260521.mbx

260521.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, May 21, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 101 Headlines 1839 S ALMONT AVE: Gregory Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime A.B.C. PLUMBING: Newman Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls ADT LLC: Fails to Protect Clients' Personal Info, Jamison Says ALASKA AIR: Failed to Keep Private Information Secure, Cutler Says ALASKA AIR: Fails to Protect Personal Data, Stratton Suit Says ALASKA AIR: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Chaney Suit Says ALASKA AIR: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Johnson Suit Says ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Apodaca Appeals TCPA Suit Dismissal to 10th Cir. ALCLEAR LLC: Faces Dixon Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. ALDI INC: Faces Kim Suit Over Unlawful IEEPA-Tariff Collection ALERA GROUP: Agrees to Settle 2024 Data Breach Class Suit for $2MM AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Suit Over Heavy Metals in Sunscreens AMAZON.COM INC: Quebec Court Approve Late Deliveries Class Action AMBASSADORS N & B: Gokor Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages AMERIC LLC: Nelson Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls AMERICAN LENDING: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach AMERICAN MULTISPECIALTY: Agrees to Settle Breach Suit for $2.53MM APOLLO GLOBAL: Perez Sues Over Artificially Inflated Stock Prices ARCHER AVIATION: Mediation in Stockholder Class Suit Set for June 4 ASH MANAGEMENT: Hickey Balks at Residential Units' Inflated Prices AXIOS MEDIA: Intercept Website Users' Communications, Suit Says BAKERSFIELD DSP: Faces Claiborne Employment Suit in Cal. Super. BAKKT INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in New York BANK OF AMERICA: $2.25M ATMs Fees Settlement Final Hearing Aug. 21 BATH & BODY: Nava Sues Over Misleading Import Tariff Refunds BAYER CORP: Multivitamins Don't Improve Fertility, Fus Alleges BIOVIE INC: Consolidated Derivative Suit Stayed BIOVIE INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit BLOOM NU: Marinelli Sues Over Misleading Energy Drink Labels BLOOMINGDALE'S LLC: Scott Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit BONNIE BRIAR: Faces Sargis Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. BOOTS RETAIL: Rosa Sues Over Wipes' False "Biodegradable" Label BRAY INTERNATIONAL: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $227,000 BRIARPATCH COOPERATIVE: Agrees to Settle Employee Class Action Suit BRILLIANT EARTH: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BRITISH COLUMBIA: Class Members for Birth Alert Suit Reached 2,842 BRUERY LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Crumwell Alleges BUFFALO, NY: Nance Appeals Denied Intervention, Reconsideration CAL-MAINE FOODS: Conspires to Fix Egg Prices, Philly Phlava Says CANNAE HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend New England Teamsters Suit CAPITAL ONE: Seeks to Modify Class Cert Briefing Sched CBR SERVICES: Rivera-Santos Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. CENTENE CORPORATION: Website Uses Tracking Tools, Clark Alleges CERNER CORPORATION: Fails to Protect Private Info, Bedford Says CLEANSPARK INC: Continues to Defend Bishins Class Suit in New York CLEANSPARK INC: Continues to Defend Shareholder Derivative Suit COMMUNITY BANK: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach COMPLETE AVIATION: Underpays Non-Exempt Employees, Reaves Alleges CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suit CORDISH COMPANIES: Fails to Secure Private Info, Pocknett Alleges COREWELL HEALTH: Ison-Mack Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages CRESCO LABS: Murray Sues Over Cannabis Products' Health Risks CUMMINS-ALLISON CORP: Faces Martinez Labor Suit in N.D. Ill. DELTA AIR: Sky Sues Over Deceptive Airline Ticket Refunds DELTA DENTAL: Faces Class Suit Over Anticompetitive Practices DICELLO LEVITT: Faces Hossfeld TCPA Class Suit in W.D. Tex. DJOURNEY DIALLO: Ndao Sues Over Refusal to Pay Any Overtime Wages DOCGO INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Derivative Suit in Del. DOCGO INC: Continues to Defend Hyung Derivative Suit in New York DOCGO INC: Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Court OK DOCKETWISE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Abdi Suit Says DOLLAR GENERAL: Anthony Seeks Refund of Unlawful IEEPA Tariffs DREXEL UNIVERSITY: Deadline to Opt Out $2.2M COVID Suit Set June 25 DREYFUSS MANAGEMENT: Loses Bid to Keep "Aguilar" in Federal Court EGNYTE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Spridgen Alleges EGP OCEANSIDE: Faces Perez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ELANCO ANIMAL: Barpar Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal to 4th Cir. EMPOWER HEALTH: Sends Spam Emails, Rodriguez Suit Alleges ENDUE SOFTWARE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $870,000 EQUITY BANK: Agrees to $1 Million Overdraft Class Settlement ESTEE LAUDER: Labaton Secures $210MM Settlement in Securities Suit EYEMART EXPRESS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Iwanicki Says EYEMART EXPRESS: Lewis Sues Over Clients' Compromised Personal Info FEDEX CORP: Ross Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to W.D. Tennessee FINANCIAL BUILDERS: Dismissal of Haskins Class Suit Affirmed FIRST ROUND: Faces Johnson Class Suit in D. Nev. FIRST ROUND: Plaintiffs Seek to Transfer Bid to Compel Subpoena FIRST SEACOAST: M&A Investigates Sale to Cambridge Financial FONAR CORP: Faces Taylor Stockholder Class Suit FROST BANK: Fails to Secure Clients' Personal Info, McQuerry Says FS KKR: Faces Stuart Securities Class Suit in Pennsylvania GAGAN GENERAL: Millingalli Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages in E.D.N.Y. GLOBANT SA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Misleading Statements GOOGLE LLC: Denial of Bid to Intervene in Brown Privacy Suit Upheld GRAYROBINSON PA: Faces Napodano Tort Suit in Fla. Cir. GRAYROBINSON PA: Montgomery Sues Over Compromised Personal Info GROWPRO INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Wood Suit Claims HANESBRANDS INC: Court Greenlights Class Suit on Marketing Emails HEALTHPLEX INC: Davis Appeals TCPA Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit HELIX INNOVATIONS: Faces Card Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Action Suit Over Driver Data Sharing HOME DEPOT: Schmierer Sues Over Illegal ALPR Surveillance Practices HUMAN SECURITY: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, Chavez Says IEM ENERGY: Warren Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages IHM LIVING: Paladins Discrimination Suit Removed to W.D. Wis. IMPAC MORTGAGE: Faces Espejo Class Suit in C.D. Cal. INCLUDED HEALTH: Sends Unwanted Telemarketing Calls, Peer Claims INSTRUCTURE INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Coelho Says INSTRUCTURE INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Escoto Says JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Ayala Appeals Labor Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Squire Sues Over Data Privacy Violations JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hides Asbestos Risk in Baby Talc, Suit Claims JOHNSON GMC: Denial of Bid to Dismiss Minchin Counterclaims Vacated JUMP TRADING: Faces Ward Class Suit Over Investors' Funds KBI SERVICES: Faces Olivier Breach of Contract Suit in S.D.N.Y. KEEL INFRASTRUCTURE: Continues to Defend Bitfarms Securities Suit KEMPER CORP: Fails to Secure Clients' Personal Info, Lismon Says KING COUNTY, WA: Summary Judgment to Assessor in WHA Suit Affirmed KNOW BRAINER: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Crumwell Alleges LAFARGE CANADA: Court Certifies Cement Plant Class Action Lawsuit LAUREL EYE: Faces Chase Class Action Suit in W.D. Pa. LCT OPCO: Vaughn Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind LEGAL AID: Faces Class Suit Over Disability Accommodation LIFE360 INC: Continues to Defend Ireland-Gordy Class Suit LIFEMD INC: Faces Johnston Securities Suit LINCOLN HOLDINGS: Lockett Alleges Unauthorized Personal Info Access MAC PIZZA: Joseph Sues Over Illegal Procurement of Consumer Reports MAJCO LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Melkonian Alleges MARA HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Nevada Derivative Suit MARA HOLDINGS: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal MARCUS CORP: Morris Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users MEDPACE HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit MEDTRONIC INC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Trevino Suit Says MEDTRONIC INC: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Tanner Says MEDTRONIC INC: Marquardt Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info MEDTRONIC INC: McCollough Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info MEDTRONIC INC: McLain Sues Over Clients' Compromised Personal Info MEDTRONIC INC: Sanders Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info MEMBERSOURCE CREDIT: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach MEMORIAL SLOAN: Faces Martinez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. MERRILL LYNCH: 4th Cir. Corrects Counsel Name in Milligan Opinion METAGENOMI THERAPEUTICS: Response to Complaint Due May 27 MILE HIGH: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Jackson Says MINNESOTA: Class Certification Order in MPPOA's MGDPA Suit Reversed MISS692 LLC: Faces Lee Suit Over Line Cooks' Unpaid Wages MODIV INDUSTRIAL: M&A Investigates Sale to Global Net Lease MOON NUDE: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Mueller Claims MOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES: Agrees to Settle Robocalls Suit for $21.4MM MOUNT SINAI: O'Hara Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages NATIONAL ENTERTAINMENT: Nelson Balks at Illegal Telemarketing Calls NEW YORK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Phillip Suit Alleges NEXTERA ENERGY: Hossfeld Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Calls NIKE INC: Faces Farrington Over Unlawful Tariff-Related Price NORDIC NATURALS: Parties Must Submit Briefing Schedule by May 22 NORTH AMERICAN: Fails to Properly Pay Factory Workers, Ricks Says OCELOT VENTURES: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach OMNI AT CORAL: Property Inaccessible to Disabled, Pardo Says OMTA TECH: Faces Saula Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ONE POINT: Settles Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit for $750,000 OURARING INC: Stephenson Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind PC RICHARD: Appeals Court Greenlights Class Action Lawsuit PEACHTREE HOTEL: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Purifoy Says PLAYA BOWLS: Faces Class Vargas Action Suit in S.D. Fla. POMO INDIANS: Williams Alleges Wrongful Debt Collection Practices PORTMANTOS INC: Randolph Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store PRESTIGE FEED: Agrees to Settle Noxious Odors Suit for $900,000 QUEST SOFTWARE: Padlo Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Sales Reps R.M.T. CONTRACTING: Faces Bernardino Labor Suit in Cal. Super. RATIO HOLDINGS: Henderson Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind REALPAGE INC: Maravillas Suit Removed to E.D. California REDISCOVER: Lane Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Registered Nurses REVIVE ESSENTIAL: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Wilson Says RICHFIELD CONCRETE: May Face Suit Over Defective Titan Concrete Mix RLCL ACQUISITION: Lee Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Bus Drivers ROGUE & CO: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Jackson Suit Claims SALIMETRICS LLC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Smith Alleges SECURE HEALTH: Faces Broughman Suit Over Breach of Clients' Info SEFAS INNOVATION: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Shelton Says SEFAS INNOVATION: Fails to Secure Private Info, Adams Says SEFAS INNOVATION: Fuller Files Suit Over Data Breach SHEIN US: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Using Fake Sales SKYE BIOSCIENCE: Continues to Defend Domulot Derivative Suit SKYE BIOSCIENCE: Continues to Defend Stout Securities Class Suit SKYE BIOSCIENCE: Faces White Derivative Suit in California SNIPES USA: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dalton Suit Says SONY INTERACTIVE: Qureshi Seeks Refund of Unlawful IEEPA Tariffs SPIRIT AIRLINES: Employees Sue Over Mass Layoffs Without Notice STRETTO INC: Faces Class Action Suit in S.D.N.Y. SUBARU OF AMERICA: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Batteries SUBARU OF AMERICA: Taylor Sues Over Vehicles' Electrical Defect SUPER MICRO: Consolidated Federal Derivative Suit Stayed SUPER MICRO: Continues to Defend Averza Securities Class Suit SUPER MICRO: Continues to Defend Bhuva Securities Class Suit SUPER MICRO: Continues to Defend HERS Securities Suit SYNGENTA CROP: Munoz Sues Over Herbicide Paraquat's Health Risks TEAM GROUP: Agrees to $1.1-Mil. DRAM Class Action Settlement TEAMVIEWER US: Faces Class Suit Over Perpetual Software Licenses TENDIT GROUP: Meyerhoff Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice TENDIT GROUP: Sued Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice TEXAS: Faces Suit Challenging Constitutionality of Senate Bill 4 TIFLIS TRANSPORTATION: Kilaulani Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages TILLEY ENDURABLES: Nonato Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website TRADER JOE'S: McIntosh Sues Over Roast Coffee's Low Acid Label TRISTAR INSURANCE: $1MM Breach Settlement Final Hearing Set June 23 UNCOMMON JAMES: Echols Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website UNITED AIRLINES: De Leon Labor Suit Removed to D. Colo. UNITED SERVICES: Fails to Honor Insurance Policy, Chambliss Says URNER'S INC: Faces Cotton Tort Class Suit in Cal. Super. VACASA INC: Misleads Shareholders to OK Merger, Hartsoe Suit Says VALLEY HEALTH: Faces Hauser-Merklin Wage-and-Hour Suit in D.N.J. VGAS LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ozuna Suit Alleges VICTOR COMMUNITY: Faces Hemmert Employment Suit in Cal. Super. WEBTOON ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Derivative Suit in California WELLS FARGO: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of 401(K) Class Suit WEST SHORE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Silvis Suit Claims WESTROCK SERVICES: Jones Removed from State Court to C.D. Cal. WORLD THREADS: Faces Dalton Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website WYZE LABS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dalton Suit Says XTEND HEALTHCARE: Dargon Appeals WARN Suit Dismissal to 6th Cir. ********* 1839 S ALMONT AVE: Gregory Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------- Katie Gregory, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 1839 S ALMONT AVE LLC d/b/a SERENE GARDENS OF IMLAY CITY, a Michigan limited liability company, Case No. 2:26-cv-11498-SKD-DRG (E.D. Mich., May 5, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). As non-exempt employees, Plaintiff and other hourly employees were entitled to full compensation for all overtime hours worked at a rate of 1.5 times their regular rate of pay. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, Defendant failed to properly calculate Plaintiff's bonus pay and other non-discretionary remuneration in the regular rate for proper overtime calculation. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, she earned bonus pay and other non-discretionary remuneration. As non-exempt employees, Defendant's Hourly Employees were entitled to full compensation for all overtime hours worked at a rate of 1.5 times their "regular rate" of pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant from July 2022 through February 2026 as a non-exempt, hourly employee. The Defendant is an assisted living and memory care facility located in Imlay City, MI and employs dozens of hourly employees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Paulina R. Kennedy, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ PC One Towne Sq., 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48375 Phone: (248) 355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com pkennedy@sommerspc.com A.B.C. PLUMBING: Newman Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- WESLEY NEWMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A.B.C. PLUMBING, HEATING, COOLING & ELECTRIC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05110 (N.D. Ill., May 2, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of placing unwanted telemarketing calls to the cellular telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers in an attempt to promote its products or services without obtaining prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's action, the Plaintiff and Class members have been harmed including invasion of their privacy, annoyance, waste of time, the use of their telephone power and network bandwidth, and the intrusion on their telephone that cluttered legitimate communications. A.B.C. Plumbing, Heating, Cooling & Electric, Inc. is a provider of plumbing, heating, and cooling services based in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, PC 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com ADT LLC: Fails to Protect Clients' Personal Info, Jamison Says -------------------------------------------------------------- BRENDA JAMISON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADT LLC, d/b/a ADT SECURITY SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 9:26-cv-80504-EA (S.D. Fla., April 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, declaratory relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach in April 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. ADT LLC, doing business as ADT Security Services, is a security services provider based in Boca Raton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Hirsch, Esq. SCOTT HIRSCH LAW GROUP 6810 N. State Road 7 Coconut Creek, FL 33073 Telephone: (561) 569-6283 Email: scott@scotthirschlawgroup.com - and - Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H. Street NE Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 Facsimile: (202) 800-2730 Email: jrathod@classlawdc.com nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com ALASKA AIR: Failed to Keep Private Information Secure, Cutler Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARY CUTLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALASKA AIR GROUP CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-1527 (W.D. Wash., May 5, 2026) is a class action seeking to hold Defendant responsible for the injuries inflicted on Plaintiff and at least thousands of others due to Defendant's egregiously inadequate data security, resulting in the exposure of Plaintiff and those similarly situated's private information to unauthorized third parties. The complaint relates that Alaska Credit collects Private Information from Plaintiff and Class Members such as their emails, usernames, passwords, and authentication data in the ordinary course of business. This Private Information is then stored on Defendant's systems. On April 16, 2026, Alaska Credit announced the Data Breach that occurred on March 5, 2026 to the public through filing a sample notice of breach letter with several Attorneys General Offices. Plaintiff has not received a notice of data breach letter herself. The Plaintiff and Class Members now suffer from a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft for years to come and now must constantly monitor their financial and other accounts for unauthorized activity, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff Mary Cutler is a resident and citizen of Oregon. Defendant Alaska Air Group is a Federal Credit Union and full-service financial institution for Alaska Air Group employees and families.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kim D. Stephens, P.S., Esq. Joan M. Pradhan, Esq. Arshia Nilchian, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: 206-682-5600 Facsimile: 206-682-2992 E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com jpradhan@tousley.com anilchian@tousley.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ronald Podolny, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: 813.275.5272 Facsimile: 813-222-4736 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com ALASKA AIR: Fails to Protect Personal Data, Stratton Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA STRATTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALASKA AIR GROUP CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01497 (W.D. Wash., May 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to exercise reasonable care in securing and safeguarding Plaintiff and other individuals' sensitive personal data. On or about March 5, 2024, Defendant's third-party IT service provider experienced a data breach incident. Types of personal data exposed included account numbers, dates of birth, driver's license numbers, passport numbers, Social Security numbers, and tax identification numbers. According to the complaint, the Defendant's security failures enabled the hackers to steal the private information of Plaintiff and members of the Class. These failures put Plaintiff's and Class members' private information and interests at serious, immediate, and ongoing risk and, additionally, caused costs and expenses to Plaintiff and Class members associated with time spent and the loss of productivity from taking time to address and attempt to ameliorate, emotional grief associated with constant mitigation of personal banking and credit accounts, mitigate and deal with the actual and future consequences of the security breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment/quasi-contract, negligence per se, breach of confidence, bailments, and declaratory relief, and seeks injunctive relief, monetary damages, and all other relief as authorized in equity or by law. Alaska Air Group Credit Union is a credit union company with its principal place of business located in SeaTac, Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark J. Hilliard, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF MARK J. HILLIARD 1233 Alpine Road Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (310) 709-9749 E-mail: mark.hilliard.esq@gmail.com - and - Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street NE Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 Facsimile: (202) 800-2730 E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com ALASKA AIR: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Chaney Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------- CARMEN CHANEY, individually an on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALASKA AIR GROUP CREDIT UNION, Case No. 26-2-13848-6-KNT (Wash. Super., Kin Cty., April 17, 2026) is a class action arises out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant, which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and other current and former members of Defendant, the putative class members. On April 16, 2026, the Defendant mailed Plaintiff a letter advising her that the personally identifiable information compromised in the Data Breach included certain personal information of Defendant's members, including Plaintiff. The Private Information included but is not limited to names, account numbers, dates of birth, driver's license numbers, passport numbers, Social Security numbers, tax identification numbers, and routing numbers. The Defendant has reported to the Maine Attorney General's office that the personal information of 10,705 individuals was affected in the data breach. 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 employment or other business relationships, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information was subjected to unauthorized access by a ransomware group and precisely what type of information was accessed. LASKA AIR GROUP CREDIT UNION is a credit union in the state of Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Janelle N. Bailey, Esq. WASHINGTON INJURY LAW 1905 Queen Anne Avenue North, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98109 Telephone: (206) 960-4522 Facsimile: (206) 960-4502 E-mail: Litigation@WashingtonInjuryLaw.com - and - Sean Short, Esq. ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD MONTGOMERY, LLP service@eksm.com 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 E-mail: sshort@eksm.com ALASKA AIR: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Johnson Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ FRANKLYN JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALASKA AIR GROUP CREDIT UNION, Case No. 26-2-13850-8-SEA (Wash. Super., King Cty., April 17, 2026) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information that was impacted in a data breach. The Plaintiff's claims arise from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to it and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. On or about March 5, 2026, the Defendant experienced a Data Breach. In response, the Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. The Defendant's investigation determined that the unauthorized actors accessed its service provider's systems also may have accessed and copied certain files from Defendant's systems. The following types of Private Information were compromised as a result of the Data Breach: name, account number, date of birth, driver's license number, passport number, Social Security number, and tax identification number, says the suit. The Defendant is a not-for-profit financial cooperative serving employees, retirees, and families of Alaska Air Group.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kaleigh N. Boyd Esq. McNAUL EBEL PLLC 600 University Street, Suite 2700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 467-1816 Facsimile: (206) 624-5128 E-mail: kboyd@mcnaul.com - and - Steven Sukert, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 284-1520 E-mail: sukert@kolawyers.com ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Apodaca Appeals TCPA Suit Dismissal to 10th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS APODACA, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Dennis Apodaca, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. City of Albuquerque, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-CV-01240-JB-GBW, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. The suit is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). On Jan. 17, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss and to defer ruling until the Tenth Circuit has decided the issue. On Mar. 30, 2026, Judge James O. Browning entered an Order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Court concludes that the City of Albuquerque, as a municipal corporation, is not a "person" under the TCPA, and, therefore, the City of Albuquerque is not subject to the TCPA. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to dismiss. The appellate case is captioned as Apodaca, et al. v. City of Albuquerque, Case No. 26-2068, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on April 30, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants DENNIS APODACA, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Carter B. Harrison, Esq. Nicholas Thomas Hart, Esq. HARRISON & HART 924 Park Avenue SW, Suite E Albuquerque, NM 87102 Telephone: (505) 295-3261 Defendant-Appellee CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE is represented by: Mark T. Baker, Esq. Cerianne L. Mullins, Esq. PEIFER HANSON MULLINS & BAKER 20 First Plaza Center, Suite 725 Albuquerque, NM 87102 Telephone: (505) 247-4800 - and - Dallin Holt, Esq. HOLTZMAN VOGEL BARAN TORCHINSKY & JOSEFIAK 15405 John Marshall Highway Haymarket, VA 20186 Telephone: (540) 341-8808 ALCLEAR LLC: Faces Dixon Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. ---------------------------------------------------------- MIKALAH DIXON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALCLEAR, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV13574 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 28, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 including failure to pay employees for all hours worked, failure to provide employees with timely and duty-free meal periods, failure to authorize and permit employees to take timely and duty-free rest periods, failure to indemnify employees for necessary business expenses incurred, failure to maintain accurate records of the hours employees worked, and failure to provide employees with accurate, itemized wage statements. Ms. Dixon was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee in California from approximately October 2023 to January 2026. Alclear, LLC is a technology company in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. Allen Feghali, Esq. Julie S. Oh, Esq. Jamie C. Osganian, Esq. MOON LAW GROUP, PC 725 S. Figueroa Street, 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 232-3128 Facsimile: (213) 232-3125 Email: kmoon@moonlawgroup.com afeghali@moonlawgroup.com joh@moonlawgroup.com josganian@moonlawgroup.com ALDI INC: Faces Kim Suit Over Unlawful IEEPA-Tariff Collection -------------------------------------------------------------- SUE KIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALDI, INC., ALDI FOODS, INC., and ALDI USA, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-04661 (C.D. Cal., April 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, unjust enrichment, and money had and received. The case arises from Aldi's retention of windfall profits generated by the unlawful tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. According to the complaint, the windfall is a direct result of Aldi's systematically passing on the costs of IEEPA tariffs to its own customers, including the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that Aldi is obligated to return to her and proposed Class members all IEEPA duties passed on to customers in the form of higher prices on products, with interest. Aldi, Inc. is a grocery and retail distributor based in Batavia, Illinois. Aldi Foods, Inc. is a grocery and retail distributor based in Batavia, Illinois. ALDI USA, LLC is a grocery and retail distributor based in Batavia, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Theodore W. Maya, Esq. Alyssa Brown, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Ave., Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com abrown@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Bradley K. King, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (917) 336-0171 Facsimile: (917) 336-0177 Email: bking@ahdootwolfson.com ALERA GROUP: Agrees to Settle 2024 Data Breach Class Suit for $2MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Alera Group has agreed to a $2,000,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the risk management, insurance and financial services firm failed to protect sensitive information on its systems from a 2024 data breach. The $2 million Alera Group class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on March 30, 2026. The deal covers all living United States residents who were sent a notice of the Alera data breach indicating that their private information may have been impacted in the cyber incident. Court documents state that the private information of 873,211 current and former employees of Alera and its clients may have been accessed in the data breach. The court-approved website for the Alera Group class action settlement can be found at AleraGroupDataSettlement.com. Alera Group class members who submit a timely, valid claim form can receive up to $3,500 for documented out-of-pocket losses incurred between July 19, 2024 and June 29, 2026 due to the data breach. This benefit covers losses related to identity theft or fraud and expenses for credit monitoring, replacement IDs, postage and more. Class members must submit third-party documentation, such as receipts or bank statements, to receive a documented-loss payment. In lieu of a documented-loss payment, class members may instead submit a claim form to receive an alternative cash payment of approximately $50, which may be subject to pro rata adjustment depending on the number of valid claims filed. No proof is required to claim this benefit. In addition, all class members can submit a claim form to receive two years of CyEx medical and financial data monitoring. To submit an Alera Group settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the unique ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, fill out and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Alera Group settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by June 29, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant the Alera Group settlement final approval following a hearing on August 3, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Alera Group class action lawsuit alleged that the firm, which provides insurance and retirement benefits, failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to protect client and employee information on its systems from a data breach that occurred between July 19, 2024 and August 4, 2024. Per court documents, confidential information that may have been compromised during the breach included names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, addresses, demographic information, driver's licenses, financial accounts, credit card information, passport number, insurance information, medical information, biometric information, usernames, and login information. [GN] AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Suit Over Heavy Metals in Sunscreens ---------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Amazon has failed to warn consumers that certain sunscreen products sold by the online retail giant contain, or risk containing, high levels of toxic heavy metals. The 122-page lawsuit says that although Amazon controls the content of the product listings for the sunscreen products at issue, the listings include no warning that the items -- a number of which are intended for use by babies and children -- are contaminated with "alarmingly high" levels of heavy metals, including poisonous neurotoxins like cadmium and lead. "Nowhere on Amazon's point-of-sale webpages does it disclose that the Sunscreen Products contain heavy metals, including cadmium and lead," the complaint summarizes. The spray, roll-on, stick and lotion products at issue in the Amazon sunscreen lawsuit include: -- -365 by Whole Foods Market Sport Mineral Sunscreen (SPF 30); -- -Sun Bum Baby Bum Mineral Sunscreen (SPF 