new evidence and arguments
(as well as additional new arguments intertwined and referenced
throughout the reply brief) in a sur-reply of no more than 5,000
words to be filed by June 4, 2026.

Navient is an American financial services company.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 4, 2026, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t2Sua0 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Daniel T. Brier, Esq.
          Donna A. Walsh, Esq.
          Richard L. Armezzani, Esq.
          MYERS BRIER & KELLY, LLP  
          425 Biden Street, Suite 200
          Scranton, PA 18503
          Telephone: (570) 342-6100
          E-mail: dbrier@mbklaw.com
                  dwalsh@mbklaw.com
                  rarmezzani@mbklaw.com

                - and -

          Cory W. Eichhorn, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Marmo, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 789-7576
          E-mail: cory.eichhorn@hklaw.com
                  jonathan.marmo@hklaw.com

NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT: Gamero Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Melissa Gamero, individually, and on behalf
of other similarly situated employees v. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION;
and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive; Case No. 26STCV06939 was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central
District of California on May 1, 2026, and assigned Case No.
2:26-cv-04741.

The Plaintiff's Complaint asserted 9 purported causes of action
for: Minimum Wages; Unpaid Overtime; Meal Break Violations; Rest
Break Violations; Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment; Wage
Statement Violations; Untimely Final Wages; Failure to Reimburse
Necessary Business Expenses; all in Violation of Cal. Labor Codes
and Violation of Cal. Business & Professions Code Sections
17200.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Sabrina A. Beldner, Esq.
          Leo Q. Li, Esq.
          Julianne G. Park, Esq.
          Sutton T. McCann, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          1800 Century Park East, 7th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501
          Phone: 310.315.8200
          Facsimile: 310.315.8210
          Email: sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com
                 lli@mcguirewoods.com
                 jpark@mcguirewoods.com
                 smccann@mcguirewoods.com

NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE: Brown Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New York Life
Insurance Company, et al. The case is styled as Olga Brown,
Fernando Corcuchia, William Moore, Michael Sandoval, Tom Sciara,
Sammuel Valdez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. New York Life Insurance Company, NYLife Securities LLC,
NYLife Insurance Company of Arizona, New York Life Insurance and
Annuity Corporation, Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, Case No.
CGC26636238 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., April 21, 2026).

The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints (Class
Action Complaint)."

New York Life Insurance Company -- https://www.newyorklife.com/ --
operates as an insurance company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Rowbotham, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          2155 Campus Dr., Ste. 180
          El Segundo, CA 90245-2656
          Phone: 424-292-2354
          Fax: 424-292-2355
          Email: arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com

               - and -

          Joseph Jtojarieh, Esq.
          STONEBROOK LAW
          10250 Constellation Blvd., Ste. 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6251
          Phone: 310-553-5533
          Fax: 310-553-5536
          Email: jft@stonebrooklaw.com

NOBU RESTAURANT: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Shestopal Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
ARTEM SHESTOPAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NOBU RESTAURANT GROUP HOLDING COMPANY, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03357 (S.D.N.Y., April 23, 2026) is a
class action against the Defendant for negligence, invasion of
privacy, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and
declaratory judgment.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated individuals stored within its network
systems following a data breach between October 6 and October 7,
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, says the suit.

Nobu Restaurant Group Holding Company, LLC is a global hospitality
company with its principal place of business in New York, New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
      Alyssa Tolentino, Esq.
      SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
      745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
      New York, NY 10151
      Telephone: (212) 532-1091
      Email: atolentino@sirillp.com

              - and -

      Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
      SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
      101 Park Avenue, Suite 1300
      Oklahoma City, OK 73102
      Telephone: (888) 747-4529
      Email: tbean@sirillp.com

              - and -

      Neil P. Williams, Esq.
      SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
      1901 Main Street, 18th Floor #3037
      Columbia, SC 29201
      Email: nwilliams@sirillp.com

NUTRIEN AG: Conspires to Raise Fertilizers' Prices, Hatfield Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WALLACE HATFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-at-01943 (E.D. Cal., April 27, 2026)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections
1 and 3 of the Sherman Act.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged conspiracies to fix,
raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices for nitrogen, phosphorus,
and potassium (NPK) fertilizers. According to the complaint, the
prices of these fertilizers increased dramatically throughout 2021
and 2022 as a result of the Defendants' conspiracies. The Plaintiff
and Class members paid more for NPK fertilizers than they otherwise
would have and thus suffered antitrust injury and damages due to
the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, suit says.

Nutrien AG Solutions, Inc. is an agricultural retailer, with its
principal place of business in Loveland, Colorado. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq.
       Carmen Medici, Esq.
       Daniel J. Brockwell, Esq.
       Bridget Fogarty Gramme, Esq.
       Heidi B. Weaver, Esq.
       SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
       600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
       San Diego, CA 92101
       Telephone: (619) 233-4565
       Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
       Email: pcoughlin@scott-scott.com
              cmedici@scott-scott.com
              dbrockwell@scott-scott.com
              bgramme@scott-scott.com
              hweaver@scott-scott.com

               - and -

       Patrick McGahan, Esq.
       SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
       156 S. Main Street
       P.O. Box 192
       Colchester, CT 06415
       Telephone: (860) 537-5537
       Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
       Email: pmcgahan@scott-scott.com

               - and -

       Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
       Amelia Burroughs, Esq.
       Yifan (Kate) Lv, Esq.
       Robin Stemen, Esq.
       BURKE LLP
       402 West Broadway, Suite 1890
       San Diego, CA 92101
       Telephone: (619) 369-8244
       Email: cburke@burke.law
              aburroughs@burke.law
              klv@burke.law
              rstemen@burke.law

               - and -

       Vincent Briganti, Esq.
       LOWEY DANNENBERG, PC
       44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
       White Plains, NY 10601
       Telephone: (914) 997-0500
       Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
       Email: vbriganti@lowey.com

NYHK W 40: Sandoval Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
----------------------------------------------------------------
REYMUNDO SANDOVAL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NYHK W 40 LLC (D/B/A TRANZIT
RESTAURANT & BAR), GERRLA LLC (D/B/A TRANZIT RESTAURANT & BAR),
PROMISE HOSPITALITY GROUP LLC (D/B/A TRANZIT RESTAURANT & BAR),
PREMTIM GJONBALIC, and SAM CHANG, Defendants, Case No.
1:26-cv-03366 (S.D.N.Y., April 23, 2026) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to provide wage notice, failure to provide accurate wage
statements, and unlawful deductions.

Mr. Sandoval was employed as a busboy/food runner at Tranzit
Restaurant & Bar located in New York, New York from approximately
May 15, 2020, until April 8, 2026.

NYHK W 40 LLC, doing business as Tranzit Restaurant & Bar, is a
restaurant owner and operator in New York, New York.

Gerrla LLC, doing business as Tranzit Restaurant & Bar, is a
restaurant owner and operator in New York, New York.

Promise Hospitality Group LLC, doing business as Tranzit Restaurant
& Bar, is a restaurant owner and operator in New York, New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620

OLIVE GARDEN HOLDINGS: Cody Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Danielle Cody, on behalf of herself, the
General Public, and all others similarly situated v. OLIVE GARDEN
HOLDINGS, LLC, and DOES 1-20, Case No. 26-cv-0103 was removed from
the Superior Court of California in and for the County of San Luis
Obispo, to the United States District Court for Central District of
California on April 30, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-04694.

In her Complaint, the Plaintiff contends that Olive Garden refused
her request to payout the remainder of her Olive Garden gift card
in cash. The Plaintiff further contends that Olive Garden's refusal
to provide a cash redemption for her gift card balance violates
California's Gift Card Law, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and
the Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code Sections
17200.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mark S. Eisen, Esq.
          BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP
          71 South Wacker Drive, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: 312.212.4949
          Facsimile: 312.767.9192
          Email: meisen@beneschlaw.com

OPENAI GLOBAL: Discloses Users' Private Info to Meta, Google
------------------------------------------------------------
SAJE LIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. OPENAI GLOBAL, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-04063 (N.D. Cal.,
May 5, 2026) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all
United States residents who have accessed and entered queries into
ChatGPT.com website which Defendant owns and operates.

The Defendant owns and operates ChatGPT, an AI chatbot service
designed to provide answers to almost any question a user asks,
including queries regarding sensitive and personal topics like the
user's finances, health, and legal issues. So much information is
put into ChatGPT that some sources estimate "The average company
leaks confidential material to ChatGPT hundreds of times per week."
The same is true of individuals, who increasingly rely on ChatGPT
to gather information and advice to their most personal issues.

Accordingly, as such, personal privacy on ChatGPT is an issue with
broad implications for individuals' control of their privacy and
personal information. Despite reasonable expectations of privacy,
and Defendant's legal duties to prevent the disclosure of such
private information, Defendant disclosed information provided by
consumers to Meta Platforms, Inc. and Google by incorporating
technology owned by each third party into the code of its website.


The Defendant allegedly violated the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and the
California Constitution and Common Law by disclosing Plaintiff's
and Class Members private and confidential information without
consent.

OPENAI GLOBAL, LLC is the primary for-profit subsidiary and
operational arm of the American artificial intelligence research
laboratory, OpenAI.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
         Max S. Roberts, Esq.
         Joshua R. Wilner, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         50 Main Street, Suite 475
         White Plains, NY 10606
         Telephone: (914) 874-0710
         Facsimile: (914) 206-3656
         E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
                 mroberts@bursor.com
                 jwilner@bursor.com

ORTHOFIX MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Orthofix Medical 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 Eastern District
of Texas.

It is involved in a consolidated securities class action
originating from two complaints: Bernal v. Orthofix Medical Inc.,
et al., Case No. 24-cv-00690, filed on August 21, 2024 in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, and
O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc., et al., Case No. 24-cv-01593,
filed on September 6, 2024 in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California. The Bernal Complaint, brought
by a purported Company shareholder, alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, and names
as defendants the Company and former Company directors and officers
Jon Serbousek (former director and former President and Chief
Executive Officer), Keith Valentine (former director and former
President and Chief Executive Officer), John Bostjancic (former
Chief Financial Officer), and Patrick Keran (former Chief Legal
Officer). The Bernal Complaint alleges that the Company made, and
the named former directors and officers caused the Company to make,
materially false and misleading statements between October 11, 2022
and September 12, 2023 that, according to the complaint, falsely
assured the market of Messrs. Valentine, Bostjancic, and Keran's
respective commitments to, among other things, ethical and legal
standards and corporate responsibility. The O'Hara Complaint,
brought by a purported former shareholder of SeaSpine at the time
of the Merger, alleges violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act, names most of the same defendants as the Bernal
Complaint along with certain additional current and/or former
Company directors and officers, and asserts that the Company's
registration statement on Form S-4 filed in 2022 in connection with
the Merger, as well as related written and oral offering materials,
contained untrue statements of material fact and material
omissions, including, among other things, with respect to the
effectiveness of the Company's internal controls. On November 26,
2024, the O'Hara Complaint was transferred to the Eastern District
of Texas, and on December 11, 2024, it was consolidated with the
Bernal Complaint. On April 17, 2025, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint in the consolidated action, captioned In re
Orthofix Medical Inc. Securities Litigation, with substantially the
same allegations as contained in the Bernal Complaint and the
O'Hara Complaint. The consolidated case, captioned In re Orthofix
Medical Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 24-cv-00690, remains
pending in the Eastern District of Texas. The Company and the
individual defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on May
15, 2025. On March 9, 2026, the Court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' claims under the Exchange Act, but not the
claims under the Securities Act, finding that all but one of the
Company's statements at issue were immaterial as a matter of law
and that no statements caused loss. The Court granted plaintiffs
leave to amend their complaint to address pleading deficiencies,
and plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 8, 2026.

Orthofix Medical Inc. is a global medical device company focused on
musculoskeletal products and therapies, including spine and
orthopedics solutions. The Company develops, manufactures and
markets technologies designed to improve patients' mobility and
quality of life.

ORTHOFIX MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Shareholder Derivative Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Orthofix Medical 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 shareholder
derivative suit in the United States District Court for Eastern
District of Texas.

In addition, on October 28, 2024, a derivative shareholder
complaint was filed against certain of the Company's current and
former officers and directors alleging derivative liability for the
allegations made in the two complaints noted above. On December 18,
2024, a second derivative shareholder complaint was filed asserting
the same allegations as the first derivative shareholder complaint,
and on March 21, 2025, the two derivative shareholder complaints
were consolidated into one case. The Company disagrees with the
legal claims asserted in these complaints and is vigorously
defending them, and, due in part to the preliminary nature of these
three matters, the Company currently cannot reasonably estimate a
possible loss, or range of loss, that may arise from the respective
complaints.

Orthofix Medical Inc. is a global medical device company focused on
musculoskeletal products and therapies, including spine and
orthopedics solutions. The Company develops, manufactures and
markets technologies designed to improve patients' mobility and
quality of life.


OURA RING: Fomin Files Suit Over Defective Oura Ring Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRITTNEY FOMIN and TAYLOR RAPSKY, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. OURA RING, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-03955 (N.D. Cal., May 1, 2026) is a
class action for injunctive relief, restitution, and damages caused
by the conduct of Defendant.

Defendant Oura Ring, Inc. manufactures and sells rings that monitor
a range of datasets related to a consumer's health, including
sleep, stress, exercise, metabolic health, and more.

The complaint relates that Oura promises that the Oura Ring 4 (the
"Product")is "comfortable for everyone, crafted to perfection, and
long-lasting." However, consumers, including Plaintiffs and Class
members, have experienced injuries as a result of the Product
overheating, in some cases causing burns and blisters. The source
of the injuries and product failures is a defect with the Oura
Ring. Specifically, Oura Ring 4's sealed, curved lithium-polymer
pouch battery cell contains latent manufacturing and/or materials
flaws that can trigger an internal short-circuit after ordinary
mechanical or charge stress. Because the ring's design omits
secondary safety hardware (such as a PTC fuse, thermal cutoff) and
keeps the cell at a high state-of-charge, any short escalates into
rapid thermal runaway; the titanium/ceramic chassis then conducts
the heat directly to the wearer's skin, causing burns or blisters.

