260519.mbx

260519.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, May 19, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 99 Headlines ACADEMIA INC: Bid to Compel Arbitration Tossed ADT INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Smith Suit Alleges AEROTECH INC: Parties Seek Briefing Sched on Bid Decertify Class AGENUS INC: Consolidated Derivative Suit Stayed AGENUS INC: Securities Class Suit Dismissed, Appeal Filed AMERIMED MEDICAL: Sued Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Noel Alleges APPLOVIN CORP: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending ARDENT HEALTH: Faced Thompson Derivative Action ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Class, Derivative Actions Filed ATLANTICARE MANAGEMENT: MacArthur Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective AVERY AUSTIN: Standing Order Entered in Hegab Class Action BAE SYSTEMS: Court Stays Rocha Suit Pending Mediation BANCORP INC: Bid to Dismiss Amended Securities Suit Pending BAYER CORP: Loses Bid for Partial Summary Judgment BBC GLOBAL: Sued Over Unlawful Disclosure of Viewing History CARNIVAL CORP: Fails to Prevent Data Brach, Collins Suit Says CENTRUS ENERGY: Discovery in Radiation Class Action Ongoing COMPASS DIVERSIFIED: Derivative Suits Stayed CORAL WAY: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People, Pardo Says COREBRIDGE FINANCIAL: Faces Multiple Suits over Policy Lapses CORESITE LLC: Bruno Suit Removed to C.D. California CRAFTS GROUP: Cole Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind CREATORS INC: Taylor Sues Over Unlawful Management Agreement CRITEO SA: Data Privacy Suit Mediation Ongoing in California Court DANE COUNTY, WI: Sued Over Excessive Force to Rescue Demonstrators DAVID SHOKRIAN: Pretrial Management Order Entered in Otiniano Suit EDWARD D. JONES: Seeks More Time to File Redacted Materials EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES: Consolidated Derivative Action Stayed EKKOVISION LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Henderson Says ELIGO ENERGY: Court Stays Brous Proceedings to Facilitate Mediation ENOVIX CORP: Bid to Seal Class Cert Information OK'd in Part EPIC SYSTEMS: Fox Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access EQUIFAX INFO: Seeks to File Confidential Info Under Seal EXPRESS AUTO: Hanyon Amended Complaint Dismissed EYEMART EXPRESS: Dantonio Sues Over Unprotected Patients' Info FAIR INDIGO: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Walker Says FASTLY INC: Faces Derivative Actions over Stock Offer FITNESS EQUIPMENT: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind FLUENCE ENERGY: Securities, Derivative Suits Consolidated FLYWIRE CORP: Faces Hickman Fraud Suit in New York Court FOLEY CARRIER: Bid to File Amended Class Complaint Due July 31 FRITANGA CANA: Pardo Sues Over Inaccessible Commercial Property FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Settlement Reached in Reidt Suit GARDEN TOWER: Nonato Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind GERON CORP: Faces Various Class Suits over RYTELO GPB HOLDINGS: Seeks Prelim OK of Settlement Deal GULFPORT ENERGY: Faces Securities Suit in Ohio HAYWARD HOLDINGS: Southfield Seeks Final Nod of Settlement HERBALIFE LTD: Faces DeSimone Securities Suit in California HEWITT'S GARDEN: Filing for Conditional Class Cert Bid Due May 29 HOMELAND INSURANCE: Discovery in Wilson Due Due Nov. 13 IBOTTA INC: Hearing Set on Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Action ICON FITNESS LLC: Kay Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas IDEAL CONCEPTS INC: Ledenko Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ILLUMIFIN CORP: Hackl Sues Over Unprotected Personal, Health Info INCA BRANDS: Barlow Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind INDEPENDENT BANK: Faces Securities Suits over Bank Overdraft INFIRST HEALTHCARE: General Pretrial Management in Senior Granted INTERNAL REVENUE: Dillon Seeks to Certify Class Action JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Bokis Sues Over Denied Employment Benefits KADIANT LLC: Shellhorn Suit Removed to E.D. California KEHE DISTRIBUTORS: Soto Suit Removed to C.D. California LACKAWANNA RECYCLING: Court Certifies Huzzard Class Action LIFECORE BIOMEDICAL: Proposed Settlement Gets Prelim Nod LINEAGE INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit M.B.R.P. REST: Faces Vera Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. MAGNITE INC: Bid to Move Class Cert Hearing Date in Lewis Tossed MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Castillo Suit Removed to E.D. Washington MOORESVILLE HOTEL: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People MUELLER WATER: Settlement in Data Breach Suit for Court OK MV TRANSPORTATION: Jackson Suit Removed to C.D. California NATIONAL DIVERSIFIED: Nunez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NATIONAL ENDOWMENT: ACLS Wins Summary Judgment Bid NATIONAL ENDOWMENT: Authors Guild Wins Summary Judgment Bid NEW WEST KNIFEWORKS: Battle Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website OCMBC INC: Class Cert Bid Sealing Applications Partly OK'd OCTAVE SPECIALTY: Faces Jereczek, Elliott Securities Suit OFFICE DEPOT: McGonigle Bid for Class Certification Tossed OTTER TAIL: Faces PVC Pipe Antitrust, Derivative Suits P. C. RICHARD: Waite Seeks to Recover Straight Time, OT Wages POWER SOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend Dishion Securities Class Suit RAYMOND JAMES: Court Narrows Claims in Consolidated Suit REMEDY MEDS: Sanchez Sues Over Data Privacy Violations RICOH USA: Mike The Printer Seeks More Time to File Reply RXSIGHT INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit over SEC Disclosure SABLE OFFSHORE: Faces Class and Derivative Suits over IPO SALESFORCE INC: Yockey Seeks to File Docs Under Seal SAMUEL OLSON: Must Release Lopez by May 22 SERGIO ALBARRAN: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Tossed SES AI CORP: Patel Sues Over Improper Business Practices SINCLAIR INC: Trial Date for Antitrust MDL Set for Nov. 1, 2027 SKEIE'S JEWELERS: Royal Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind SOLID POWER: Faces Hamilton Suit in Delaware STATE FARM: Removes Barker Class Suit to S.D. W.Va. STYL RESIDENTIAL: Gordon Balks at Retention of Security Deposits SUNCAST CORP: Thorne Suit Seeks Website Access for the Blind SYMBOTIC INC: Faces Securities, Derivative Suits over Disclosures TEAMI BLENDS: Deinnocentes Seeks Equal Web Access for the Blind TIDAL WAVE: Vallely Sues Over Improper Business Practices TITAN GAS: Edwards Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls ULTIMATE NUTRITION: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hampton Says ULTRAGENYX PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Bailey Securities Suit UNITED PARCEL: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Jan. 6, 2027 UNITED STATES: Molina Bid to Enforce Preliminary Injunction OK'd UNITED THERAPEUTICS: Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of Class Suit VIAQUEST INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Algarawi Alleges VISION OF HOPE: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid Response WALMART INC: Ramos Can File Third Amended Complaint WASHINGTON: E2SHB 2034 Violates U.S. Constitution, Dawson Says WAUKESHA HOSPITALITY: Morris Class Certification Bid Terminated ZACATACOS INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carrillo Alleges ZILLOW GROUP: Faces Securities Suits over SEC Disclosures ********* ACADEMIA INC: Bid to Compel Arbitration Tossed ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAJBIR SINGH JUDGE, v. ACADEMIA, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-05857-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín entered an order denying motion to compel arbitration or to dismiss and strike; and granting in part and denying in part motion for protective order. The Court sets an initial case management conference for June 11, 2026. The parties shall file an initial case management statement no later than noon on June 4, 2026. To summarize, Judge's motion for a protective order is GRANTED IN PART insofar as Academia cannot rely on the Terms of Use changes to retrospectively limit putative class members' claims in this case. It is otherwise denied. The Plaintiff brings this case against the Defendant for allegedly misappropriating his name in advertisements for Academia's Mentions service. Rajbir Singh Judge is a "scholar of South Asia, Postcolonial Theory, and Modern World History.' The Defendant develops education software. A copy of the Court's order dated May 7, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BybYfR at no extra charge.[CC] ADT INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Smith Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADT INC., Defendant, Case No. 9:26-cv-80493-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 28, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personal identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, by obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Plaintiff's and Class members' PII, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. The Defendant admits that the unencrypted PII that was accessed and acquired by an unauthorized actor included name, social security number and financial account information, and other information such as phone number, address, and email address. The Plaintiff's and Class members' exposed PII can be sold on the dark web. Hackers can access and then offer for sale the un-encrypted, unredacted PII to criminals, says the suit. ADT Inc. provides commercial security systems and services. The Company offers home and business automation solutions which includes temperature, burglary, flood, fire and smoke, and medical alert monitoring, as well as security cameras, remote access, and wireless home security systems. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL, 33131 Telephone: (786) 206-9057 Email: mweekes@milberg.com - and - Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Facsimile: (267) 685-0676 Email: medelson@edelson-law.com lverderame@edelson-law.com AEROTECH INC: Parties Seek Briefing Sched on Bid Decertify Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHANIE SCHULTZ, et al., v. AEROTECH, INC., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00618-WSH (W.D. Pa.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order setting briefing schedule on the Defendants' motion to decertify the class. In light of the substantive nature of the Defendants' motion to decertify the Class, the Parties have agreed to extend (1) the deadline for the Plaintiffs' responsive pleading by 14 days, and (2) the deadline for the Defendants' reply by 7 days. Accordingly, the Parties have agreed that the remaining briefing schedule will be modified as follows: The Plaintiffs' responsive pleading: May 26, 2026 The Defendants' reply brief: June 9, 2026 On May 4, 2026, the Defendants filed a motion to decertify the class. Aerotech is an automation company that provides 3D metrology, positioning, and custom-engineered motion solutions. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bLaiou at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jennifer K. Lee, Esq. Carl F. Engstrom, Esq. ENGSTROM LEE LLC 323 N. Washington Ave., Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 305-8349 E-mail: jlee@engstromlee.com cengstrom@engstromlee.com - and - Nicholas D. Thompson, Esq. CASEY JONES LAW FIRM 323 N. Washington Ave., Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 305-8349 E-mail: nthompson@caseyjones.law The Defendants are represented by: Lars C. Golumbic, Esq. Andrew Salek-Raham, Esq. Larry M. Blocho, Jr., Esq. Kathryn E. Panish, Esq. GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED 1701 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 861-5408 E-mail: asalek-raham@groom.com lgolumbic@groom.com lblocho@groom.com kpanish@groom.com AGENUS INC: Consolidated Derivative Suit Stayed ----------------------------------------------- Agenus 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 11, 2026, that the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts stayed the consolidated derivative suit pending future developments in the securities class action. The Company has been served with four derivative actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts between November 2024 and January 2025 by purported stockholders. These actions name certain of the Company's executives and directors and allege that defendants made false or misleading statements and omissions of material fact related to the efficacy and commercial prospects of botensilimab and balstilimab. Plaintiffs seek an award of damages and an order directing the Company to reform and improve its corporate governance and internal procedures. On May 2, 2025, the Court consolidated the four actions in Case No. 1:24-cv-12823 and stayed all deadlines pending future developments in the securities class action. The Company is unable to estimate a range of loss, if any, that could result from an adverse outcome in these consolidated actions. Agenus Inc. is a biotechnology company focused on the discovery and development of immuno-oncology therapies, including checkpoint antibodies and cancer vaccines. The company aims to develop treatments that harness the body's immune system to fight cancer and other diseases. AGENUS INC: Securities Class Suit Dismissed, Appeal Filed --------------------------------------------------------- Agenus 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 11, 2026, that on March 24, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted the Company's motion to dismiss in its entirety the putative securities class action captioned In re Agenus Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 1:24-cv-12299, ruling in favor of the Company and the individual defendants and denying the court-appointed lead plaintiff's request for leave to amend. The action was originally filed in September 2024 against the Company and certain of its executives and directors. The amended complaint, filed February 7, 2025 by the lead plaintiff, alleged that Agenus, three of its current officers, and one member of its advisory board violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact related to the efficacy and commercial prospects of botensilimab and balstilimab. The lead plaintiff sought to represent all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Agenus securities between January 23, 2023 and July 17, 2024, and sought damages, interest, and an award of costs including attorneys' fees. On May 4, 2026, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission informed the Company that it has concluded its investigation as to the Company and does not intend to recommend an enforcement action against the Company. On March 24, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted the Company's motion to dismiss the related putative securities class action in its entirety, and the lead plaintiff has filed a Notice of Appeal. Agenus Inc. is a biotechnology company focused on the discovery and development of immuno-oncology therapies, including checkpoint antibodies and cancer vaccines. The company aims to develop treatments that harness the body's immune system to fight cancer and other diseases. AMERIMED MEDICAL: Sued Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice ------------------------------------------------------------ ALEXANDER BAUM; CHRISTOPHER LADD; KIMBERLY OLDHAM; and KRISTINE SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMERIMED MEDICAL SOLUTIONS, LLC; and AMERIMED EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00128-RWS (N.D. Ga., April 24, 2026) alleges violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, seeking to recover from the Defendant up to 60 days wages and benefits, pursuant to the Warn Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to provide 60 days' notice prior to terminating 500 or more employees without cause in a mass layoff, or before terminating 50 or more employees in a plant closing. The Plaintiff and the Class that were terminated constituted mass layoffs and a plant closing without the 60 days' notice in direct violation of the Warn Act, says the suit. Amerimed Medical Solutions, LLC provides ground ambulance transport and emergency medical response. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lydia J. Chastain, Esq. LEE MEIER BURKE 695 Pylant Street N.E., #105 Atlanta, GA 30306 Telephone: (404) 905-8699 Email: lchastain@leemeierburke.com - and - Adam Lubow, Esq. NILGES LEGAL GROUP LLC 700 W St. Clair Ave., Suite 320 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Email: alubow@ohlaborlaw.com - and - William "Jack" Simpson, Esq. SIMPSON, PLLC 100 Parkgate Dr., Ext., Suite 205 Tupelo, MS 38801 Telephone: (662) 913-7811 Email: jack@simpson-pllc.com AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Noel Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOE NOEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-02389 (D. Minn., April 27, 2026) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of the Plaintiff and the Class. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity, failed to adequately monitor its agents, contractors, vendors, and suppliers in handling and securing the PII of Plaintiff, and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII—rendering it an easy target for cybercriminals. In failing to adequately protect its customers' information, adequately notify them about the breach, and obfuscating the nature of the breach, Defendant violated state law and harmed an unknown number of its current and former customers, says the suit. Ameriprise Financial, Inc. operates as a financial planning and services firm. The Company provides financial planning and products and services that are designed to be utilized as solutions for its clients' cash and liquidity, asset accumulation, income, protection, and estate and wealth transfer needs. [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 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com APPLOVIN CORP: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------- AppLovin Corp disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2026, that it is facing various class action and derivative action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Derivative action has also been filed but has been stayed pending rulings on the class actions. In early March 2025, certain alleged stockholders filed putative class action complaints against the company, Adam Foroughi, Matthew Stumpf, and/or Herald Chen asserting claims for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeking unspecified monetary relief, interest, and attorney's fees. On March 5, 2025, Michael Quiero filed the first complaint against the company, Adam Foroughi, and Matthew Stumpf in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On March 24, 2025, Ben Brownback filed the second complaint in the same court against the company, Adam Foroughi, Matthew Stumpf, and Herald Chen in the Northern District of California. On April 17, 2025, the Wayne County Employees Retirement System filed the third complaint against the company, Adam Foroughi, Matthew Stumpf, and Herald Chen in the Northern District of California. In May 2025, Michael Quiero and the Wayne County Employees Retirement System voluntarily dismissed the complaints they filed in the Northern District of California. That the U.S. District Court subsequently appointed lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs' counsel in the Brownback Action, and the lead plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on September 12, 2025, adding Basil Shikin as a defendant. The Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's advertising solutions and financial growth, and alleges a putative class period running from November 7, 2024 through March 27, 2025. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in November 2025, and that motion was fully briefed as of February 2026. In addition, beginning in late March 2025, certain alleged shareholders filed shareholder derivative complaints in the Northern District of California against the individual then current members of the Company's board of directors, Adam Foroughi, and Matthew Stumpf alleging claims for violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, breaches of their fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets. The Shareholder Derivative Complaints also assert claims for contribution under the Exchange Act against Adam Foroughi and Matthew Stumpf and seek unspecified monetary relief, certain declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution, and attorneys' fees from the D&O Parties. Relying on the Securities Complaints, the Shareholder Derivative Complaints allege that the D&O Parties made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's advertising solutions and financial growth. On March 25, 2025, Amit Patel filed the first complaint against the individual then current members of the company's board of directors, Adam Foroughi, and Matthew Stumpf in the Northern District of California; and on May 19, 2025, Nathan Smith filed the second complaint against the individual then current members of the Company's board of directors, Adam Foroughi, and Matthew Stumpf in the Northern District of California. The Shareholder Derivative Complaints have been consolidated and stayed pending resolution of the defendants' motion to dismiss in the Brownback Action. AppLovin Corp is a technology company that provides software and tools to help mobile app developers grow their businesses through marketing, monetization, and analytics solutions. The company operates a global platform that connects app developers with advertisers to optimize user acquisition and revenue generation. ARDENT HEALTH: Faced Thompson Derivative Action ----------------------------------------------- Ardent Health 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 on January 7, 2026, a purported stockholder filed a putative securities class action against the Company and certain current officers and directors. In addition, on February 26, 2026, a stockholder derivative action styled "Thompson v. Sotir, et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-00219, was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, against certain current officers and directors, with the company named as a nominal defendant only. Mark R. Sotir is the Chairman at Ardent Health Services LLC since 2017. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, and violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seeks unspecified monetary damages, restitution, the adoption of certain governance reforms, recovery of fees and costs, and other relief that the court may find appropriate. Ardent Health is a health care services company that owns and operates acute care hospitals, outpatient facilities and related health care businesses across multiple U.S. markets. The company provides a range of inpatient, outpatient and specialty services through its network of hospitals and affiliated providers. ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Class, Derivative Actions Filed --------------------------------------------------- Array Technologies, 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 it is currently facing class action and derivative actions in New York and Delaware courts over its SEC disclosures. on May 14, 2021, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain officers and directors alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. On June 30, 2021, a substantially similar second putative class action was filed in the Southern District of New York against the company and certain officers and directors alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, which was consolidated with the Plymouth Action. That a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed on December 7, 2021. In addition, two verified shareholder derivative complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on July 16 and July 30, 2021, against certain officers and directors of the Company. These complaints alleged, among other things, violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act for misleading proxy statements, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, corporate waste, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act. On August 24, 2021, these actions were consolidated and co-lead counsel was appointed. On April 28, 2026, the District Court entered a stipulation and order voluntarily dismissing the consolidated New York derivative action in light of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmance of the dismissal of the Plymouth Action with prejudice. Separately, on August 3, 2022, a verified derivative complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against certain officers and directors of the company, asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment and seeking compensatory damages in favor of the company, restitution and disgorgement of profits and other compensation, corporate governance reforms, equitable or injunctive relief, and costs and attorneys' fees. Array Technologies, Inc. is a U.S.