50); -- -Banana Boat Simply Protect Baby Sunscreen (SPF 50); -- -Banana Boat Simply Protect Kids Sunscreen (SPF 50); -- -Blue Lizard Baby Mineral Sunscreen (SPF 50); -- -Blue Lizard Kids Mineral Sunscreen (SPF 50); -- -Coppertone Kids Tear Free Sunscreen (SPF 50); -- -Coppertone Pure & Simple Baby Sunscreen (SPF 50); -- -Coppertone Pure & Simple Kids Sunscreen (SPF 50); -- -Thinkbaby Baby Mineral Sunscreen (SPF 50); and -- -Thinkbaby Baby Sunscreen for Sensitive Skin (SPF 50). According to the filing, it is well-recognized among health authorities that there is no safe level of human exposure to heavy metals like lead and cadmium. This is particularly true for infants and small children, who the suit stresses are more vulnerable to the negative health effects of heavy metals because their skin is thinner and more permeable, and their bodies lack "detoxification capacity" and absorb more lead than adults. Further, children are more likely to be exposed to lead due to their "innate curiosity" and "hand-to-mouth" method of exploring the world, which can result in heavy metal absorption through the skin and gastrointestinal tract, the suit says. Repeated exposure to lead can cause an array of adverse health effects for babies and children, including anemia, brain and nervous system damage, decreased attention spans, hearing and speech problems, hyperactivity, academic and behavioral problems, lower intelligence quotient (IQ), slowed growth and developmental milestones, and underperformance in school, among others, the complaint states. Moreover, the lawsuit says that cadmium is a neurotoxin and "probable human carcinogen" that can cause kidney, bone and heart damage. The filing states that even in trace amounts, heavy metals like cadmium can "erode" children's brains and nervous systems and lead to permanent intellectual and behavioral issues, with "profound" consequences for "the welfare and productivity of entire societies." The lawsuit shares that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in recognition of children's vulnerability to heavy metals, issued a statement that growing bodies and brains are more susceptible to "troubling" adverse health effects, and that any source of heavy metals should be "avoided and minimized." According to the class action lawsuit, independent testing conducted by the plaintiff's counsel and third-party consumer advocate Lead Safe Mama confirmed the presence of "undisclosed" heavy metals in the sunscreen products at issue in amounts that "far exceed" acceptable drinking-water limits as dictated by government authorities. Testing found that Amazon sold sunscreen products containing undisclosed levels of cadmium as high as 656.5 parts per billion (ppb) and levels of lead up to 2,728.5 ppb, the filing says. The Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act (TFCA) restricts the presence of lead and lead compounds to one part per million, and the EPA and Food and Drug Administration agree that the maximum contaminant level of cadmium in drinking water should not exceed 5 ppb, while the World Health Organization's cap on cadmium in drinking water is 3 ppb, the complaint states. Per the case, adverse health effects associated with heavy metals are irreversible, as heavy metals bioaccumulate and remain in the body for years, to the point that "regular exposure to small amounts" still increases the risk of problems with the neurological, skeletal, reproductive, hematopoietic, renal and cardiovascular systems. The suit alleges that high levels of lead and cadmium found in the sunscreen products "contradict and impede" their primary function, as the heavy metals provide no sun protection. The suit says that it is possible to manufacture sunscreens with non-detectable levels of cadmium and lead, as evidenced by the existence of heavy metal-free sunscreens from competing brands. The suit claims that Amazon deliberately chose to not warn of the presence of heavy metals -- despite parents and caregivers having an understandable interest in the safety of products to be applied directly to their children's skin -- and instead "actively concealed" their presence in the sunscreen products, which allegedly allowed the company to reap "enormous" profits from the sale of the sunscreens. The Amazon class action lawsuit looks to cover all individuals in the United States who, from the beginning of the applicable statute of limitations period to the present, purchased any of the sunscreen products listed on this page from Amazon for household use and not for resale. [GN] AMAZON.COM INC: Quebec Court Approve Late Deliveries Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Lofaro, writing for CTV News, reports that Amazon Prime customers in Quebec who didn't get their packages on time are one step closer to getting some financial compensation. A Superior Court judge has approved a class action lawsuit against the American online retail giant after a Quebec resident claimed the promised delivery times that came with his Prime subscription weren't met. The plaintiff, Jean Desnoyers, alleges that the late deliveries were the result of Amazon closing all its warehouses in Quebec in January 2025, and is seeking a refund for his Prime subscription or a discount. He is also seeking punitive damages. The allegations in the request for authorization of the class action have not yet been tested in court. In a judgment issued last Friday, May 15, Superior Court Justice Dominique Poulin agreed to allow the case to move forward. Class members include all Quebec residents who were Amazon Prime subscribers between Jan. 22, 2025, and March 31, 2025, made a purchase on amazon.ca, and whose delivery time exceeded the promised one- or two-day guarantee. In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges Amazon knew it would be unable to fulfill its contractual obligations for deliveries and used "misleading representations" regarding the deadlines of eligible items for Prime deliveries. Amazon decided on Jan. 22, 2025, to shutter all seven of its warehouses in Quebec and handle deliveries through local third-party delivery companies. According to the judgment, Desnoyers signed up for Amazon Prime in 2022 based on guarantees of deliveries in one or two days on eligible items, but then "the Prime delivery service soon began to deteriorate shortly after these closures. Delivery times were not met, and orders were cancelled. On Jan. 29, 2025, he placed an order for a pack of razor blades — an eligible item — with delivery scheduled for the following day, Jan. 30. However, the delivery was made on Feb. 3, 2025." The judge allowed Amazon to submit certain evidence about the plaintiff, including his order history showing that while some orders were delivered several days late, others arrived within the Prime deadline. The "majority" of his orders came on time, with a "low" number being delivered late. The plaintiff, meanwhile, also submitted evidence from news articles and social media posts about late deliveries after the warehouses closed. Based on the evidence presented so far, the judge wrote that the plaintiff's case has merit, and the facts are "sufficient to suggest that Amazon was not fully able to deliver within the promised timeframes during the weeks following the closure of its warehouses." The judge will have to decide whether or not Amazon's actions violated Quebec's Consumer Protection Act and the Quebec Civil Code, and if it can be held liable. The Montreal law firm Slater Vecchio LLP is representing the plaintiff. [GN] AMBASSADORS N & B: Gokor Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- DAA GOKOR, Plaintiff v. AMBASSADORS N & B, INC. AND KAREN LOVE, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-01057 (N.D. Ohio, May 6, 2026) is brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, for Defendants' violation of the Ohio Revised Code and the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees at least one-and a-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours that Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees worked over 40 in a workweek. The Plaintiff has been an employee for Defendants for approximately nine years. Ambassadors N & B, Inc. is an enterprise engaging in interstate commerce with its headquarters in Toledo, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephan I. Voudris, Esq. Julian Meyer, Esq. VOUDRIS LAW LLC 8401 Chagrin Road, Suite 8 Chagrin Falls, OH 44023 Telephone: (440) 543-0670 Facsimile: (440) 543-0721 E-mail: svoudris@voudrislaw.com jmeyer@voudrislaw.com AMERIC LLC: Nelson Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------ JUSTIN NELSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERIC LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-04766 (C.D. Cal., May 2, 2026) is a class action against Americ LLC under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant routinely violates the law by delivering, or causing to be delivered, more than one advertisement or marketing call to residential or cellular telephone numbers registered with the National Do-Not-Call Registry without prior express invitation or permission required by the TCPA. The Plaintiff suffered actual harm as a result of the subject text messages in that he suffered an invasion of privacy, an intrusion into his life, and a private nuisance, says the suit. Americ LLC is a limited liability company headquartered in Burbank, Los Angeles County, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: rachel@kaufmanpa.com AMERICAN LENDING: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the American Lending data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the American Lending data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. American Lending Security Incident: What Happened? American Lending Center (ALC) has revealed a data breach impacting 123,158 individuals. A sample notification letter states that American Lending experienced a ransomware attack in July 2025, during which the threat actor compromised its internal network. A data-mining initiative to identify the scope of the American Lending Center data breach and affected parties concluded on April 8, 2026, revealing that the compromised information included at least names, dates of birth, and Social Security information. The company, which provides loans to small businesses, startups, and other projects nationwide, sent written notifications to individuals impacted by the ALC data breach on April 28 of this year. What You Can Do After the American Lending Data Breach If your information was exposed in the American Lending data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force American Lending to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. [GN] AMERICAN MULTISPECIALTY: Agrees to Settle Breach Suit for $2.53MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that current and former patients and other individuals who received a notice that their personal information may have been compromised in the April 2025 Esse Health data breach could be eligible to submit a claim for a cash payment and medical identity monitoring from a class action settlement. The cybersecurity incident impacted approximately 521,167 people. American Multispecialty Group Inc., d/b/a Esse Health, agreed to pay $2.53 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it failed to adequately protect patient data, leading to a cyberattack that exposed sensitive information including names, Social Security numbers, addresses, dates of birth, health insurance details and certain health records. Who can file a claim for a data breach payout? Class members are individuals whose private information the April 2025 data breach was potentially compromised. This includes those who received notices from Esse Health. How much are settlement payments? Class members have the following benefit options: -- Pro rata cash payment: Class members can submit a claim to receive a one-time cash payment estimated at $50. The settlement administrator will determine the final payment amount by the total number of claims filed. -- Medical identity monitoring: All class members can elect to receive two years of CyEx Medical Shield Complete, which includes monitoring for health care insurance ID and medical record number exposure, monitoring for unauthorized health savings account spending, $1 million in medical identity theft insurance and access to a fraud resolution agent if needed. How to claim a class action rebate To receive a settlement payment, class members can file a claim online or print a PDF claim form to complete and mail to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Esse Health Data Incident Settlement, c/o Settlement Administrator, PO Box 25226, Santa Ana, CA 92799-9958 Required claim information To submit a claim online, class members must provide the login ID and PIN from the settlement notice they received. Payout options -- PayPal -- Venmo -- Zelle -- Virtual prepaid card -- Paper check mailed to the address provided Settlement fund breakdown The $2,525,000 settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees and costs: Up to $1,300,000 -- Attorneys' expenses: Up to $50,000 -- Service awards to class representatives: $1,500 each ($12,000 total) -- Payments to approved claimants: Remaining settlement funds Esse Health will pay for medical identity protection separately. It is not part of the settlement fund. Important dates -- Opt-out deadline: July 5, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: Aug. 3, 2026 -- Claim deadline: Aug. 4, 2026 When is the Esse Health settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments and medical identity protection information to approved claimants within 60 days of final approval or within 21 days of claim approval, whichever is later. Why is there a class action settlement? This class action lawsuit claimed a cyberattack on Esse Health's computer systems in April 2025 exposed sensitive patient information. The plaintiffs alleged that Esse Health failed to adequately protect their data. Esse Health denies the allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the expense and uncertainty of continued litigation. Settlement Open for Claims Award: $50 (estimated) Deadline: August 4, 2026 [GN] APOLLO GLOBAL: Perez Sues Over Artificially Inflated Stock Prices ----------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT, INC., MARC ROWAN, and LEON BLACK, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03550 (S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Apollo's business, operations, and prospects in order to trade Apollo securities at artificially inflated prices between May 10, 2021 and February 21, 2026. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Defendants Rowan and Black, among other leadership figures at Apollo, frequently communicated with Epstein in the 2010s regarding Apollo's business; (2) as a result, Apollo's assertion that the Company had never done business with Epstein was untrue; (3) because of the entanglement between Apollo's leaders and Epstein, the harm to Apollo's reputation was more than a mere possibility; and (4) as a result, the Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all times. When the truth emerged, the price of Apollo stock fell $1.35 per share to close at $133.19 on February 2, 2026. Apollo shares continued to drop by $5.99, or approximately 5 percent, to close at $113.73 on February 23, 2026. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Apollo Global Management, Inc. is an asset and manager and retirement services provider based in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kim E. Miller, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10177 Telephone: (212) 696-3732 Facsimile: (504) 455-1498 Email: kim.miller@ksfcounsel.com ARCHER AVIATION: Mediation in Stockholder Class Suit Set for June 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Archer Aviation 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 parties in the consolidated stockholder class suit have scheduled a mediation on June 4, 2026. On May 17, 2024, two putative stockholders of the Company (and formerly, Atlas Crest Investment Corp. (Atlas)) filed class action lawsuits, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated stockholders, in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the Court) against the directors and officers of Atlas, the Company, the Company's co-founders, Archer Aviation Inc. (prior to its business combination with Atlas, Legacy Archer), Moelis & Company Group LP, and Moelis & Company LLC. The complaint asserted claims for breaches of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties, and unjust enrichment in connection with the merger between Atlas and the Company, and the plaintiffs requested damages in an amount to be determined at trial, as well as attorneys and experts fees. Relatedly, on June 19, 2024, another putative stockholder of the Company filed a class action lawsuit, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated stockholders, in the Court asserting similar claims as the May 17, 2024 complaint against the same defendants named in that May complaint. The Court subsequently consolidated the related class actions and appointed a lead plaintiff. In addition, the parties have scheduled a mediation on June 4, 2026, and trial in the consolidated class action is scheduled to begin on May 17, 2027. Archer Aviation Inc. is a Santa Clara, California-based aerospace company developing electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft for urban air mobility and regional transportation markets. The Company focuses on designing, manufacturing, and certifying low-noise, zero-operating-emission aircraft intended for use in commercial air taxi and related services. ASH MANAGEMENT: Hickey Balks at Residential Units' Inflated Prices ------------------------------------------------------------------ AMBER HICKEY; LAURA FRANZE; HAYDAR ALI; MARGARET LAPIER; RAYMOND HAMPSON; ROSEMARIE KING; OLIVIA BELON; JEFFREY DARIUS; MCKENZIE KING; FREDERICK MANGINE; ROBERT DEFREESE; CYNTHIA COTTRELL; STAR GANDARA; ANDREW PHILLIPS; DUANE PETIT; JESSICA WHYTE; and, TRACEY BENTLEY; individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated tenants of Hoffman manufactured home parks; and, HOFFMAN TENANTS ADVOCACY GROUP, INC., a NY Not For Profit Corporation, Assignee of Property Damage Claims Of Certain HMHP Tenants, Plaintiffs v. ASH MANAGEMENT, LTD d/b/a HOFFMAN HOMES; SCH COMMUNITIES LLC d/b/a HOFFMAN HOMES; BLUEBIRD KNOLLS LLC owner/operator of Bluebird Knolls HMHP; BLUEBIRD TERRACE, LLC owner/operator of Bluebird Terrace HMHP; HIGHLAND TERRACE FORT PLAIN, LLC owner/operator of Highland Estates HMHP; HYSPOT ROAD GREENFIELD, LLC owner/operator of Hyspot HMHP; LATHAM MOBILE HOME PARK, INC. owner/operator of Latham HMHP; LOUGHBERRY PARK LLC owner/operator of Loughberry HMHP; ROLLING RIDGE HOMES, LLC owner/operator of Rolling Ridge HMHP; SARATOGA ACRES LLC owner/operator of Saratoga Acres HMHP; SARATOGA 29, LLC owner/operator of Saratoga Villas HMHP; SARATOGA VILLAGE, LLC owner/operator of Saratoga Village HMHP; SARATOGA WEST MOBILE HOME PARK INC. owner/operator of Saratoga West HMHP; SHADY ACRES 800 LLC owner/operator of Shady Acres HMHP; STONE CHURCH VILLAGE LLC owner/operator of Stone Church Village HMHP; TSK COMMUNITIES LLC owner/operator of Country Manor HMHP and Whispering Pines HMHP; WHISPERING PINES II, LLC owner/operator of Whispering Pines II HMHP; NORTHEAST MOBILE HOME SPECIALISTS, INC., a New York Corporation; CHAMPION HOMES, INC., an Indiana Corporation; CHAMPION HOME BUILDERS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; COMMODORE HOMES LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; CAVCO INDUSTRIES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; 21ST MORTGAGE CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; TRIAD FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., a Florida Corporation; and, CREDIT HUMAN FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, a Federal Credit Union located in San Antonio, Texas, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00989-MAD-DJS (N.D.N.Y., May 1, 2026) arises from the Defendants' conduct of working in close business association, concert and combination, regarding a common plan (hereinafter referred to as "Concerted Action") that used unfair, deceptive, and unlawful means to substantially increase each of the Defendants' sales, market share, and revenue stream to the detriment of Hoffman tenants, including Plaintiffs. According to the complaint, beginning in 2020, and continuing over the months and years that followed, Hoffman Defendants -- ASH Management Ltd., SCH Communities LLC, and the affiliated entities -- with the essential participation of the Defendant Manufacturers and Lenders transitioned from a manufactured home park operator whose primary business was lot rental tenancies that conducted occasional cash sales of manufactured homes, to a far more sophisticated enterprise. In order to boost each of the Defendants' bottom lines, the Defendants' common plan entailed presenting to prospective Hoffman tenants the false promise that Hoffman had a "proven effective process to help people reach their dreams of home ownership" which was misrepresented as a quality "custom built" energy efficient weathertight Champion or Commodore manufactured residential unit, that could be purchased through the "best financing options," that would be professionally assembled in conformance with strict regulatory standards, and sited in a "sought after" well-maintained and operated Hoffman park where tenants "thrive." As part of the common plan, the Defendants concealed the fact that their common business interests did not support the representations made regarding purchasing or renting a Hoffman Home manufactured by Champion or Commodore and assembled, serviced, and sited in a Hoffman park. The Defendants failed to disclose to prospective tenants that the common plan between them depended on significant volume throughput of Champion and Commodore units being sold and non-conforming retail "chattel loans" for their purchase being placed, says the suit. As a result of Defendants' common plan, beginning in 2020 and continuing over the months and years that followed: (a) certain Plaintiffs were unfairly, deceptively, and unlawfully induced to: (i) purchase Defendant Manufacturers' substandard and misrepresented manufactured residential units at inflated prices; (ii) finance the inflated purchase through predatory long-term, high-interest, retail chattel loans by Defendant Lenders; and, (iii) enter into lot rentals in one of the misrepresented, poorly serviced, and maintained Hoffman manufactured home parks; and (b) all Hoffman park tenants were routinely subjected to unsafe and dangerous conditions, insufficient and unhealthy utility services, habitually unresponsive, unprofessional and unqualified staff, and persistent, inappropriate, and unlawful charges, fees and notices of violations and eviction, all of which deprived tenants of their right to the quiet enjoyment and the warranty of habitability required of manufactured home park tenancies, the suit contends. Ash Management, Ltd., d/b/a Hoffman Homes, is a manufactured housing and property management company based in Saratoga County, New York, managing over 18 communities.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott B. Richman, Esq. RICHMAN LAW FIRM PLLC 630 Third Avenue, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 854-3547 E-mail: srichman@richman-law-firm.com - and - Robert M. Foote, Esq. Bret Pufahl, Esq. Kathleen C. Chavez, Esq. Elizabeth C. Chavez, Esq. FOOTE CHAVEZ LAW, LLC 1541 E. Fabyan Parkway, Suite 101 Geneva, IL 60134 Telephone: (630) 228-9091 Facsimile: (630) 232-7452 E-mail: rmf@fmcolaw.com bkp@fmcolaw.com kcc@fmcolaw.com ecc@fmcolaw.com - and - Jan R. Schlichtmann, Esq. JAN SCHLICHTMANN, ESQ. PO Box 233 Prides Crossing, MA 01965 Telephone: (978) 804-2553 E-mail: jan@schlichtmannlaw.com AXIOS MEDIA: Intercept Website Users' Communications, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- SALEEM ERAKAT, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons v. AXIOS MEDIA INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:26-cv-04288 (N.D. Cal., May 7, 2026) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all California residents who have accessed and used www.axios.com, a website that Defendant provides for public access and use. Accordingly, the Plaintiff navigated to multiple pages on the Website, unaware that Defendant was causing and permitting Third Parties to intercept the content of his communications and reveal his personal private interests. The Defendant caused the interception of the contents of Plaintiff's communications with the Website, including the page URLs identifying what he was browsing and/or the referrer URLs reflecting prior navigation, which were transmitted to the Third Parties during the page-load process itself. The Defendant allegedly surreptitiously embeds and operates third-party tracking technologies on the Website that intercept the contents of users' electronic communications in real time and without notice or consent. The Trackers receive these contents alongside persistent cross-session identifiers that link each interception to the user’s behavioral profile across multiple sessions, devices, and websites, the suit says. Axios is a digital news organization providing original reporting, smart-brevity newsletters, podcasts, and local newsroom coverage of national and regional events.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC P.O. Box 1989 No. 305 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Telephone: (562) 612-1708 E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com BAKERSFIELD DSP: Faces Claiborne Employment Suit in Cal. Super. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bakersfield DSP LLC. The case is captioned as Jeremiah Claiborne, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bakersfield DSP LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, Case No. 26CUB01607 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., April 7, 2026). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Mark T. Smith. The suit alleges Defendant's employment-related violations. Bakersfield is a locally owned and operated Amazon Delivery Service Partner.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC www.jameshawkinsaplc.com 9880 Research Dr Ste 200 Irvine, CA 92618-4342 Telephone: (949) 387-7200 Facsimile: (949) 387-6676 E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com BAKKT INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bakkt, 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 a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action complaint filed on April 2, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain current and former officers. The complaint alleges that the Company made false or misleading statements and omissions of purportedly material fact, in violation of federal securities laws, in connection with disclosures relating to the non-renewal of the Company's agreements with Webull and Bank of America N.A. The complaint seeks damages, as well as fees and costs. The Company intends to defend the matter vigorously; however, it is refraining from expressing any judgment upon the likelihood of a favorable or unfavorable outcome in this matter given the early stage of the litigation. On September 15, 2025, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On November 14, 2025, defendants filed a motion seeking the dismissal of all claims, which was fully briefed on February 12, 2026 and remains pending. No hearing has yet been scheduled on the motion. Additionally, the Company disclosed that on July 14, 2025, July 16, 2025, and July 18, 2025, its Board of Directors received demand letters from three shareholders (collectively, the "Demands"). These Demands are premised on the same alleged misconduct as the Class Action litigation described above and seek (i) an internal investigation, (ii) a civil action, if applicable, and (iii) various Board actions in connection with the alleged misconduct. Defendants have asked these shareholders to pause the Board's consideration of these Demands until resolution of defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss the federal securities litigation; to date, two of the three shareholders have so agreed. Bakkt, Inc. operates a digital asset platform that provides cryptocurrency trading, custody, and related services to institutions and consumers. The Company focuses on enabling secure, regulated access to digital assets and related financial products. BANK OF AMERICA: $2.25M ATMs Fees Settlement Final Hearing Aug. 21 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that Bank of America agreed to a $2.25 million class action settlement to resolve claims it charged multiple out-of-network fees at 7-Eleven ATMs. The Bank of America settlement benefits accountholders who were assessed more than one out-of-network balance inquiry fee during the same visit to an FCTI ATM located in a 7-Eleven store between May 1, 2018, and Nov. 16, 2021. According to the class action lawsuit, Bank of America breached its contract with customers by charging multiple out-of-network fees for balance inquiries at 7-Eleven ATMs. Plaintiffs in the case say they were charged two out-of-network fees for a single balance inquiry at 7-Eleven ATMs. Bank of America is a national bank with locations across the country. The bank also has ATMs in other locations, including convenience stores, such as 7-Eleven. Bank of America has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $2.25 million class action settlement to resolve the lawsuit. Under the terms of the Bank of America settlement, class members can receive a proportional share of the net settlement fund based on the number of claims filed. No payment estimates are available at this time. The deadline for exclusion and objection is July 7, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Bank of America settlement is scheduled for Aug. 21, 2026. Current Bank of America accountholders do not need to file a claim to receive settlement benefits. Former Bank of America accountholders must file a claim to receive settlement benefits. The claim form is available on the settlement website. The claim form deadline is June 29, 2026. Who's Eligible The class action settlement benefits Bank of America accountholders who were charged more than one out-of-network balance inquiry fee during the same visit to an FCTI-owned ATM located in a 7-Eleven store between May 1, 2018, and Nov. 16, 2021, and did not make a valid claim and receive payment in Weiss v. FCTI Inc. Potential Award TBD Proof of Purchase Bank of America account number Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 06/29/2026 Case Name Schertzer, et al. v. Bank of America N.A., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00264-DMS-MSB, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Final Hearing 08/21/2026 Settlement Website OONFeeSettlement.com Claims Administrator Schertzer v. Bank of America c/o Kroll Settlement Administration P.O. Box 225391 New York, NY 10150-5391 (833) 447-8321 Class Counsel Todd D. Carpenter Jae K. Kim Tiffine E. Malamphy LYNCH CARPENTER LLP Defense Counsel Shawn R. Obi Amanda L. Groves WINSTON & STRAWN LLP [GN] BATH & BODY: Nava Sues Over Misleading Import Tariff Refunds ------------------------------------------------------------ GINA NAVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BATH & BODY WORKS, INC.; BATH & BODY WORKS, LLC; and BATH & BODY WORKS BRAND MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-04703 (C.D. Cal., April 30, 2026) alleges violation of the International Emergency Economy Powers Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant made a retention of windfall proceeds tied to tariffs imposed under the IEEPA, which the Defendant passed onto consumers in the form of increased pricing and which Defendant now seeks to recover from the federal government through court-ordered refunds. Because only the importer of record can obtain tariff refunds from the government, and because consumers frequently shoulder the ultimate economic burden of the previously imposed tariffs through higher retail prices, the Defendant's approach results in a structural mismatch between injury and recovery that leaves consumers uncompensated. Put simply, while the importer fronts the tariff-related cost, the consumer ultimately pays it, says the suit. Bath & Body Works, Inc. manufactures personal care products. The Company offers fragrance, gifts, body care, and bath products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Theodore W. Maya, Esq. Alyssa Brown, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Ave., Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com abrown@ahdootwolfson.com BAYER CORP: Multivitamins Don't Improve Fertility, Fus Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- KRZYSZTOF FUS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BAYER CORPORATION, Case No. 3:26-cv-04261-TSH (N.D. Cal., May 7, 2026) contends that the Defendant intentionally misleads consumers into believing that One A Day Men's Pre-Conception Health Multivitamins (the Product) will improve their fertility by improving the chances of conception and supporting sperm health and viability, in violations of the California's False Advertising Law, California's Unfair Competition Law, and California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Accordingly, it does this because consumers desire products that will improve their fertility. However, unbeknownst to consumers, the Product does not in fact provide any of these fertility benefits. As such, the Defendant has allegedly engaged in widespread false and deceptive conduct by designing, marketing, manufacturing, distributing, and selling the Product with the Fertility Representations. Every package of the Product misleads consumers into believing the Product will improve their fertility. The Plaintiff and Class members purchased the Product, which are designed, marketed, manufactured, distributed, and sold by Defendant. Further, the Plaintiff and Class members relied to their detriment on Defendant's Fertility Representations, when the Product does not in fact improve fertility. The Plaintiff and Class members would not have purchased the Product -- or would not have paid as much as they did to purchase them -- had they known the Fertility Representations were false, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff purchased the Multivitamins from Amazon.com for $14.99. The Defendant formulates, manufactures, labels, markets, distributes and sells the products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. Brittany S. Wcott., Esq. Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 28 Geary Street, Ste., 650, No. 1507 San Francisco, CA 94 E-mail: yeremey@skclassactions.com britanny@skclassactions.com joel@skclassactions.com BIOVIE INC: Consolidated Derivative Suit Stayed ----------------------------------------------- BioVie 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 Nevada stayed the consolidated derivative suit pending resolution of a summary judgment motion by defendants in the Securities Class Action. Three shareholder derivative lawsuits piggy-backing on the Securities Class Action were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, allegedly on behalf of the Company, by three putative stockholders: Andrew Hulm on December 30, 2024; William Settel on April 28, 2025; and Cline Wilkerson on September 11, 2025 (collectively, the Related Derivative Lawsuits). Each Related Derivative Lawsuit names the same current and former officers and directors as defendants and alleges essentially the same claims: that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by causing or failing to prevent the securities violations alleged in the Securities Class Action, and related claims for unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, gross mismanagement, and abuse of control. On September 29, 2025, at the request of the parties, the court consolidated all three Related Derivative Lawsuits under the caption In re BioVie Inc. Derivative Litigation, Case No. 3:24-cv-0602-CSD (the Consolidated Derivative Action). On January 27, 2026, at the request of the parties, the court stayed the Consolidated Derivative Action pending resolution of a summary judgment motion by defendants in the Securities Class Action. BioVie Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing therapies for serious liver and neurological diseases, including treatments targeting neurodegenerative conditions such as Alzheimer disease. The company pursues clinical-stage drug candidates intended to address significant unmet medical needs in these therapeutic areas. BIOVIE INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ BioVie 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 a consolidated securities class suit in United States District Court for the District of Nevada. On January 19, 2024, a purported securities class action complaint, captioned Eric Olmstead v. BioVie Inc. et al., No. 3:24-cv-00035, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. On February 22, 2024, a second, related putative securities class action was filed in the same court asserting similar claims against the same defendants, captioned Way v. BioVie Inc. et al., No. 2:24-cv-00361. On April 15, 2024, the court consolidated these two actions under the caption In re BioVie Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:24-cv-00035, appointed the lead plaintiff, and approved selection of the lead counsel. On June 21, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, alleging that the defendants made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact relating to the Company's business, operations, compliance, and prospects, including information related to the NM101 Phase 3 study and trial of bezisterim (NE3107) in mild to moderate probable AD, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The class action is on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities during the period from December 7, 2022 through November 28, 2023, and seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on August 21, 2024, and on March 27, 2025, the court denied that motion. The parties are now engaged in fact discovery. On February 13, 2026, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Defendants opposed the motion for leave to amend, and that motion is now fully briefed and pending before the court. Defendants' opposition to the motion for class certification is due June 15, 2026. BioVie Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing therapies for serious liver and neurological diseases, including treatments targeting neurodegenerative conditions such as Alzheimer disease. The company pursues clinical-stage drug candidates intended to address significant unmet medical needs in these therapeutic areas. BLOOM NU: Marinelli Sues Over Misleading Energy Drink Labels ------------------------------------------------------------ BIANCA MARINELLI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLOOM NU LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02689-RML (E.D.N.Y., May 5, 2026) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and other purchasers of Defendant's Bloom Sparkling Energy drinks brought pursuant to the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant's "no artificial colors, flavors, or aspartame" representations are featured on the products' labeling in order to induce health-conscious consumers to purchase drinks that are free from artificial flavors. The Defendant markets its products in a systematically misleading manner by misrepresenting that the products do not contain artificial flavors, it adds. The Defendant has profited unjustly as a result of its deceptive conduct. The Plaintiff therefore asserts claims on behalf of herself and similarly situated purchasers for violation of the state law, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. Bloom Nu LLC offers health and wellness supplements for women.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julian C. Diamond, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: jdiamond@bursor.com BLOOMINGDALE'S LLC: Scott Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- LORI SCOTT is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her lawsuit entitled Lori Scott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bloomingdale's, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-03661-GLR, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Plaintiff Scott brings this suit against the Defendants for false and misleading e-mail marketing. On Dec. 5, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which Judge George Levi Russell, III granted on Mar. 25, 2026. The case is dismissed. The appellate case is styled as Lori Scott v. Bloomingdales, LLC, Case No. 26-1524, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on April 29, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant LORI SCOTT, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: David Trojanowski, Esq. Cory L. Zajdel, Esq. Z LAW, LLC 2345 York Road Timonium, MD 21093 Telephone: (443) 213-1977 Defendants-Appellees BLOOMINGDALE'S, LLC, et al. are represented by: Matthew D. Berkowitz, Esq. Kelsey Blair Williams, Esq. CARR MALONEY, PC 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 310-5500 BONNIE BRIAR: Faces Sargis Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------- KYLE SARGIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE BONNIE BRIAR COUNTRY CLUB, INC.; BONNIE BRIAR SYNDICATE, INC.; JOE CONDOMITTI GOLF SHOP LLC; FAME GOLF, LLC; JOSEPH "JOE" CONDOMITTI; JAMES TILLA; and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 7:26-cv-03597 (S.D.N.Y., April 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Sargis worked for the Defendants as a golf caddie and golf-course worker from approximately March 29, 2022, through April 2024. The Bonnie Briar Country Club, Inc. is a country club and golf course operator located in Larchmont, New York. Bonnie Briar Syndicate, Inc. is a country club and golf course operator located in Larchmont, New York. Joe Condomitti Golf Shop LLC is a country club and golf course operator located in Larchmont, New York. FAME Golf, LLC is a country club and golf course operator located in Larchmont, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford Tucker, Esq. SACCO & FILLAS LLP 31-19 Newtown Ave., 7th Floor Astoria, NY 11102 Telephone: (718) 269-2243 Email: CTucker@SaccoFillas.com BOOTS RETAIL: Rosa Sues Over Wipes' False "Biodegradable" Label --------------------------------------------------------------- CATHY ROSA, STACY FELDBRANDT, and CLAIR AWAD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BOOTS RETAIL USA INC., D/B/A NO. 7 BEAUTY, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03526-MMG (S.D.N.Y., April 28, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of New Yorks General Business Law and breach of express warranty. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of No. 7 Biodegradable Makeup Removing Wipes and/or Biodegradable Cleansing Wipes. According to the complaint, the Defendant represents the wipes as biodegradable. However, this representation is false and/or misleading because the wipes products will not biodegrade under a reasonably short period of time when customarily disposed of. As a result of its deceptive conduct, the Defendant violates state consumer protection statutes and has been unjustly enriched at the expense of consumers. Boots Retail USA Inc., doing business as No. 7 Beauty, is a consumers products manufacturer, with its principal place of business in Deerfield, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. Matthew A. Girardi, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 874-0710 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com mgirardi@bursor.com BRAY INTERNATIONAL: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $227,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Bray International Inc. has agreed to a $227,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the valve and actuator manufacturer failed to protect sensitive information in its care from an April 2024 data breach. The $227,000 Bray International class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on April 1, 2026. The settlement covers all United States residents whose personal information was potentially accessible in the data breach discovered by Bray International in April 2024, including all who received notice of the incident. The court-approved website for the Bray International data breach settlement can be found at BrayInternationalDataIncident.com. According to the website, Bray International settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form can receive up to $3,000 for "extraordinary" losses incurred between April 13, 2024 and July 30, 2026 due to the data breach. This benefit covers losses related to identity theft or fraud likely caused by the incident. Additionally, class members can file a claim to receive up to $400 for "ordinary" losses incurred between April 13, 2024 and July 30, 2026 due to the breach. This benefit covers out-of-pocket expenses, such as the costs of professional fees, credit repair services, freezing or unfreezing credit, credit monitoring services, replacement IDs, and miscellaneous expenses, such as postage and travel. Class members must submit proof, such as receipts, to receive ordinary or extraordinary loss payments. Class members can also file a claim for up to four hours of lost time spent responding to the Bray International data breach, at a rate of $20 per hour. This benefit is subject to the $400 ordinary-loss cap and covers, for example, time spent changing passwords, investigating suspicious account activity and researching the breach. In addition to these benefits, settlement class members may file a claim to receive two years of CyEx Financial Shield Complete, which includes one-bureau credit monitoring and financial fraud insurance. In lieu of all other settlement benefits, including credit monitoring, class members can instead file a claim form to receive a $45 cash payment, with no proof required. To file a Bray International settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and log in using the unique ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF of the claim form to print, fill out and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Bray International settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by June 30, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Bray International data breach settlement following a hearing to be determined at a later date. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Bray International class action lawsuit alleged that the flow control products manufacturer failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity safeguards to protect sensitive information on its systems, which led to a data breach in April 2024. Per court documents, private information that may have been compromised in the breach included names, Social Security numbers and driver's license numbers. [GN] BRIARPATCH COOPERATIVE: Agrees to Settle Employee Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Nobles of The Union reports that back in December 2025, the Nevada County Superior Court granted final approval on a class action lawsuit filed by Plantiff Amanda Powell on behalf of other members of the general public as well as aggrieved employees versus BriarPatch Cooperative of Nevada County, most commonly known as BriarPatch Food Co-op which holds locations in Grass Valley and Auburn. As per court documents, plaintiff Powell alleged various claims against defendant BriarPatch citing unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, and unpaid minimum wages. Further, it claimed that BriarPatch violated a code dictating that final wages were not timely paid and wages were not timely paid during employment. Powell and her cause were represented in court by a team of four attorneys from Lawyers For Justice, PC. The lawsuit sought $982,500 which would ultimately be subject to deductions for attorneys' fees and costs. Section 382 of the California Code of Civil Procedure sets two minimum requirements to sustain a class action: one, it must be sufficiently numerous in such that it would be impractical to bring all involved parties before court. Second, the parties must represent a "well-defined community of interest in question of laws and facts." Per the lawsuit paperwork, Powell was employed by BriarPatch from August 2021 to January 2023, and claimed that the people (or "class") involved totaled 675 class members and 442 aggrieved. Per court records, the two parties took part in two full days of mediation in November 2024. During those proceedings, the plaintiff indicated a belief that BriarPatch's maximum potential liability of exposure of approximately $3 million represents about 33 percent of BriarPatch's class-wide liability exposure. Plaintiff's counsel sought approval of attorney's fees in the amount of up to $367,500 comprised of $327,500 for attorneys' fees and up to $40,000 for reimbursable litigation costs. Ultimately, Judge Robert Tice-Raskin sided with the plaintiff, stating that the settlement is "fair, reasonable, and adequate." Plaintiff's class counsel stated that 303 hours had been spent on the case, asking for $327,000 in attorney's fees. A specified settlement number was not disclosed in court documentation. BriarPatch Chief Executive Officer Chris Maher provided a statement: "In 2024, a former employee filed a wage and hour class-action lawsuit against BriarPatch. The lawsuit made a series of allegations related to hourly pay and breaks. We have diligently and comprehensively reviewed our records, and we categorically deny all the claims. Our Ends Policies direct us to work toward building a compassionate, healthy workplace and we pride ourselves on maintaining competitive wages and working conditions. After responding to the allegations, it became quickly clear that even a successful defense would be far more costly than settling the case, which we chose to do." [GN] BRILLIANT EARTH: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Brilliant Earth, LLC, Case No. 0:26-cv-02483 (D. Minn., May 5, 2026), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.brilliantearth.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act ("MHRA"). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, the Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers jewelry for sale including, but not limited to, engagement rings, wedding rings, earrings, bracelets, necklaces, chains, medallions, lockets, accessories, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com BRITISH COLUMBIA: Class Members for Birth Alert Suit Reached 2,842 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Vancouver Sun reports that B.C. is set to become the first province to settle a class-action lawsuit over birth alerts -- the practice of child welfare workers contacting pregnant people's medical practitioners, frequently resulting in apprehending babies shortly after birth, interrupting the mother's care and bonding. The practice officially ended in B.C. in 2019. Most other Canadian jurisdictions have also ended them. In the final 20 months that B.C. issued official birth alerts, 58 per cent of the people involved were Indigenous. Indigenous people make up about 5.7 per cent of B.C.'s population. The proposed settlement is valued at $66 million and while the total number of class members is not known, the province has a list of about 2,842 people it has identified as potentially being the subject of a birth alert. The settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing. But it includes a provision for a senior B.C. government official to make a public statement acknowledging the impact of birth alerts and for the province to facilitate roundtable discussions with class members. B.C. is not the only province being taken to court over birth alerts: Separate class actions have been filed in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. But B.C. is the only province to indicate an intention to settle. In Ontario, a court certified the province as a defendant but not children's aid societies, which plaintiffs argued issued birth alerts, leading to two duelling appeals: one by the plaintiffs trying to get children's aid societies certified and one by the province seeking to overturn its own certification. Meanwhile, Manitoba has sought to have the class action in that province struck, arguing the representative plaintiff's birth alert happened too long ago -- an argument her lawyers reject in part because, they say, the province concealed the birth alert from her at the time. Saskatchewan has sought to bar the use of a Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls report and a Truth and Reconciliation Commission report as evidence in that province's class action case, arguing they constitute hearsay and are insufficiently reliable. Spokespeople for the Manitoba and Saskatchewan governments declined to comment because the matter is before the courts. Tina Yang, a lawyer representing plaintiffs in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario, would like those provinces to follow B.C.'s lead but, at the very least, she would like them to debate their class actions on their merits, especially addressing the Charter right to equal treatment. The B.C. settlement is significant, says the plaintiffs' lawyer Michelle Segal, not only because it provides meaningful compensation. "It's a small piece of a much bigger project, which is advocacy around the child welfare system in B.C., specifically, but also in Canada," she said. "This resolution is the most responsible decision to close this chapter and avoid lengthy and costly litigation," a spokesperson for the B.C. government wrote in an email. Adrianna Zeleniski plans to celebrate by sinking her feet in the sand near her home in Armstrong. Thirteen years after a security guard stood outside her hospital room while she was in labour, Zeleniski, the representative plaintiff in the B.C. case, welcomed the settlement. "Everybody here in this class action is going to have something that they can acknowledge, that they can say out loud." [GN] BRUERY LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Crumwell Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- DENISE CRUMWELL, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. THE BRUERY LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-03814 (S.D.N.Y., May 8, 2026) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.thebruery.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Plaintiff contends. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, including January 29, 2026 and February 11, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Relax Hazy IPA from Defendant and to view the information on the website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public; and that denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the goods, and services of the website by being unable to purchase a Relax Hazy IPA, as well as other products available online and to ascertain information relating to Defendant’s: beers, as well as other types of goods, pricing, privacy policies and internet pricing specials. The Plaintiff visited the Website in order to purchase a Relax Hazy IPA. Plaintiff attempted to purchase a Relax Hazy IPA but was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item[s] to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's Website, which prevented her from doing so. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. The Defendant operates the Bruery online retail store, as well as the Bruery interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal BUFFALO, NY: Nance Appeals Denied Intervention, Reconsideration --------------------------------------------------------------- MARKEL NANCE, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying the Plaintiffs' motion to intervene and motion to reconsider or renew the motion to certify the Traffic Enforcement Class in the lawsuit entitled Black Love Resists in the Rust, et al., individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. City of Buffalo, N.Y., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-719, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs claim that the City has unlawfully targeted Black and Latino motorists through the use of administrative traffic checkpoints (the "Checkpoints"). Even after the Checkpoints were discontinued, they assert City police officers, in accordance with an implicit quota system, continue to systematically target Black and Latino motorists for traffic enforcement, fines, and penalties. On May 29, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Christina Clair Reiss granted in part and denied in part on Apr. 22, 2025. The Court found the class certification a superior means of adjudicating this case for the Checkpoint and Tinted Windows Classes. On July 11, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to intervene and a motion for reconsideration of (1) the denial of the motion to certify the Traffic Enforcement Class pursuant to Rule 54(b) or, in the alternative, (2) to renew the motion to certify pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C). On Mar. 27, 2026, Judge Christina Clair Reiss entered an Order denying the Plaintiffs' motion to intervene Market Nance and Thomas Christopher Williams, Jr. as Plaintiffs and representatives of the Traffic Enforcement Class and motion to reconsider or renew the motion to certify the Traffic Enforcement Class. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs did not request to supplement the record with the evidence that was available prior to the court's April 22, 2025 ruling on class certification, nor do they establish it materially transforms the record before the court such that a different outcome is warranted. Accordingly, it does not justify renewal of class certification. The appellate case is captioned Black Love Resists v. City of Buffalo, Case No. 25-1157, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 30, 2025. [BN] Intervenors-Appellants MARKEL NANCE, et al. are represented by: Claudia Wilner, Esq. NATIONAL CENTER FOR LAW AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE 50 Broadway 1500 New York, NY 10004 Defendants-Appellees CITY OF BUFFALO, et al. are represented by: Cheyenne Nicole Freely, Esq. HODGSON RUSS LLP The Guaranty Building, Suite 100 140 Pearl Street Buffalo, NY 14202 CAL-MAINE FOODS: Conspires to Fix Egg Prices, Philly Phlava Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Philly Phlava Original Steaks and Hoagies, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., Rose Acre Farms, Inc., Versova Holdings, LLC, Hillandale Farms of Pa., Inc., Hillandale-Gettysburg, LLC., Hillandale Farms East, Inc., and Hillandale Farms, Inc, Daybreak Foods, Inc., Urner Barry Publications, Inc. d/b/a Expana, Egg Clearinghouse, Inc., United Egg Producers, and John Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00417 (W.D. Wis., May 4, 2026) seeks to recover treble damages, injunctive relief, and any other relief as appropriate, based on violations of the Sherman Act and various state antitrust and consumer protection laws. According to the complaint, the Defendants have conspired to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices for conventional fresh shell eggs from at least January 1, 2022 until Defendants' unlawful conduct and its anticompetitive effects ceases. According to the complaint, Defendant and publisher Urner Barry collects, analyzes, and disseminates current information to its food industry customers in the egg, poultry, meat, seafood, plant protein, and related segments. Urner Barry provides actionable, competitive information related to the egg market to the Egg Producer Defendants and other egg producers. Egg Producer Defendants reported inflated assessments of egg prices to Urner Barry. Urner Barry then published price quotes using the information provided by its subscribers, including the Egg Producer Defendants. It also used transaction prices from Defendant ECI's private online spot market for egg trading, says the suit. The complaint alleges that Urner Barry's price quotes set a benchmark for Defendants' Conventional Egg sales, with Urner Barry and ECI intensifying price fluctuations initiated by the major producers and limiting independent pricing decisions by others. The Defendants' manipulation of Urner Barry benchmarking allowed them to impose price increases on their customers, the complaint asserts. Plaintiff Philly Phlava Original Steaks and Hoagies, Inc. is a private corporation incorporated in Florida. Defendants Cal-Maine, Rose Acre, Versova, Hillandale, and Daybreak are the five biggest egg producers in the United States and own almost half of all egg-laying commercial hens.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laura K. Mummert, Esq. Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC 1515 Market Street, Suite 1200 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 314-7980 E-mail: lmummert@litedepalma.com sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com - and - Joseph J. DePalma, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com CANNAE HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend New England Teamsters Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Cannae Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the New England Teamsters Pension Fund class suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery. On October 23, 2025, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery under the caption, New England Teamsters Pension Fund and Daniel Clark v. William P. Foley II, Anthony M. Jabbour, Thomas M. Hagerty, Douglas K. Ammerman, and Cannae Holdings, Inc., C.A. No. 2025-1220. The plaintiffs allege that the individual defendants, each of whom served as an officer and/or director of D&B at the relevant time, breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the August 26, 2025 sale of D&B to a private equity firm. The complaint asserts that the transaction undervalued D&B's stock, resulting in inadequate cash consideration for its stockholders. The plaintiffs further allege that certain of the individual defendants' knowledge should be imputed to the Company, and on that basis, include a claim against the Company for aiding and abetting the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment, monetary damages, and other equitable relief, and seek to certify a class comprising all former D&B stockholders who exchanged their shares for cash in the transaction, excluding the defendants and any individuals who were officers or directors of D&B at the time the transaction closed. On January 12, 2026, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which is fully briefed and set for hearing on November 10, 2026. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in the litigation. Cannae Holdings, Inc. is a diversified holding company that invests in a portfolio of operating businesses and financial assets across various industries. The company seeks to create long-term value through strategic acquisitions, active management, and disciplined capital allocation. CAPITAL ONE: Seeks to Modify Class Cert Briefing Sched ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIN WILMOTH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CAPITAL ONE SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00825-RCY (E.D. Va.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order modifying the briefing schedule for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule 23 and motion for FLSA conditional certification by providing for additional time for the Defendant to file its opposition and the Plaintiff to submit her Reply. The Defendant requests that the Court extend the Defendant's deadline to file its opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and motion for FLSA conditional certification by May 11, 2026, and that the Plaintiff's reply be due 14 days from the Oppositions' filing. The Defendant provides financial services. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 7, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ojAKkK at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Sean M. Gibbons, Esq. Genevieve C. Bradley, Esq. ROTH JACKSON 1519 Summit Avenue, Suite 102 Richmond, VA 23230 Telephone: (804) 441-8442 Facsimile: (804) 441-8438 E-mail: sgibbons@rothjackson.com gbradley@rothjackson.com - and - Jason C. Schwartz, Esq. Naima L. Farrell, Esq. Thomas J. McCormac IV, Esq. Alexandria Murphy, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1700 M Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036-4504 Telephone: (202) 955-8500 Facsimile: (202) 467-0539 E-mail: jschwartz@gibsondunn.com nfarrell@gibsondunn.com tmccormac@gibsondunn.com amurphy@gibsondunn.com CBR SERVICES: Rivera-Santos Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case DENIS R. RIVERA-SANTOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CBR SERVICES, INC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CV030353, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on April 29, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 2:26-at-00716 to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violations of California wage and hour law. CBR Services, Inc. is a consumer services and commercial construction company based in California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Gregory C. Simonian, Esq. CASAS RILEY SIMONIAN LLP 55 North 3rd Street Campbell, CA 95008 Telephone: (650) 948-7200 Facsimile: (650) 948-7220 Email: gsimonian@legalteam.com CENTENE CORPORATION: Website Uses Tracking Tools, Clark Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- HOWARD CLARK, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENTENE CORPORATION and HEALTH NET, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-04107 (N.D. Cal., May 5, 2026) arises from a fundamental betrayal of trust when "trackers" embedded by Defendants in its website intercepted visitors' communications and interactions in real time and shared those communications with third parties. The complaint relates that the Defendants, major healthcare insurance providers, assured its health insurance customers and other website visitors that their private information would remain confidential. Through a cookie banner, Defendants represented that website visitors could opt out of cookies and data tracking. In truth, Defendants embedded on their website tracking tools to share visitor information with third parties, including Meta/Facebook, Google, The Trade Desk, Adobe, Microsoft, LinkedIn, BidSwitch, Demandbase, Pubmatic, Salesforce, and Magnite (collectively the "Third Parties" and their "Trackers") without visitor consent, knowledge, or authorization. As a result, the Third Parties harvested sensitive, private information including visitor's browsing activities, the pages they viewed and the buttons they clicked, their status as medical patients and/or as insured individuals, their medical histories, the drugs they take, their anticipated consumption of medical services, their locations, additional information from their health insurance applications, and identifying information including IP addresses and identifying cookies. Worse still, the supposed "opt-out" offered via the cookie banner was functionally meaningless. Regardless of the visitor's selection, tracking occurred. This was not just a breach of trust. Defendants' actions violated both California and Federal law. By knowingly deploying these tracking technologies in violation of its own express assurances and without meaningful user consent, Defendants violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA") and fundamental expectations of privacy in healthcare, says the result. Plaintiff brings this action to hold Defendants accountable for their unlawful wiretapping and deceptive practices that left insurance customers and other visitors exposed – without warning, without choice, and without recourse. Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and brings causes of action for Negligence, Negligence Per Se, Violation of Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, Violation of Consumer Privacy Act, Breach of Express and Implied Contract, Unjust Enrichment, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Declaratory Judgment, Breach of Confidence, Violation of Invasion of Privacy Act, Violation of Invasion of Privacy Act, Violation of Invasion of Privacy Act, Violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"), and Violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"). Plaintiff Howard Clark, Jr. is one of Defendants' insureds and a victim of Defendants' unauthorized Disclosure of his communications. Defendant Centene Corporation owned and operated Defendant Health Net, LLC. The HN Website was controlled by Defendant Centene.