Oura has acknowledged that consumers have experienced these issues,
yet continues to sell, market, and distribute the Product without
even warning of the risks of bodily harm, putting consumers at
further risk of injury, says the suit.

The Plaintiffs and the putative class bring claims against Oura for
fraudulent concealment/non-disclosure and unjust enrichment.
Plaintiff Fomin and the New York Subclass additionally bring a
claim for violations of the New York General Business Law.
Plaintiff Rapsky and the Pennsylvania Subclass additionally bring a
claim for violations of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law.

Plaintiff Brittney Fomin purchased the Oura Ring 4 from Defendant's
Website on July 11, 2025.

Plaintiff Taylor Rapsky purchased the Oura Ring 4 at a Target
located in Greensburg, Pennsylvania, on November 28, 2025.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Robert Mackey, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT MACKEY
     16320 Murphy Road
     Sonora, CA 95370
     Telephone: (412) 370-9110
     E-mail: bobmackeyesq@aol.com

          - and -

     Jane Manwarring, Esq.
     MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD, LLP
     412 H Street N.E., Suite 302
     Washington, D.C. 20002
     Telephone: (202) 470-3520
     E-mail: jmanwarring@classlawdc.com

PANERA LLC: Rivera Suit Removed from State Court to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as DESTINY RIVERA, an
individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. PANERA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2602060, has been
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Riverside to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on May 6, 2026.

The California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-02416 to the
proceeding.

The complaint asserts the following claims for relief:

   (1) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages;

   (2) Failure to Pay Wages and Overtime Under Labor Code, and

   (3) Failure to Pay Reporting Time.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Shiva S. Davoudian, Esq.
          Samuel A. Richman, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107
          Telephone: (310) 553-0308
          Facsimile: (800) 715-1330
          E-mail: sdavoudian@littler.com
                  sarichman@littler.com

PANTHERS PETROLEUM: Underpays Company Employees, Fernandes Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ignetius Fernandes, on Behalf of Himself And all Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. Chaudhry Muhammad Ayaz, Panthers Petroleum
II LLC, Panthers Petroleum III LLC, and Panthers Petroleum IV LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-03526 (S.D. Tex., May 1, 2026) is a
collective action against the Defendants for breach of contractual
obligation to pay Plaintiff for his labor.

The complaint relates that Ayaz carries out a business plan that
includes failing to pay non-exempt employees overtime pay for the
hours they work over 40 per workweek, and in some cases failing to
pay employees for all of the time they work. Ayaz's and his
companies' failure to pay the overtime premium required by law
allows them to gain an unfair advantage over competitors who follow
the law in their employment practices.

According to the complaint, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff
overtime when he worked more than 40 hours per week, made improper
deductions from his pay, and failed to pay him his full promised
wages. Defendants also failed to pay Fernandes for certain periods
of time during which he performed compensable work. Plaintiff has
suffered damages as a direct result of Defendants' illegal
actions.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other
individuals similarly situated, brings this lawsuit against
Defendants to recover unpaid overtime required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act, as well as unpaid wages owed to him under state
law.

Plaintiff Ignetius Fernandes was hired as a cashier by the
Defendants.

Defendant Chaudhry Muhammad Ayaz ("Ayazc) owns and/or controls
numerous companies that own and run convenience stores and gasoline
stations in the Houston, Texas area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
     PO Box 10099
     Houston, Texas 77206
     Telephone: 713-868-3388
     Facsimile: 713-683-9940
     E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com

PENTAIR WATER POOL AND SPA: Toledo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pentair Water Pool
and Spa, Inc. The case is styled as Maria Toledo, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pentair Water Pool
and Spa, Inc., Case No. 2026CUOE065677 (Cal. Super. Ct., Ventura
Cty., May 4, 2026).

The case type is not stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."

Pentair -- https://www.pentair.com/ -- offers a wide variety of
products from pool and spa equipment, water filters, water pumps
and spray nozzles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Fawn F. Bekam, Esq.
          ABRAMSON LABOR GROUP
          1700 W Burbank Blvd.
          Burbank, CA 91506-1313
          Phone: 213-493-6300
          Fax: 213-336-3704
          Email: fawn@abramsonlabor.com

PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Chantix MDL in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the
period ending March 29, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2026, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Chantix MDL in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

In August 2021, a number of putative class actions have been filed
against Pfizer in various U.S. federal courts following Pfizer's
voluntary recall of Chantix due to the presence of a nitrosamine,
N-nitroso-varenicline. Plaintiffs assert that they suffered
economic harm purportedly as a result of purchasing Chantix or
generic varenicline medicines sold by Pfizer, seek to represent
nationwide and state-specific classes, and seek various remedies,
including damages and medical monitoring. In December 2022, the
federal actions were transferred for coordinated pre-trial
proceedings to an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, and in March 2026, the parties reached an
agreement in principle to resolve the litigation on terms not
material to Pfizer, subject to court approval.

Pfizer Inc. is a global biopharmaceutical company engaged in the
discovery, development, manufacture and marketing of medicines and
vaccines across a broad range of therapeutic areas. The company
collaborates with health care providers, governments and
communities worldwide to expand access to innovative treatments.


PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Zantac OTC MDL
----------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the
period ending March 29, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2026, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Zantac OTC MDL.

A number of lawsuits have been filed against Pfizer in various
federal and state courts alleging that plaintiffs developed various
types of cancer, or face an increased risk of developing cancer,
purportedly as a result of the ingestion of Zantac. The significant
majority of these cases also name other defendants that have
historically manufactured and/or sold Zantac. Pfizer has not sold
Zantac since 2006, and only sold an OTC version of the product. In
2006, Pfizer sold the consumer business that included its Zantac
OTC rights to Johnson & Johnson and transferred the assets and
liabilities related to Zantac OTC to Johnson & Johnson in
connection with the sale. Plaintiffs in these cases seek
compensatory and punitive damages.

In February 2020, the federal actions were transferred for
coordinated pre-trial proceedings to an MDL in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (the Federal MDL Court).
Plaintiffs in the MDL filed against Pfizer and many other
defendants a master personal injury complaint, a consolidated
consumer class action complaint alleging, among other things,
claims under consumer protection statutes of all 50 states, and a
medical monitoring complaint seeking to certify medical monitoring
classes under the laws of 13 states. In December 2022, the Federal
MDL Court granted defendants' Daubert motions to exclude
plaintiffs’ expert testimony and motion for summary judgment on
general causation, which has resulted in the dismissal of all
complaints in the litigation. Plaintiffs have appealed the Federal
MDL Court's rulings.

Pfizer Inc is a global biopharmaceutical company engaged in the
discovery, development, manufacture and marketing of medicines and
vaccines across a broad range of therapeutic areas. The company
collaborates with health care providers, governments and
communities worldwide to expand access to innovative treatments.

PHIBRO-TECH INC: Amaro Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Phibro-Tech, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as David Amaro, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Phibro-Tech, Inc., Phibro
Animal Health Corporation, Case No. 26STCV13203 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Los Angeles Cty., April 22, 2026).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."

Phibro-Tech, Inc. -- https://www.pahc.com/ -- is a recycler that
manufacturers copper and iron based products and recycles permitted
waste primarily from the electronics industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seung L. Yang, Esq.
          THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC
          355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1450
          Los Angeles, California 90071
          Phone: (213) 985-1150
          Fax: (213) 985-2155
          Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com

PHOENIX RETAIL: Imposes Hidden Charges on Consumers, Williams Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
GEOVANNI WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHOENIX RETAIL, LLC d/b/a EXPRESS,
Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-00939 (C.D. Cal., April 17, 2026) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of California's
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code, California's
Unfair Competition Law, and California's False Advertising Law.

The case arises from the Defendant's practice of imposing a hidden
handling charge on consumers who purchase merchandise through its
website, www.express.com. According to the complaint, when a
consumer browses the website, the Defendant displays product prices
that do not reflect the full cost of the transaction. It is not
until the consumer has selected an item, chosen a size, added the
product to a bag, purchased the item, and receives a purchase
confirmation email that the Defendant informs them that the
shipping fee was actually a "Shipping & Handling" fee, which
includes internal handling costs that California law requires to be
disclosed in the advertised price. As a result, the Plaintiff and
similarly situated consumers suffered damages, says the suit.

Phoenix Retail, LLC, doing business as Express, is a retail company
with its principal place of business in Columbus, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Ben Travis, Esq.
       BEN TRAVIS LAW, APC
       12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
       San Diego, CA 92130
       Telephone: (619) 353-7966
       Email: ben@bentravislaw.com

PINNACLE INTERNATIONAL: McDowell Balks at Unlawful Fees
-------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN MCDOWELL and GRANT SMITH, individually and for all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PINNACLE INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-02726-BJC-MMP (S.D.
Cal., April 29, 2026) is a class action arising from Defendant's
policies, practices, and procedures of charging Plaintiffs and
other tenants unlawful fees and fines, in complete disregard of the
laws in California and the City of San Diego that protect tenants
and consumers.

According to the complaint, the Defendant charges its tenants fees
that are characterized as (i) late fees, (ii) insufficient funds
fees, (iii) key fob replacement fees, and (iv) utility fees for
utilities provided by the City of San Diego.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, allege claims for (1) unlawful utility fees, San Diego
Municipal Code; (2) unlawful liquidated damages (Cal. Civ. Code);
(3) violations of the California Unfair Competition Law; (4)
violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; and
(5) statutory larceny.

The Plaintiffs and the Class Members seek damages from Defendant,
and to compel Defendant to adopt adequate legal practices regarding
the collection of illegal and non-contractual fees.

Pinnacle International Development, Inc. owns and operates Concert
Residences and various other apartment complexes in San Diego,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are 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

PROGENESIS INC: Cruz Suit Removed to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jody Cruz, Michelle Robichaux, Brett
Plowfield, Alexis Vastardis, Anna Rinaldi, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly suited v. Progenesis, Inc., Case No.
1:26-mc-00098 was removed from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on April 30, 2026.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-02752-WQH-SBC to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Motion to Quash Subpoena.

Progenesis -- https://progenesis.com/ -- specializes in developing
and offering genetic testing and counselors along with next
generation sequencing in the IVF field.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Radha Nagamani Raghavan, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          245 East 54th Street
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (646) 267-3564
          Email: rraghavan@bergermontague.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jordan E. Stern, Esq.
          Jesse Travis Conan, Esq.
          BECKER, GLYNN, MUFFLY, CHASSIN & HOSINSKI LLP
          299 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10171
          Phone: (212) 303-9544
          Fax: (212) 888-0255

               - and -

          Justin Carter, Esq.
          Kyle W. Nageotte, Esq.
          William M. Low, Esq.
          HIGGS FLETCHER & MACK
          401 West A Street, Ste. 2600
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 236-1551
          Email: wlow@higgslaw.com

PSYCHPLUS MEDICAL: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Ross Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHELSEA ROSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PSYCHPLUS MEDICAL ASSOCIATES PLLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-03327 (S.D. Tex., April 24, 2026) is a
class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per
se, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, 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 on or about April 14, 2026. 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,
says the suit.

PsychPlus Medical Associates PLLC is a mental health services
provider, headquartered in Houston, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
      Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
      Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
      ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD MONTGOMERY, LLP
      4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (888) 350-3931
      Facsimile: (888) 276-3455
      Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com
             jellzey@eksm.com

              - and -

      Gary E. Mason, Esq.
      Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
      MASON & PERRY LLP
      5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640
      Washington, DC 20015
      Telephone: (202) 429-2290
      Email: gmason@masonllp.com
             dperry@masonllp.com

PUBLIC SERVICE: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in Maryland
--------------------------------------------------------------
Public Service Enterprise 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 antitrust
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, in which the plaintiffs allege that
defendants violated federal antitrust laws by conspiring to fix the
compensation and exchange information regarding compensation for
nuclear generation workers, that the alleged class includes all
persons employed in nuclear power generation by the defendants and
their subsidiaries from 2003 until the present, that the relief
sought includes treble damages, and that PSEG cannot predict the
outcome of this matter.

Public Service Enterprise Group Inc. is a publicly traded energy
company based in New Jersey, primarily engaged in the generation,
transmission and distribution of electricity and natural gas.
Through its regulated and nonregulated subsidiaries, PSEG operates
utility and generation businesses serving customers in the
Mid-Atlantic and Northeast regions of the United States.


QUIDELORTHO CORP: Faces Shareholder, Derivative Suits over PCR Test
-------------------------------------------------------------------
QuidelOrtho Corp disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q,
for the period ending March 29, 2026, dated Monday, May 5, 2026,
and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Tuesday,
May 6, 2026, that it currently facing shareholder and derivative
suits with regards to its SEC disclosures about its "SAVANNA RVP4"
COVID PCR test.

A putative federal securities class action was filed on April 12,
2024 by a purported stockholder of the company against it and three
of its current and former executives in "Bristol County Retirement
System v. QuidelOrtho Corporation, et al.," Case No.
1:24-cv-02804-JAV (S.D.N.Y.).

The complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
related to statements regarding sales of the Company's COVID-19
diagnostic tests and the 510(k) submission for its SAVANNA RVP4
assay, and seeks a judgment determining that the lawsuit can be
maintained as a class action and awarding the plaintiff and
putative class damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys'
and experts' fees, and costs. On December 16, 2024, the court
appointed Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Health and
Welfare Fund and Teamsters Local 710 Pension Fund (Teamsters Funds)
as lead plaintiffs in the action and approved their selection of
lead counsel.

Teamsters Funds filed an amended complaint on February 7, 2025,
adding as additional defendants three current and former executives
of the company not previously named in the Bristol County
Complaint. On April 4, 2025, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.

In addition, on April 25, 2024, and June 21, 2024, two purported
stockholders of the Company filed separate stockholder derivative
complaints, purportedly on behalf of the company, against the
current and certain former members of the Board and three of the
its current and former executives. The complaints, which are
captioned "Matthew Whitfield v. Kenneth F. Buechler, Ph.D., et
al.," Case No. 1:24-cv-03176-JAV (S.D.N.Y.) and "Steven Pinkney v.
Douglas Bryant, et al.," Case No. 1:24-cv-4753-JAV (S.D.N.Y.),
assert claims for violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 promulgated thereunder,
breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary
duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and
waste of corporate assets related to statements regarding sales of
its COVID-19 diagnostic tests and the 510(k) submission for its
SAVANNA RVP4 assay.