-based provider of utility-scale solar tracking solutions and related services for solar energy projects. The company designs and manufactures engineered products that maximize energy output for large-scale photovoltaic systems. ATLANTICARE MANAGEMENT: MacArthur Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LYNN MACARTHUR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ATLANTICARE MANAGEMENT, LLC, d/b/a PUTNAM RIDGE NURSING HOME Case No. 7:25-cv-04125-KMK-AEK (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- Conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective composed of: "All current and former hourly, nonexempt employees who worked for the Defendant Atlanticare Management, LLC d/b/a Putnam Ridge Nursing Home and who worked over 40 hours in at least one workweek between three years from the date of the Court's Order granting conditional certification and the present"; and -- Authorizing the Plaintiff to issue notice of this action to all persons who fall within the proposed FLSA Collective. The Plaintiff requests expedited treatment of this motion, as prompt judicial notice will provide the current and former non-exempt, hourly employees with the opportunity to participate in this action while they still have claims before the statute of limitations runs. The Defendant is a for-profit skilled nursing and rehabilitation facility. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ddXvLB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq. Michael J. Anderson, Esq. Mariyam Hussain, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-4635 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: crodriguez@bergermontague.com manderson@bergermontague.com mhussain@bergermontague.com AVERY AUSTIN: Standing Order Entered in Hegab Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOHAMAD NABIL HEGAB, v. AVERY AUSTIN, Case No. 2:26-cv-04494-PA-AYP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered a standing order as follows: The Plaintiff shall promptly serve the Complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant to Local Rule 5-3.1 within 10 days of service of the summons and complaint All discovery matters have been referred to a United States Magistrate Judge, who will hear all discovery disputes. Motions shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule 7. The Court hears motions on Mondays, commencing at 1:30 p.m. Each party filing or opposing a motion or seeking the determination of any matter shall serve and lodge a Proposed Order setting forth the relief or action sought and a brief statement of the rationale for the decision with appropriate citations. A copy of the Court's order dated May 7, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4WsaqT at no extra charge.[CC] BAE SYSTEMS: Court Stays Rocha Suit Pending Mediation ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUIS QUIRINO ROCHA, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BAE SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware corporation; TRADE TEAM USA, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:25-cv-03774-BTM-VET (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to stay the proceedings and vacate the motion for class certification deadline. The action shall be stayed pending the outcome of the Parties' mediation on Aug. 3, 2026. The Oct. 26, 2026, deadline to file a motion for class certification is vacated. The Court shall set a post-mediation Status Conference to occur 30 days following the Parties' Aug. 3, 2026, mediation, on a date and time convenient for the Court, to address the status of the Action. The Plaintiff filed his Complaint on Nov. 19, 2025, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, asserting wage and hour claims on an individual and class-wide basis. The Action was removed to this Court on Dec. 24, 2025. On Feb. 11, 2026, the Court issued a scheduling order in which it set the deadline to file a motion for class certification for October 26, 2026, and other discovery related deadlines. BAE is a British multinational aerospace, arms and information security company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kksJXf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah H. Cohen, Esq. Rafael Yedoyan, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 Facsimile: (310) 300-1705 E-mail: sarah@tomorrowlaw.com rafael@tomorrowlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Mary C. Dollarhide, Esq. Taylor Wemmer, Esq. Joseph J. Kim, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 4365 Executive Drive, Suite 1100 San Diego, CA 92121-2133 Telephone: (858) 677-1400 Facsimile: (858) 677-1401 E-mail: mary.dollarhide@us.dlapiper.com taylor.wemmer@us.dlapiper.com joseph.kim@us.dlapiper.com BANCORP INC: Bid to Dismiss Amended Securities Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Bancorp, 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 putative securities class action complaint was filed on March 14, 2025 by Nathan Linden in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against the Company and certain of its current and former officers, captioned "Nathan Linden v. The Bancorp, Inc., et al." The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and purports to assert a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired company securities between January 25, 2024 and March 4, 2025. It alleges, among other things, that the defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and omissions about the its business, prospects, and operations, with a focus on the its commercial real estate bridge loan (REBL) portfolio and related provision for credit losses. On September 29, 2025, the court appointed Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) as lead plaintiff and the case is now captioned "Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. The Bancorp, Inc., et al." On December 22, 2025, SEPTA filed its amended class action complaint, which alleges that between January 26, 2024 and March 25, 2025, the defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and omissions about certain loans in the company's REBL portfolio and related provision for credit losses. The named plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, fees, interest, and costs. On February 20, 2026, the company filed its motion to dismiss the amended complaint and further briefing on that motion remains outstanding. Bancorp, Inc. is a financial holding company that provides banking and related financial services through its subsidiary bank, focusing on specialized lending, fintech partnerships, and payment services across the United States. BAYER CORP: Loses Bid for Partial Summary Judgment -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TANYSHA NEWMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BAYER CORPORATION, and BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC, Case No. 7:22-cv-07087-VB-AEK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Briccetti entered an order denying the motion for partial summary judgment or, in the alternative, class decertification. The Court will conduct a case management conference on June 10, 2026 at 2:30 p.m., to be held at the White Plains courthouse, Courtroom 620. At that conference, counsel shall be prepared to discuss next steps in this case, including, what good faith efforts they have made and will continue to settle this case, as well as a schedule for submitting a proposed notice plan. By June 3, 2026, counsel shall submit a joint letter regarding the foregoing, and any other matters they wish to discuss at the June 10 case management conference. The Plaintiff brings this putative class action against Bayer, alleging the labeling on the Defendants' "gummy" or "chewable" line of One A Day supplements is deceptive and misleading. The Plaintiff sought to certify a class on her section 349 claim for: "All persons who, within the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased in the State of New York any of the Defendants' One A Day Vita[C]raves Products for personal, family, or household purposes." Bayer is a German chemical and pharmaceutical company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x2HUXO at no extra charge.[CC] BBC GLOBAL: Sued Over Unlawful Disclosure of Viewing History ------------------------------------------------------------ Kevin Stevens, Daniel Loranca, Sarah Buchanan, Timothy Blair, and Joseph Destefano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BBC GLOBAL NEWS US, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-03635 (S.D.N.Y., May 1, 2026), is brought in violation the Video Privacy Protection Act (the "VPPA"), which prohibits BBC from disclosing identifiable video viewing history information about Plaintiffs and other Class members. BBC operates a website located at www.bbc.com (the "Website"), which provides visitors with access to online articles, photos, prerecorded videos, and multimedia content covering global news, current affairs, entertainment, and other informational programming. It also publishes a newsletter that similarly provides subscribers with articles, prerecorded videos, and multimedia content (the "Newsletter"). The Newsletter contains links to, and redirects recipients to, the Website. The Website offers users the option to subscribe by providing an email address or by paying a monthly or annual fee. Subscribers gain access to additional content from the Website and Defendant, including prerecorded video materials. Unbeknownst to Website users, BBC disclosed individuals' private video viewing history with personally identifiable information in the form of email addresses and unique identifiers to third-party analytics and tracking entities through tracking technology embedded in the Website. These tracking entities--which include, at least, Piano Analytics ("Piano")--are designed to aggregate user data across websites implementing their technology into profiles that identify particular persons for advertisers and analytics purposes. BBC knew its conduct violated this statute because: it programmed the Website specifically to transmit subscribers' personally identifiable information ("PII") (including PII identifiable on its face, like email addresses) alongside video viewing history to tracking entities, including Piano Analytics, and it did so without obtaining consent from Plaintiffs or Class members in the form required by the statute, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been a subscriber to the Website since 2021 and maintains a subscription to the Website through at least the filing of this Complaint. BBC Global News US, LLC is one of the largest news and media organizations in the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carol C. Villegas, Esq. Michael P. Canty, Esq. Danielle Izzo Mazzeo, Esq. Gloria J. Medina, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway, 34th Fl. New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 Email: cvillegas@labaton.com mcanty@labaton.com dmazzeo@labaton.com gmedina@labaton.com - and - Brian Levin, Esq. LEVIN LAW, P.A. 2665 South Bayshore Drive, PH2B Miami, FL 33133 Phone: 305.539.0593 Email: brian@levinlawpa.com CARNIVAL CORP: Fails to Prevent Data Brach, Collins Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- NYNA COLLINS; and TERESA BEAVERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-61207-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 23, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure the Plaintiffs' and Class Members' personally identifiable information. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, by obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII, Carnival assumed legal and equitable duties and knew or should have known that it was responsible for protecting the Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII from disclosure. As a result of the wide variety of injuries that can be traced to the Data Breach, the Plaintiffs and Class Members have and will continue to suffer financial loss and other actual harm for which they are entitled to damages, says the suit. Carnival Corporation Ltd. operates as a cruise company. The Company offers cruise vacations, chartering, and traveling services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: D. Todd Mathews, Esq. Bart D. Cohen, Esq. Panida A. Anderson, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 Email: tmathews@baileyglasser.com bcohen@baileyglasser.com panderson@baileyglasser.com CENTRUS ENERGY: Discovery in Radiation Class Action Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- Centrus Energy Corp disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2026, that it was named, along with Enrichment Corp. and six other DOE contractors who have operated facilities at the Portsmouth GDP, as defendants in a class action complaint filed on May 26, 2019, by Ursula McGlone, Jason McGlone, Julia Dunham, and K.D. and C.D., minor children by and through their parent and natural guardian Julia Dunham, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. The complaint seeks damages for alleged off-site contamination allegedly resulting from activities on the Portsmouth GDP site and seeks to represent a class of (i) all current or former residents within a seven-mile radius of the Portsmouth GDP site and (ii) all students and their parents at the Zahn's Corner Middle School from 1993 to the present. The complaint was amended on December 10, 2019, and on January 10, 2020, to add additional plaintiffs and new claims. On July 31, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the case, dismissing ten of the fifteen claims and allowing the remaining claims to proceed to the next stage of the litigation process. On August 18, 2020, the McGlone filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint and a notice of dismissal of three of the individual plaintiffs. On March 18, 2021, the McGlone filed a motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint to add new plaintiffs and allegations, and on March 19, 2021, the court granted the motion for leave to amend the complaint to include Price-Anderson Act and eight other state law claims. On May 24, 2021, the company, Enrichment Corp., and the other defendants filed their motion to dismiss the complaint. On March 31, 2022, the court granted the company's motion in part by dismissing claims brought on behalf of the minor children but allowed the other claims to proceed, and the discovery stage of the litigation is continuing. On April 28, 2022, the company, Enrichment Corp., and the other defendants filed their answer to the fourth amended complaint. In addition, on June 8, 2022, the company, Enrichment Corp., and six other DOE contractors who operated facilities at the Portsmouth GDP were named as defendants in a complaint filed by Brad Allen Lykins, as administrator of the estate of Braden Aaron Lee Lykins, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. The complaint alleges that the defendants released radiation into the environment in violation of the Price-Anderson Act, causing Lykins' death from leukemia in March 2021, when he was thirteen years old, and seeks monetary damages. On August 30, 2022, the company, Enrichment Corp., and the other defendants filed their answer to the Lykins complaint. They believe that their operations at the Portsmouth GDP site were fully in compliance with the NRC's regulations and further believe that any such liability should be indemnified by DOE under the Price-Anderson Act, and they have provided notifications to DOE required to invoke indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act. Centrus Energy Corp is a U.S.-based supplier of enriched uranium fuel for commercial nuclear power plants and a provider of nuclear fuel and engineering services. The company develops advanced nuclear fuel technologies and supports government and commercial customers in the nuclear energy sector. COMPASS DIVERSIFIED: Derivative Suits Stayed -------------------------------------------- Compass Diversified Holdings 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 is pending and that related proceedings have resulted in certain shareholder derivative actions being stayed pending further developments in the securities class action. Separately, several shareholder derivative actions have been filed, purportedly on behalf of the company, against certain current and former officers and directors. The derivative actions generally assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty and violations of the federal securities laws based on allegations related to Lugano and the restatement. The California derivative actions have been consolidated and stayed, and the Connecticut derivative actions have been consolidated and stayed, in each case pending further developments in the securities class action. The derivative actions are in the early stages. Compass Diversified Holdings is a publicly traded holding company that acquires and manages a diversified portfolio of middle-market businesses across various industries. The company provides strategic oversight, capital and management expertise to support the long-term growth of its subsidiary businesses. CORAL WAY: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People, Pardo Says --------------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CORAL WAY SHOPPING LLC; and NUEVO MINI MARKET LLC D/B/A NUEVO MINI MARKET, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-22918-JB (S.D. Fla., April 27, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' mini market at 7295 SW 24th Street, Miami, Florida 33155, is not accessible to mobility-impaired individuals in violation of ADA. Coral Way Shopping LLC is a retail destination situated in the City of Miami, FL. Offering a diverse selection of shops and services. [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 COREBRIDGE FINANCIAL: Faces Multiple Suits over Policy Lapses ------------------------------------------------------------- Corebridge Financial, 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 it is currently facing multiple suits over its insurance policy lapses. A putative class action titled "Moriarty v. American General Life Insurance Co." (S.D. Cal.), July 18, 2017 in California state court and removed to federal court on August 23, 2017 involved Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72 of the California Insurance Code. Those statutes generally require that for life-insurance policies issued and delivered in California the policy must contain a 60-day grace period following non-payment of premium during which the policy remains in force, the insurer must provide a 30-day pre-lapse notice, and the insurer must notify policy owners of the right to designate a secondary recipient for lapse notices. The plaintiff contended that AGL did not comply with these requirements for a policy issued before these statutes went into effect and sought damages and other relief, while AGL asserted various defenses to the plaintiff's claims and to class certification. In 2022, the District Court held that a trial was necessary to determine whether AGL was liable on the plaintiff's breach of contract claim, denied class certification, and granted partial summary judgment for AGL on the plaintiff's claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. In 2023, after reassignment to a new judge, the court remanded the plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief under California's Unfair Competition Law back to state court, where it has been stayed ever since, and granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff's breach of contract claim, which AGL appealed to the Ninth Circuit. In addition, AGL is also defending "Gevorgyan v. American General Life Insurance Co." (C.D. Cal.), filed in state court on January 17, 2025, and removed to federal court on March 27, 2025. The case involves living insureds with two $250,000 policies. On March 26, 2026, the court largely denied AGL's motion for summary judgment and found a triable issue of fact on the plaintiffs' claims for negligence, unjust enrichment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and punitive damages, and a jury trial is set for June 29, 2026. "Delgado v. American General Life Insurance Co." (C.D. Cal.) was filed in federal court on March 7, 2025. "Rocklage v. American General Life Insurance Co." (N.D. Cal.) was filed in state court on April 21, 2025, and removed to federal court on May 30, 2025. "Eisenberg v. American General Life Insurance Co." (C.D. Cal.) was filed in state court on Sept. 2, 2025, and removed to federal court on Nov. 14, 2025. "People of the State of California v. American General Life Insurance Co., et al." (Cal. Superior Court, San Diego County) was filed on Oct. 17, 2024, against AGL, Lincoln Benefit Life Co., Everlake Life Insurance Co., and Transamerica Life Insurance Co., seeking civil penalties. Corebridge Financial, Inc. is a U.S.-based financial services company that provides retirement solutions, life insurance, and institutional products. Through its subsidiaries, including American General Life Insurance Co., it offers products and services designed to help individuals and institutions manage savings, protection, and retirement needs. CORESITE LLC: Bruno Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Glen Bruno, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CORESITE, L.L.C.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV07576 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 May 1, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-04745. On March 9, 2026, Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant which sets forth the following seven causes of action: failure to pay minimum and overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to indemnify necessary business expenses; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to pay all wages due during employment and upon separation of employment; and unfair and unlawful business practices (the "Complaint").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Eric J. Gitig, 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 - and - Daniel R. Overstreet, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 885-1370 Email: Daniel.Overstreet@jacksonlewis.com CRAFTS GROUP: Cole Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------- MORGAN COLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CRAFTS GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-04107-SLD-RLH (C.D. Ill., April 23, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://jimmybeanswool.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. Crafts Group, LLC. is a retail, flowers, gifts & specialty stores, and other commercial products company. [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 Direct: (718) 554-0237 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law CREATORS INC: Taylor Sues Over Unlawful Management Agreement ------------------------------------------------------------ GIANNA TAYLOR, an individual; and other persons similarly situated to be named and joined, Plaintiff v. CREATORS INC., a Florida corporation; ELITE CREATORS LLC, a Florida limited liability company; and ANDREW BACHMAN, an individual, Defendants, Case No. CACE-26-007089 (Fla. Cir., April 29, 2026) is an action for declaratory relief, breach of contract, torts, and other relief, including damages in excess of $50,000, exclusive of interest and costs arising from the Defendants' inducement of the Plaintiff into the execution of a self-described "Management Agreement." Creators Inc. is a corporation doing business in Florida, and is managed by Elite Creators LLC. Plaintiff Taylor is a natural person and temporarily, and in the process of permanently, residing in Florida, over the age of 18 years, and is otherwise sui juris. She owns and operates an OnlyFans creator account under the handle "@gttaylor." Elite and Creators, according to the written "Management Agreement," are interchangeable. The "Management Agreement" states: "Creators Inc. and its parent company Elite Creators, LLC may act as one entity and Creators Inc. may have some of its responsibilities under this Agreement performed by Elite Creators, LLC." Accordingly, any allegation against Creators made in this complaint applies as against Elite and vice versa. Plaintiff Gianna contends that the Purported Agreement is void and unenforceable, that Creators has no continuing contractual right to collect any fees, enforce exclusivity, enforce post-termination restrictions, or maintain access to Plaintiff's platform account(s) or related business assets, and that all funds paid to Creators should be disgorged. Further, the Defendants, through Creators and those acting on its behalf, materially breached the Agreement by causing or permitting the "have you ever had sex in public?" post to be published on the Account during the contractual relationship, which led to an OnlyFans flag for "Content featuring public nudity" and a deactivation appeal process, says the suit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jerry Breslin Esq. Jonathan Noah Schwartz, Esq. SCHWARTZ | BRESLIN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW The DuPont Building 169 East Flagler Street, Suite 700 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 577-4626 Facsimile: (305) 577-4630 E-mail: jb@jsjb.law js@jsjb.law CRITEO SA: Data Privacy Suit Mediation Ongoing in California Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ Criteo S.A. 