The Whitfield and Pinkney complaints seek judgments awarding
compensatory and punitive damages against the individual
defendants, directing an accounting by the individual defendants,
directing the company and the individual defendants to take actions
to improve its governance and procedures, and awarding the costs
and disbursements of the action, including attorneys' fees,
accountants and experts' fees, costs, and expenses.

On December 16, 2024, the court consolidated the Whitfield and
Pinkney Complaints into a single action and stayed the consolidated
derivative action.

QuidelOrtho Corp is a global diagnostics company that develops and
manufactures diagnostic testing solutions, including point-of-care
and laboratory-based assays. The company serves hospitals, clinical
laboratories, physician offices and retail locations with products
spanning infectious disease, cardiometabolic markers and other
conditions.


RANGER STATION SUPPLY: Flesher Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ranger Station Supply
Co. LLC. The case is styled as Alizah Flesher, individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated v. Ranger Station Supply Co.
LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-02813-BAS-VET (S.D. Cal., May 4, 2026).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Ranger Station Supply Co. LLC -- https://rangerstation.co/ --
offers personal fragrances & candles.[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
          Phone: (754) 444-7539
          Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com

RB HEALTH (US): Robinson Files Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RB Health (US) LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Yalinda Robinson, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. RB Health (US) LLC, Does
1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:26-cv-04765 (C.D. Cal., May 2,
2026).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

RB Health (US) LLC delivers trusted home health care products and
efficient import/export services, supporting U.S. health care
supply chains.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Andrew Baldwin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DAVID BALDWIN
          333 South Grand Avenue Suite 3310
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (323) 595-3989
          Fax: (323) 417-5176
          Email: david@davidbaldwinlaw.com

REGENCELL BIOSCIENCE: Matassa Sues Over Decline of Stock Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH MATASSA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REGENCELL BIOSCIENCE HOLDINGS LIMITED,
YAT-GAI AU, and MICHELLE CHAN, Defendants, Case No.
1:26-cv-01602-BAH (D. Md., April 24, 2026) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding Regencell's business,
operations, and prospects in order to trade Regencell securities at
artificially inflated prices between October 28, 2024, and October
31, 2025. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose that: (i)
Regencell was vulnerable and/or subject to market manipulation;
(ii) the resulting volatility in the market for the Company's
ordinary shares exposed Regencell's investors to significant
financial risk; (iii) all the foregoing subjected Regencell to a
heightened risk of regulatory and/or governmental scrutiny and
enforcement action, as well as significant legal, monetary, and
reputational harm; and (iv) as a result, the Defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

When the truth emerged, Regencell's ordinary share price fell $3.09
per share, or 18.56 percent, to close at $13.56 per share on
November 3, 2025.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

Regencell Bioscience Holdings Limited is a bioscience company based
in Hong Kong. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
       S. Douglas Bunch, Esq.
       COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
       1100 New York Avenue N.W., Suite 800, East Tower
       Washington, DC 20005
       Telephone: (202) 408-4600
       Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
       Email: dsommers@cohenmilstein.com
              dbunch@cohenmilstein.com

RESTAURANT BRANDS: Burton Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ronnie Burton and Destiny Williamson, individually, and on behalf
of themselves and all other similarly situated current and former
employees v. RESTAURANT BRANDS INTERNATIONAL US SERVICES, LLC,
D/B/A POPEYES LOUISIANA KITCHENS, Case No. 2:26-cv-02516 (W.D.
Tenn., May 4, 2026), is brought against the Defendant under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover the applicable FLSA
minimum wage and overtime compensation rates of pay owed to the
Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs and those similarly situated performed work for
Defendant more than 40 hours per week within weekly pay periods
during all times material to this Complaint. However, Defendant has
had a common policy and practice of failing to pay Plaintiffs and
those similarly situated the applicable FLSA minimum wage and
overtime compensation rates of pay for all hours worked within
weekly pay periods during all times material herein. The Defendant
either failed to record all the compensable work hours of
Plaintiffs and those similarly situated into its time keeping
system or changed, reduced, and "edited-out" some of their
compensable work hours from its time keeping system within weekly
pay periods during all times relevant herein, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs worked for Defendant at one of its Popeyes Louisiana
Kitchens restaurants in Memphis, Tennessee.

The Defendant owns, operates, and manages Popeyes Louisiana
Kitchens' restaurants in Tennessee and in other U.S. states.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          J. Joseph Leatherwood, Esq.
          Landry Smith, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN AND BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Phone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
                 rbryant@jsyc.com
                 jleatherwood@jsyc.com
                 lsmith@jsyc.com

RESTORATION HARDWARE: Iniguez Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Alvaro Iniguez, on his own behalf and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC.,
Case No. 26-2-01528-34 was removed from the Washington State
Superior Court for Thurston County, to the United States District
Court for Western District of Washington on April 15, 2026, and
assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05386-BHS.

The Plaintiff asserts causes of action on behalf of a putative
class of Washington citizens for alleged violations of the
Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("CEMA"), and the
Washington Consumer Protection Act ("CPA"). The claims arise from
Plaintiff's alleged receipt of emails from RH, including a July 6,
2025, email with a subject line that Plaintiff contends was "false
or misleading" in violation of CEMA and the CPA.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mallory A. Gitt, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          925 Fourth Avenue, Floor 38
          Seattle, WA 98104-1157
          Phone: 206.327.6500
          Facsimile: 206.260.8813
          Email: MGitt@mofo.com

RESURGENT CAPITAL: Bid to Amend Pleadings in Thrower Due July 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GENE THROWER, v. RESURGENT
CAPITAL SERVICES L.P., Case No. 2:26-cv-00332-ALM-KAJ  (S.D. Ohio),
the Hon. Judge Jolson entered a scheduling order as follows:

-- The parties shall exchange initial disclosures by May 26,
    2026.

-- Any motion to amend the pleadings or to join additional
    parties shall be filed by July 31, 2026. The motion for class
    certification shall be filed by Feb. 19, 2027.

-- All discovery shall be completed by Dec. 4, 2026.

-- Dispositive motions shall be filed by May 31, 2027.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant placed pre-recorded calls
to his cell phone number in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act's (TCPA) provisions. The Plaintiff brings his claim
on his own behalf, as well as on behalf of a proposed class.

Resurgent provides financial services.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qWlD8a at no extra
charge.[CC]
 


RETAIL OPERATORS: Andrisani Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Retail Operators,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Julie Andrisani, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Retail Operators,
LLC, Does 1-100, Case No. 26CV010907 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento
Cty., May 4, 2026).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."

Retail Operators, LLC is an active Florida-based limited liability
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lauren Rae Davis, Esq.
          THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
          815 Moraga Dr.
          Los Angeles, CA 90049-1633
          Phone: 310-395-2988
          Email: lauren@kicklawfirm.com

RHEEM MANUFACTURING: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Gallegos Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS GALLEGOS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RHEEM MANUFACTURING COMPANY d/b/a RHEEM,
Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02465-AT (N.D. Ga., May 1, 2026) arises
from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data.

The complaint relates that the Defendant stores a litany of highly
sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") about its
employees. But Defendant lost control over that data when
cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer
systems in a data breach on April 20, 2026. A ransomware monitoring
group published a notification attributing responsibility for the
Data Breach to a group known as "Incransom". The following types of
PII may have been compromised: a. Name; b. Date of birth; c. Social
Security number; d. Driver's license number; and e. Financial
information. Currently, the precise number of persons injured is
unclear. The putative Class is over one hundred members--as it
includes its employees. And yet, Defendant has failed to begin
notifying the Class.

The complaint alleges that because of Defendant's Data Breach,
Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer from, anxiety,
sleep disruption, stress, fear, and frustration. Plaintiff suffered
actual injury from the exposure and theft of his PII, which
violates his rights to privacy. Plaintiff suffered imminent and
impending injury arising from the substantially increased risk of
fraud, misuse, and identity theft, adds the complaint.

In addition to injunctive relief, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself
and the other Class Members, 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.

Defendant Rheem Manufacturing Company d/b/a Rheem engineers a full
line of global air and water products to homeowners, business
owners, contractors, and plumbers across the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph B. Alonso, Esq.
     Daniel H. Wirth, Esq.
     ALONSO & WIRTH
     1708 Peachtree Street, NW
     Suite 303
     Atlanta, GA 30309
     Telephone: (678) 928-4472
     E-mail: jalonso@alonsowirth.com
             dwirth@alonsowirth.com

          - and -

     Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
     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: sam@straussborrelli.com
             raina@straussborrelli.com

ROCKET QUOTE LLC: Henderson Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rocket Quote LLC. The
case is styled as Jeremy Henderson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Rocket Quote LLC, Case No.
0:26-cv-61291-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 30, 2026).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Rocket Quote LLC -- https://rocketquote.com/ -- offers Auto, Home,
or Business Insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Eric Berman, Esq.
          1650 SE 17th Street 100
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Phone: (865) 603-7365
          Email: cberman@shamisgentile.com

RODENBURG LLP: Bourne et al. Sue Over Unprotected Private Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY BOURNE, ALIZA DETTMERS, and BRENDA HIMMELSPACH, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
RODENBURG LLP, d/b/a RODENBURG LAW FIRM, LLP, Defendant, Case No.
3:26-cv-00140-ARS (D.N.D., April 30, 2026) arises from Defendant's
failure to properly secure and safeguard the highly sensitive
protected health information and personally identifiable
information of Plaintiffs and approximately 81,307 Class Members,
which as a result was stolen from Rodenburg's systems in a
foreseeable, preventable data breach.

Although the Defendant discovered the unauthorized activity on
August 26, 2025, it waited until after March 20, 2026 to notify the
affected individuals -- an unjustified delay of approximately seven
months. In addition, the Defendant's Notice Letters omitted
critical information, including (i) the root cause of the data
breach; (ii) the specific vulnerabilities exploited; (iii) the
identity of the perpetrator (which Rodenburg was on notice of as of
December 10, 2025), when Akira publicly claimed credit); whether
Rodenburg paid a ransom for Plaintiffs' and Class Members' private
information; and (v) the remedial measures undertaken to ensure
such a data breach does not occur again.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring claims for (i) negligence and
negligence per se; (ii) breach of third-party beneficiary contract;
(iv) unjust enrichment; (v) invasion of privacy; (vi) violation of
the North Dakota Notice of Security Breach for Personal Information
statute; (vii) violation of the North Dakota Unlawful Sales and
Advertising Practices Act; and (viii) declaratory and injunctive
relief.

Rodenburg LLP is a debt collection and creditor's-rights law firm
headquartered in Fargo, ND. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         John Heenan, Esq.
         HEENAN & COOK, PLLC
         1631 Zimmerman Trail
         Billings, MT 59102
         Telephone: (406) 839-9091
         E-mail: john@lawmontana.com

                 - and -

         Thomas A. Dickson, Esq.
         DICKSON LAW OFFICE
         P.O. Box 1896
         Bismarck, ND 58502-1896
         Telephone: (701) 222-4400
         E-mail: tdickson@dicksonlaw.com

                 - and -

         Raph Graybill, Esq.
         GRAYBILL LAW FIRM
         300 4th St. N
         Great Falls, MT 59401
         Telephone: (406) 452-8566
         E-mail: raph@graybilllawfirm.com

RODENBURG LLP: Leibel Sues Over Data Security Incident and Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Leibel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RODENBURG LLP D/B/A RODENBURG LAW FIRM, Case No.
3:26-cv-00138-PDW-ARS (D.N.D., April 30, 2026), is brought arising
out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was
perpetrated against Defendant (the "Data Breach"), which held in
its possession certain personally identifiable information and
protected health information ("PII," "PHI," or collectively
"Private Information") of Plaintiff and other individuals whose
Private Information was held by Defendant in connection with its
debt collection activities, the putative class members.

The Data Breach resulted from Defendant's failure to implement
adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols
necessary to protect individuals' Private Information with which
they were entrusted in connection with its debt collection
activities.

The Defendant maintained the Private Information in a reckless
manner. In particular, the Private Information was maintained on
Defendant's computer network in a condition vulnerable to
cyberattacks. Upon information and belief, the mechanism of the
Data Breach and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's
and Class Members' Private Information was a known risk to
Defendant, and thus Defendant was on notice that failing to take
steps necessary to secure the Private Information from those risks
left that property in a dangerous condition.

The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those
similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding
of Class Members' Private Information that it collected and
maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice
to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information was
subjected to unauthorized access by a ransomware group and
precisely what type of information was accessed, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff's Private Information was held by Defendant in
connection with Defendant's debt collection activities.

Rodenburg Law Firm is a debt collection law firm based in Fargo,
North Dakota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sean Short, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Kirkpatrick Plaza
          10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AK 72211
          Phone: (800) 615-4946
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          Email: sean@sanfordlawfirm.com

                - and -

          Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
          ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD MONTGOMERY, LLP
          4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (888) 350-3931
          Fax: (888) 276-3455
          Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com

SALSBURY INDUSTRIES: Douglass Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Blair Douglass, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SALSBURY INDUSTRIES, INC., Case
No. GD-26-002032 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court
for Western District of Pennsylvania on May 1, 2026, and assigned
Case No. 2:26-cv-00733.

In his Complaint, Mr. Douglass, a Pennsylvania resident, asserts
claims that arise under Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, and states that he seeks "to ensure Defendant
provides full and equal access to the goods and services that
Defendant makes available to the public from its physical
facilities." Specifically, Mr. Douglass, who is legally blind,
alleges that he uses screen reader auxiliary aids to remotely
access goods and services available on Salsbury's website, located
at https://www.lockers.com (the "Website").[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Tucker, Esq.
          Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
          Chandler Steiger, Esq.
          Stephanie Moore, Esq.
          Kayla Conahan, Esq.
          Jessica Liu, Esq.
          EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC
          6901 Lynn Way, Suite 503
          Pittsburgh, PA 15208
          Email: ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com
                 kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com
                 csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com
                 smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com
                 kconahan@eastendtrialgroup.com
                 jliu@eastendtrialgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          William B. Pentecost, Jr., Esq.
          Lauren Despot Krofcheck, Esq.
          CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C.
          650 Washington Road, Suite 700
          Pittsburgh, PA 15228
          Phone: 412.563.2500
          Facsimile: 412.563.2080
          Email: wpentecost@c-wlaw.com
                 lkrofcheck@c-wlaw.com

SANTA CLARA, CA: Adame Seeks to Recover Proper Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
PHILIP ADAME, et al., on behalf of themselves and all similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF SANTA CLARA, Defendant,
Case No. 5:26-cv-03740 (N.D. Cal., April 29, 2026), arises from
Defendant's compensation computation method which undercounted its
employees' regular rate of pay and violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are or were employed by Defendant in non-exempt
positions. During their employment, Plaintiffs were entitled to
receive either Defendant's contributions to the City's Section 125
flexible benefit cafeteria plan or receive cash-in-lieu of health
benefits. However, the Defendant failed to properly compensate for
overtime hours worked as prescribed by the FLSA, says the suit.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek damages for unpaid overtime and
other compensation, interest thereon, liquidated damages, costs of
suit, and reasonable attorney fees on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated current and former employees of Defendant
affected by Defendant's unlawful failure to include all statutorily
required forms of compensation in the regular rate used to
calculate overtime compensation for Plaintiffs and all similarly
situated individuals.

City of Santa Clara is a political subdivision of the State of
California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         David E. Mastagni, Esq.
         Amanda McCarthy, Esq.
         Alexandra N. Holland, Esq.
         MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT, A.P.C.
         1912 I Street
         Sacramento, CA 95811
         Telephone: (916) 446-4692
         Facsimile: (916) 447-4614
         E-mail: davidm@mastagni.com
                 amccarthy@mastagni.com
                 aholland@mastagni.com

SCHELL & KAMPETER: Vilekar Sues Over Dog Food's Cardiac Damage Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SAYALI VILEKAR, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. SCHELL & KAMPETER, INC., d/b/a/ Diamond Pet
Foods and/or Taste of the Wild, Defendant, Case No.
4:26-cv-03723-KAW (N.D. Cal., April 29, 2026) is a class action
against the Defendant for false, misleading, deceptive, and
inadequate packaging, marketing, and advertising of its  Taste of
the Wild grain-free dog food.

This action arises from Defendant's sale of its dangerous Taste of
the Wild grain-free dog food, which is misleadingly represented as
healthy, safe, and a diet inspired by nature, when, in fact, there
is no medical or scientific justification for feeding a dog a
grain-free diet high in legume or pulse ingredients, and every dog
that consistently consumes Taste of the Wild grain-free dog food
has an increased risk of developing the fatal heart disease dilated
cardiomyopathy ("DCM") and related cardiac damage.

According to the complaint, all 17 varieties of the Taste of the
Wild grain-free dog food product fall under the veterinary medical
textbooks' description of diets that may increase a dog's risk for
cardiac injury and development of DCM, in that every variety is a
grain-free recipe with one or more legume ingredients in the top
ten ingredients. The Defendant knew or should have known that a
Taste of the Wild grain-free diet raises cardiac health risks.
Nonetheless, Defendant markets and sells Taste of the Wild
grain-free dog food as healthy and safe for all breeds of dogs,
even those breeds predisposed to DCM or dogs that have been
diagnosed with DCM and other cardiac diseases or injury. Nowhere on
the dog food packaging or website does Defendant inform consumers
of its product's association with serious cardiac health risks,
asserts the complaint.

The complaint alleges that Plaintiff and Class Members would not
have purchased Taste of the Wild grain-free dog food, or would not
have purchased the product at the same price if they had known all
material facts and that the product was associated with increased
cardiac risks. Plaintiff and Class Members sustained damages as a
result of their reliance on Defendant's omissions and
misrepresentations, thus causing Plaintiff and Class Members to
sustain actual losses and damages, including punitive damages, in a
sum to be determined at trial, adds the complaint.

Plaintiff Sayali Vilekar has purchased Taste of the Wild grain-free
dog food numerous times from the Pet Food Express located at 39010
Paseo Padre Parkway, Fremont, California 94538.

Defendant Schell & Kampeter, Inc. d/b/a Diamond Pet Foods and/or
Taste of the Wild is a Missouri corporation is engaged in the
business of manufacturing, marketing, and selling pet food
products, including the Taste of the Wild brand grain-free dog
food.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dena C. Sharp, Esq.
     Adam E. Polk, Esq.
     GIRARD SHARP LLP
     601 California Street, Suite 1400
     San Francisco, CA 94108
     Telephone: (415) 981-4800
     E-mail: dsharp@girardsharp.com
             apolk@girardsharp.com

          - and -

     Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
     Todd E. Hilton, Esq.
     Stephen D. Ahal, Esq.
     STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
     460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
     Kansas City, MO 64112
     Telephone: 816-714-7100
     Facsimile: 816-714-7101
     E-mail: stueve@stuevesiegel.com
             hilton@stuevesiegel.com
             ahal@stuevesiegel.com

          - and -

     Christopher S. Shank, Esq.
     David L. Heinemann, Esq.
     SHANK & HEINEMANN, LLC
     1968 Shawnee Mission Pkwy, Suite 100
     Mission Woods, KS 66205
     Telephone: 816-471-0909
     Facsimile: 816-471-3888
     E-mail: chris@shanklawfirm.com
             david@shanklawfirm.com

          - and -

     John J. Schirger, Esq.
     Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq.
     Katherine A. Feierabend, Esq.
     SCHIRGER FEIERABEND LLC
     6811 Shawnee Mission Parkway, Suite 312
     Overland Park, KS 66202
     Telephone: (816) 561-6500
     Facsimile: (816) 561-6501
     E-mail: schirger@sflawyers.com
             feierabend@sflawyers.com
             kfeierabend@sflawyers.com

SD BULLION INC: Medina Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SD Bullion, Inc. The
case is styled as John Medina, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SD Bullion, Inc., Case No.
3:26-cv-02735-BAS-DDL (S.D. Cal., April 30, 2026).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

SD Bullion -- https://sdbullion.com/ -- is a leading online
precious metals dealer, specializing in gold, silver, platinum, and
rare coins.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Faythe Gutierrez, Esq.
          PLG DAMAGE ATTORNEYS, PLLC
          2750 SW 145th Avenue #509
          Miramar, FL 33027
          Phone: (305) 506-4746
          Email: fgutierrez@plgdamage.com

SHAREABLY MEDIA: Mueller Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
------------------------------------------------------------------
TARA NICOLE MUELLER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHAREABLY MEDIA, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:26-cv-00801-JRO-MG (S.D. Ind., April 23, 2026) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of
the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://dosaze.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not
limited to: hidden elements on the web page, inadequate focus
order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance
warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text
on graphics, inaccurate drop-down menus, the denial of keyboard
access for some interactive elements, and the requirement that
transactions be performed solely with a mouse.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired individuals.

Shareably Media, LLC is a company that sells online goods and
services in Indiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Jason B. Marshall, Esq.
       EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
       68-29 Main Street,
       Flushing, NY 11367
       Telephone: (463) 777-4196
       Email: jmarshall@ealg.law

SHARK ZEN: Williams Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers
------------------------------------------------------------
DARNELL WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHARK ZEN LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:26-cv-04588 (N.D. Ill., April 23, 2026) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and declaratory relief.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://sharkzen.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not
limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading
hierarchy, inadequate focus order, changing of content without
advance warning, inaccessible drop-down menus, the denial of
keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the requirement
that transactions be performed solely with a mouse.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired individuals.

Shark Zen LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in
Illinois. [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
       Email: Dreyes@ealg.law

SISKIYOU COUNTY, CA: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to August 3
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chang et al., v. County of
Siskiyou et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01378-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Nunley entered an granting joint stipulation to modify
scheduling order:

                      Event                           Date

  Initial expert witness disclosures:             July 15, 2026

  Last day to file motion for class               Aug. 3, 2026
  certification:

  Rebuttal expert witness disclosures:            Aug. 20, 2026

  Close of expert discovery:                      Sept. 17, 2026

  Last date to file dispositive motions:          Oct. 19, 2026

  Pre-trial Conference:                           TBD  

Siskiyou is a county located in the northwestern portion of the
U.S. state of California.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hgKFgi at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Thomas H. Do, Esq.
          Grayce Zelphin, Esq.
          Emi Young, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN
          CALIFORNIA
          39 Drumm Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 293-6333
          Facsimile: (415) 255-8437
          E-mail: eyoung@aclunc.org
                  jdo@aclunc.org
                  gzelphin@aclunc.org  

                - and -

          Megan Vees, Esq.
          ASIAN LAW CAUCUS
          55 Columbus Avenue
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 896-1701
          Facsimile: (415) 896-1702
          E-mail: meganv@asianlawcaucus.org

                - and -

          Stanley Young, Esq.
          Hakeem S. Rizk, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          3000 El Camino Real
          5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor
          Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112
          Telephone: (650) 632-4700
          Facsimile: (650) 632-4800
          E-mail: syoung@cov.com
                  hrizk@cov.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          J. Scott Donald, Esq.
          SPINELLI, DONALD & NOTT, P.C.
          300 University Avenue, Suite 100
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Telephone: (916) 448-7888
          E-mail: scottd@sdnlaw.com

                - and -

          Jeffrey V. Dunn, Esq.
          Christopher M. Pisano, Esq.
          BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
          500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2500
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 325-4000
          E-mail: jeffrey.dunn@bbklaw.com
                  christopher.pisano@bbklaw.com

SMART OILFIELD: Hibbs Class Suit Seek Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER HIBBS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SMART OILFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No.
5:26-cv-01017-R (W.D. Okla., May 5, 2026) seeks to recover back
wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

This class action lawsuit is brought by the Plaintiff, individually
and on behalf of all current and/or former employees of the
Defendant who worked as Flowback Operators and who paid at the same
rate for all of the hours they worked during the past three years.

SOS employed Mr. Hibbs as Flowback Operator.

SOS is an oil and gas company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          Lyric Centre
          440 Louisiana Street Suite 1110
          Houston, TX 77002-1055
          Telephone: (713) 222-6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
          E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
                  curt@mooreandassociates.net

SONY INTERACTIVE: Faces Walker Class Suit Over Unlawful Tariffs
---------------------------------------------------------------
AMOREY WALKER and BRYCE FOSTER-QUARLES, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT
LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-04121 (N.D. Cal., May 6, 2026) is a class
action complaint against Sony for its retention of a substantial
windfall generated by unlawful tariffs imposed by the federal
government under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

Beginning in February 2025, the Trump administration imposed
sweeping tariffs on imports from numerous countries under purported
authority of the IEEPA. The tariffs dramatically increased the cost
of imported consumer goods sold in the United States.

Major U.S. importers, including Sony, responded by increasing
prices on consumer goods to offset the cost of these tariffs. As a
result, consumers in the U.S. paid higher retail prices for goods
reflecting the economic burden of these tariffs, says the suit.

The Plaintiffs purchased a Sony PlayStation Console with a price
that included a pass-through of the IEEPA tariffs.

Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC is an American video game and
digital entertainment company of Japanese conglomerate Sony Group
Corporation. It primarily operates the PlayStation brand of video
game consoles and products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John C. Bohren, Esq.
          YANNI LAW, APC
          145 S Spring St; No. 850  
          Los Angeles, CA 90012  
          Telephone: (619) 433-2803
          Facsimile: (800) 867-6779

               - and -

          Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
          Andre Belanger, Esq.
          POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC
          32 Ann Street
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Telephone: (803) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (843) 494-5536
          E-mail: Paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
                  Andre.Belanger@poulinwilley.com
                  cmad@poulinwilley.com

SOUTHERN NEVADA: Our Lady Class Suit Removed to D. Nev.
-------------------------------------------------------
The case OUR LADY OF VICTORY CATHOLIC CHURCH (AKA SOCIETY OF ST.
PIUS X, LAS VEGAS NEVADA, INC.), et al., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. SOUTHERN NEVADA WATER
AUTHORITY, a political subdivision of the State of Nevada; DOE
INDIVIDUALS; and ROE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES, Case No. A-26-937025-C,
was removed from the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark
County, Nevada, to the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada on April 24, 2026.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Nevada assigned Case No.
2:26-cv-01291 to the proceeding.

The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations
of Nevada laws and regulations.

Southern Nevada Water Authority is a government agency in Nevada.
[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                
      
      Nicholas J. Santoro, Esq.
      Oliver J. Pancheri, Esq.
      Jessica M. Lujan, Esq.
      Ellsie E. Lucero, Esq.
      SPENCER FANE LLP
      300 S. 4th Street, Suite 1600
      Las Vegas, NV 89101
      Telephone: (702) 408-3400
      Facsimile: (702) 408-3401
      Email: nsantoro@spencerfane.com
             opancheri@spencerfane.com
             jlujan@spencerfane.com
             elucero@spencerfane.com

              - and -

      Will Kemp, Esq.
      KEMP JONES, LLP
      3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, 17th Floor
      Las Vegas, NV 89169
      Telephone: (702) 385-6000
      Facsimile: (702) 385-6001
      Email: Email: c.pola@kempjones.com

STONY BROOK WHOLE: Thorne Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. STONY BROOK WHOLE HEARTED FOODS LLC, Case No.
1:26-cv-03606 (S.D.N.Y., May 1, 2026), is brought against the
Defendants for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its website to be fully and equally accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually
impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its services offered thereby, is a violation of
the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA"). Because the Defendant's website,
www.wholeheartedfoods.com, including all portions thereof or
accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's
website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will
become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers.

By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, the Defendant deprives blind
and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer.