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 it is currently in mediation proceedings with regards to data privacy disputes in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On July 9, 2025, a putative class action was filed against the company, CVS and others in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging violations of various laws regarding sensitive health and personal information. On October 27, 2025, the action was dismissed with respect to the Company. On November 7, 2025, a second amended putative class action complaint was filed against the company, CVS and others in the Central District of California, again alleging violations of various laws regarding sensitive health and personal information. The plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief. On January 30, 2026, the plaintiff filed a stipulation to dismiss the case, and the parties are currently engaged in mediation. Criteo S.A. is a global technology company that provides performance marketing and commerce media solutions to help advertisers and retailers reach and convert audiences across the open internet. The Company offers a data-driven platform that delivers personalized ads and measurable results for brands, agencies and publishers worldwide. DANE COUNTY, WI: Sued Over Excessive Force to Rescue Demonstrators ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOANNA BAIRD; and LINDA GREGERSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MELISSA AGARD, in her official capacity as executive to Dane County; KALVIN D. BARRETT, in his individual and official capacities; DOES 1–25, being all law enforcement and "contractor" security sued in their individual capacities; RIDGLAN FARMS, INC.; and JAMES A. BURNS, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00374 (W.D. Wis., April 23, 2026) is a civil rights and tort class action arising from a planned campaign by Defendants of excessive force against nonviolent animal rescue demonstrators at Ridglan Farms in Dane County, Wisconsin, on April 18, 2026, including the Defendants using chemical agents, impact munitions, and manure filled trenches to contaminate rescuers. Dane County is a county in the U.S. state of Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Susan Chana Lask, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SUSAN CHANA LASK 244 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2369 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (917) 300-1958 Email: susanchanalask@gmail.com DAVID SHOKRIAN: Pretrial Management Order Entered in Otiniano Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMMA ALCALDE OTINIANO, v. DAVID SHOKRIAN and CANDICE SAMEYAH SHOKRIAN, Case No. 1:26-cv-02622-JAV-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management. All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. Parties and counsel are cautioned: Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and § 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court proceeding (including a telephonic court conference), or to extend a deadline, must be made in writing and in compliance with § 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Telephone requests for adjournments or extensions will not be entertained A copy of the Court's order dated May 7, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FSEAOP at no extra charge.[CC] EDWARD D. JONES: Seeks More Time to File Redacted Materials ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATIE DIXON and JAIME GAONA, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. EDWARD D. JONES & CO., L.P., et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-00284-SEP (E.D. Mo.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension until Aug. 28, 2026, after the conclusion of class certification and Daubert briefing, to file redacted versions of confidential materials or motion(s) for continued sealing of the pleadings, exhibits, and related materials submitted in connection with the Parties' remaining briefing deadlines. The Defendants request that the Court enter an order: (a) granting this unopposed motion; (b) permitting the parties to file redacted versions or request continued sealing of all remaining class-certification and Daubert pleadings, exhibits, and related materials on August 28, 2026; (c) allowing the parties to file a cross-reference table or exhibit key identifying where these exhibits appear across the covered briefing; and (d) granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper The requested relief would not alter the existing merits briefing schedule reflected in the CMO. Good cause supports the requested extension because the covered submissions will include a large and varied set of Confidential Materials, and a single deadline will promote accuracy and consistency in the public redacted versions filed and streamline the docket. Edward is a North American financial services firm. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 7, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=L0gVIA at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: James F. Bennett, Esq. Michael J. Kuhn, Esq. Philip A. Cantwell, Esq. Lisa Bertain, Esq. Adam J. Simon, Esq. DOWD BENNETT LLP 7676 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1900 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 889-7300 Facsimile: (314) 863-2111 E-mail: jbennett@dowdbennett.com mkuhn@dowdbennett.com pcantwell@dowdbennett.com lbertain@dowdbennett.com asimon@dowdbennett.com - and - Gregg M. Lemley, Esq. Patrick F. Hulla, Esq. Liz S. Washko, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 7700 Bonhomme Ave., Suite 650 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 802-3935 E-mail: gregg.lemley@ogletree.com patrick.hulla@ogletree.com liz.washko@ogletree.com - and - Felicia A. Davis, Esq. Carson H. Sullivan, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 515 South Flower Street, 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 683-6000 Facsimile: (213) 627-0705 E-mail: feliciadavis@paulhastings.com carsonsullivan@paulhastings.com EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES: Consolidated Derivative Action Stayed ----------------------------------------------------------- Edwards Lifesciences Corp disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2026, that on October 14, 2024, a purported stockholder of Edwards filed a putative securities class action complaint against the company and certain of its executive officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned "Patel v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, et al.," No. 24-cv-02221. The complaint alleges violations of various securities laws based on alleged false or misleading statements regarding the company's business prospects and seeks damages, interest, costs, and other fees. On September 17, 2025, the court held a hearing on the its Motion to Dismiss, and on September 19, 2025, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion. The parties have reached a proposed settlement in principle, subject to Court approval, for an amount that is not material to the financial statements, and the expense was recorded within Certain Litigation Expenses on the condensed consolidated statements of operations. Additionally, on December 31, 2024, Plaintiff Manh Ho filed a shareholder derivative action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned "Ho v. Zovighian, et al.," Case No. 8:24-cv-02822, purportedly on behalf of Edwards against certain of its officers and directors for alleged violations of federal securities laws, breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets. On January 17, 2025, Plaintiff Barbara Sheridan filed a different shareholder derivative action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned "Sheridan v. Zovighian, et al.," Case No. 8:25-cv-00097, purportedly on behalf of Edwards against certain of its officers and directors for similar alleged violations. Both the Ho Action and the Sheridan Action are based on the same facts as the Securities Class Action. On April 10, 2025, the court consolidated the Ho Action and the Sheridan Action, and on June 17, 2025, the court issued an order staying the consolidated derivative action until the Securities Class Action is resolved. Edwards Lifesciences Corp is a global medical technology company specializing in innovative products and technologies for structural heart disease and critical care and surgical monitoring. The company develops, manufactures, and markets heart valve systems and repair products, as well as hemodynamic monitoring systems used in hospitals worldwide. EKKOVISION LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Henderson Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH HENDERSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ekkovision LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04922 (N.D. Ill., April 29, 2026) is a civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://ekkovision.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Henderson and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On April 7, 2026, Plaintiff Henderson searched online for fitness apparel and performance products and discovered Defendant's website. Interested in the products offered on the website, he decided to explore the available options and intended to make a purchase. However, while navigating the website with a keyboard and screen reader, the Plaintiff encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented him from completing the purchase independently. The website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff Henderson and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading hierarchy, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, inaccessible contact information, changing of content without advance warning, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. Plaintiff Henderson seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Ekkovision LLC operates the website that offers a selection of sports nutrition products and fitness apparel, including pre-workout supplements, protein, creatine, energy and hydration products, t-shirts, tank tops, and other athletic wear.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (716) 281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law ELIGO ENERGY: Court Stays Brous Proceedings to Facilitate Mediation ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brous et al., v. Eligo Energy, LLC et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01260-ER (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ramos entered an order granting the parties request a stay of all proceedings until July 23, 2026, to facilitate mediation. Eligo operates as a retail energy supplier company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=G3TZSX at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Ryan Watstein, Esq. WATSTEIN TEREPKA LLP 75 14th Street NE, Ste. 2600 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 782-0695 E-mail: Ryan@wtlaw.com ENOVIX CORP: Bid to Seal Class Cert Information OK'd in Part ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned RE ENOVIX CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 3:23-cv-00071-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Susan Illston entered an order granting in part and denying in part administrative motions to seal the Plaintiffs' information submitted with amended class certification motion. In addition to the fact that the Plaintiffs did not propose narrowly tailored redactions, the Court also finds relevant the evidence in the record that Ian Lieberman has now left the Discovery Funds and that the Nymeria Fund he managed no longer exists. No later than seven days from the date of this Order, the parties shall file on the public docket, in unredacted form, the briefs and exhibits for which the Court denied sealing in full. Also, no later than seven days from the date of this Order, the parties shall file on the public docket the Exhibits 16, 17, 22, 23, and 25 to the Kapur Declaration, narrowly redacting only the portion for which the Court has granted sealing. Enovix develops and manufactures advanced lithium-ion battery cells using proprietary silicon-anode and graphite architectures. A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kE5mh5 at no extra charge.[CC] EPIC SYSTEMS: Fox Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access ------------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD FOX and SUZANNE BRYAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EPIC SYSTEMS CORPORATION, REID HOSPITAL & HEALTH CARE SERVICES, INC., HEALTH GORILLA, INC., and MAMMOTH PATH SOLUTION, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-04678 (C.D. Cal., April 30, 2026) is a class action arising out of the recent unauthorized access to and disclosure of the protected health information and personally identifiable information of patients of Defendants, which held in their possession certain personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiffs and other current and former patients of Defendants, the putative Class members. The Plaintiffs bring this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendants' inadequate safeguarding of Class members' private information that they collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiffs and other Class members that their information was subjected to unauthorized access by an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. The data breach resulted from Defendants' failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' private information with which they were entrusted for treatment. The Plaintiffs seek remedies including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief including improvements to Defendants' data security systems, future annual audits, and adequate credit monitoring services funded by Defendants. Epic Systems Corporation is a privately held healthcare software company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott Edward Cole, Esq. Laura Van Note, Esq. Mark T. Freeman, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12TH Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 E-mail: sec@colevannote.com lvn@colevannote.com mtf@colevannote.com - and - Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD MONTGOMERY, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 E-mail: lmontgomery@eksm.com EQUIFAX INFO: Seeks to File Confidential Info Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALDON MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC, Case No. 8:24-cv-02609-TPB-LSG (M.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion to file confidential information under seal or with redactions. The Defendant requests that the Court allow Equifax to file and maintain certain documents under seal in connection with its Opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Equifax's counsel has conferred with the Plaintiff's counsel who confirmed the Plaintiff does not oppose this Motion. The Plaintiff alleges Equifax violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") when it reported late payments associated with his mortgage. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that Equifax accurately reported that his mortgage account was paid off and closed with a $0 balance in April 2020 but that the "payment history grid" associated with his mortgage made it appear as if he had late payments in 2023 rather than 2019 and 2020. Equifax is a consumer reporting agency ("CRA"). A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pEoJD1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Ross E. Linzer, Esq. John C. Toro, Esq. Alexandra H. Titus, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP Southeast Financial Center 200 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 4700 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 462-6000 E-mail: rlinzer@kslaw.com jtoro@kslaw.com atitus@kslaw.com EXPRESS AUTO: Hanyon Amended Complaint Dismissed ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN HANYON, v. EXPRESS AUTO CREDIT CORP, ANGELO PASQUALE, NICOLE LNU, and JESSICA EAGLES, Case No. 3:26-cv-00091-BKS-DJS (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sannes entered an order that Magistrate Judge Stewart's Report-Recommendation is adopted in its entirety. The Court further entered an order that: -- the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is dismissed; -- the Plaintiff's Motions are denied as moot; -- the Clerk is directed to enter judgment and close this case; and -- the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff in accordance with the Local Rules. The Court has carefully reviewed each of Plaintiff's submissions following the issuance of Magistrate Judge Stewart's Report-Recommendation, and cannot discern any specific objection to the Report. Although the document that Plaintiff captioned "Motion Class Certification" contains a heading labeled "objections," the discussion under this provision does not refer to the Report. The Plaintiffs' submissions following the issuance of the Report-Recommendation are irrelevant and largely incomprehensible. Because the Plaintiff has failed to raise a proper objection the Court has reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error. The Plaintiff pro se Steven Hanyon brought this action alleging that the Defendants violated his rights under the First, Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). Express Auto provides financing options, a wide selection of vehicles, and assistance throughout the car buying process. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated May 7, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A5iUSp at no extra charge.[CC] EYEMART EXPRESS: Dantonio Sues Over Unprotected Patients' Info -------------------------------------------------------------- BARBARA DANTONIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Plaintiff, v. EYEMART EXPRESS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01400-D (N.D. Tex., April 30, 2026) is a class action arising out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant, which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and other current and former patients of Defendant, the putative class members. On or about April 17, 2026, the Defendant publicly disclosed the Data Breach by notifying the Texas Attorney General, which published the breach report on its website. The Defendant's disclosure indicated that the data breach involved the private information of Defendant's customers and patients, including Plaintiff. The complaint asserts that 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 for vision care services. 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 they 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 an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. Accordingly, the Plaintiff sues Defendant seeking redress for its unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for: (i) negligence, (ii) breach of implied contract, and (iii) unjust enrichment. Eyemart Express LLC is a national optical retailer headquartered in Farmers Branch, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD MONTGOMERY, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 E-mail: lmontgomery@eksm.com FAIR INDIGO: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Walker Says ------------------------------------------------------------- LEAH WALKER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fair Indigo, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05042 (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.fairindigo.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Walker and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On April 9, 2026, Plaintiff Walker searched online for cotton casual dresses for everyday wear. During her search, she came across the Defendant's website and decided to explore the available offerings. During her visit, she became interested in the Organic Cotton Elbow Sleeve Boat Neck Dress and attempted to purchase it. However, Plaintiff Walker encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from completing the transaction. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by her and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading hierarchy, changing of content without advance warning, inaccessible drop-down menus, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. Plaintiff Walker 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. Fair Indigo, LLC operates the website that offers a range of organic cotton apparel, including t-shirts, tops, dresses, pants, skirts, sweaters, outerwear, as well as accessories like socks and scarves.[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 FASTLY INC: Faces Derivative Actions over Stock Offer ----------------------------------------------------- Fastly, 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 it is currently facing securities class actions and derivative actions with regards to its stock offer. On May 24, 2024, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned "Ken Kula v. Fastly, Inc., et al." (Case No. 4:24-cv-03170), naming the company and certain of its officers as defendants. Motions for lead plaintiff were filed on July 23, 2024. On August 22, 2024, the court appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On November 1, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act purportedly on behalf of all those who purchased or acquired Fastly securities between November 15, 2023 and August 7, 2024. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on January 15, 2025. Lead Plaintiff filed an opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss on March 17, 2025. Defendants filed a reply in support of the motion to dismiss on April 30, 2025. On September 24, 2025, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. On October 24, 2025, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On December 9, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On January 26, 2026, plaintiff filed an opposition. Defendants filed a reply in support of the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on February 19, 2026. A hearing scheduled for April 30, 2026 on Defendants motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was vacated, and the company is awaiting a ruling on the motion. Additionally, on June 12, 2024, former Chief Executive Officer Todd Nightingale, certain of the company's officers and directors were named as defendants in a stockholder derivative action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned "Roy v. Nightingale, et al." (Case No. 3:24-cv-03549-JCS). On July 1, 2024, a stockholder derivative complaint was also filed against certain of the company's officers and directors in the same court, captioned "Steffens v. Nightingale, et al." (Case No. 4:24-cv-03984-DMR). The derivative complaints are based on substantially similar allegations as those in the securities class action and assert that defendants breached their fiduciary duties as directors and/or officers of the company, as well as claims of unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, aiding and abetting, violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, and contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act. The court consolidated and stayed the derivative actions until after resolution of the company's motion(s) to dismiss in the above-referenced securities class action. On August 23, 2024, a substantially similar stockholder derivative complaint was filed against certain of the company's officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned "Sweitzer v. Nightingale, et al." (Case No. 1:24-cv-00969-GBW). On September 26, 2024, the court stayed the Sweitzer Action until after resolution of the company's motion(s) to dismiss in the above-referenced securities class action. On December 20, 2024, a substantially similar stockholder derivative complaint was filed against certain of the company's officers and directors in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware, captioned "Bushansky v. Nightingale, et al." (Case No. 2024-1322) (the Bushansky Action). On January 8, 2025, the court stayed the Bushansky action until after resolution of the company's motion(s) to dismiss in the above-referenced securities class action. Fastly, Inc. is a global edge cloud platform provider that helps developers and enterprises deliver fast, secure, and scalable digital experiences to users worldwide. The company offers content delivery, edge compute, security, and observability solutions for media, e-commerce, SaaS, and other digital-first businesses. FITNESS EQUIPMENT: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY BAHENA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FITNESS EQUIPMENT SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04671 (N.D. Ill., April 24, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.soletreadmills.