STONY BROOK WHOLE HEARTED FOODS LLC, operates the Whole Hearted
Foods online retail store, as well as the Whole Hearted Foods
interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the
State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: dana@gottlieb.legal
                 michael@gottlieb.legal
                 jeffrey@gottlieb.legal

STRINGKING INC: Cruz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stringking Inc. The
case is styled as Gabriel Cruz, individually, and on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. Stringking Inc., Case No.
26STCV14291 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 4, 2026).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."

StringKing -- https://stringking.com/ -- specializes in
high-quality sports equipment and custom apparel for lacrosse,
baseball, softball, and hockey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jose Garay, Esq.
          JOSE GARAY APLC
          249 E Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802-4899
          Phone: 949-208-3400
          Fax: 562-590-8400
          Email: jose@garaylaw.com

SUZUKI MOTOR: Appeals Court Order to Remand Lopez Suit to State Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SUZUKI MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a
court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to remand in the
lawsuit entitled Alex Lopez, et al., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Suzuki Motor of
America, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-07808-FWS-JDE,
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit,
which was removed from the Superior Court of California County of
Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, is brought against the Defendant for fraud allegation.

On Jan. 23, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case
to Los Angeles Superior Court, which Judge Fred W. Slaughter
granted on Apr. 8, 2026. The Court remands this case to Los Angeles
Superior Court as Case No. 25STCV07961.

The appellate case is styled as Lopez, et al. v. Suzuki Motor of
America, Inc., Case No. 26-2599, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 27, 2026.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on May 4, 2026;

   -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on June 8, 2026; and

   -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on July 6, 2026. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees ALEX LOPEZ, et al., individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, are represented by:

       Glenn Danas, Esq.
       Ryan Clarkson, Esq.
       CLARKSON LAW FIRM, PC
       22525 Pacific Coast Highway
       Malibu, CA 90265

              - and -

       Leslie E. Hurst, Esq.
       Paula R. Brown, Esq.
       Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
       BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
       501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
       San Diego, CA 92101

Defendants-Appellants SUZUKI MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC., et al. are
represented by:

       Dominic Draye, Esq.
       GREENBERG TRAURIG, PA
       2375 E. Camelback Road, Suite 800
       Phoenix, AZ 85016

              - and -

       Robert James Herrington, Esq.
       Blakeley S. Oranburg, Esq.
       GREENBERG TRAURIG, PA
       1840 Century Park, E Suite 1900
       Los Angeles, CA 90067

TARGET CORP: Sassano Sues Over Coffee Creamer Powder's False Labels
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ASTORRIA SASSANO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 2:26-cv-02448 (E.D.N.Y., April 24, 2026) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of New York Business Law.

The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of the Market
Pantry Original Coffee Creamer powder. According to the complaint,
the Defendant represents that (1) one teaspoon of the product is
equivalent to 2 grams of the product; (2) the product has a
"serving size" of one teaspoon; and (3) the 35.3 oz container of
the product contains "about 500 servings." However, two independent
laboratories' testing of the product found (1) the "servings" claim
on the product was false and misleading because the product was
short at least 13.31 percent of the promised one teaspoon servings;
and (2) the stated equivalency that one teaspoon of the product was
the same as two grams of the product was false. Had the Plaintiff
and similarly situated consumers known the truth, they would not
have purchased the product or would have paid less for it.

Target Corporation, is a retail company with a principal place of
business in Minneapolis, Minnesota. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
      Ariana V. Held, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN, PC
      305 Broadway, Suite 700
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (215) 500-3289
      Email: ariana@avheld.com

TBON LLC: Puroll Class Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
CAROLYN PUROLL, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated employees v. TBON, LLC, d/b/a VIBE CREDIT UNION SHOWPLACE,
Case No. 2:26-cv-11484-BRM-EAS (E.D. Mich., May 5, 2026) seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and other compensation that
Defendants have unlawfully withheld from her and all similarly
situated workers under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
Michigan's Improved Workforce Opportunity Wage Act.

According to the complaint, Vibe Credit along with its staffing
partners Advantage Workforce Services LLC and Instawork, has
deployed a gig economy staffing model designed to evade basic
employer obligations while exercising complete control over
workers. This scheme operates through a three-way arrangement:
Instawork operates the technology platform that connects workers to
client businesses, AWS processes payroll and issues payroll, and
Vibe directs and supervises the workers' day-to-day activities, the
lawsuit says.

Plaintiff Puroll worked for approximately three years performing
unskilled, menial labor as part of Vibe's regular business
operations. She was treated identically to W-2 employees: Vibe's
managers set her schedule, dictated how she performed her work,
supervised her daily, and subjected her to discipline. She
regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week but never received
overtime pay.

TBON, LLC is a privately held holding company based in Novi,
Michigan, primarily known for owning and managing the Vibe Credit
Union Showplace (formerly the Suburban Collection Showplace), a
major convention center, expo hall, and hotel complex.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noah S. Hurwitz, Esq.
          Colin H. Wilkin, Esq.
          HURWITZ LAW PLLC
          340 Beakes St., Ste. 125
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (844) 487-9489
          E-mail: noah@hurwitzlaw.com
                  colin@hurwitzlaw.com

TD BANK: Recommendation Sustained in Part in Nelipa Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUDMILA NELIPA, ALLISON
ARCHER, and VERDENIA EDWARDS, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. TD BANK, NA., Case No.
1:21-cv-01092-LDH-JAM (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lashann Dearcy
Hall entered an order that the Defendant's objections to the report
and recommendation ("R&R") are sustained in part and overruled in
part.

The R&R is adopted with respect to provision 3(a) of the Electronic
Fund Transfer Act ("EFTA") and Breach Classes and remanded in part
for the magistrate's analysis with respect to subsections 3(b)-(e)
of the provisional classes.

The Plaintiffs' motion to certify the class is granted in part and
denied in part with leave to renew.

Because the common question of whether TD Bank's standard procedure
violates the EFTA and breaches the Personal Deposit Account
Agreement is the crux of the class action, and because this
question could be resolved for the Plaintiffs and the proposed
class in one fell swoop, the common question predominates over the
individual question.  

The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on Nov.
30, 2023, seeking to certify two classes under Rule 23(b)(3):

EFTA Excess Consumer Liability Class ("EFTA Class")

    "All persons (1) who have or had an account with TD Bank; and
    (2) notified TD Bank that they had been induced by fraud to
    provide another person with their account access device
    leading to unauthorized charges; and (3) within one year prior

    to filing of this action, TD Bank denied the consumer's
    Regulation E claim for reasons substantially the same as the
    following: (a) Evidence shows that an SMS was received and
    approved by the customer's phone number on file; (b) Customer
    has had no recent changes to the address, phone number, or OLB

    credentials in the last 90 days; (c) Customer indicated that
    they previously provided access/authorization to 3rd party;
    (d) Customer fell for a scam and gave online banking
    credentials to a 3rd party; or (e) Customer is a victim of TD
    imposter scam; and (4) who notified TD Bank within two
    business days of the alleged loss or theft and who alleged a
    loss of more than $50, or who notified TD Bank at any time and

    who alleged a loss of more than $500."

Breach of Contract Class ("Breach Class")

    "All persons (1) who have or had an account with TD Bank; and
    (2) notified TD Bank that they had been induced by fraud to
    provide another person with their account access device
    leading to unauthorized charges; and (3) within six years
    prior to filing of this action, TD Bank denied the consumer's
    Regulation E claim for reasons substantially the same as the
    following: (a) Evidence shows that an SMS was received and
    approved by the customer's phone number on file; (b) Customer
    has had no recent changes to the address, phone number, or OLB

    credentials in the last 90 days; (c) Customer indicated that
    they previously provided access/authorization to 3rd party;
    (d) Customer fell for a scam and gave online banking
    credentials to a 3rd party; or (e) Customer is a victim of TD
    imposter scam; and (4) who notified TD Bank within two
    business days of the alleged loss or theft and who alleged a
    loss of more than $50, or who notified TD Bank at any time and

    who alleged a loss of more than $500."

TD Bank is a major U.S. financial institution and subsidiary of
Canada's Toronto-Dominion Bank.

A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated May 5, 2026, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CTJh1i
at no extra charge.[CC]

TEAM CLEAN: Class Certification Bid Filing in Burton Due Nov. 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BURTON, et al., v. TEAM
CLEAN INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-01185-NIQA (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
Nitza Quiñones Alejandro entered a scheduling order as follows:

  1. The parties may request a referral to the Honorable
     Magistrate Judge Lynne A. Sitarski, United Staes District
     court, to schedule a settlement conference. Counsel, the
     parties and/or persons with full settlement authority must
     appear at the conference unless excused in advance by
     Magistrate Judge Sitarski.

  2. All fact discovery shall be completed by Nov. 2, 2026.

  3. Any motion for class certification shall be filed by Nov. 27,

     2026, and any response thereto shall be filed within thirty
     (30) days of the filing of the motion.

  4. All expert discovery shall be completed by March 1, 2027.

  6. Any Daubert or dispositive motions shall be filed by April 1,
     2027.

Team Clean is a full-service cleaning company that offers a wide
range of cleaning services for both commercial and residential
clients.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Rpa1CK at no extra
charge.[CC]

TECH GEAR 5.7 INC: Walker Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leah Walker, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Tech Gear 5.7 Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-05045 (N.D. Ill., April 30,
2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://fieldsheer.com
(hereinafter "Website" or "the Website") to be fully accessible to
and independently usable by Ford and other blind or visually
impaired individuals.

The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals
throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services
Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the
Website. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its
Website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered,
and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Ford's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the
"ADA").

Because Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and
visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff
seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's
policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to
compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful
discrimination, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.

The Defendant provides to the public the Website, which provides
consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the
ability to purchase offers a comprehensive range of temperature
controlled apparel and accessories, including heated jackets,
vests, gloves, socks, and insoles, as well as cooling shirts,
towels, and neck gaiters.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alison Chan, Esq.
          EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC
          4903 Avenue N,
          Brooklyn, NY 11234
          Office: 844-731-3343
          Direct: 929-442-2154
          Email: Achan@ealg.law

TIGI LINEA: Bishop Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
-----------------------------------------------------------
CEDRIC BISHOP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TIGI LINEA CORP., Defendant, Case No.
1:26-cv-03304 (S.D.N.Y., April 22, 2026) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.bedhead.com, is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff,
in violation of the ADA.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

TIGI Linea Corporation produces and sells hair care products. The
Company offers shampoos, conditioners, lighteners, activators, lift
creams, and other products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Tel: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
                 Dana@Gottlieb.legal
                 Michael@Gottlieb.legal


TITAN MANUFACTURING: Removes Sanders Suit to C.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of KEN SANDERS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TITAN
MANUFACTURING AND DISTRIBUTING, INC., Defendant, filed a notice to
remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Orange (Case No. 30-2026-01554341-CU-BT-CXC)
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on April 22, 2026. The clerk of court for the Central District of
California assigned Case No. 8:26-cv-00964.

Titan Manufacturing and Distributing, Inc. distributes industrial
equipment. The Company offers motorcycle and multi-fold ramps,
backhoe attachments, bucket hitches, clamp on forks, grapple rakes,
hay spears, snow pushers, and fitness equipment. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          David Jacobs, Esq.
          Hector E. Corea, Esq.
          Avery Canty, Esq.
          EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C.
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2506
          Telephone: 310.556.8861
          Facsimile: 310.553.2165
          Email: DJacobs@ebglaw.com
                 HCorea@ebglaw.com
                 ACanty@ebglaw.com


TK CANZ: Aird Sues Over Race Discrimination in the Workplace
------------------------------------------------------------
KATRINA AIRD, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. T.K. CANZ CORP., WESTBURYCANZ CORP., W-CANZ
CORP., PERFETTA CORP., PAUL PASTIER, and VICTORIA LINSCOTT,
Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02546 (E.D.N.Y., April 29, 2026) seeks
to remedy discrimination in employment based on race in violation
of Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the New York
State Human Rights Law.

The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated to remedy unlawful conduct of the
Defendants. She further seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages,
overtime wages and spread-of-hours pay, liquidated damages,
interest, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs under New York
Labor Law Section 198(1-a), and the supporting New York State
Department of Labor Regulations.

T.K. Canz Corp. owns and operates a restaurant doing business as
Canz Bar and Grill of Bohemia,
located at 4780 Sunrise Highway, Bohemia, NY. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Peter A. Romero, Esq.
        ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC
        490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
        Hauppauge, NY 11788
        Telephone: (631) 257-5588
        E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com

TOTAL SWEETENERS: Casillas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Total Sweeteners,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Esperanza Casillas,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Total Sweeteners, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0003267 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 1, 2026).

The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."

Total Sweeteners, Inc. distributes food products. The Company
offers sugars and sweeteners, liquids, dairy ingredients, beverage
ingredients, baking ingredients, confectionery ingredients, and
nutraceutical ingredients. Total Sweeteners distributes its
products to food manufacturers and suppliers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jose Patino, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
          660 S. Figueroa St., Sky Lobby
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-381-9988
          Fax: 213-381-9989
          Email: jose.patino@wilshirelawfirm.com

TRADER JOE'S: Smith Sues Over Whole Bean Coffee's Deceptive Label
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN SMITH, DAMANY BROWNE, JANET ROSS and MOHAMAD TLAIB,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. TRADER JOE'S COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
2:26-cv-04335 (C.D. Fla., April 23, 2026) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of California's Unfair Competition
Law, California's False Advertising Law, California's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, New York General Business Law, and the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and breach of
express warranty.

The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of the Trader Joe's
branded "French Roast Low Acid" Whole Bean Coffee. According to the
complaint, the product does not disclose that it is "decaf" and
"half-caff" coffee. Testing, however, shows that the product
contains half of the caffeine as a regular coffee blend.
Accordingly, consumers purchase the product believing that it is
fully caffeinated when it is not. Had the Plaintiffs and similarly
situated consumers known the truth, they would not have purchased
the product or would have paid less for it.

Trader Joe's Company is a grocery store chain with its principal
place of business in Los Angeles County, California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
      Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
      BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC
      19800 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 270
      Irving, CA 92612
      Telephone: (212) 946-9389
      Email: tkashima@brysonpllc.com

TRANE TECHNOLOGIES: Reliable AC Alleges Antitrust Law Breaches
--------------------------------------------------------------
RELIABLE AC SERVICES LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANE TECHNOLOGIES PLC. et al.,
Case No. 2:26-cv-11434-RJW-CI (E.D. Mich., April 30, 2026) accuses
the Defendants of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and
the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914.

The Plaintiff purchased HVAC Equipment directly from one or more of
the Defendants and/or their co-conspirators. Defendants' conspiracy
resulted in not only Plaintiff's injury of paying artificially
inflated prices for the HVAC Equipment necessary to operate and
conduct its business, but also impacted and affected other Class
Members in the same manner. Through the Air-Conditioning, Heating,
and Refrigeration Institute and the ACHR News service, the
Defendants were able to successfully conspire to unlink
manufacturing costs from the prices at which they sold HVAC
Equipment in order to achieve supra-competitive profits.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff and Class Members now bring this action
to recover treble damages and the costs of this suit, including
reasonable attorneys' fees against Defendants due to their
violations of antitrust laws.

Headquartered and incorporated in Dublin, Ireland, Trane
Technologies plc is a publicly traded corporation that manufactures
HVAC Equipment and sells them throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Steven D. Liddle, Esq.
         Laura L. Sheets, Esq.
         Matthew Z. Robb, Esq.
         D. Reed Solt, Esq.
         975 East Jefferson Avenue
         Detroit, MI 48207
         Telephone: (313) 392-0015
         E-mail: sliddle@lsclassaction.com
                 lsheets@lsclassaction.com
                 mrobb@lsclassaction.com
                 rsolt@lsclassaction.com

                 - and -

         Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
         Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
         Nicolle B. Brito, Esq.
         Alexander C. Cohen, Esq.
         Isabelle Klayman, Esq.
         ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
         225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720
         Boca Raton, FL 33432
         Telephone: (561) 750-3000
         E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
                 mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
                 nbrito@rgrdlaw.com
                 acohen@rgrdlaw.com
                 iklayman@rgrdlaw.com

                 - and -

         David Mitchell, Esq.
         Alexandra S. Bernay, Esq.
         Arthur L. Shingler III, Esq.
         ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101-8498
         Telephone: (619) 231-1058
         E-mail: davidm@rgrdlaw.com
                 xanb@rgrdlaw.com
                 ashingler@rgrdlaw.com

TRIMED INC: Weiss Sues Over Failure to Protect Clients' Info
------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA WEISS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRIMED, INC. and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-04114 (C.D. Cal., April 17, 2026) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per
se, and breach of implied contract.

The case arises from TriMed's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its
network systems following a data breach between September 13, 2025,
and September 21, 2025. TriMed 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, says the
suit.

TriMed, Inc. is a manufacturer of upper and lower orthopedic
implants based in Santa Clarita, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
      Randy Renick, Esq.
      Cornelia Dai, Esq.
      Sarah Cayer, Esq.
      HADSELL STORMER RENICK & DAI LLP
      128 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 204
      Pasadena, CA 91103
      Telephone: (626) 585-9600
      Email: rrr@hadsellstormer.com
             cdai@hadsellstormer.com
             scayer@hadsellstormer.com

TRUE BLUE CAR WASH: Bauza Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Lana Bauza, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. True Blue Car Wash LLC, Case No.
2026CH03145 was removed from the Circuit Court for Cook County,
Illinois to the United States District Court for Northern District
of Illinois on May 4, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-05160.

The Complaint asserts claims for violations of the Illinois
Automatic Contract Renewal Act and Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act in regarding to Defendant's car
wash memberships on behalf of "All persons, within the applicable
statute of limitations, who were charged for a autorenewal monthly
car wash membership by Defendant and did not receive an
acknowledgement that includes: the automatic renewal offer terms,
cancellation policy, and information regarding how to cancel the
membership (the 'Class')."[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kyle L. Flynn, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          360 N. Green St., Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60607
          Phone: (312) 456-8400
          Fax: (312) 456-8435
          Email: flynnk@gtlaw.com

TURNING POINT: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Thorne Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRAULIO THORNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TURNING POINT DISTRIBUTION, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:26-cv-03189 (S.D.N.Y., April 18, 2026) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New
York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.urbancarryholsters.com, contains access barriers which hinder
the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their
online goods, content, and services offered to the public through
the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but
not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links
that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing
alt-text.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired individuals.

Turning Point Distribution, LLC is a company that sells online
goods and services in New York. [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
       Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
              Michael@Gottlieb.legal
              Dana@Gottlieb.legal

TZ INSURANCE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Spoofed Sales Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tez Romero, writing for Insurance Business, reports that a New
Hampshire woman says a TRANZACT-owned insurance marketer flooded
her landline with dozens of spoofed sales calls -- even after she
repeatedly asked it to stop.

That, in a nutshell, is the story laid out in a putative class
action filed on May 7, 2026, in the US District Court for the
District of New Hampshire against TZ Insurance Solutions LLC, the
health, life and supplemental insurance marketing and sales arm of
MG LLC, doing business as TRANZACT.

The plaintiff, Jeannine Galvagno, says she did everything a person
is supposed to do to keep telemarketers at bay. She put her
residential landline on the National Do-Not-Call Registry back on
January 8, 2015, and never took it off. The trouble, according to
her account, started after she made a single inquiry on October 19,
2022, prompted by commercials she had seen for the company's
services.

What followed, the filing alleges, was a flood. Ten calls between
late October and late November 2022. Dozens more into 2023. By her
count, the number (603) 307-2131 -- which she says was "spoofed" to
mimic her local New Hampshire area code -- dialed her line 62 times
between April 6 and November 25, 2023, alone.

Galvagno says she tried to make it stop. She emailed an agent named
Annie Kenyon on November 22, 2022, asking to be removed from the
internal call list. On March 13, 2023, she answered a call, again
asked the company to stop calling, and informed it she was filing a
complaint with the Federal Trade Commission. She filed that
complaint on April 5, 2023. The calls, she says, kept coming.

The lawsuit leans on the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and its
implementing rules, which require telemarketers to honor the
federal Do-Not-Call list "indefinitely," maintain a written
internal do-not-call policy available on demand, train staff on it,
and respect opt-out requests within ten business days. Galvagno is
seeking $500 per call -- or $1,500 if a court finds the violations
willful -- plus an injunction, on behalf of two proposed nationwide
classes reaching back four years. The complaint says the proposed
class includes at least several thousand members.

For insurance professionals, the case is less about one consumer's
phone log than about the compliance plumbing behind modern lead
generation. Health and supplemental lines lean heavily on outbound
calling, third-party vendors and call centers, and TCPA exposure
adds up fast at $500 a call across a class of that size. The filing
also notes that TZ Insurance has been sued under the TCPA before
and points to consumer complaints lodged with the Better Business
Bureau -- a reminder that a paper trail of grievances can quietly
shape how the next lawsuit lands.

For carriers and agencies that outsource marketing muscle, it is a
useful nudge: scrub the registry, document every opt-out, and know
what your vendors are doing on your behalf.

The allegations have not been tested in court, TZ Insurance
Solutions has not yet filed a response, and no judge has ruled on
the merits. [GN]

UMZU LLC: Harriel Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Donella Harriel, individually and on behalf of a class of all
persons and entities similarly situated v. UMZU LLC, Case No.
1:26-cv-01575-NRN (D. Colo., April 14, 2026), is brought to enforce
the consumer privacy provisions of the TCPA alleging that Defendant
violated the TCPA by placing unsolicited telemarketing text
messages to residential numbers on the National Do Not Call
Registry.

Telemarketing calls are intrusive. "A great many people object to
these calls, which interfere with their lives, tie up their phone
lines, and cause confusion and disruption on phone records. Faced
with growing public criticism of abusive telephone marketing
practices, Congress enacted the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
of 1991.

Congress enacted the law to protect against invasions of privacy
that were harming people. The law empowers each person to protect
her own personal rights. Violations of the law are clear, as is the
remedy. UMZU LLC made calls to residential telephone numbers, like
Plaintiff's, that were listed on the National Do Not Call Registry,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff uses the number for personal, residential, and
household reasons.

UMZU LLC is a limited liability company headquartered in Colorado
and doing business in this District.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Office: (617) 485-0018
          Fax: (508) 318-8100
          Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com

UNDER ARMOUR: ClassAction.org Investigates Marketing Emails
-----------------------------------------------------------
ClassAction.org reports that attorneys working with ClassAction.org
believe Under Armour may have violated an anti-spam law with its
marketing emails -- and they're investigating whether legal action
can be taken on behalf of recipients.

Specifically, the attorneys have reason to suspect the
Baltimore-based sportswear company may be advertising "limited
time" sales before following up with regular announcements about
deadline extensions. Attorneys believe this could be an unfair
marketing tactic designed to create a false sense of urgency and
induce shoppers to buy before a deal seemingly ends.

It's possible Under Armour may have run afoul of Maryland's
Commercial Code, which prohibits companies from sending marketing
emails with misleading subject lines. Under this law, consumers who
receive illegal emails can seek up to $500 in damages for the
messages.

The attorneys are now signing up consumers nationwide who have
received sales emails with potentially misleading subject lines to
take legal action via mass arbitration.

How Could Under Armour Spam Emails Be Illegal?

Maryland's Commercial Code makes it illegal to send commercial
emails with false or deceptive information in the subject lines.

It's possible Under Armour's emails advertising "limited time"
deals could be illegal under the state law given their potentially
misleading nature. Attorneys working with ClassAction.org suspect
the promotional messages may falsely represent certain sales as
time-sensitive, prompting customers to act quickly before an offer
expires. The attorneys believe this may be a deceptive marketing
tactic, as sale deadlines appear to be extended routinely.

As part of their investigation, the attorneys want to hear from
affected consumers who get sales emails from Under Armour.

You may have received emails from the company with subject lines
such as:

     EXTENDED: Extra 50% Off Outlet
     ENDS TODAY: Extra 50% off UA Outlet
     Extended 2 more days: Extra 40% off
     [EXTENDED] END OF SEASON SALE
     EXTENDED! 30-50% off sitewide

What Am I Signing Up For, Exactly?

You're signing up to take part in what's known as mass arbitration.
This process lets hundreds or thousands of individuals bring
similar arbitration claims against the same company at the same
time. Mass arbitration differs from a class action lawsuit in part
because it takes place outside of court and is handled by a
third-party arbitrator rather than a judge or jury.

As Under Armour's terms and conditions require consumers to
arbitrate any dispute with the company, attorneys working with
ClassAction.org have decided to pursue the matter through mass
arbitration.

Does This Cost Money?

No, it doesn't cost anything to sign up. The attorneys will be
compensated only if they win your claim. Their payment will come as
a percentage of your award.

How Much Money Could I Get?

There's no guarantee that your claim will succeed or that you'll
receive any compensation. However, Maryland law stipulates that
consumers who have received unlawful emails could be entitled to up
to $500.

So, if you've received marketing emails from Under Armour within
the last two and a half years, fill out the form on this page and
sign up today. [GN]

UNILEVER UNITED: Ripa Appeals Consumer Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROZALIYA RIPA is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her
lawsuit entitled Rozaliya Ripa, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Unilever United States,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10028, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is
brought against the Defendant for false, deceptive, and misleading
advertising, labeling, and marketing of Dove Retinol Rinse-Off
Cleansers. The Plaintiff brings claims pursuant to the New York
General Business Law and for unjust enrichment.

On Jan. 28, 2026, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which
Judge Colleen McMahon granted on Mar. 23, 2026.

The Court concludes that the Plaintiff's complaint failed to state
a claim. The Court also denies the Plaintiff's motion for leave to
amend because she has provided no indication of how an amended
complaint would address the issues raised in Unilever's motion to
dismiss.

On July 31, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, which Judge Sanket J. Bulsara granted on
Mar. 19, 2026. The Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice.
The Plaintiff's leave to amend is denied and the case is closed.

The appellate case is styled as Rozaliya Ripa v. Unilever United
States, Inc., Case No. 26-1077, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 22, 2026. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant ROZALIYA RIPA, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, is represented by:

       James Davis, Esq.
       Timothy Gordon Blood, Esq.
       BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
       501 W. Broadway, Ste. 1490
       San Diego, CA 92101
       Telephone: (619) 338−1100
       Email: jdavis@bholaw.com

               - and -

       Thomas J. O'Reardon, II, Esq.
       BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
       600 B. Street, Suite 1550
       San Diego, CA 92101
       Telephone: (619) 338−1100
       Facsimile: (619) 338−1101
       Email: toreardon@bholaw.com

               - and -

       Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
       BURSOR & FISHER PA
       1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
       New York, NY 10019
       Telephone: (917) 776−6740
       Email: ykopel@bursor.com

Defendant-Appellee UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC. is represented by:

       Hannah Miller, Esq.
       HUGHES HUBBARD & REED LLP (NY)
       One Battery Park Plaza
       New York, NY 10004
       Telephone: (212) 837−6134
       Email: hmiller@dtolaw.com

               - and -

       Megan O'Neill, Esq.
       DTO LAW
       915 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1950
       Los Angeles, CA 90017
       Telephone: (213) 335−6999
       Email: moneill@dtolaw.com

               - and -

       William David Irvine, Jr., Esq.
       DTO LAW
       307 5th Avenue, 12th Floor
       New York, NY 10016
       Telephone: (646) 995−5400
       Email: wirvine@dtolaw.com

UNIQLO USA: Trinh Sues Over Unlawful Retention of IEEPA Tariffs
---------------------------------------------------------------
AMY TRINH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNIQLO USA LLC and FAST RETAILING USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-04712 (C.D. Cal., April 30, 2026)
seeks to halt and remedy Defendant's retention of windfall proceeds
tied to tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economy
Powers Act, which Defendant passed onto consumers in the form of
increased pricing and which Defendant now seeks to recover from the
federal government through court-ordered refunds.