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. Fitness Equipment Services, LLC manufactures sporting goods. [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 FLUENCE ENERGY: Securities, Derivative Suits Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------- Fluence Energy, 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 putative federal securities class action complaint captioned "Abramov v. Fluence Energy, Inc. et al." (Case No. 1:25-cv-00444) was filed on March 11, 2025 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, against the company and certain of its executive officers. On April 15, 2025, a putative federal securities class action complaint captioned "Kramer v. Fluence Energy, Inc. et al." (Case No. 1:25-cv-00634) was filed in the Eastern District of Virginia, against the Company, certain of the company's current and former executive officers, AES Grid Stability, and AES. Both actions purported to be brought on behalf of a purported class of stockholders, and asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and the complaints sought unspecified damages and other relief. On May 30, 2025, the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia ordered the consolidation of the Abramov and Kramer cases, captioned the consolidated matter "In re Fluence Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation" (Case No. 1:25-cv-00444-PTG-IDD), and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The court-appointed lead plaintiff subsequently filed a consolidated complaint that asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the company, AES Grid Stability, AES, and certain of the its former and current executive officers, and the consolidated complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief. Additionally, on March 25, 2025, a purported stockholder, Raffi Elmajian, filed a shareholder derivative complaint captioned "Elmajian v. Nebreda et al." in the Eastern District of Virginia (Case No. 1:25-cv-521) against current and former officers and directors of the Company, naming the company as a nominal defendant. On April 3, 2025, a purported stockholder, Diaa Al Amad, filed a second shareholder derivative complaint captioned "Al Amad v. Nebreda et al." in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia (Case No. 1:25-cv-577) against current and former officers and directors of the company, naming it as a nominal defendant. Both derivative complaints allege claims under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14-9 promulgated thereunder, and breaches of fiduciary duties, among other claims, and the actions purport to be brought derivatively on behalf of the company and seek damages and other various relief. On April 22, 2025, the Eastern District of Virginia ordered the consolidation of the Elmajian and Al Amad cases, captioned "In re Fluence Energy, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation" (Case No.: 1:25-cv-00521). On July 21, 2025, the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia ordered a stay on all proceedings and deadlines in the consolidated derivative matter until resolution of the consolidated securities class action detailed above. On January 16, 2026, a purported stockholder, Jung Jae Hyung, filed a shareholder derivative complaint captioned "Hyung v. Nebreda et al." in the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:26-cv-00050) against current and former officers and directors of the company, naming it as a nominal defendant. On March 9, 2026, the District of Delaware ordered a stay on all proceedings and deadlines in this matter until resolution of the consolidated securities class action detailed above. Fluence Energy, Inc. is a global provider of energy storage products and services, and cloud-based software for renewables and storage. The Company develops and deploys technology solutions aimed at modernizing electric grids and supporting the transition to cleaner energy worldwide. FLYWIRE CORP: Faces Hickman Fraud Suit in New York Court -------------------------------------------------------- Flywire Corp disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated Monday, May 5, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Tuesday, May 6, 2026, that on July 25, 2025, the company and certain of its current and former officers were named as defendants in a securities class action complaint captioned "Hickman v. Flywire Corporation" filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased Flywire securities from February 28, 2024, through February 25, 2025. In January 2026, the complaint was amended to, among other matters, remove a former officer from the claim and modify the class period to the time period between May 21, 2024 through February 25, 2025. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by purportedly overstating the strength and sustainability of the company's revenue growth and understating the negative impact of certain government permit and visa related policies on the company's business. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, costs, attorney's fees, and other relief. Flywire Corp is a global payments enablement and software company that specializes in complex payment flows for education, healthcare, travel, and business-to-business sectors. The company provides a platform that helps clients and their customers seamlessly process cross-border and domestic payments while improving reconciliation and operational efficiency. FOLEY CARRIER: Bid to File Amended Class Complaint Due July 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Newell v. Foley Carrier Services, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-02043 (D. Conn., Filed Dec. 9, 2025), the Hon. Judge Kari A. Dooley entered a scheduling order as follows: The deadline to file the motion to amend the complaint and motion to join additional parties is July 31, 2026. The deadline for the plaintiff's expert disclosure and report, if any, on class certification issues is October 20, 2026. The deadline for the defendant's expert disclosure and report, if any, on class certification issues is November 23, 2026. The deadline for fact and expert discovery related to class certification is December 23, 2026. The deadline for the plaintiff's motion for class certification, including all arguments and evidence in support, is January 26, 2027. The deadline for the defendant's opposition to class certification, including all arguments and evidence in support, is February 26, 2027 The deadline for the plaintiff's reply, responding to opposition arguments and evidence proffered by the defendant, is March 12, 2027. The nature of suit states Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Foley provides DOT compliance, recruiting, and background screening services to the transportation industry.[CC] FRITANGA CANA: Pardo Sues Over Inaccessible Commercial Property --------------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. FRITANGA CANA BRAVA 3 CORP. D/B/A FRITANGA CANA BRAVA 3, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-23056 (S.D. Fla., April 30, 2026) is a class action for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff Pardo is an individual with disabilities as defined by and pursuant to the ADA. He has lower paraplegia, which inhibits him from walking or otherwise ambulating without the use of a wheelchair. The individual Plaintiff visits the commercial restaurant regularly, to include visits to the property and business on November, 18 2025, and encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the commercial restaurant. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial restaurant business. The Defendant has discriminated, and continues to discriminate, against Plaintiff in violation of the ADA by failing, inter alia, to has accessible facilities including entrance access and path of travel and public restrooms, says the suit. Fritanga Cana Brava 3 Corp. d/b/a Fritanga Cana Brava 3, owns, operates and/or oversees the commercial restaurant, to include its general parking lot and parking spots within the commercial restaurant and all other common areas open to the public located within the commercial restaurant.[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 FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Settlement Reached in Reidt Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Reidt v. Frontier Communications Corporation et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01538 (D. Conn., Filed Sept. 11, 2018), the Hon. Judge Robert N. Chatigny entered an order: -- Denying as moot Motion to Certify Class; and -- Denying as moot Motion for Extension of Time. The motions are denied as moot in light of the reported settlement. The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Frontier is a major American telecommunications company.[CC] GARDEN TOWER: Nonato Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE NONATO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GARDEN TOWER PROJECT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04760 (N.D. Ill., April 27, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.gardentowerproject.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. Garden Tower Project, LLC specializes in the vertical garden planter designed to allow users to grow up plants and vegetables in small areas. [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 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law GERON CORP: Faces Various Class Suits over RYTELO ------------------------------------------------- Geron Corporation 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 it and certain of its current and former officers were named as defendants on March 13 and March 14, 2025, in two putative securities class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California captioned "Dabestani v. Geron Corporation, et al.," No. 3:25-cv-02507 and "Potvin v. Geron Corporation, et al.," No. 3:25-cv-02563, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements concerning the commercial potential of "RYTELO," a prescription medicine used to treat a condition called low- to intermediate-1 risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) in adults The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the company overstated RYTELO's commercial potential by making materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning RYTELO's commercial potential, including the lack of awareness among healthcare providers for RYTELO, the burden of monitoring requirements in administering the drug, and the impacts of seasonality and existing competition on RYTELO's sales, and that the company's stock price dropped when it disclosed in its earnings call on February 26, 2025 that it had observed flat revenue trends over the prior few months. The plaintiffs seek damages and interest, and an award of reasonable costs, including attorneys' and experts' fees. On May 29, 2025, the court consolidated the Dabestani and Potvin cases into one consolidated action captioned In re Geron Corporation Securities Litigation, or the Securities Class Action, and appointed lead plaintiffs and counsel for lead plaintiffs. On August 8, 2025, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. On October 7, 2025, the company filed its motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. A hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on March 19, 2026, and on March 30, 2026, the court entered an order granting the company's motion to dismiss without prejudice. On April 13, 2026, lead plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, and the company intends to move to dismiss the second amended complaint. Additionally, it was disclosed that on April 15, 2025 and April 16, 2025, three purported stockholders filed derivative complaints in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California captioned "Bishop v. Scarlett, et al.," No. 3:25-cv-03356, "Lerner v. Scarlett, et al.," No. 3:25-cv-03401, and "Willis v. Scarlett, et al.," No. 3:25-cv-03396, naming certain of the company's current and former directors and officers and alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties and violated federal securities laws by issuing allegedly false and misleading statements concerning the commercial potential of RYTELO, with allegations substantially similar to the Securities Class Action. The plaintiffs in these derivative actions seek damages and interest, and an award of reasonable costs, including attorneys' and experts' fees, and the plaintiffs in "Bishop v. Scarlett, et al." and "Willis v. Scarlett, et al". also seek punitive damages. On May 16, 2025, the court consolidated the three derivative complaints into one consolidated action captioned "In re Geron Corporation Derivative Litigation," or the Consolidated Derivative Action, and on June 17, 2025, the court stayed the Consolidated Derivative Action pending a final ruling on the anticipated motion to dismiss in the Securities Class Action. Separately, it was disclosed that on August 29, 2025, a purported stockholder made a demand on the company's board of directors to commence a civil action against certain of its current and former directors for breaching their fiduciary duties and violating the securities laws by issuing allegedly false and misleading statements concerning the commercial potential of RYTELO, and on September 19, 2025, the board of directors responded that it would defer a final decision on the demand given the other pending derivative lawsuits and the Securities Class Action. On October 7, 2025, the purported stockholder filed a derivative suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California captioned "Jae Hyung v. Bir, et al.," No. 3:25-cv-08575, naming certain of the company's current and former directors and officers, with allegations substantially similar to the Securities Class Action and the Consolidated Derivative Action, and seeking damages and an award of reasonable costs, including attorneys' and experts' fees. On January 23 and February 19, 2026, respectively, two additional purported stockholders each made a similar demand on the company's board of directors, and on March 25, 2026, the board of directors similarly responded that it would defer a final decision on the demands given the other pending derivative lawsuits and the Securities Class Action. Further disclosures include three securities class action lawsuits filed in 2020 against the company and certain of its officers where one of which was voluntarily dismissed while the other two were settled with a final judgment entered in October 2023, and seven shareholder derivative actions filed in 2020 and 2021 in a number of courts naming as defendants certain then current officers and certain then current and former members of the board, all of which were dismissed with prejudice. Geron Corp is a late-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of therapies for hematologic malignancies. The company is headquartered in California and is advancing its lead asset RYTELO for the treatment of blood cancers. GPB HOLDINGS: Seeks Prelim OK of Settlement Deal ------------------------------------------------ GPB Holdings II, LP disclosed in a Form 8-K, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2026, that it filed a motion seeking preliminary approval of, and authorization to enter into, a settlement agreement on behalf of GPB related to claims asserted in a class action lawsuit, as well as its responses to objections made by various parties to such preliminary approval and authorization, while also continuing to revise and update investor-facing FAQs and letters regarding the distribution process, potential timing of distributions, potential settlement of the significant class action lawsuit, claim notice forms related to proposed class action settlements in lawsuits brought on behalf of certain investors, and information about settlements, transfers, and distribution of tax forms. Additionally, it reported continued work on comments related to claims notice forms for class action settlements in lawsuits brought on behalf of certain investors related to Receivership Entities, and on motions and responses related to actions taken by certain state attorneys general and securities commissions. GPB Holdings II, LP is an investment fund entity associated with GPB Capital that has raised capital from investors for private equity and alternative investment strategies, including interests in portfolio companies across various industries. The partnership has been the subject of regulatory and investor scrutiny concerning its fundraising, disclosures, and management of investor assets. GULFPORT ENERGY: Faces Securities Suit in Ohio ---------------------------------------------- Gulfport Energy Corp disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2026, that in January 2025, Grace E. Moore Great Grandchildren Trust of 2006, Joseph Gorsha, Damon Faldowski, Damon Faldowski II, and Mark Faldowski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action against Gulfport and another natural gas producer in the United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that defendants underpaid royalties to the plaintiffs in connection with the production and sale of natural gas and natural gas liquids involving a variety of lease forms. The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, injunctive relief regarding royalty payment practices, restitution, disgorgement of profits, prejudgment interest, post-judgment interest, attorney's fees, and costs. In April 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that another operator in Ohio could not deduct certain processing and fractionation charges under one lease form that included a version of a market enhancement clause. Gulfport Energy Corp is an independent natural gas and oil company focused on the exploration, development, acquisition, and production of natural gas, natural gas liquids, and oil, primarily in U.S. onshore basins. The companys' operations are concentrated in the Appalachian Basin, where it develops unconventional resource plays. HAYWARD HOLDINGS: Southfield Seeks Final Nod of Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF SOUTHFIELD FIRE AND POLICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. HAYWARD HOLDINGS, INC., KEVIN HOLLERAN, EIFION JONES, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-04146-WJM-SDA (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff, on July 28, 2026 at 12:00 p.m., will, pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, move for entry of the proposed judgment and order granting final approval of class action settlement. The Defendants include CCMP CAPITAL ADVISORS, LP, CCMP CAPITAL INVESTORS III, L.P., CCMP CAPITAL INVESTORS III (EMPLOYEE), L.P., CCMP CAPITAL ASSOCIATES III, L.P., CCMP CAPITAL ASSOCIATES III GP, LLC, CCMP CAPITAL, LP, CCMP CAPITAL GP, LLC, MSD AQUA PARTNERS, LLC, MSD PARTNERS, L.P., MSD PARTNERS (GP), LLC, MARK MCFADDEN, GREG BRENNEMAN, TIMOTHY WALSH, CHRISTOPHER BERTRAND, and KEVIN BROWN. Hayward is a designer and manufacturer of residential and commercial pool technology. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YDKNCG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew F. Gately, Esq. Michael Alderman, Esq. COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP Park 80 West-Plaza One 250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401 Saddle Brook, NJ 07663 Telephone: (201) 845-9600 E-mail: mfg@njlawfirm.com ma@njlawfirm.com - and - Max R. Schwartz, Esq. Karolina Klyuchnikova, Esq. Donald A. Broggi, Esq. Cornelia Gordon, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 233-6444 E-mail: mschwartz@scott-scott.com kklyuchnikova@scott-scott.com dbroggi@scott-scott.com cgordon@scott-scott.com HERBALIFE LTD: Faces DeSimone Securities Suit in California ----------------------------------------------------------- Herbalife Ltd. 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 on October 31, 2024, the company and certain of its executive officers were named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, titled "Sarah DeSimone v. Herbalife Ltd. et al." The complaint alleges violations of the California Labor Code, including misclassification of distributors as independent contractors. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 21, 2025 to assert claims under the California Private Attorneys General Act. The plaintiff seeks damages in an unspecified amount. Herbalife Ltd. is a global nutrition company that develops and sells nutrition, weight management and personal care products through a network of independent distributors in more than 90 markets worldwide. HEWITT'S GARDEN: Filing for Conditional Class Cert Bid Due May 29 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Marx v. Hewitt's Garden Centers, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-00073 (N.D.N.Y., Filed Jan. 15, 2026), the Hon. Judge Anthony J. Brindisi entered an order granting the Letter Request for an extension of time to file Plaintiff's Conditional Class Certification Motion. The Plaintiff's Conditional Class Certification Motion is now due on or before May 29, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendant provides a wide range of lawn and garden products and services. [CC] HOMELAND INSURANCE: Discovery in Wilson Due Due Nov. 13 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wilson v. HomeLand Insurance LLC, Case No. 6:26-cv-00345 (D. Or., Filed Feb. 22, 2026), the Hon. Judge Mustafa T Kasubhai entered an order adopting the deadlines proposed by Plaintiff: -- Deadline to amend pleadings and add parties is June 30, 2026 -- Initial expert disclosures are due September 11, 2026 -- Rebuttal expert disclosures are due October 9, 2026 -- Discovery shall be completed by November 13, 2026 -- Dispositive motions and motions for class certification are due December 30, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Homeland is an independent insurance agency specializing in medicare, life insurance, & retirement solutions.[CC] IBOTTA INC: Hearing Set on Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Ibotta, 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 it is facing consolidated claims under Securities Act Sections 11, 12(a), and 15, Exchange Act Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A, and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Motion to dismiss briefing is complete, and the court will hear oral argument on the motion in June 2026. A putative securities class action complaint, captioned "Fortune v. Ibotta, Inc., et al.," No. 25-cv-01213-NYW, was filed on April 17, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against the company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and the underwriters of the company's initial public offering. A second putative securities class action complaint, captioned "Valentine v. Ibotta, Inc., et al.," No. 25-cv-01615-NYW, was filed on May 21, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against the same defendants. On July 31, 2025, the court consolidated the two cases and appointed a lead plaintiff, purported Ibotta shareholder Mark Tcherkezian, in the consolidated action. On October 15, 2025, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the same defendants alleging In addition to the consolidated securities class action, the company notes that, in the ordinary course of its business, it may be involved in various legal proceedings involving contractual and employment relationships, patent or other intellectual property rights, and a variety of other matters. Ibotta, Inc. is a digital marketing and rewards platform that partners with brands and retailers to deliver cash-back offers to consumers via its mobile app and browser tools. The company leverages data-driven technology to connect advertisers with shoppers and drive measurable in-store and online sales. ICON FITNESS LLC: Kay Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Icon Fitness LLC. The case is styled as Taryn Kay, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Icon Fitness LLC doing business as: Orangetheory Fitness Eugene, Case No. 1:26-cv-01148 (W.D. Tex., May 1, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Icon Fitness LLC doing business as Orangetheory Fitness -- https://www.orangetheory.com/ -- is heart rate zone training that delivers a full body group workout.