Despite the Supreme Court's invalidation of IEEPA-based tariffs,
the persons who actually bore the tariff burden--Defendant's
customers--have no direct recourse in the Court of International
Trade, where Defendant, as importer of record, is positioned to
recoup all such duties. Thousands of companies, including
Defendant, have pursued tariff-related refunds in the Court of
International Trade, despite having already recouped such costs
from their customers via elevated prices.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks to prevent Defendant from double
recovery. The Plaintiff also seeks an order requiring Defendant to
disgorge and return to Plaintiff and the Classes all IEEPA related
costs embedded in elevated consumer prices with interest. The
Plaintiff brings three causes of action: violations of the
California Unfair Competition Law, unjust enrichment, and money had
and received.

Headquartered in New York, NY, Uniqlo USA LLC is a textile
manufacturer that also operates several stores across the world.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
         Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
         Alyssa Brown, Esq.
         AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
         2600 W. Olive Ave., Suite 500
         Burbank, CA 91505
         Telephone: (310) 474-9111
         Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
         E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                 tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
                 abrown@ahdootwolfson.com

                 - and -

         Bradley K. King, Esq.
         AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
         521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
         New York, NY 10175
         Telephone: (917) 336-0171
         Facsimile: (917) 336-0177
         E-mail: bking@ahdootwolfson.com

UNIQUE VINTAGE: Anderson Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LISA ANDERSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Unique Vintage, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:26-cv-5049 (N.D. Ill., April 30, 2026) is a civil rights action
against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its Website https://www.unique-vintage.com to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Anderson and
other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of
Anderson's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA").

The complaint relates that Anderson attempted to complete a
purchase on the Website on April 14, 2026. However, she encountered
multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from completing
the transaction independently. The Website contains access barriers
that deny full and equal access to Anderson. As such, Defendant
discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate
against Anderson and members of the proposed class and subclass on
the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations
and/or opportunities of the Website in violation of the ADA and/or
its implementing regulations, says the suit.

Anderson seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's
Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.

Plaintiff Lisa Anderson is a visually-impaired and legally blind
person who requires screen-reading software to read website content
using the computer.

Defendant Unique Vintage, Inc. provides to the public the Website,
which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services,
including, the ability to purchase a wide range of vintage-inspired
clothing and accessories, including dresses, tops, skirts,
swimwear, outerwear, shoes, jewelry, and plus-size apparel, along
with themed collections inspired by retro fashion eras.[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

UNITED STATES: Silva Sues Over Denied DACA Application Renewal
--------------------------------------------------------------
YESSENIA MARTINEZ SILVA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary,
Department of Homeland Security; JOSEPH EDLOW, Director, U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services; TODD LYONS, Acting Director,
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Defendants, Case No.
2:26-cv-00500-ALM-SCS (S.D. Ohio, April 23, 2026) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of Administrative Procedure
Act and Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.

The case arises from the Defendants' denial to renew the Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program application of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals. According to the
complaint, the Defendants' decision is contrary to law because it
violates DHS' own procedures for adjudicating DACA applications and
the APA and their own procedures. The Plaintiff has suffered and
will continue to suffer significant and irreparable harm because of
the Defendants' decisions, acts, and failures to act, suit says.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Ghassan "Gus" Shihab, Esq.
       LAW FIRM OF SHIHAB & ASSOCIATES
       5900 Wilcox Pl.
       Dublin, OH 43016
       Telephone: (614) 255-4872
       Facsimile: (614) 255-4870
       Email: gus@shihab.law

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Apex Physical Suit Removed to S.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Apex Physical Rehabilitation & Wellness PLLC,
Body Mind & Spine Chiropratic, Crom Rehabilitation, LLC d/b/a
Elation Physical Therapy, Dr. Jorge Pinera d/b/a Sensitive Dental,
and M.P. Counseling Services, PLLC, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated;
United HealthCare Services, Inc.; OptumInsight, Inc.; Change
Healthcare Inc.; Change Healthcare Operations, LLC; Change
Healthcare Solutions, LLC; Change Healthcare Holdings, Inc.; Change
Healthcare Technologies, LLC; Change Healthcare Pharmacy Solutions,
Inc.; Optum, Inc.; Optum Financial, Inc.; Optum Bank, Inc.; and
Optum Pay, Case No. 2026-10201 was removed from the 129th Judicial
District Court of Harris County, to the United States District
Court for Southern District of Texas on May 1, 2026, and assigned
Case No. 4:26-cv-03547.

The Plaintiffs alleges it suffered monetary losses via delayed
payments for medical care, inhibiting the Plaintiffs' ability to
take on new patients during the network outage, and spending
significant time and resources investigating the network outage and
alternative methods to receive payment for medical care. The
Complaint alleges that "Providers did not timely receive billions
of dollars in earned reimbursements."[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Catherine Bratic, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          609 Main Street, Suite 4200
          Houston, TX 77002
          Phone: (713) 632-1400
          Fax: (713) 632-1401
          Email: catherine.bratic@hoganlovells.com

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Bello Therapy Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Bello Therapy, Melissa Morehouse LICSW LLC,
Through the Forest Counseling Inc., Transformative Intimacy LLC,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v.
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED; UNITEDHEALTHCARE SERVICES INC.;
OPTUM INSIGHT, INC.; CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC.; CHANGE HEALTHCARE
OPERATIONS LLC; CHANGE HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, LLC; CHANGE HEALTHCARE
HOLDINGS, INC.; CHANGE HEALTHCARE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC; CHANGE
HEALTHCARE PHARMACY SOLUTIONS, INC.; OPTUM, INC.; OPTUM FINANCIAL,
INC.; and OPTUM BANK, Case No. 1:26-cv-11706 was transferred the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota on April 30, 2026.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-02374-DWF-DJF to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

UnitedHealth Group Incorporated --
https://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/ -- is an American multinational
health insurance and services company based in Minnetonka,
Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          SCOTT & SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, Ste. 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Phone: (212) 223-6444
          Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Alexandra Watson Bailey, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          125 High Street, Suite 2010
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: (617) 371-1026
          Email: alexandra.bailey@hoganlovells.com

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Desert ABA Suit Removed to D. Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Desert ABA Solutions LLC, and others similar
situated v. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated; United HealthCare
Services, Inc.; OptumInsight, Inc.; Change Healthcare Inc.; Change
Healthcare Operations, LLC; Change Healthcare Solutions, LLC;
Change Healthcare Holdings, Inc.; Change Healthcare Technologies,
LLC; Change Healthcare Pharmacy Solutions, Inc.; Optum, Inc.; Optum
Financial, Inc.; Optum Bank, Inc.; and Optum Pay, Case No.
S-1400-CV-202600159 was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of Arizona, County of Yuma, to the United States District
Court for District of Arizona on April 15, 2026, and assigned Case
No. 2:26-cv-02644-SMM.

The Complaint alleges Plaintiff Desert ABA was unable to submit
claims, receive ERAs, and receive payment for its medical care to
patients. The Plaintiff Desert ABA further alleges it suffered
monetary losses such as rejected and/or delayed payments for
medical care and spent significant time and resources investigating
the network outage and alternative methods to receive payment for
medical care. The Plaintiff allegedly had to participate in
Defendants' Temporary Funding Assistance Program ("TFAP") and
received an advance of $20,000.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Sarah Malham, Esq.
          DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
          2325 East Camelback Road, Suite 900
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Phone: 602.735.2700
          Email: malham.sarah@dorsey.com

UPPER DECK: Battle Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRE BATTLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE UPPER DECK COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
1:26-cv-04349 (N.D. Ill., April 17, 2026) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and declaratory relief.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://upperdeckstore.com, contains access barriers which hinder
the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their
online goods, content, and services offered to the public through
the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but
not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, 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.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired individuals.

The Upper Deck Company is a company that sells online goods and
services in Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Uri Horowitz, Esq.
       14441 70th Road
       Flushing, NY 11367
       Telephone: (718) 705-8706
       Facsimile: (718) 705-8705
       Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com

UPSTART HOLDINGS: Sornchai 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 District of Delaware stayed
the Sornchai derivative suit until resolution of the securities
class action.

On March 8, 2023, a fourth derivative lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware,
captioned Sornchai et al. v. Girouard, et al., 1:23-cv-00253-MN (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,
its Chief Financial Officer, and a Company executive, names the
Company as a nominal defendant, asserts claims for violations of
Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 21D of the Exchange Act, breach of
fiduciary duties, breach of fiduciary duty through misappropriation
of material non-public information, and unjust enrichment, 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 March 24, 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.


URBAN RESOURCE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Williams Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
DARRYL WILLIAMS, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. URBAN RESOURCE INSTITUTE, Defendants, Case
No. 1:26-cv-02568 (E.D.N.Y., April 30, 2026) seeks to remedy
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt worker for Defendants
from approximately March 2025 to approximately September 2025. The
Plaintiff was paid at an hourly rate of approximately $21.50, and
frequently worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. However, the
Plaintiff was not compensated for all hours worked. The Defendants
failed to pay straight time or overtime wages to Plaintiff for the
off-the-clock work he performed in multiple workweeks, says the
suit.

Urban Resource Institute operates a non-profit providing social
services, including shelter, to
survivors of domestic violence and other vulnerable populations
throughout New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Sabine Jean, Esq.
         Breanna Small, Esq.
         LAWYERS for JUSTICE, P.C.
         217 Broadway, Suite 511
         New York, NY 10007
         Telephone: (516) 587-8423
         Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
         E-mail: s.jean@calljustice.com
                 b.small@calljustice.com

URGENT HOME SERVICES: Rojas Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Urgent Home Services.
The case is styled as Jorge Rojas, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Urgent Home Services, Case No.
2:26-cv-04770 (C.D. Cal., May 3, 2026).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Urgent Home Services is a company that operates in the Elderly Care
Services industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN PA
          237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Fl
          Coral Gables, FL 33133
          Phone: (305) 469-5881
          Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com

US HEALTH & WELLBEING: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. US Health & Wellbeing, LLC d/b/a Liquid I.V., Case No.
0:26-cv-02430 (D. Minn., April 30, 2026), is brought arising
because Defendant's Website (www.liquid-iv.com) (the "Website" or
"Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to
people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both
the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective
communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing
regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also
asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human
Rights Act ("MHRA").

The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is
responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning
the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her
experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past
year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the
Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital
barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and
equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes
available to its sighted Website users.

Still, the Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to
access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or
shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant
offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and
operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully
accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with
vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class
have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to
be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to
provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is
compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore
disabled under the ADA.

The Defendant offers drink mixes for sale including, but not
limited to, hydration multiplier mixes, sugar-free mixes, energy
mixes, immune support mixes, bundles, and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
          Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
          Jason Gustafson, Esq.
          THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
          80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (763) 515-6110
          Email: chad@throndsetlaw.com
                 pat@throndsetlaw.com
                 jason@throndsetlaw.com

US RENAL CARE: Moyseyenko Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Ella Moyseyenko, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated v. U.S. RENAL CARE, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV01274
was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, in
and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District
Court for Central District of California on May 4, 2026, and
assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-04819.

The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges nine causes of action: Failure to
Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Wages and Overtime Under Labor
Code; Meal-Period Liability Under Labor Code; Rest-Break Liability
Under Labor Code; Reimbursement of Necessary Expenditures Under
Labor Code; Violation of Labor Code (wage statement penalties);
Failure to Keep Required Payroll Records Under Labor Code;
Penalties Pursuant to Labor Code (waiting time penalties); and
Violation of California Business & Professions Code Sections
17200.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Aaron H. Cole, Esq.
          Omar M. Aniff, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-239-9800
          Facsimile: 213-239-9045
          Email: aaron.cole@ogletree.com
                 omar.aniff@ogletree.com

VAIL RESORTS: Bisaillon Appeals Suit Dismissal to 10th Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER BISAILLON is taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing his lawsuit entitled Christopher Bisaillon, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Vail
Resorts Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02056-NYW-KAS, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is
brought against Vail Resort for its intentional concealment to the
consumer public in this regard, while it continued to collect tens
of millions of dollars from that very same consumer public over the
holiday season, which constitute violations of the Utah Consumer
Sales Practices Act, fraudulent concealment and unjust enrichment.

On Aug. 20, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim and for lack of jurisdiction, which Judge
Nina Y. Wang granted on Mar. 25, 2026. The Plaintiff's class claims
are dismissed with prejudice, while his individual claims are
dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. Final judgment is entered in favor of the Defendant.

The appellate case is captioned as Bisaillon v. Vail Resorts Inc.,
Case No. 26-1148, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit, filed on April 27, 2026. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant CHRISTOPHER BISAILLON, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by:

       Peter J. Flowers, Esq.
       Matthew J. Herman, Esq.
       MEYERS & FLOWERS LLC
       3 North Second Street, Suite 300
       St. Charles, IL 60174

               - and -

       Mel C. Orchard, III, Esq.
       SPENCE LAW FIRM
       15 South Jackson Street
       P.O. Box 158
       Jackson, WY 83001
       Telephone: (307) 733-7290

Defendant-Appellee VAIL RESORTS INC. is represented by:

       Robert Reeves Anderson, Esq.
       ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER
       1144 Fifteenth Street, Suite 3100
       Denver, CO 80202
       Telephone: (303) 863-1000

               - and -

       William Sharon, Esq.
       ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER
       250 West 55th Street, Suite 968
       New York, NY 10019
       Telephone: (212) 836-8000

VAN VREEDE: Morris Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
ZACHARY MORRIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. VAN VREEDE TV & APPLIANCES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00782 (E.D. Wis., May 1, 2026) is a
civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its website,
www.vanvreedes.com to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

The complaint relates that on May 29, 2025, Plaintiff visited
Defendant's website to purchase his desired washing machine (Smart
Front Load Energy Star Washer). Despite his efforts, however,
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, which effectively barred Plaintiff from having an
unimpeded shopping experience. The Website contains access barriers
that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and
screen reading software.

Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and
visually-impaired customers such as Plaintiff, who need
screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the
facilities, products, 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 ZACHARY MORRIS is a visually-impaired and legally blind
person who requires screen-reading software to read website content
using the computer.

Defendant VAN VREEDE TV & APPLIANCES, INC. is a company that owns
and operates www.vanvreedes.com (its "Website"), offering features
which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services
and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods and
services throughout the United States, including the State of
Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Yaakov Saks, Esq.
     STEIN SAKS, PLLC
     One University Plaza, Suite 620
     Hackensack, NJ 07601
     Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101
     Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
     E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com

VICTOR COMMUNITY SUPPORT: Solis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Victor Community
Support Services, Inc. The case is styled as Christian Ivan Valerio
Solis, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Victor Community Support Services, Inc., Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2026-0003305 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 4,
2026).

The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."

Victor -- https://www.victor.org/ -- provides a wide range of
behavioral health, educational, and social support services to
children, youth, families and adults throughout California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
          515 S Figueroa St., Ste. 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316
          Phone: 213-488-6555
          Fax: 213-488-6554
          Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com

VICTORIA'S SECRET & CO: Salazar Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Vivian Salazar, Juanita Herrera, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Victoria's Secret
& Co., Case No. 3:23-cv-06654 was transferred the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio on April 30, 2026.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00523-SDM-KAJ to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Victoria's Secret -- https://www.victoriassecretandco.com/ -- is
the world's largest specialty retailer of modern, fashion-inspired
intimates, lingerie, casual sleepwear, athleisure.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shahin Rezvani, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1860
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 556-4811
          Fax: (310) 943-0396
          Email: Shahin.Rezvani@capstonelawyers.com

                - and -

          Chumahan B. Bowen, Esq.
          Jennifer Michelle Leinbach, Esq.
          Jesenia Anahy Martinez, Esq.
          Jesse S. Chen, Esq.
          Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
          660 S. Figueroa Street, Sky Lobby
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: (213) 381-9988
          Email: cbowen@wilshirelawfirm.com
                 jennifer.leinbach@wilshirelawfirm.com
                 jesenia.martinez@wilshirelawfirm.com
                 jesse.chen@wilshirelawfirm.com
                 thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jason B. Jendrewski, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          One Vanderbilt Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 801-9268
          Email: jason.jendrewski@gtlaw.com

                - and -

          Joseph M. Dietrich, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          18565 Jamboree Road, Ste. 500
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Phone: (949) 732-6500
          Email: joe.dietrich@gtlaw.com

                - and -

          Michael Brett Burns, Esq.
          HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
          50 California Street, Suite 1700
          San Francsico, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 975-3725
          Email: mbrettburns@HuntonAK.com

                - and -

          Ryan Christopher Bykerk, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          1840 Century Park East Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 586-7700
          Fax: (310) 586-7800
          Email: bykerkr@gtlaw.com

WARNER BROS: Court Stays Consolidated Complaint
-----------------------------------------------
Warner Bros. Discovery, 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 6, 2026,
that a securities class action complaint was filed on November 25,
2024, in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York captioned "Collura v. Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc.,"
No. 1:24-cv-09027-KPF, against Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. (WBD),
Gunnar Wiedenfels, and David M. Zaslav, asserting claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the Exchange Act), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On February 21, 2025, the court appointed co-lead plaintiffs,
Anthony Yuson and Michael Steinberg, and co-lead counsel, Pomerantz
LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., to represent the putative class.
On May 7, 2025, the lead plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint
against WBD, Gunnar Wiedenfels, and David M. Zaslav.

The First Amended Complaint generally alleges that, between
February 23, 2024 and August 7, 2024, defendants made false and
misleading statements in SEC filings and other public disclosures
relating to WBD's negotiations with the National Basketball
Association (NBA) concerning its contractual rights to broadcast
the NBA's content and the potential impact of a failure to renew
the contract on its business, in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and seeks damages and
other relief. The defendants moved to dismiss on July 11, 2025,
which the court granted without leave to amend on March 30, 2026.

In addition, between December 20, 2024 and January 14, 2025, four
stockholder derivative complaints were filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned "Roy
v. Zaslav et al." (No. 1:24-cv-09856-AT), "Hollin v. Zaslav et al."
(No. 1:24-cv-09885-AT), "KO v. Zaslav et al." (No.
1:25-cv-00114-AT" and "Herman, III v. Chen et al." (No.
1:25-cv-00352-AT). Each complaint names certain current and former
directors and officers of WBD as defendants and WBD as nominal
defendant, and each complaint seeks damages and other relief.

The complaints generally assert claims against the defendants,
derivatively on behalf of WBD, for alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty based on the same facts alleged in the Collura securities case
described above. The complaints assert various common law causes of
action, including breach of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting
breach of fiduciary duties, abuse of control, unjust enrichment,
gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets, as well claims
for violations of Sections 14(a), 10(b), and 21D of the Exchange
Act.

On January 21, 2025, the court consolidated the four actions for
all purposes under Case No. 1:24-cv-09856-AT, captioned as "In re
Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. Derivative Litigation."

On February 19, 2025, the court stayed said action pending
resolution of a final decision on all motions to dismiss the
operative complaint in the Collura securities action.

Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. is a global media and entertainment
company that produces and distributes film, television, streaming,
and digital content across a portfolio of brands and platforms. The
company operates worldwide through segments that include studios,
networks, and direct-to-consumer streaming services.

WEATHERBEETA USA: Blind Users Can't Access Website, See Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AARON SEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WEATHERBEETA USA INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:26-cv-00802-RLY-MJD (S.D. Ind., April 23, 2026) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.weatherbeeta.com, contains access barriers which hinder
the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their
online goods, content, and services offered to the public through
the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but
not limited to: inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts,
changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate alt-text on
graphics, inaccessible dropdown menus, the denial of keyboard
access for some interactive elements, and the requirement that
transactions be performed solely with a mouse.

The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired individuals.

Weatherbeeta USA Inc. is a company that sells online goods and
services in Indiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
       Jason B. Marshall, Esq.
       EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
       68-29 Main Street,
       Flushing, NY 11367
       Telephone: (463) 777-4196
       Email: jmarshall@ealg.law

WOODFORDS FAMILY: Faces Beaudreau Suit Over Private Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
LISA BEAUDREAU, as next of friend of C.B., a minor, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
WOODFORDS FAMILY SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00235-KFW
(D. Me., April 29, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to
protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly
sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health
information.

Although the Defendant detected the data breach on April 8, 2024,
it delayed noticing affected individuals for two years until around
March 27, 2026, when Defendant began mailing notices of the data
breach to affected individuals and posted a notice on its website.
The Defendant's delay in alerting impacted individuals of the data
breach caused Plaintiff and Class Members from taking earlier
actions to protect themselves against fraud and misuse of their
information.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring four causes of action:
negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and
unjust enrichment.

Headquartered in Westbrook, ME, Woodfords Family Services provides
medical services to individuals with special needs and their
families. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Max Federman, Esq.
          BRIAN TED JONES, PC
          719 N. Shartel Ave.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 843-9909
          E-mail: max.federman@briantedjones.com

                  - and -

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
                  jaw@federmanlaw.com

WORTHINGTON STEEL: Latimore Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cedric Latimore, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. THE WORTHINGTON STEEL COMPANY, Case No. 2:26-cv-00538-EAS-CMV
(S.D. Ohio, May 4, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its
failure to pay its employees overtime wages, seeking all available
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA").

The Plaintiff was denied wages for hours worked, including overtime
wages for overtime hours during workweeks in which they worked more
than 40 hours. In addition, at all relevant times, Defendant failed
to pay the Plaintiff and the Potential FLSA Collective Members at
the required premium overtime rate for all hours worked more than
40 hours in a workweek. The Defendant knew of and acted willfully
regarding its conduct. Defendant knew the Plaintiff and the
Potential FLSA Collective Members worked overtime without
compensation for all overtime hours worked, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Press Operator at
its Monroe, Ohio, facility from September 2023 to February 2026.

The Defendant is a manufacturer and distributor of steel and other
metal 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
          Phone: 614-949-1181
          Fax: 614-386-9964
          Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
                 sdraher@mcoffmanlegal.com
                 agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
                 takers@mcoffmanlegal.com

YUVIKA INC: Faces Nepomnishy Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANDREY NEPOMNISHY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. YUVIKA INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-05027 (D.N.J.,
May 5, 2026) seeks to stop Yuvika's alleged illegal practice of
placing unsolicited text messages to the telephones of consumers
whose phone numbers were registered on the National Do Not Call
Registry, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by its
conduct, pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendant is a Delaware-based jewelry retailer that markets and
sells diamond and gold jewelry through traveling pop-up exhibitions
held in hotels and other venues across the United States, and
through its online storefront at yuvikajewelry.com.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Gross, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN GROSS
          2833 Smith Ave, Suite 331
          Baltimore, MD 21209
          Telephone: (443) 813-0141

ZUMIEZ INC: Gonzales Suit Removed to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Matthew Gonzales, on behalf of himself and
all others similarity situated v. ZUMIEZ INC., a Washington
corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 26CECG01289 was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno, to
the United States District Court for Eastern District of California
on May 4, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-at-02022.

In Plaintiff's Complaint, he purports to assert claims against
Defendant on behalf of himself and a statewide class of other
Zumiez customers who are allegedly similarly situated to Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff served the Complaint upon Defendant pursuant to
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 416.40.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          David Perez, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          925 Fourth Avenue, Floor 38
          Seattle, WA 98014
          Phone: 206.327.6500
          Facsimile: 206.260.8813
          Email: DavidPerez@mofo.com

               - and -

          Camila A. Tapernoux, Esq.
          Tara Reiter Coughlin, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Phone: 415.268.7000
          Facsimile: 415.268.7522
          Email: CTapernoux@mofo.com
                 TCoughlin@mofo.com

ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Haber Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zwicker & Associates,
P.C., et al. The case is styled as Yehuda Haber, Yvette Haber,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Zwicker & Associates, P.C., Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn LLP,
Case No. 1:26-cv-02637-DG-TAM (E.D.N.Y., May 4, 2026).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Zwicker & Associates -- https://www.zwickerpc.com/ -- is a debt
collection law firm that represents major creditors in lawsuits
against consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joshua Cohen, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS PLLC
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          Email: jcohen@steinsakslegal.com

[] Ana Tagvoryan Joins Manatt Phelps as Litigation Partner
----------------------------------------------------------
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, a multidisciplinary, integrated
professional services firm, announced that Ana Tagvoryan has joined
the Firm in Los Angeles as a litigation partner in its Consumer
Protection and Advertising practice. Ana's arrival enhances
Manatt's class action litigation bench and strengthens its ability
to defend businesses in complex, high-stakes matters, including
privacy disputes, state and federal government enforcement and
advertising-related litigation in California and across the
country.

"As consumer, privacy and advertising litigation continues to
evolve and accelerate, clients are demanding premium counsel who
can anticipate risk, move decisively and deliver results," said
Manatt CEO and Managing Partner Donna Wilson. "Ana brings extensive
litigation experience, strong command of the evolving consumer and
privacy landscape, and a practical approach to risk mitigation that
aligns squarely with Manatt's focus on being true strategic
partners to our clients. She also shares many synergies with recent
arrival and global AI and consumer protection pioneer Julie Brill,
both of whom are reflections of our strategically expanding team
across the adtech space."

Focusing on cutting-edge issues involving consumer fraud,
advertising and labeling, data privacy, cybersecurity, algorithmic
pricing claims, e-commerce and mobile marketing, Tagvoryan supports
clients spanning industries such as technology, health, retail,
media, hospitality and food and beverage.

"Ana is exactly the kind of strategic, seasoned partner
consumer-facing companies across all industries need as privacy and
advertising challenges accelerate," said Partner and Manatt
Consumer Protection and Advertising Leader Christine Reilly. "She's
a formidable, proven litigator with an outstanding reputation. I
have had the pleasure of working with Ana -- both alongside her and
across the table -- and I couldn't be more excited to welcome her
to our top-ranked national consumer advertising, regulatory and
class action defense team."

Tagvoryan regularly secures class certification denials, dismissals
on the pleadings and summary judgments, and her successful work for
clients has resulted in precedent-setting decisions from Courts of
Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court. Before joining Manatt, she led
the Class Action Defense and Privacy Litigation practices at a
national law firm.

"Manatt's integrated legal and consulting platform is uniquely
positioned for today's consumer-facing businesses, which are
navigating increasing litigation exposure alongside rapidly
evolving regulatory requirements," said Tagvoryan. "The Firm's deep
bench of experienced lawyers, collaborative culture and
comprehensive approach enable me to deliver both strong litigation
outcomes and practical, forward-looking counsel, and I'm excited to
build on that with my new colleagues."

Tagvoryan is the latest addition to Manatt's expanding bench of
professionals across key industries, including National Advisor
Julie Brill, former Chief Privacy Officer at Microsoft and a
Commissioner of the FTC, Partner Zach Howe, former Chief of Staff
and Assistant U.S. Attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
Southern District of California focusing on appellate litigation,
and Senior Advisor Will Gordon, former Chief Informatics Officer at
the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) with deep
experience at the intersection of clinical care, health policy and
enterprise technology. She also joins the Firm's ever-growing Los
Angeles office, which recently welcomed Partner Ellie Heisler,
Partner Jessica Boardman and Partner Mike Lawhead to Manatt's
prominent Entertainment group.

Tagvoryan is active with the Retail Litigation Center and Atlantic
Legal Foundation, among other organizations. She has been
recognized as a "Legal Visionary" by LA Times Studio, "Top 500
Leading Litigators in America" by Lawdragon, and "Leader of
Influence: Thriving in their 40's" by Los Angeles Business Journal.
She received her J.D. from Pepperdine University Law School and
B.A. from Loyola Marymount University.
  
About Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, is a leading professional services
firm, providing integrated legal and consulting services to a
global client base. With offices strategically located in
California (Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego, San Francisco,
Sacramento and Silicon Valley), New York (New York City and
Albany), Chicago, Washington, D.C. and Boston, the Firm represents
sophisticated clients -- including Fortune 500, middle-market and
emerging companies -- across a range of industry sectors such as
health care; financial services; entertainment; digital and
technology; and energy, environmental and real estate. For more
information, visit www.manatt.com.

CONTACT:

   Samuel Eisele 212.704.1998
   Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP [GN]



                            *********

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 ***