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Berman, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (865) 603-7365 Email: cberman@shamisgentile.com IDEAL CONCEPTS INC: Ledenko Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ideal Concepts, Inc. The case is styled as Tommy Ledenko, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ideal Concepts, Inc., Case No. 8:26-cv-01298 (M.D. Fla., May 3, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Ideal Concepts, Inc. -- https://www.idealconcepts.com/ -- is a national insurance marketing and sales technology firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN, PLLC 18117 Biscayne Blvd-Ste 4152 Miami, FL 33160 Phone: (877) 333-9427 Email: law@stefancoleman.com ILLUMIFIN CORP: Hackl Sues Over Unprotected Personal, Health Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- LISA HACKL and KAYE THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ILLUMIFIN CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-02432-JMB-DLM (D. Minn., April 30, 2026) is a class action arising from a data security incident in which an unauthorized actor gained access to the computer network of the Defendant and acquired files containing the highly sensitive personal and protected health information of thousands of individuals, including Plaintiffs. On November 4, 2025, illumifin identified unusual activity in a portion of its computer network. illumifin's subsequent forensic investigation determined that an unauthorized actor had gained access to illumifin's network and acquired copies of files containing the private information of thousands of individuals, including customers, insureds, claimants, and beneficiaries of illumifin's insurance carrier clients. The data breach was a foreseeable consequence of illumifin's failure to implement and maintain reasonable data security measures commensurate with the volume and sensitivity of the Private Information entrusted to it, says the suit. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and the proposed Class to recover damages, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, and other appropriate remedies for illumifin's failure to safeguard their private information and for illumifin's untimely and incomplete response to the data breach. illumifin Corporation is a third-party administrator and insurance technology company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anne T. Regan, Esq. HELLMUTH & JOHNSON PLLC 8050 West 78th Street Edina, MN 55439 Telephone: (952) 941-4005 Facsimile: (952) 941-2337 E-mail: aregan@hjlawfirm.com - and - Scott J. Falgoust, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 5301 Canal Boulevard New Orleans, LA 70124 Telephone: (919) 585-5634 E-mail: sfalgoust@brysonpllc.com INCA BRANDS: Barlow Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------ DANIEL BARLOW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INCA BRANDS INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04589 (N.D. Ill., April 23, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.warrioralpacasocks.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. Inca Brands Inc. sells women's and men's apparel and home interiors to athletic, business and casual alpaca socks to vintage styled 100% alpaca golf sweaters. [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 Direct: (718) 554-0237 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law INDEPENDENT BANK: Faces Securities Suits over Bank Overdraft ------------------------------------------------------------ Independent Bank Corp disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2026, that it is involved in three putative suits alleging that its practice of charging overdraft and other fees was not consistent with the disclosures the bank made to consumers. These three actions are currently being coordinated for pre-trial and other purposes. Independent Bank Corp is a bank holding company headquartered in Michigan, operating through its subsidiary Independent Bank to provide community banking services, including commercial, consumer and mortgage banking. It serves individuals and small to mid-sized businesses through a network of branches and digital banking platforms. INFIRST HEALTHCARE: General Pretrial Management in Senior Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MILAGROS SENIOR, v. INFIRST HEALTHCARE INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-02298-DEH-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management. All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. Parties and counsel are cautioned: Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and § 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court proceeding (including a telephonic court conference), or to extend a deadline, must be made in writing and in compliance with § 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fYW4Wb at no extra charge.[CC] INTERNAL REVENUE: Dillon Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sheryll Ann Dillon d/b/a iTax Self Help Financial LLC on behalf of its clients, joining a nationwide class of similarly situated taxpayers, V. Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"), Commissioner of the IRS, U.S. Government, Case No. 1:26-cv-01206-ADA-ML (D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order appointing qualified class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and allowing Plaintiff to serve in a coordinating and oversight role in this litigation, subject to supervision by court-appointed legal counsel. The Plaintiff is not an attorney and does not seek to serve as class counsel. However, Plaintiff requests that the Court: a. Appoint qualified class counsel under Rule 23(g); b. Permit Plaintiff to assist in coordinating communication among class members and organizing evidence; c. Permit Plaintiff to provide advisory assistance to counsel on tax procedure and documentation issues; and d. Consider reasonable compensation at a later stage for Plaintiff's coordination and discovery contributions, subject to the Court's discretion and fairness to the class. Beginning in 2021, the IRS issued unlawful guidance to employers that resulted in widespread under-withholding of federal income truces, in all cases employees had submitted valid Form W-4s requesting withholdings that are typically about 10%. The Plaintiff is in possession of documentary evidence, including direct correspondence from employers to employees, showing that employers were instructed to follow IRS withholding models rather than individualized W-4 instructions, and that employees had to request additional withholdings and some were restricted to a dollar amount. 4. As a result of this guidance, Plaintiff's clients and millions of other trucpayers were assessed underpayment penalties, despite having made reasonable and documented efforts to comply with their tax obligations. The Plaintiff is the owner of iTax, a small tax prep and education business grounded in empowering taxpayers with self-help tax prep, support and financial education, providing privacy and transparency about tax obligations year over year. IRS is the U.S. federal government agency responsible for collecting taxes and enforcing tax laws. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0j7YPy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sheryll A. Dillon, Esq. ITAX SELF HELP FINANCIAL LLC Telephone: (505) 617-7676 E-mail: musketeer@slthp.com JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Bokis Sues Over Denied Employment Benefits ----------------------------------------------------------- JULIAN BOKIS; GAELLE MACDONALD; DESHIKA BREWER; GEORGE CARRASQUILLO; SHERVONNE CLARKE; STEPHANIE CONTOLE; STEVEN COOPER; DANIELLE CROMB; ALBERT DOMINGUEZ; MICHAEL FEDORKO; JELISEA FORBES; CYNTHIA GAYOSO; SHIRA GILL; SARAH GRANO; NELL HARRINGTON; NICOLE JONES; OPEYEMI LADUNNI; GENEVIEVE LAVIN; RANDY LUPERCIO; CARLOS MORALES; HEATHER NIX; ANEISHA ROBINSON; LATANYA SAM; LORIN SANCHEZ; TYLER WARD; SHARON WASHINGTON; and MARSHA WOODS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02416 (E.D.N.Y., April 23, 2026) alleges violation of the Family Medical and Leave Act. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendant retaliates against the Plaintiffs and similarly situated Inflight Crewmembers who use their approved intermittent FMLA leave by denying them employment benefits that are generally available to Inflight Crewmembers who do not use intermittent FMLA leave or otherwise exercise their FMLA rights. JetBlue Airways Corporation, stylized as jetBlue, is an American low-cost airline headquartered in Long Island City, in Queens, New York City. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sara L. Faulman, Esq. Sarah M. Block, Esq. Rachel Lerner, Esq. McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP 1101 Vermont Ave., N.W. Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 833-8855 Email: slf@mselaborlaw.com smb@mselaborlaw.com rbl@mselaborlaw.com - and - Desiree "Des" Salomone, Esq. RIVA LAW PLLC P.O Box 2214 Kingston, NY 12402 Email: des@rivalaw.us KADIANT LLC: Shellhorn Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Cierra Shellhorn, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. KADIANT LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; KADIANT BAY LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; KADIANT CENTRAL VALLEY LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; KADIANT SACRAMENTO LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; KADIANT SO CAL LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 26CV007881 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 1, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-at-00734. In the Class Action Complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action: Unpaid Overtime; Unpaid Minimum Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods; Non-Compliant Wage Statements and Failure to Maintain Payroll Records; Wages Not Timely Paid Upon Termination; Failure to Timely Pay Wages During Employment; Unreimbursed Business Expenses; Unfair Business Practices; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Nancy N. ("Niki") Lubrano, Esq. Osaama Saifi, Esq. CDF LABOR LAW LLP 18300 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: (949) 622-1661 Email: nlubrano@cdflaborlaw.com osaifi@cdflaborlaw.com KEHE DISTRIBUTORS: Soto Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Joshua Soto, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. KEHE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CIVRS2600979 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on May 1, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-02299. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges ten class-wide causes of action against Defendant: Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods and/or Pay Premiums for Non-Compliant Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods and/or Pay Premiums for Non-Compliant Rest Periods; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages Upon Separation of Employment; Failure to Timely Pay Wages Owed During Employment; Wage Statement Violations; Failure to Keep Requisite Payroll Records; Failure to Indemnify Employees for Necessary Business Expenditures; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Todd B. Scherwin, Esq. Landon R. Schwob, Esq. Lirit A. King, Esq. Carol A. Ibrahim, Esq. Madeline M. Hicks, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 330-4500 Facsimile: (213) 330-4501 Email: tscherwin@fisherphillips.com lschwob@fisherphillips.com lking@fisherphillips.com cibrahim@fisherphillips.com mhicks@fisherphillips.com LACKAWANNA RECYCLING: Court Certifies Huzzard Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA HUZZARD, and DAMPSEY STUCKEY, individually and as representatives of the classes, v. LACKAWANNA RECYCLING CENTER, INC., and LACKAWANNA COUNTY, Case No. 3:14-cv-01891-RDM (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Mariani entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiffs' motion is granted as modified. 2. This action is certified pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) as to the following redefined classes: a. TVPA Class: "All civil child support debtors whose period of incarceration at Lackawanna County Prison was based only on the inmate's status as a child support debtor and who worked at the Lackawanna County Recycling Center after Dec. 6, 2009, pursuant to the Community Service Program." b. RICO Class: "All civil child support debtors whose period of incarceration at Lackawanna County Prison was based only on the inmate's status as a child support debtor and who worked at the Lackawanna County Recycling Center after Dec. 6, 2015, pursuant to the Community Service Program." c. Unjust Enrichment Class: "All civil child support debtors whose period of incarceration at Lackawanna County Prison was based only on the inmate's status as a child support debtor and who worked at the Lackawanna County Recycling Center after Dec. 6, 2015, pursuant to the Community Service Program." d. PMWA Class: "All civil child support debtors whose period of incarceration at Lackawanna County Prison was based only on the inmate's status as a child support debtor and who worked at the Lackawanna County Recycling Center the entry of the May 3, 2006, Operating Agreement between LRCI and the Authority." 3. The Plaintiff Dampsey Stuckey is dismissed as a Named Plaintiff for the Rule 23 Class Action claims. 4. The following law firms are appointed Class Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(1): Towards Justice, Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, and the Community Justice Project. Lackawanna Specializes in scrap metal recycling and buying, automobile and can recycling, and ferrous and non-ferrous metals for scrap metal buyers. A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cgCjwM at no extra charge.[CC] LIFECORE BIOMEDICAL: Proposed Settlement Gets Prelim Nod -------------------------------------------------------- Lifecore Biomedical, 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 on March 13, 2026, the court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement of a putative class action complaint was filed on July 29, 2024, on behalf of stockholders of the company in the United States District Court of Minnesota against the company and certain of its named executive officers. Final approval hearing has been scheduled for late July 2026. The complaint generally alleges that statements made to the company's stockholders between October 7, 2020, and March 19, 2024, regarding its financial results, internal controls, remediation efforts, periodic reporting, and financial prospects were false and misleading in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and that the individual defendants are liable for such statements because they are controlling persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, court costs, and attorneys' fees. On November 15, 2024, the court appointed co-lead plaintiffs and their respective counsel. The co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on January 24, 2025, which contained substantially similar allegations and claims as those set forth in the original complaint. The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on March 25, 2025, and the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss on May 23, 2025. In November 2025, the parties entered into an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs to settle this matter, without any admission of wrongdoing, which is subject to court approval. If final approval of the proposed settlement is granted by the court in its current form, this settlement is expected to be covered by the company's insurance policies with no material loss incurred by the Company. Lifecore Biomedical, Inc. is a biomedical company focused on the development and manufacture of pharmaceutical-grade hyaluronic acid and other biomaterials, offering contract development and manufacturing services to pharmaceutical and medical device customers. The company provides end-to-end solutions, including formulation, aseptic filling, and packaging for injectable products. LINEAGE INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------- Lineage, 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 putative securities class action complaint was filed against the company on August 1, 2025, in the Eastern District of Michigan, captioned "City of St. Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement System v. Lineage, Inc., et al.," Case No. 2:25-cv-12383. The Eastern District entered an order appointing two pension funds Lead Plaintiffs and consolidating the actions into "In Re Lineage, Inc. Securities Litigation." The Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint on March 30, 2026. In addition, the Securities Lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased the Company's common stock in the IPO. The complaint names as defendants the company, certain of its current officers and directors, Bay Grove Capital Group LLC, and the company's underwriters in the IPO. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company and certain of its current officers and directors made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose certain information regarding the company's business prospects in the lead-up to the IPO. The plaintiffs seek damages, interest, costs, expenses, attorneys' fees, and other unspecified equitable relief. Lineage, Inc. is a temperature-controlled logistics and warehousing company that provides cold storage, supply chain, and related services to food and beverage producers and distributors. The company operates a global network of facilities and offers integrated solutions to support end-to-end cold-chain management. M.B.R.P. REST: Faces Vera Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------- CARMELO LUIS VERA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. M.B.R.P. REST. INC. (D/B/A THE STUMBLE INN) and MITCHELL BANCHIK, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03580 (S.D.N.Y., April 30, 2026) is an action on behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and for violations of the New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs. Plaintiff Vera regularly worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without the appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for any of the hours that he worked each week. The Defendants employed the policy and practice of disguising Plaintiff Vera's actual duties in payroll records to avoid paying him at the minimum wage rate, and to enable them to pay Plaintiff Vera at the lower tip-credited rate, by designating him as a busboy or food runner instead of a non-tipped employee, says the suit. M.B.R.P. Rest. Inc., d/b/a The Stumble Inn, is a sports and music bar owned by Mitchell Banchik located in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 MAGNITE INC: Bid to Move Class Cert Hearing Date in Lewis Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD LEWIS and PATRICIA CASTILLO, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, v. MAGNITE, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-03448-MWC-SSC (C.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order denying stipulation to move hearing date on motion for class certification and/or associated briefing deadlines for lack of good cause. The Defendant is an American online advertising technology firm. A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gvLEuv at no extra charge.[CC] MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Castillo Suit Removed to E.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Alexander Castillo, on behalf of himself and on behalf of others similarly situated v. THE MEN'S WEARHOUSE, LLC, Case No. 26-2-01592-32 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of Spokane, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of Washington on May 1, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00199-RLP. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("CEMA"), codified at Chapter 190 of title 19 of the Revised Code of Washington ("RCW"), by sending him and other Washington residents commercial emails that create a false and misleading sense of urgency concerning Defendant's product sales. The Plaintiff further contends that Defendant's emails violated Washington's Consumer Protection Act ("CPA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: H. Troy Romero, Esq. ROMERO PARK P.S. 1019 W. James Street, Suite 102 Kent, WA 98032 Phone: (425) 450-5000 MOORESVILLE HOTEL: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People ----------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOORESVILLE HOTEL INC. D/B/A HILTON GARDEN INN HOMESTEAD, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-22921-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 27, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' commercial hotel property located at 2601 NE 9th Court, Homestead, Florida 33033, is not accessible to mobility-impaired individuals in violation of ADA. Mooresville Hotel Inc. d/b/a Hilton Garden Inn Homestead operates as a hotel. The Hotel offers wedding, restaurant, dining, social, and corporate events. [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 MUELLER WATER: Settlement in Data Breach Suit for Court OK ---------------------------------------------------------- Mueller Water Products, 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 in connection with the class action lawsuit filed on August 30, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, the company entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiff on July 7, 2025 to provide credit monitoring, ordinary and extraordinary losses, lost time, and alternative cash payment benefits subject to an overall aggregate cap of $285,000, and that the settlement agreement is subject to and is awaiting court approval. As for other proceedings, the company notes that it is party to a number of lawsuits arising in the ordinary course of business, including product liability cases for products manufactured by it or third parties, but states that while litigation outcomes cannot be predicted with certainty, it does not believe the final outcome of such other litigation is likely to have a materially adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations, cash flows or liquidity. Mueller Water Products, Inc. is a leading manufacturer and marketer of products and services used in the transmission, distribution and measurement of water in North America. The company serves municipalities, water utilities and the commercial and residential construction industries. MV TRANSPORTATION: Jackson Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Derek Jackson and Amanda Garcia, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and the general public v. MV TRANSPORTATION, INC., a California stock corporation; MV PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, INC. a California stock corporation; WESTCATS, a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV10048 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-04806. The Complaint contains eight causes of action, alleging: Failure to Provide Meal Periods under Labor Code; Failure to Provide Rest Periods under Labor Code; Failure to Pay Hourly Wages and Overtime under Labor Code; Failure to Provide Accurate and Written Wage Statements under Labor Code; Failure to Timely Pay All Final Wages under Labor Code; Failure to Indemnify under Labor Code; Unfair Competition under California Business and Professions Code; and Civil Penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") Labor Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gregory G. Iskander, Esq. Michael W. Nelson, Esq. Ronak Patel, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Treat Towers 1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Phone: 925.932.2468 Facsimile: 925.946.9809 Email: giskander@littler.com mwnelson@littler.com ropatel@littler.com NATIONAL DIVERSIFIED: Nunez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Diversified Sales, Inc. The case is styled as Blanca Nunez, an individual, and on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. National Diversified Sales, Inc., Case No. PCU334480 (Cal. Super. Ct., Tulare Cty., May 4, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Unlimited Civil-Porterville." National Diversified Sales, Inc. -- https://www.ndspro.com/us/en -- provides stormwater management solutions.[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 NATIONAL ENDOWMENT: ACLS Wins Summary Judgment Bid -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMERICAN COUNCIL OF LEARNED SOCIETIES, et al., v. NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES, et al., Case No. 25-cv-3657 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge McMahon entered an order that: -- Granting the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and -- Denying the Government's cross-motion for summary judgment. The Mass Termination is declared unlawful, unconstitutional, ultra vires, and without legal effect. The termination of National Endowment for the Humanities grants challenged in this action was unlawful because it was undertaken in violation of the First Amendment, in violation of the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment, and without statutory authority. The Court further DECLARES that DOGE officials lacked statutory authority to identify, select, or direct the termination of NEH grants, and that the resulting terminations were ultra vires. The Government, along with its officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons acting in concert with them, is permanently enjoined from enforcing, implementing, or giving any effect to the Mass Termination. The Government shall provide written notice of this Opinion and Order to all affected grant recipients whose awards were terminated as part of the Mass Termination. The proposed class is defined as follows: "All National Endowment for the Humanities grant recipients whose grants were awarded on or after Jan. 20, 2021 and terminated as part of the Mass Termination." The Plaintiffs also seek certification of two subclasses: DEI Subclass: "All class members whose grants were marked by the Defendants for termination as "DEI."" Biden-Era Subclass: "All class members whose grants were terminated without being marked as "DEI."" National is an independent federal agency of the US government. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 7, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vozWrg at no extra charge.[CC] NATIONAL ENDOWMENT: Authors Guild Wins Summary Judgment Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THE AUTHORS GUILD, et al., v. NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-03923-CM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge McMahon entered an order that: -- Granting the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and -- Denying the Government's cross-motion for summary judgment. The Mass Termination is declared unlawful, unconstitutional, ultra vires, and without legal effect. The termination of National Endowment for the Humanities grants challenged in this action was unlawful because it was undertaken in violation of the First Amendment, in violation of the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment, and without statutory authority. The Court further DECLARES that DOGE officials lacked statutory authority to identify, select, or direct the termination of NEH grants, and that the resulting terminations were ultra vires. The Government, along with its officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons acting in concert with them, is permanently enjoined from enforcing, implementing, or giving any effect to the Mass Termination. The Government shall provide written notice of this Opinion and Order to all affected grant recipients whose awards were terminated as part of the Mass Termination. The proposed class is defined as follows: "All National Endowment for the Humanities grant recipients whose grants were awarded on or after Jan. 20, 2021 and terminated as part of the Mass Termination." The Plaintiffs also seek certification of two subclasses: DEI Subclass: "All class members whose grants were marked by the Defendants for termination as "DEI."" Biden-Era Subclass: "All class members whose grants were terminated without being marked as "DEI."" National is an independent federal agency of the US government. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 7, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=U2StHd at no extra charge.[CC] NEW WEST KNIFEWORKS: Battle Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- Andre Battle, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. New West Knifeworks, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-05112 (N.D. Ill., May 3, 2026), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services the Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through https://www.newwestknifeworks.com (hereinafter "Newwestknifeworks.com" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because the Defendant's website, Newwestknifeworks.com, 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 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. New West Knifeworks provides to the public a website known as Newwestknifeworks.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a wide selection of premium cutlery and kitchen tools, knife sets, as well as custom handcrafted blades.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: 718.705.8706 Fax: 718.705.8705 Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com OCMBC INC: Class Cert Bid Sealing Applications Partly OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kimberly Hudson-Bryant v. OCMBC Inc., Case No. 8:24-cv-00067-FWS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Slaughter entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's sealing applications related to motion for class certification. Based on the record, as applied to the relevant law, the court finds there is sufficient justification to file the Exhibits under seal, but not the Transcript. Accordingly, the Application is granted as to the Exhibits and denied as to the Transcript. The Clerk of Court is directed to unseal the document at Docket 60-3. In the Application, the Plaintiff acknowledges that "Plaintiff's motion for class certification cites extensively to the deposition of Serene Vernon, LoanStream's Rule 30(b)(6) designee, which was taken on March 31, 2026." All of the citations to the Transcript in the MCC are redacted. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is ordered to file a revised MCC consistent with this Order (unredacting all references to the Transcript) on or before May 11, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. In connection with the MCC, the Plaintiff filed an application for leave to file under seal two categories of information. First, the Plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal Exhibits A, B, C, and E (the "Exhibits"), which were marked as confidential during discovery and which contain, among other information, pricing, contract terms, and employment information. Second, the Plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal the transcript of the deposition of Defendant's Rule 30(b)(6) designee (the "Transcript"), because at the time the Application was filed, the time period for marking any portion of the transcript as confidential had not yet passed. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Ocmbc provides mortgage services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7lkBEA at no extra charge.[CC] OCTAVE SPECIALTY: Faces Jereczek, Elliott Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Octave Specialty 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 6, 2026, that it is facing a putative class action "Dwight Jereczek and Stanley Elliott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MBIA Inc., Ambac Financial Group, Inc., Ambac Assurance Corporation, MBIA Insurance Corporation, and National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation" was filed on February 12, 2025 in United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. This putative class action complaint is brought by alleged former holders of bonds issued by the Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation (COFINA) allegedly insured by defendants under financial guaranty insurance policies. On behalf of themselves and all persons and entities that owned such bonds between October 19, 2018, and February 12, 2019, plaintiffs allege that, in connection with the restructuring of COFINA under Title III of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act, defendants orchestrated a scheme to improperly use their role in the Title III process to alter contracts with insured COFINA bondholders, resulting in such bondholders receiving less than what they contracted for under the financial guaranty insurance policies. Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and bad faith refusal to pay first-party benefits under an insurance contract. They seek unspecified damages with interest thereon, disgorgement of profits, a declaratory judgment of their rights and defendants' responsibilities, and a permanent injunction against violations of law. On November 14, 2025, the court found that defendants were entitled to a stay of discovery. On February 13, 2026, the court entered an order dismissing plaintiffs' claims against Ambac Financial Group, Ambac Assurance Corporation, and MBIA. Octave Specialty Group Inc is a specialty healthcare services company that provides advanced clinical solutions and support programs focused on complex and chronic conditions. The company partners with payers, providers, and life sciences organizations to improve patient outcomes and manage costs. OFFICE DEPOT: McGonigle Bid for Class Certification Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW JAMES MCGONIGLE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. OFFICE DEPOT, LLC, Case No. 9:25-cv-80069-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Dimitrouleas entered an omnibus order as follows: 1. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied as untimely filed; and 2. The Defendant's motion for extension of the case management schedule is denied as moot. On May 4, 2026, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause Why Court Should Not Deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification as Untimely Filed. The Plaintiff filed a Response to Show Cause Order and the Defendant filed a Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Show Cause Order. The Court is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court does not find reasonable the Plaintiff's position that the parties mutually understood the class certification motion deadline to be May 20, 2026, rather than the Court-ordered deadline of February 13, 2026. The Court will therefore deny the Plaintiff's Motion as untimely. The Defendant is an office supply retailer. A copy of the Court's order dated May 7, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KB4uUu at no extra charge.[CC] OTTER TAIL: Faces PVC Pipe Antitrust, Derivative Suits ------------------------------------------------------ Otter Tail Corp disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2026, that a series of putative federal class action lawsuits consolidated under the caption "In re: PVC Pipe Antitrust Litigation" (Case No. 1:24-cv-07639) were filed beginning in August of 2024 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Northern Pipe Products, Vinyltech Corporation, Otter Tail Corporation and more than twenty other PVC pipe manufacturers, as well as Oil Price Information Systems, LLC (OPIS), a reporting service that provides pricing and market intelligence in various industries, including the PVC pipe industry during the relevant period. The Court has allowed three putative classes to file complaints: a Direct Purchaser Class, a Non-Converter Seller Purchaser Class and an End-User Class. Separately, that on September 26, 2025, a putative nation-wide class action complaint (Case No. S-257310) was filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada against Northern Pipe, Vinyltech Corporation, Otter Tail Corporation and several other PVC pipe manufacturers, as well as OPIS, alleging that the defendants, beginning in 2021, conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of PVC pipe through an information exchange, OPIS, in breach of Canada's Competition Act and creating tortious liability, and that the plaintiffs seek general damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, punitive damages, cost, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative class. Separately, on May 20, 2025, the Otter Tail Corporation Board of Directors received a letter from counsel submitted on behalf of a shareholder, demanding that the Board investigate and take legal action against certain current and former directors and officers of the Company. The derivative demand letter alleges securities law violations, breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company in connection with the matters at issue in the pending civil antitrust cases. At this time, the Company is unable to determine the likelihood of any outcome related to this matter. Otter Tail Corp is a diversified company engaged in electric utility operations and manufacturing businesses, serving customers primarily in the Upper Midwest. The company provides regulated electric service as well as various industrial and infrastructure-related products and services. P. C. RICHARD: Waite Seeks to Recover Straight Time, OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- CORDELIA WAITE, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. P. C. RICHARD & SON LONG ISLAND CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03591 (S.D.N.Y., April 30, 2026) is a class action and a collective action brought to remedy Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The complaint alleges that 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, the 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 suit. The Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt worker for Defendants at various locations during her employment from approximately June 2015 to approximately October 2025. The Defendants operate a chain of appliance, television, electronics, and mattress stores throughout the eastern United States, including in 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 POWER SOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend Dishion Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Power Solutions International, 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 11, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Dishion securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. A putative securities class action complaint captioned Dishion v. Power Solutions International, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-03149, was filed on March 20, 2026 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Power Solutions International, Inc. and certain of its executive officers. The complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between May 8, 2025 and March 2, 2026, inclusive, and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder based on alleged misstatements and omissions concerning the Company's business, operations and prospects, including matters relating to demand, manufacturing capacity and operating inefficiencies for data center product lines. The complaint seeks damages and other relief. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend the action vigorously. The matter is at an early stage, and the Company cannot reasonably estimate a possible loss or range of loss at this time. Power Solutions International, Inc. designs, engineers and manufactures emission-certified engines and power systems for industrial, on-road and off-road equipment and power generation markets worldwide. The company supplies customized power solutions for applications including data centers, material handling, construction, and transportation. RAYMOND JAMES: Court Narrows Claims in Consolidated Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Raymond James Financial 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 in August and December 2024, a total of three putative class action lawsuits were filed in federal district court alleging, among other things, that the firm breached its fiduciary duties or agreements with regard to rates paid to clients in its cash sweep programs. All three cases were subsequently consolidated. On July 24, 2025, the claims asserted by the plaintiff in one of the three lawsuits were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. On March 27, 2026, the federal district court entered an order dismissing some of the claims asserted in the consolidated case. Raymond James Financial Inc is a diversified financial services company providing wealth management, capital markets, asset management and banking services to individuals, corporations and municipalities. Based in St. Petersburg, Florida, the firm operates through a network of domestic and international subsidiaries and financial advisors. REMEDY MEDS: Sanchez Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ------------------------------------------------------ ALICIA SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REMEDY MEDS LLC d/b/a REMEDYMEDS.COM, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-02695-WQH-GC (S.D. Cal., April 28, 2026) alleges violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, after being deceived into engaging with the spam, spam recipients like the Plaintiff are funneled to Defendant's website at remedymeds.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. Remedy Meds LLC is a technology platform to connect with professional clinicians to provide with non-emergency care. [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 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com RICOH USA: Mike The Printer Seeks More Time to File Reply --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKE THE PRINTER, INC., a California corporation, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RICOH USA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-08192-JFW-AYP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting its ex parte application to extend the deadline for the Plaintiff to file its reply in support of its motion for class certification by one week so that the reply is due on the same date as Plaintiff's opposition to the Defendant anticipated motion to strike the expert declaration of Dr. G. Michael Phillips (i.e., from May 18, 2026 to May 26, 2026). Because June 15, 2026 is the earliest Ricoh could set for hearing its Motion to Strike in light of the Court's hearing availability, the Plaintiff also agrees (and Ricoh does not object) to continuing the hearing of the class certification motion from June 1, 2026 to June 15, 2026 as well, or any other date convenient for the Court. All of these deadlines fall well before the Court's July 13, 2026 motion hearing deadline. This Application is made on the grounds that good cause exists for the requested extension because (1) on April 29, 2026, the Defendant notified Plaintiff for the first time that it intends to file, on May 11, 2026, both its opposition to the Plaintiff's class certification motion and a separate motion to strike the Plaintiff's expert declaration, (2) the issues in those two filings will be inextricably intertwined based on the bases disclosed during the meet and confer process, and (3) requiring the Plaintiff to file a class certification reply on May 18, 2026 -- one week after the Defendant's coordinated double-filing—would be unworkable and would deprive the Plaintiff the time needed to analyze the Defendant's opposition and motion to strike together and consult with its expert to coordinate a response to both, thereby prejudicing the Plaintiff. Ricoh is an information management and digital services company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 7, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7GIgVc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Panish, Esq. Jesse Creed, Esq. PANISH | SHEA | RAVIPUDI LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, California 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: panish@panish.law jcreed@panish.law The Defendant is represented by: Deanna J. Lucci, Esq. Brian A. McAleenan, Esq. Betty Luu, Esq. Taylor Stewart, Esq. Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq. Jennifer A. Riley, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5450 Telephone: (213) 689-7400 Facsimile: (213) 947-1032 E-mail: DJLucci@duanemorris.com BAMcAleenan@duanemorris.com BLuu@duanemorris.com TStewart@duanemorris.com GMaatman@duanemorris.com JARiley@duanemorris.com RXSIGHT INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit over SEC Disclosure ------------------------------------------------------------------- RxSight, 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 it is facing a consolidated securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California over the issues with its SEC statements that could have resulted in its drop in share price. A putative securities class action litigation in said court for the Central District of California arising from a stock price drop in the company's securities was filed on July 22, 2025 against the company and certain of its officers, captioned "Makaveev v. RxSight, Inc., et al.," No. 8:25-cv-01596. A related putative securities class action complaint was also filed on September 16, 2025, captioned "Gemesi v. RxSight, Inc., et al.," No. 8:25-cv-02093. On October 6, 2025, the court entered an order consolidating the Makaveev and Gemesi actions, appointing a lead plaintiff and approving selection of lead counsel, and re-captioning the case as "In re RxSight Securities Litigation," No. 8:25-cv-01596-FWS-KES. A consolidated, amended complaint was filed on December 12, 2025, that defendants motion to dismiss was filed on February 13, 2026, that a hearing on the motion is currently scheduled for May 28, 2026. The plaintiffs in these consolidated actions assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, alleging that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omitted material adverse facts regarding demand for the company's products and financial guidance, and seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. RxSight, Inc. is a medical technology company that develops and markets adjustable intraocular lens systems designed to improve visual outcomes for patients undergoing cataract surgery. The company focuses on innovative vision correction solutions that allow postoperative customization of refractive power. SABLE OFFSHORE: Faces Class and Derivative Suits over IPO --------------------------------------------------------- Sable Offshore Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2026, that it is currently facing class action and derivative suits over its public offering. A putative class action complaint was filed on July 28, 2025, by shareholder Tracy Johnson against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, captioned "Johnson v. Sable Offshore Corp., et al.," Case No. 2:25-cv-06869. The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased or acquired the company's publicly traded securities between May 19, 2025 and June 3, 2025. In addition, on August 21, 2025, shareholder Bryce Kelly filed a verified shareholder derivative complaint, purportedly on behalf of the company, in the same court, captioned "Kelly v. Flores, et al.," Case No. 2:25-cv-07848. James C. Flores is the current Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. The complaint names as defendants the members of the Board of Directors of the company, certain officers of the Company, and the underwriters of the company's May 2025 public offering, and alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, contribution under Section 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act of 1934, and contribution under Section 11(f) of the Securities Act of 1933, based on similar factual allegations to those at issue in the Johnson action. On Dec. 12, 2025, the Kelly Action was ordered stayed pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss filed in the Johnson Action. On Dec. 17, 2025, shareholder Udit Vora filed a verified shareholder derivative complaint, purportedly on behalf of the Company, in the same court captioned "Vora v. Flores, et al.," Case No. 2:25-cv-11944. The complaint names as defendants the members of the Board of Directors of the company and certain officers of the company and alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets. Sable Offshore Corp. is an energy company focused on the exploration, development and production of offshore oil and natural gas resources. The company operates offshore assets and related infrastructure in key U.S. coastal and deepwater basins. SALESFORCE INC: Yockey Seeks to File Docs Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Yockey v. Salesforce, Inc., Case No. 4:22-cv-09067-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting its amended motion for a Court order allowing them to file under seal documents containing information or references to information that they designated as either "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential -- Attorneys' Eyes Only" pursuant to the Protective Order. The Plaintiffs certify that they have reviewed and complied with the Court's standing order governing administrative motions to file materials under seal. The Plaintiffs contend that any references to their private, sensitive interactions with Salesforce's chat function on Rite Aid's website are confidential because, in context, they are medical communications with a medical provider. The Plaintiffs therefore meet the compelling reasons standard with respect to their chat transcripts, and any references thereto should be sealed. The Plaintiffs seek to file the following highlighted portions of the Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification under seal based on their own assertions of confidentiality regarding documents designated as either "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential -- Attorneys' Eyes Only" pursuant to Protective Order sections 2.2, 2.5, 2.8, 2.11, 2.16, 5: -- Page 4, text highlighted in purple and provided to the Court; And -- Page 6, text highlighted in purple and provided to the Court. The Defendant is an American cloud-based software company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HIdhDF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Daniel S. Guerra, Esq. Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Max S. Roberts, Esq. Israel Rosenberg, Esq. Caroline C. Donovan, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com dguerra@bursor.com jmarchese@bursor.com mroberts@bursor.com irosenberg@bursor.com cdonovan@bursor.com SAMUEL OLSON: Must Release Lopez by May 22 ------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CANDIDO PEREZ LOPEZ, v. SAMUEL OLSON, et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-00553-CCB-SJF (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Brisco entered an order that: (1) Conditionally grants the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and directs the Respondents to release Candido Perez Lopez on or before May 22, 2026, unless he is provided with an individualized bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. section 1226 and corresponding regulations; (2) Directs the clerk to email forthwith a copy of this order to the Warden of the Miami Correctional Facility at the Indiana Department of Correction to secure compliance with this order; and (3) Directs the Respondents to file proof of compliance with this order by May 24, 2026. Mr. Perez Lopez presses for outright release, but the court views the opportunity for an individualized bond hearing as the correct remedy. He was detained pursuant to a warrant issued by an immigration officer in accordance with 8 U.S.C. section 1226, and it is for the Attorney General to decide whether release is warranted under the circumstances presented by this case. However, if the government does not provide him with an individualized bond hearing, then he must be released, because his continued detention without an opportunity for bond is unlawful. He asks that the hearing occur within fourteen days, and the court will grant this request. Because the court concludes that Mr. Perez Lopez is entitled to relief as a matter of statutory law, the court does not reach his alternate argument that his detention without an opportunity for bond violates the Due Process Clause. The Plaintiff alleges he is unlawfully confined in violation of the laws or Constitution of the United States. Mr. Perez Lopez is a citizen of Mexico who entered the United States without inspection. He claims—without contradiction by the government—that he has been in this country since 2000. He came to the attention of immigrations officials in 2017, when he was arrested and subsequently convicted in Noble County, Indiana, for operating a vehicle while intoxicated. He was taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and removal proceedings were initiated against him. An immigration judge granted him release on $2,500 bond. In 2019, his bond was cancelled and he was re-detained after he was arrested in Noble County on new charges of battery and domestic battery. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 7, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=L6OKwu at no extra charge.[CC] SERGIO ALBARRAN: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GUILLERMO M.R., v. SERGIO ALBARRAN, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-05436-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lin entered an order denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus and dissolving the preliminary injunction. The Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis is granted. The Section 504 claim is dismissed with leave to amend and the APA claim is dismissed without leave to amend. If M.R. believes he can fix the deficiencies identified in this Order concerning the Section 504 claim, he may file an amended complaint by May 28, 2026. M.R. may not add new claims or parties without leave of the Court or stipulation by the parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. If M.R. files an amended complaint, Defendants’ time to answer the amended complaint shall be governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3). If M.R. does not timely file an amended complaint, the civil claims will remain dismissed, with prejudice, and the case will be closed. In light of the allegations in the pleadings regarding M.R.'s recent interactions with law enforcement, his recent treatment compliance challenges while out of ICE's custody, and the IJ's recent dangerousness determination, M.R. has not plausibly pled that release is a reasonable accommodation for his disability, given the government's interest in public safety. Therefore, the Section 504 claim is dismissed. However, M.R. might be able to cure this pleading deficiency by alleging other reasonable accommodations. Therefore, dismissal of the Section 504 claim is with leave to amend. Weighing all the factors together, M.R. has not shown that he is entitled to release based on his substantive due process claim. Although he was previously subject to a lengthy period of civil detention, his current detention does not yet raise serious due process concerns, given the intervening events in 2025 that formed the basis for the IJ's dangerousness determination. And while M.R.'s inadequate access to medical care is deeply concerning, the facts in the record do not yet rise to the level of a constitutional violation necessitating M.R.'s release. This is particularly true given that M.R. is a member of a provisionally certified class of persons in CCDF custody bringing claims under the Fifth Amendment related to the conditions at CCDF. A copy of the Court's order dated May 7, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DGvBnN at no extra charge.[CC] SES AI CORP: Patel Sues Over Improper Business Practices -------------------------------------------------------- RAMESH PATEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SES AI CORPORATION, and QICHAO HU, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-11894 (D. Mass., April 27, 2026) is a class action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded SES AI Corporation securities between January 29, 2025 and March 4, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"), the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the press release, and reports of the Defendants were materially false and misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operations and prospects, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, Defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) SES AI overstated its business prospects by materially overstating the expected results that could be achieved by deals with companies that have limited or no operations; (2) SES AI created an appearance of revenue by purchasing services in exchange for purchases of Molecular Universe; (3) Contrary to its positive statements regarding growth prospects, SES AI was affected by material logistics constraints in the fourth quarter of 2025 which would materially affect Q4 2025 revenues; (4) the foregoing called into question SES AI's growth prospects for 2026, which were confirmed due to lowerthan expected 2026 revenue guidance; and (5) as a result, Defendants' statements about SES AI's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On November 17, 2025, just a few days after the Q3 2025 Report was filed with the SEC, Dr. Hong Gan, the Company's Chief Science Officer, sold 250,000 shares of Company stock for $497,500 in proceeds. On January 22, 2026, shortly after Defendant Hu's appearance at an investor conference, Dr. Hong Gan sold another 250,000 shares of Company stock for $590,000 in proceeds, asserts the suit. SES AI Corporation provides energy storage solutions. The Company develops and manufactures lithium-metal (Li-Metal) rechargeable batteries for electric vehicles (EVs) and other applications. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Baker, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 101 Greenwood Ave., Suite 520 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: (215) 600-2817 Facsimile: (212) 2023827 Email: jbaker@rosenlegal.com - and - Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 Email: philkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com SINCLAIR INC: Trial Date for Antitrust MDL Set for Nov. 1, 2027 --------------------------------------------------------------- Sinclair, 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 it is the subject of twenty-two putative class action lawsuits that were filed against the Company following published reports of the Department of Justice investigation into the exchange of pacing data within the industry. On October 3, 2018, these lawsuits were consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois. The consolidated action alleges that the company and thirteen other broadcasters conspired to fix prices for commercials to be aired on broadcast television stations throughout the United States and engaged in unlawful information sharing, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The consolidated action seeks damages, attorneys' fees, costs and interest, as well as injunctions against adopting practices or plans that would restrain competition in the ways the plaintiffs have alleged. The court denied the defendants motion to dismiss on November 6, 2020. Discovery commenced shortly after that and is continuing. On December 8, 2023, the Court granted final approval of the settlements the plaintiffs had reached with four of the original defendants (CBS, Fox, Cox Media, and ShareBuilders), who agreed to pay a total of $48 million to settle the plaintiffs' claims against them. They are continuing to pursue their claims against the Company and the other non-settling defendants, and fact discovery closes on June 1, 2026. On December 6, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking sanctions against the company in connection with the loss of certain cell phone data. On November 18, 2025, the court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order on their motion seeking sanctions, declining as premature the plaintiffs request to present evidence of Sinclair's spoliation at summary judgment and trial, and imposing monetary sanctions on Sinclair for the costs of the plaintiffs' investigation between April 30, 2024 and the filing of the motion seeking sanctions. On February 20, 2025, Special Master Richard Levie issued Report and Recommendation No. 3 addressing the plaintiffs' challenges to certain of the non-settling defendants privilege log entries (Levie R&R No. 3), which recommended that the court compel disclosure of certain documents Sinclair and the other non-settling defendants withheld from discovery based on assertions of privilege. On October 20, 2025, the court issued an order adopting Levie R&R No. 3 and denying the objections to Levie R&R No. 3 made by Sinclair and the other non-settling defendants, compelling the production of 6,313 documents Sinclair withheld as privileged. On April 8, 2026, the company filed a Motion for Reconsideration regarding 519 of these documents. Special Master Wayne R. Andersen has addressed the plaintiffs remaining challenges to certain of Sinclair's and other non-settling defendants privilege log entries. On September 29, 2025, Special Master Andersen issued Report and Recommendation No. 3 (Andersen R&R No. 3); on October 23, 2025, Special Master Andersen issued Report and Recommendation No. 6 (Andersen R&R No. 6); on November 17, 2025, Special Master Andersen issued Report and Recommendation No. 8 (Andersen R&R No. 8); on November 18, 2025, Special Master Andersen issued Report and Recommendation No. 9 (Andersen R&R No. 9); and on December 16, 2025, Special Master Andersen issued Report and Recommendation No. 13 (Andersen R&R No. 13). In each report and recommendation, Special Master Andersen recommended granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs challenges. No party appealed Andersen R&R No. 3, which compelled the production of two documents Sinclair withheld as privileged. The plaintiffs objected to Andersen R&R No. 6, Andersen R&R No. 8, Andersen R&R No. 9, and Andersen R&R No. 13. On January 22, 2026, the Court issued an order rejecting plaintiffs objections to and adopting Andersen R&R No. 6, Andersen R&R No. 8, and Andersen R&R No. 9. Andersen R&R No. 6 compelled the production of 252 documents, Andersen R&R No. 8 compelled the production of 79 documents, and Andersen R&R No. 9 compelled the production of 10 documents. On February 23, 2026, the Court issued an order rejecting plaintiffs' objections to and adopting Andersen R&R No. 13. Andersen R&R No. 13 compelled the production of 11 documents. Andersen R&R Nos. 3, 6, 8, 9, and 13 collectively upheld the Company's privilege claims over 1,639 documents. On January 23, 2026, the Court issued a new scheduling order, setting a trial date of November 1, 2027. Sinclair, Inc. is a diversified media company that owns, operates, and provides services to television stations, digital platforms, and other media properties across the United States. The Company produces and distributes local and national news, sports, and entertainment content through its broadcast stations and regional sports networks. SKEIE'S JEWELERS: Royal Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY ROYAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SKEIE'S JEWELERS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04805 (N.D. Ill., April 28, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://skeies.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. Skeie's Jewelers, Inc. specializes in fine jewelry and luxury watches, particularly exclusive Rolex watches for men. 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 SOLID POWER: Faces Hamilton Suit in Delaware -------------------------------------------- Solid Power, 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 it was sued on December 3, 2024, when two purported stockholders filed a putative class action in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware captioned "Hamilton et al. v. Anderson et al.," C.A. No. 2024-1241-JTL) against the former officers and directors of Decarbonization Plus Acquisition Corporation III (DCRC), including Erik Anderson, Riverstone Holdings, LLC, and related sponsors and entities, alleging breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment arising from the merger of Solid. In addition, the lawsuit, brought by purported stockholders of Solid Power on behalf of a subsidiary of DCRC, seeks to recover unspecified damages and equitable relief from the defendants. None of the company, its subsidiaries, or its current officers or directors, other than Mr. Anderson, is named as a defendant. The defendants have demanded indemnification and advancement of defense costs from the company, and it is reasonably possible that the company could be liable for legal fees, defense costs, judgments, and/or settlement fees incurred by certain of the defendants. Solid Power, Inc. is a Colorado-based developer of all-solid-state rechargeable battery technology designed for use in electric vehicles and other applications. The company focuses on creating higher energy, safer, and lower-cost battery solutions compared with conventional lithium-ion batteries. STATE FARM: Removes Barker Class Suit to S.D. W.Va. --------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of CHARLES BARKER; and MELISSA BARKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; and GEORGE BARBERA, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Circuit Court of the State of West Virginia, County of Kanawha (Case No. 26-C-391) to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia on April 24, 2026. The clerk of court for the Southern District of West Virginia assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00287. The case is assigned to Irene C Berger and referred to Magistrate Omar J Aboulhosn. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company of Bloomington operates as an insurance company. The Company offers automobile, property, casualty, health, disability, and life insurance services. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Sabrena Olive Gillis, Esq. SHAFFER & SHAFFER, PLLC 2116 Kanawha Boulevard, East P.O. Box 3973 Charleston, WV 25339-3973 Telephone: (304) 344-8716 Facsimile: (304) 344-1481 Email: solive@shafferlaw.net STYL RESIDENTIAL: Gordon Balks at Retention of Security Deposits ---------------------------------------------------------------- HALEY GORDON, individually and for all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STYL RESIDENTIAL CA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-02747-TWR-DEB (N.D. Cal., April 30, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff arising from Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures of (1) making unlawful deductions from residential security deposits and (2) charging unlawful late fees that amount to penalties. The Plaintiff was a tenant at Defendant's apartment complex in Oakland, California, commonly referred to as Domain Oakland. According to the complaint, the Defendant charged a security deposit that grossly exceeded the maximum that a landlord is permitted to charge. A landlord is limited to a security deposit that is equivalent to one (1) month of rent, yet Defendant charged Plaintiff a security deposit that was nearly double Plaintiff's rent. When tenants, like Plaintiff, moved out, the Defendant made deductions from their security deposits that were more than $125 and Defendant did not provide any supporting documentation for the charges, says the suit. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, alleges claims for (1) unlawful retention of residential security deposit under Cal. Civ. Code; (2) unlawful liquidated damages; (3) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law; (4) violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; and (5) statutory larceny. Styl Residential CA, Inc. is a multifamily property management company that operates many apartment communities throughout California. The Company is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Swigart, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio S, Ste 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, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 222-7429 E-mail: Dan@ShayLegal.com SUNCAST CORP: Thorne Suit Seeks Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------ BRAULIO THORNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SUNCAST CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03478 (S.D.N.Y., April 28, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.suncast.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. Suncast Corporation provides wood structures and resin products. The Company offers storage buildings, vertical sheds, horizontal sheds, storage sheds, hybrid sheds, deck boxes, patio accessories, gazebos, and play sets. [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 SYMBOTIC INC: Faces Securities, Derivative Suits over Disclosures ----------------------------------------------------------------- Symbotic Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 28, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2026, that it is currently facing shareholder suits and derivative action with regards to is SEC filing disclosures. On December 3, 2024, a putative class action captioned "Decker v. Symbotic Inc. et al.," Case No. 24-cv-12976, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by an alleged purchaser of the company's common stock. The complaint asserted claims for violations of federal securities laws against the company and three of its officers on the grounds that the company made false and/or misleading statements related to its revenue recognition and the effectiveness of its disclosure controls and procedures. Based on these allegations, the plaintiff brought claims seeking unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other costs and relief on behalf of himself and a putative class of persons who purchased the company's stock between February 8, 2024 and November 26, 2024. On May 5, 2025, the court entered an order appointing a lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act and setting a schedule for the filing of an amended complaint and the company's response to the complaint. Additionally, on October 2, 2024, two putative shareholder derivative actions captioned "Austen v. Cohen et al.," 24-cv-12522, and "Kukreja v. Cohen et al.," 24-cv-12523, were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by the Company's alleged shareholders. Rick Cohen is the company's CEO. The actions assert claims on behalf of the company against certain senior officers and members of its board of directors for, among others, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and violations of federal securities laws based primarily on allegations that the defendants caused or allowed the company to disseminate misleading and inaccurate information to shareholders in connection with its expected earnings for the third quarter of fiscal year 2024. The actions seek compensatory damages, changes to corporate governance and internal procedures, restitution, costs and attorneys' fees, and other unspecified relief. Motions to consolidate the two actions into a single matter, appoint lead plaintiffs' counsel, and stay any obligation of the defendants to respond to the complaint based on the pendency of the related securities class action lawsuit were granted on November 24, 2025. Symbotic Inc. is an automation technology company that develops and deploys AI-enabled robotic systems for supply chain and warehouse operations. The company serves major retailers, wholesalers, and distributors across North America. TEAMI BLENDS: Deinnocentes Seeks Equal Web Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------------- MARY ANN DEINNOCENTES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Teami Blends LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00573 (N.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://teamiblends.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Deinnocentes and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On March 20, 2026, during Plaintiff's search of plant-based wellness products, she came across Defendant's website. After reviewing customer feedback, she decided to explore the website. She became interested in the gummy vitamins and attempted to make a purchase. However, the Plaintiff encountered multiple accessibility barriers that hindered her ability to efficiently navigate the Website and complete a purchase. The Plaintiff asserts that website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by her and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, inaccessible contact information, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. Plaintiff Deinnocentes 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. Teami Blends LLC operates the website that offers natural wellness, skincare, and tea-based products, including teas, wellness powders, vitamins, serums, cleansers, sleep masks, oils, tumblers, and accessories.[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 TIDAL WAVE: Vallely Sues Over Improper Business Practices --------------------------------------------------------- MARY ELLEN VALLELY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TIDAL WAVE MANAGEMENT LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2026LA000571 (Ill. Cir., Dupage Cty., April 28, 2026) alleges violation of the Automatic Contract Renewal Act, and the Illinois Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant failed to provide an acknowledgment after a consumer signs up for a membership that includes the automatic renewal offer terms, cancellation policy, and information regarding how to cancel, which may be accomplished by linking to a resource that provides instructions that account for different platforms and services, in a manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer. Tidal Wave Management LLC operates car washes in Illinois on a monthly subscription basis. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Peterson, Esq. CONSUMER LAW ADVOCATE, PLLC 680 N. Lake Shore Dr., Suite 110 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (815) 999-9130 Email: mtp@lawsforconsumers.com TITAN GAS: Edwards Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------ MARALYN EDWARDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TITAN GAS, LLC d/b/a CLEANSKY ENERGY, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01136-JPW (M.D. Pa., April 30, 2026) arises from the Defendant's violation of Plaintiff and the putative class-members' rights by making two or more solicitation calls to residential subscribers whose numbers were registered on the Do Not Call Registry in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Beginning in February of 2026, the Defendant sent Plaintiff at least 15 unsolicited and unconsented phone calls promoting Defendant's utility services. The Plaintiff did not provide Defendant with her prior express consent to be contacted for solicitation purposes. As a result of the foregoing, the Plaintiff experienced frustration, annoyance, irritation, harassment, and a sense that her privacy had been invaded by Defendant. These harms were significantly aggravated by the fact that Plaintiff had recently experienced the passing of a close family member, and had neither the time nor the patience to endure petty harassment from a telemarketer while attempting to grieve. Titan Gas, LLC, d/b/a Cleansky Energy, is a Texas limited liability company with its principal office in Houston.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob U. Ginsburg, Esq. KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C. 30 East Butler Ave. Ambler, PA 19002 Telephone: (267) 468-5374 Facsimile: (215) 540-8817 E-mail: jginsburg@Creditlaw.com teamkimmel@Creditlaw.com ULTIMATE NUTRITION: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hampton Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- Tammy Hampton, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ultimate Nutrition, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04976 (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://ultimatenutrition.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Hampton and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On November 14, 2025, Plaintiff Hampton was searching online for fitness supplements for personal wellness. During her search, she found the Defendant's website and she decided to explore it with the intent to make a purchase. However, Plaintiff Hampton encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from completing the transaction. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by her and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. Plaintiff Hampton seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to 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. Ultimate Nutrition, Inc. operates the website that offers a range of protein powders, pre-workout supplements, amino acids, creatine, weight gainers, vitamins, minerals, recovery supplements, and meal replacement shakes.[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 ULTRAGENYX PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Bailey Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated Monday, May 5, 2026, and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on Wednesday, May 6, 2026, that in February 2026, Steven Bailey filed a putative class action on behalf of certain of its stockholders against the company, CEO, and Chief Medical Officer in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, alleging that the Company made false and misleading statements about the design and prospects of the UX143 Orbit and Cosmic clinical trials. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and other relief. In addition, in March 2026, a putative stockholder derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint named the members of its Board of Directors, CEO and Chief Medical Officer as defendants, and the company as a nominal defendant. The complaint includes allegations of breaches of fiduciary duty, violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and gross mismanagement in connection with the "UX143 Orbit" and "Cosmic" clinical trials. Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and commercializing novel therapies for rare and ultra-rare genetic diseases. The company is headquartered in Novato, California, and markets a portfolio of approved treatments while advancing multiple product candidates in clinical development. UNITED PARCEL: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Jan. 6, 2027 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY RUGGERE, et al., v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-10811-JEK (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Kobick entered a scheduling order as follows: -- All requests for production of documents and interrogatories must be served by July 2, 2026. -- All depositions, other than expert depositions, must be completed by Oct. 2, 2026. -- A status conference will be held remotely on Oct. 19, 2026 at 3:00 PM. -- Any motion for class certification to be filed by Jan. 6, 2027. The Defendant is a major American multinational shipping, receiving, and supply chain management company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hREGcM at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Molina Bid to Enforce Preliminary Injunction OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSÉ ESCOBAR MOLINA, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-03417-BAH (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Howell entered a judgment granting the plaintiffs' motion to enforce preliminary injunction. Further, the plaintiffs' motion for extra-record discovery is granted. The plaintiffs' motion for extra-record discovery is granted on the terms they request, namely: the plaintiffs may serve on defendants requests for production and admission and up to ten (10) interrogatories, and take up to five (5) depositions to gather evidence "with respect to the Lyons Memo, the Broadcast Statement of Policy, Defendants' professed use of 'reasonable suspicion' to make immigration arrests, immigration arrest quotas/goals, officer training on warrantless immigration arrests, and information about ongoing immigration arrests in the District." The parties may confer and propose to the Court by the date reflected in the accompanying order a scheduling order for the expeditious completion of this discovery. The Defendants' flawed definition of escape risk to mean only whether an individual will remain at the scene of encounter before an administrative warrant can be obtained, as well as the defendants' failure to instruct their agents to consider community ties, violate the Dec. 2, 2025, preliminary injunction order. The Department of Homeland Security is a federal executive department established to protect the United States from threats like terrorism, natural disasters, and cyberattacks. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated May 7, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sDpeXy at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED THERAPEUTICS: Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ United Therapeutics Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2026, that in July 2020, MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC; MSPA Claims 1, LLC; and Series PMPI, a designated series of MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC, filed a class action complaint against Caring Voices Coalition, Inc. (CVC) and the company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The company's involvement is that the complaint alleged that the company violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and various state laws by coordinating with CVC when making donations to a fund owned by Liquidia PAH, LLC so that those donations would go toward copayment obligations for Medicare patients taking drugs manufactured and marketed by the company. The plaintiffs claim to have received assignments from various Medicare Advantage health plans and other insurance entities that allow them to bring this lawsuit on behalf of those entities to recover allegedly inflated amounts they paid for the company's drugs. In April 2021, the court granted the company's motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. In addition, in October 2021, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that includes state antitrust claims based on alleged facts similar to those raised by Sandoz and RareGen, LLC (now known as Liquidia PAH, LLC, a subsidiary of Liquidia Corporation) in the matter described above, adding MSP Recovery Claims Series 44, LLC as a plaintiff and Smiths Medical and CVC as defendants. In December 2021, United filed a motion to dismiss all of the plaintiffs' claims in the amended complaint, including the new antitrust claims, and Smiths Medical also filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims against Smiths Medical. In September 2022, the court dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims against United and Smiths Medical without prejudice. In October 2022, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which added federal antitrust claims and consumer protection claims under other states laws to the claims previously asserted, and also named Accredo Health Group, CVS Health Corporation, Express Scripts, Inc., and Express Scripts Holding Company (collectively, the Specialty Pharmacies), and the Adira Foundation as additional defendants. In March 2023, the company filed its motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, and the Specialty Pharmacies and Smiths Medical each filed their own motions to dismiss. On March 22, 2024, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint against all defendants in its entirety with prejudice and, for administrative purposes, issued an order dismissing the complaint. On April 12, 2024, the plaintiffs filed an objection to the magistrate judge's recommendation, and on May 10, 2024, United, along with the other defendants, filed responses to the plaintiffs' objection. If the district court judge adopts the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismisses the case, the plaintiffs will have the right to appeal. United Therapeutics Corp is a biotechnology company focused on the development and commercialization of innovative therapies for patients with chronic and life-threatening conditions, including pulmonary arterial hypertension and other cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases. The company is headquartered in Silver Spring, Maryland, with additional research and manufacturing operations in the United State VIAQUEST INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Algarawi Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ TONYA ALGARAWI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VIAQUEST, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00504-SDM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, April 24, 2026) is an action arising from the Defendant's failure to secure the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and the Class. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and negligently failing to implement reasonable measures to safeguard its current and former employees and patients' Private Information and by failing to take necessary steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of that information. The Defendant's woefully inadequate data security measures made the Data Breach a foreseeable, and even likely, consequence of its negligence. As a result of the data breach, which the Defendant failed to prevent, the Private Information of Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members, was stolen, says the suit. ViaQuest, Inc. is a US-based healthcare organization that provides specialized services including hospice, respite care, psychiatric support, behavioral treatment, home health, and disability services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Terence R. Coates, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: mweekes@milberg.com - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com VISION OF HOPE: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid Response --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HOSANNA MILLER, FAITH RUSSELL, AND RACHEL MILLER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. VISION OF HOPE MINISTRIES, INC. AND FAITH CHURCH OF LAFAYETTE, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00033-PPS-JEM (N.D. Ind.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for extension of time to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, for 40 days from the date of the Plaintiff Faith Russell's deposition. A 40-day extension is appropriate because it takes into account that deposition transcripts can take up to 30 days to be completed by the court reporting agency, and this extension would provide ten days after receiving Faith Russell's deposition transcript to file their Response brief. The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on Feb. 13, 2026. On March 17, 2026, the Court held a scheduling conference and ordered that the Defendants response to the Plaintiffs' motion for certification would be due on May 29, 2026. Vision of Hope provides humanitarian aid. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 7, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=srFfeV at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Barry L. Loftus, Esq. Jason W. Bennett, Esq. Kirstie E. Klutzke, Esq. 300 Main Street, Suite 900 Lafayette, IN 47901 Telephone: (765) 423-1561 Facsimile: (765) 742-8175 E-mail: bll@stuartlaw.com jwb@stuartlaw.com kek@stuartlaw.com WALMART INC: Ramos Can File Third Amended Complaint --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACQUELINE RAMOS and EDWIN JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WALMART INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-13827-BRM-AME (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Brian R. Martinotti entered an order that the parties' objections are overruled, and the Report and Recommendations ("R&R") are adopted. The Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a third amended complaint is granted as recommended in the R&Rs, and resolution of the temporal scope issue is deferred to the class certification stage. In October 2025, Plaintiffs filed a notice of supplemental authority, to which Defendants responded. Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated May 7, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uBT1Tt at no extra charge.[CC] WASHINGTON: E2SHB 2034 Violates U.S. Constitution, Dawson Says -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH DAWSON; JOHN NORDLUND; ALAN DENNIS VICKERY; JOHN ZIMMARO; DAVID REICHERT; ANDREW WILSON; JERALD BIRT; MARILYN CURTIS; and MICHAEL DUCHEMIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STATE OF WASHINGTON; STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS; and KATHRYN LEATHERS, in her official capacity as Director of the Washington Department of Retirement Systems, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-01469 (W.D. Wash., April 30, 2026) seeks a declaratory judgment that Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 2034 violates the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution and the Contract Clause of the Washington Constitution. In 1969, the State of Washington passed the Washington Law Enforcement Officers' and Fire Fighters' Retirement System Act, former RCW 41.26.010, et seq., which created a retirement plan for the exclusive benefit of all law enforcement officers and firefighters in the State. That plan is known as the "LEOFF Plan 1" or "LEOFF 1" and provides retirement benefits for employees hired before October 1, 1997. As of June 30, 2025, approximately 5,850 members of LEOFF Plan 1 were receiving benefits and six members were not retired. LEOFF 1 was closed to new members as of October 1, 1997. All money in the LEOFF 1 Fund must be used for the exclusive benefit of the members and beneficiaries. Nonetheless, the State has now enacted a law designed to raid the Fund and transfer approximately $3.3 billion or more to other State funds to cover a shortfall in other areas of the State budget. The law, which is denominated Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 2034 ("E2SHB 2034"), will terminate the LEOFF 1 plan on June 30, 2029, and replace it with a "Restated LEOFF" retirement system that takes on the former LEOFF 1 retirees, with the same benefits as LEOFF 1. E2SHB 2034's transfer of money out of LEOFF Plan 1 and into other programs is part of an elaborate plan by the State of Washington to stave off a very serious budget shortfall. To cover budget shortfalls, E2SHB 2034 violates RCW 41.26.040(3) by requiring the transfer of approximately $3.3 billion or more out of the LEOFF Plan 1, after which the money may be transferred to the general fund during the 2027-2029 fiscal biennium. In this action, the Plaintiffs and the Class assert that all monies contained in the Fund are vested contractual rights possessed by them and the class of LEOFF 1 plan participants and held in trust for their -- and only their -- benefit. In order to protect the benefits being received by and owed to Plaintiffs and the proposed class of LEOFF 1 retirees and beneficiaries, the Plaintiffs seek, on behalf of themselves and the proposed Class, a declaration of rights and an order enjoining the State from dissipating any amounts in the Fund. Plaintiff Dawson is a resident of King County and a retired member of the LEOFF Plan 1 currently receiving retirement benefits under the plan. The State of Washington Department of Retirement Systems is an agency of the State of Washington and, under RCW 41.50.055, is responsible for administering the LEOFF Plan 1.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com - and - Craig R. Spiegel, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 E-mail: craigs@hbsslaw.com - and - Moses Jehng, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 E-mail: moses.jehng@hbsslaw.com WAUKESHA HOSPITALITY: Morris Class Certification Bid Terminated --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Morris v. Waukesha Hospitality, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00784 (E.D. Wisc., Filed May 3, 2026), the Hon. Judge Stephen C. Dries entered an order granting the plaintiff's motion for relief from the local rules setting an automatic briefing schedule. For administrative purposes only, the court terminates the plaintiff's motion for class certification. The court stays briefing on the plaintiff's class cert motion and will re-set a briefing schedule at the Rule 16 scheduling conference. The suit alleges violation of the American Disabilities Act (ADA). Waukesha offers varied hospitality services.[CC] ZACATACOS INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carrillo Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- MARIA CARRILLO; MARILU ROMERO TENTZOHUA; NURY AGUILAR MILLAN; JENNIFER MARIA OCAMPO; YAZMIN GONZALEZ; GIOVANA SANCHEZ; and EVELYN HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ZACATACOS, INC.; ZACATACOS II, INC.; ZACATACOS III, INC.; ZACATACOS IV, INC.; and MARIO ACUNA, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-04664 (N.D. Ill., April 24, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as servers. Zacatacos, Inc. is a family-owned restaurant group best known for serving authentic char-broiled Mexican cuisine. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher J. Williams, Esq. WORKERS' LAW OFFICE 1341 W. Fullerton Ave, Suite 147 Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (312) 725-3696 Email: cwilliams@workers-law-office.com ZILLOW GROUP: Faces Securities Suits over SEC Disclosures --------------------------------------------------------- Zillow 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 6, 2026, that it is facing several securities actions, consolidated and derivative, with regards its business practices disclosed with the SEC. Three purported federal securities class action lawsuits were filed against the company and certain of the company's executive officers on November 16, 2021, November 19, 2021 and January 6, 2022, on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the company's stock between August 7, 2020 and November 2, 2021, alleging, among other things, violations of federal securities laws and that these actions, captioned "Barua v. Zillow Group, Inc. et al.," "Silverberg v. Zillow Group, et al." and "Hillier v. Zillow Group, Inc. et al.," were brought in the court and were consolidated on February 16, 2022 as the Federal Securities Suit. It states that on May 12, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint alleging, among other things, that the company issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's Zillow Offers business, and that the complaints seek, among other relief, to recover alleged damages sustained by the purported class members as a result of the alleged misconduct. It explains that on December 7, 2022, the court granted in part and denied in part the company's previously filed motion to dismiss, that on January 23, 2023 the company filed the company's answer to the consolidated complaint, that on March 14, 2024 plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification which was granted on August 23, 2024, that on September 6, 2024 the company filed a petition for permission to appeal the class certification order, that on September 16, 2024 plaintiffs filed their opposition to the company's petition, and that on September 23, 2024 the company filed the company's reply in further support of the petition. On October 24, 2024, the Ninth Circuit issued an order granting Zillow permission to appeal, that on November 1, 2024 the court issued an order staying the Federal Securities Suit pending the outcome of the appeal, which stay was extended on October 10, 2025, that on January 8, 2025 the company filed the company's opening brief in the appeal, that on March 10, 2025 plaintiffs filed their response brief, and that on April 30, 2025 the company filed the company's reply brief. It reports that on September 26, 2025, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the court's class certification, that on October 24, 2025 the company filed an en banc petition before the Ninth Circuit seeking rehearing of the Ninth Circuit's September 26, 2025 decision, and that on January 6, 2026 the Ninth Circuit issued an order denying Zillow's en banc petition. In addition, on March 10, 2022, May 5, 2022, July 20, 2022 and October 31, 2024, shareholder derivative suits were filed in the Court and on July 25, 2022, a shareholder derivative suit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County, against the company and certain of the company's executive officers and directors seeking unspecified damages on behalf of the Company and certain other relief, such as reform to corporate governance practices. The plaintiffs (including the company as a nominal defendant) allege, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maintain an effective system of internal controls, which purportedly caused the losses the company incurred when it decided to wind down Zillow Offers operations. Plaintiffs also allege, among other things, violations of Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, insider trading and waste of corporate assets. On August 23, 2023, a second shareholder derivative suit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County. These shareholder derivative lawsuits have since been stayed by the relevant courts and they remain stayed as of March 31, 2026. The complaints allege that the partnership entered into between Zillow and Redfin on February 6, 2025, harmed competition for online multifamily rental-listings in violation of federal antitrust laws. The plaintiffs seek injunctive and other equitable relief. The company filed a motion to dismiss on January 13, 2026. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the company's motion to dismiss on February 3, 2026. On February 12, 2026, the company filed the company's reply in further support of the company's motion to dismiss and on February 25, 2026, a hearing was held on the motion. Zillow Group, Inc. operates popular real estate and rental marketplaces, providing data, tools and services for home buyers, sellers, renters and real estate professionals. The company also offers related technology and financial services aimed at simplifying real estate transactions across the United States. ********* 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 ***