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Natalie Lyons, Esq. Vess A. Miller, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: nlyons@cohenmalad.com vmiller@cohenmalad.com - and - Lesley E. Weaver, Esq. Anne K. Davis, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 1111 Broadway, Suite 300 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (341) 217-0550 E-mail: lweaver@stranchlaw.com adavis@stranchlaw.com - and - Carly M. Roman, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: croman@straussborrelli.com CERNER CORPORATION: Fails to Protect Private Info, Bedford Says --------------------------------------------------------------- SABRINA BEDFORD, TIMOTHY STROUSE, JACKLYN ALICEA-MALDONADO, and CARRINGTON TATUM, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CERNER CORPORATION D/B/A ORACLE HEALTH, and ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM/SUNBELT, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-00383-SRB (W.D. Mo., May 5, 2026) arises from Defendants' failure to protect highly sensitive data. The complaint relates that the Defendants store a litany of highly sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") about their current and former patients. But Defendants lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated their insufficiently protected computer systems. According to the letter notifying Plaintiffs of the Data Breach, Oracle Health informed Advent Health that it experienced a cybersecurity event involving unauthorized access to Advent's patient information contained on Oracle Health's systems on January 22, 2025. On March 15, 2025, Oracle Health informed Advent Health that Plaintiffs' Private Information may have been compromised. The types of Private Information exposed included name[s], Social Security number[s], and information included within patient medical records. The putative class is over one hundred members--as it includes Advent Health's current and former patients. And yet, Defendants waited until December 3, 2025, before they began notifying the Classes, more than 300 days after the Data Breach, thereby depriving the Classes of the opportunity to try and mitigate their injuries in a timely manner. As a direct and proximate result of the Data Breach that Defendants caused and allowed to occur, Ms. Bedford has suffered, and imminently will suffer, injuries-in-fact and damages, including the unauthorized disclosure of the Private Information. Ms. Bedford faces a lifetime risk of identity theft, as her Private Information compromised in the Data Breach includes sensitive data that cannot be changed, says the suit. The Plaintiffs seek all monetary and non-monetary relief allowed by law, including damages; injunctive relief and reasonable attorney's fees and costs; and any other relief that is just and proper, and are accordingly entitled to damages in amounts to be proven at trial. Plaintiffs Sabrina Bedford, Timothy Strouse, Jacklyn Alicea-Maldonado, and Carrington Tatum received care from Advent Health before the Data Breach. Defendant Oracle Health, formerly Cerner Corporation is an electronic medical record vendor with its principal place of business in Kansas City, Missouri. Defendant Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc. ("Advent Health") is a healthcare system based in Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman E. Siegel, Esq. Barrett J. Vahle, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64113 Telephone: (816) 714-7112 E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com vahle@stuevesiegel.com - and - Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. Andrew J. Fuller, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY LLP 1809 7th Ave., Ste. 1610 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 802-1272 E-mail: tloeser@cpmlegal.com afuller@cpmlegal.com - and - Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL, LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Suite #300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: thudson@wcllp.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com athomas@cohenmalad.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com CLEANSPARK INC: Continues to Defend Bishins Class Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------------ Cleanspark, 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 Bishins class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On January 20, 2021, Scott Bishins ("Bishins"), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (together, the "Class" and the "Plaintiffs"), filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its officers, including the Company s CEO and the Executive Chair. On December 2, 2021, the Court appointed Bishins and Darshan Hasthantra as lead plaintiffs, and on February 1, 2024, the Court entered a voluntary dismissal on behalf of Bishins. On February 28, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Complaint alleging that, between December 10, 2020, and August 16, 2021, Defendants made material misstatements and omissions related to the Company’s acquisition of ATL Data Centers LLC and its anticipated expansion of bitcoin mining operations. Plaintiffs seek certification of the Class, an award of compensatory damages, and reimbursement of costs and expenses. On September 24, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Expert discovery concluded in late 2025. On December 12, 2025, the Company filed motions to exclude the reports and testimony of Plaintiffs’ two expert witnesses, Dr. Zahn Bozanic and David M. Ponte, which were fully briefed as of March 3, 2026, and remain pending. The Company believes that the claims asserted are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate potential losses, if any, that may arise. Cleanspark, Inc. is a bitcoin mining company that focuses on sustainable, large-scale digital asset mining operations in the United States. The company seeks to leverage low-carbon energy sources and advanced data center infrastructure to support its mining activities. CLEANSPARK INC: Continues to Defend Shareholder Derivative Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Cleanspark, 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 consolidated shareholder derivative suit in the Eight Judicial District of the State of Nevada in Clark County. Between February 21, 2023, and March 8, 2023, four shareholder derivative actions were filed in the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in Clark County against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company, including its Executive Chair, Chief Executive Officer, and former Chief Financial Officer. Each action was consolidated in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada (the "Consolidated Smith Action"). The claims assert breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and corporate waste under Nevada law, with the plaintiffs seeking monetary damages, restitution, declaratory relief, litigation costs, and the imposition of additional corporate governance and internal controls. The Companys Board of Directors formed a Special Litigation Committee (the "SLC") to investigate and evaluate the claims in accordance with Nevada law. On November 6, 2023, the court granted the SLCs motion to intervene and stayed the case pending the SLCs Motion that the Claims Should be Dismissed (the "Motion to Defer"). On April 2, 2026, the Court denied the Motion to Defer without prejudice to the defendants contentions relative to the merits of the action, a procedural ruling that did not address the merits of the underlying claims. The Company believes that the claims raised in the Consolidated Smith Action are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously against them, and at this time is unable to estimate potential losses, if any, related to this matter. Cleanspark, Inc. is a bitcoin mining company that focuses on sustainable, large-scale digital asset mining operations in the United States. The company seeks to leverage low-carbon energy sources and advanced data center infrastructure to support its mining activities. COMMUNITY BANK: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Community Bank data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Community Bank data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Community Bank Security Incident: What Happened? Community Bank, a subsidiary of CB Financial Services, has disclosed a data breach involving the internal use of unauthorized artificial intelligence-based software to handle sensitive customer information. According to a May 11, 2026 report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Community Bank discovered the unauthorized use on May 5, subsequently securing the compromised data and commencing an investigation into the breach. By May 7, CB Financial Services deemed the incident significant due to the sensitive nature and volume of the data involved. An ongoing investigation into the Community Bank data breach has so far discovered that customer names, Social Security numbers, and dates of birth were compromised. Community Bank provides personal and business banking services to customers in southwestern Pennsylvania, southeastern Ohio, and northwestern West Virginia. What You Can Do After the Community Bank Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Community Bank data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Community Bank to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] COMPLETE AVIATION: Underpays Non-Exempt Employees, Reaves Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- LATISHA REAVES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMPLETE AVIATION SERVICES AND MODIFICATION, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02459-JPB (N.D. Ga., May 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and North Carolina Wage and Hour Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt employee from May 2023 until March 2025. Complete Aviation Services and Modification, LLC is a staffing agency, with its principal place of business in Fulton County, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Stephens, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 191 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 57007 Atlanta, GA 30343 Telephone: (404) 965-1682 Email: jstephens@fothepeople.com - and - C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. 20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Email: rmorgan@forthepeople.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. David I. Moulton, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 5847 San Felipe, Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 5847 San Felipe, Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Continental Resources, 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 a consolidated shareholder class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Oklahoma, Oklahoma County. In April 2023, three separate putative class action lawsuits were consolidated under the caption In re Continental Resources, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case No. CJ-2022-4162, in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma (the "Consolidated Action"). In the Consolidated Action, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated former shareholders of the Company, allege that Mr. Hamm, certain trusts established for the benefit of Mr. Hamm and/or his family members, and the Company's other directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the 2022 take-private transaction and seek: (i) monetary damages; (ii) the costs and expenses associated with the lawsuits; and (iii) other equitable relief. On April 14, 2026, the parties reached an agreement-in-principle to resolve this matter without any admission of liability, wrongdoing, or fault. The terms and conditions of the agreement-in-principle remain subject to the execution of a formal settlement agreement between the parties, which shall not become effective until the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma has entered an order approving the settlement. Resolution of this matter does not have a material impact on the Company's financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. As a related proceeding, in January 2023, FourWorld Deep Value Opportunities Fund I, LLC, FourWorld Event Opportunities, LP, FW Deep Value Opportunities I, LLC, FourWorld Global Opportunities Fund, Ltd., FourWorld Special Opportunities Fund, LLC, Corbin ERISA Opportunity Fund Ltd., and Quadre Investments, L.P. (collectively, "FourWorld"), all former shareholders of the Company, filed a petition in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, seeking appraisal of their respective shares of the Company's common stock in connection with the 2022 take-private transaction. In April 2024, Quadre Investments, L.P. filed a voluntary dismissal with prejudice. The Company continues to vigorously defend itself against these claims. Continental Resources, Inc. is an independent oil and natural gas exploration and production company focused on operations in key U.S. resource plays, including the Bakken and SCOOP/STACK. The Company engages in the exploration, development, and production of crude oil and natural gas primarily in the North Dakota, Montana, and Oklahoma regions. CORDISH COMPANIES: Fails to Secure Private Info, Pocknett Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- URSULA POCKNETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CORDISH COMPANIES, INC., PPE CASINO RESORTS MARYLAND, LLC d/b/a LIVE! CASINO, and LIVE! HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a LIVE!, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01780-ABA (D. Md., May 5, 2026) arises out of the recent data breach involving Defendants that compromised Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information"). The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and Class Members were required to entrust Defendants with sensitive, non-public Private Information as a condition of obtaining services and/or being employed with Defendants. Defendants retain this information for at least many years and even after the company relationship has ended. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendants assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. In April 2026, an unauthorized third party gained access to Defendants' inadequately secured systems and obtained files containing Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. The following types of Private Information were compromised as a result of the Data Breach: full names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, addresses, and contact information. Plaintiff's Private Information is available on the dark web as a result of the Data Breach. To date, Defendants have yet to issue any public disclosure about the Breach. In breaching their duties to properly safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information and give them timely, adequate notice of the Data Breach's occurrence, Defendants' conduct amounts to negligence and/or recklessness and violates federal and state statutes as well as their own internal privacy policies, asserts the complaint. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injury as a result of Defendants' conduct. These injuries include: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) theft of their Private Information; (iii) lost or diminished value of Private Information; (iv) lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (v) loss of benefit of the bargain; (vi) lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; (vii) nominal damages; and (viii) the continued and certainly increased risk to their Private Information. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of herself, and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendants' inadequate data security practices. Defendant The Cordish Companies, Inc. is a gaming development and operations company with full in-house development, construction and operating capabilities for destination resort/casinos. Defendant Cordish developed and fully operates Live! Casino & Hotel Maryland, Live! Casino & Hotel Philadelphia and Live! Casino Pittsburgh, which are some of the largest commercial gaming, retail and entertainment destinations in the United States, through Defendant PPE MD - the casino operating entity that applied for and holds gaming licenses for Live! Casino & Hotel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE First Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com COREWELL HEALTH: Ison-Mack Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLY ISON-MACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COREWELL HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01436 (W.D. Mich., May 1, 2026) challenges certain policies and practices of Defendants that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act. Named Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly healthcare employee from approximately January 30, 2020 to approximately April 1, 2026. Specifically, Named Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Certified Surgical Technologist at Defendant's Dearborn facility located in Dearborn, Michigan. Named Plaintiff and those similarly situated employees regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek for Defendant, including donning and doffing time. Accordingly, because Named Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were not paid for their donning and doffing time, Named Plaintiff and others similarly situated were not paid all overtime hours worked. As a result of Defendant's companywide policies and/or practices, the Defendant knew or had reason to know that it was not compensating Named Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly employees for all overtime pay that they actually earned. Corewell Health provides hospital and healthcare services at over 300 ambulatory / outpatient locations and over 20 hospital facilities in Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES LEGAL GROUP LLC 7034 Braucher Street NW, Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com CRESCO LABS: Murray Sues Over Cannabis Products' Health Risks ------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL MURRAY, WESLEY SMITH, SR., DOUGLAS WARD, RUSSELL KEMP, JACOB MEDOFF, MIRZA BAIG, TONI COLEMAN, DAVID LEVY, MARTY KINDELL, ROMAN WALKER, MARCUS BROWN, BRANDON ARRINGTON, RYAN DESOMBRE, STEVEN ANZALONE, PETER CASPER, JACQUELINE MUELLERLEILE, JOHN WILLIAMS, MICHAEL ROSENTHAL, ANGELINA SCHIEDEL, LADEE SAMUEL, AUSTIN SCHLENKER, FABIAN ACEVEDO, NADIA DABUL, JEFFREY HAHN, JR., SEBRINA HILL, RYAN ARDITO, ANDREW KENNEDY, PATRICIA BURROLA, PAYTON HERBERT, ELIZABETH STEELE, JERMAINE CHILDS, MARK HARPER, JOSEPH DUZY, TROY REIBLE, JACQUELINE WARD, MICHAEL DELORENZO, PAOLLA SILVEIRA, CHAD COBLE, CRYSTAL JENKINS, ANTONIO JACKSON, and CATHRYN SECOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CRESCO LABS INC., A BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA CORPORATION; GREEN THUMB INDUSTRIES INC., A BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA CORPORATION; VERANO HOLDINGS CORP., A NEVADA CORPORATION; VERANO HOLDINGS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 26-cv-50184 (N.D. Ill., May 4, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to adequately warn their customers of the long-term, devastating mental and physical health risks of their products. This class action lawsuit seeks to hold Cresco Labs, Green Thumb, Verano Holdings, and Verano LLC responsible for promoting their cannabis products to recreational users as safe and appropriate for widespread use despite scientific evidence to the contrary. This suit seeks damages and injunctive relief on behalf of the Plaintiffs and class members. The complaint alleges that in their enterprise to profoundly expand the cannabis market and realize extravagant profits, the Defendants deceptively marketed cannabis as medicine capable of alleviating or treating the very mental health disorders Cresco Labs, Green Thumb, Verano Holdings, and Verano LLC knew or should have known were caused or exacerbated by the use of their products, including bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, PTSD, and/or other medical disorders. This deceptive marketing stands in stark contrast to the mounting empirical evidence demonstrating the serious mental health risks associated with increased use of cannabis. The Plaintiffs paid money for the product and suffered economic injury as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' unlawful conduct, says the suit. Defendant Cresco Labs Inc. controls company-wide cannabis production, policies, marketing, branding, quality control, and business strategy. Defendant Green Thumb Industries Inc. is a vertically integrated cannabis operator engaged in cultivation, processing, distribution, and retail sales of cannabis and cannabis-derived products across multiple U.S. markets under brands including Rise, Rythm, Dogwalkers, and Good Green. Defendants Verano Holdings and Verano LLC are vertically integrated cannabis operators focused on limited-license markets in the United States, engaged in cultivation, processing, distribution, and retail sales of cannabis and cannabis-derived products under brands including Cabbage Club, (the) Essence, Savvy, BITS, Encore Edibles, Verano, On the Rocks, Holy Union, Avexia, Zen Leaf, and MÜV.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick Kenneally, Esq. BURKE LAW GROUP, P.L.L.C. 205 N. Michigan Ave, Suite 810 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: 847-651-8525 E-mail: patrick.kenneally@burkegroup.law - and - Jack D. Franks, Esq. FRANKS GERKIN PONITZ GREELEY, P.C. 19333 E. Grant Hwy. Marengo, IL 60152 Telephone: 815-923-2107 E-mail: jfranks@fgpglaw.com - and - James Bilsborrow, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG PC 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212-558-5500 E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com - and - Michael Piggins, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG PC 3011 W. Grand Blvd., Fl. 24 Detroit, MI 48202 Telephone: 231-366-3108 E-mail: mpiggins@weitzlux.com - and - Matthew F. Pawa, Esq. PAWA LAW GROUP, P.C. 1280 Centre Street, Suite 230 Newton Centre, MA 02459 Telephone: 617-641-9550 E-mail: mp@pawalaw.com CUMMINS-ALLISON CORP: Faces Martinez Labor Suit in N.D. Ill. ------------------------------------------------------------ RAUL MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CUMMINS-ALLISON CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04836 (N.D. Ill., April 28, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages and failure to pay all earned wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. Mr. Martinez was employed by the Defendant as a quality control associate in Mt. Prospect, Illinois from approximately May 2018 until August 2025. Cummins-Allison Corp. is a cash and automation solutions provider based in Mt. Prospect, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. WERMAN SALAS PC 77 W. Washington St., Ste. 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 Facsimile: (312) 419-1025 Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 5847 San Felipe St., Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 5847 San Felipe St., Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com DELTA AIR: Sky Sues Over Deceptive Airline Ticket Refunds --------------------------------------------------------- SVETLANA SKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02627 (E.D.N.Y., May 1, 2026) seeks to challenge the standardized cancellation and refund design deployed by the Defendant to steer purchasers of "fully refundable" airline tickets into receiving an expiring Delta e-credit rather than the contractually promised refund to the original form of payment. According to the complaint, these purchasers paid a premium specifically for the ability to obtain a refund to the original form of payment (i.e., a credit card). Delta Air Lines, Inc. offers flight status information, bookings, baggage handling, and other related services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Israel Rosenberg, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-Mail: jmarchese@bursor.com irosenberg@bursor.com DELTA DENTAL: Faces Class Suit Over Anticompetitive Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- Noah Levine, writing for ADA News, reports that Dentists have filed new class action lawsuits against Delta Dental organizations in four states, seeking class-wide relief under state law while a federal antitrust case continues on an individual basis. The complaints, filed April 30 in California, Wisconsin, Michigan and Massachusetts state courts, allege that Delta Dental entities engaged in anticompetitive conduct that suppressed reimbursement rates paid to dentists and limited competition in dental insurance markets. The new filings follow developments in the federal case, which has been pending since 2019. Recently, in September 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied certification of a nationwide class. The plaintiffs sought to appeal that decision, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit declined to permit immediate review. In January 2026, the trial court also denied a request to amend the complaint to add state-based class claims and instead moved forward with the case on the individual federal claims of the named plaintiffs. State lawsuits filed The four state complaints were brought by dental providers against the Delta Dental entity operating in that state. The complaints can be accessed here: California, Wisconsin, Michigan and Massachusetts. Each lawsuit seeks to represent a class of dentists and dental practices within that state that participate in Delta Dental networks. According to the complaints, the cases pursue statewide class claims following the federal court's decisions declining to certify a nationwide class and declining to incorporate state classes into the federal proceedings. The complaints state that the federal court did not address the merits of the state-based class claims. Allegations mirror federal case The state complaints are based on issues similar to those raised in the ongoing federal litigation. They allege that Delta Dental entities agreed not to compete with one another across geographic territories and instead operated within assigned service areas. The complaints also assert that Delta Dental organizations coordinated policies and practices that reduced reimbursement rates paid to dentists, including through the sharing of pricing-related information. Across all four states, the complaints assert that Delta Dental organizations hold substantial market share—generally described as exceeding 50%—and that this position allows them to influence reimbursement levels and conditions for participation in their networks. Alleged impact on dentists The complaints state that participating dentists have limited ability to opt out of Delta Dental networks because of the size of Delta's insured population in each state. As described in the filings, providers must either accept the reimbursement rates offered under Delta Dental participation agreements or risk losing access to a significant portion of their patient base. Plaintiffs further allege that reimbursement rates have been reduced or maintained below market levels over time, even as insurance premiums increased. Proposed classes and claims Each complaint seeks certification of statewide classes of dental providers, including dentists and dental practices that participated in Delta Dental networks during the relevant time period. The lawsuits seek both injunctive relief and monetary damages, including treble damages where permitted by state law. The complaints also request additional remedies such as restitution and measures aimed at restoring competition. Federal case continues The new state filings do not replace the federal antitrust case involving Delta Dental organizations. That case, filed in 2019, remains ongoing on individual claims. The newly filed state lawsuits represent a path for plaintiffs seeking class-based relief on behalf of Delta providers in those states, with a focus on competitive conditions and reimbursement practices within individual states. ADA News will continue to update members when there are developments in these cases. [GN] DICELLO LEVITT: Faces Hossfeld TCPA Class Suit in W.D. Tex. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DiCello Levitt. The case is captioned as Robert Hossfeld, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DiCello Levitt LLP, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-01076-RP (W.D. Tex., April 7, 2026). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Robert Pitman. The suit alleges Defendants' violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. DiCello is a plaintiffs' law firm focused on complex issues litigation and high-stakes disputes across the United States and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andree Rozados-Quaresima, Esq. Scott D. Owens, Esq. SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A. 2750 N. 29th Ave., Suite 209a Hollywood, FL 33020 Telephone: (954) 589-0588 Facsimile: (954) 337-0666 - and - Ethan Preston, Esq. PRESTON/LAW OFFICES 4054 McKinney Avenue, Suite 310, Ste. 310 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (972) 564-8340 E-mail: ep@eplaw.us DJOURNEY DIALLO: Ndao Sues Over Refusal to Pay Any Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bassirou Ndao, on behalf of himself, individually, and all others similarly situated v. DJOURNEY DIALLO, DIALLO RESTAURANTS WILLIAMSBURG LLC, DIALLO GROUP, LLC, DIALLO ENTERPRISES LLC, and XYZ CORPORATIONS 1-5, Case No. 1:26-cv-02672 (E.D.N.Y., May 5, 2026), is brought arising from the Defendants' willful and ongoing refusal to pay any overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), failure to pay spread-of-hours wages or to pay wages within the statutorily mandated period, in violation of the NYLL, and unlawful termination in retaliation for Plaintiff's complaints about the aforementioned wage and hour violations, in violation of the FLSA and NYLL. The Defendants misclassified Plaintiff as an exempt manager and refused to pay him overtime or spread-of-hours wages. The Defendants were required to pay Plaintiff and the FLSA Plaintiffs 1.5 times their regular hourly rate for each hour worked in excess of forty hours in any given work week. The Plaintiff and the FLSA Plaintiffs regularly and routinely worked more than forty hours per work week. The Plaintiff regularly and routinely worked between eighty and eighty-five hours per week. the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the FLSA Plaintiffs required overtime wages. The Plaintiff complained about these unpaid overtime wages but Defendants did not change their policy of not paying overtime wages. the Defendants' failure was willful and intentional. The Plaintiff and the FLSA Plaintiffs were injured by Defendants' unlawful conduct and as such are entitled to damages under the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants at their Williamsburg franchise location. The Defendants, legally distinct entities operating as a single enterprise and their individual owner, own and operate multiple Wingstop restaurant franchises in and around the City of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary Naidich NAIDICH LAW 123 5th Ave, 5th Fl New York, NY 10003 DOCGO INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Derivative Suit in Del. ------------------------------------------------------------------- DocGo 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 consolidated derivative suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery. On May 13, 2025 and June 3, 2025, respectively, two derivative actions were filed nominally on behalf of the Company in the Delaware Court of Chancery by Ryne Shetterly and Salma Daboul against certain current and former members of the Board of Directors, including the Company's Chief Executive Officer and General Counsel, along with two former Chief Executive Officers, the Company's Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, and its Executive Vice President of Strategy. Both complaints assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty and other related claims purportedly on behalf of the Company based on substantially similar factual allegations to those asserted in the securities class action matter discussed above, seeking various forms of monetary and injunctive relief. On August 5, 2025, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated the two derivative actions, and the parties agreed that the complaint filed in the Daboul action should serve as the operative complaint. The defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated action in October 2025, and rather than oppose, plaintiffs amended their complaint. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on February 2, 2026, and their motion is fully briefed. Due to the early stage of these proceedings, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the potential range of loss, if any. DocGo Inc. is a technology-enabled mobile health services and medical transportation provider that delivers healthcare services outside traditional hospital and clinic settings. The Company partners with healthcare organizations and governments to provide on-demand medical care, telehealth support, and non-emergency medical transportation. DOCGO INC: Continues to Defend Hyung Derivative Suit in New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- DocGo 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 Hyung derivative suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On August 19, 2025, Jung Jae Hyung filed another derivative complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint asserts claims similar to those asserted in the consolidated action pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery and seeks relief similar to the relief sought in the consolidated action. He further alleges that he previously made a demand on the Board to assert his claims and the Board ignored it, which he deemed a refusal. The Company's counsel informed Mr. Hyung's counsel that the Board had appointed a committee to review his litigation demand, and the parties thereafter agreed pursuant to a stipulation entered on October 20, 2025 to stay the Hyung action while the review proceeds. Due to the early stage of these proceedings, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the potential range of loss, if any. DocGo Inc. is a technology-enabled mobile health services and medical transportation provider that delivers healthcare services outside traditional hospital and clinic settings. The Company partners with healthcare organizations and governments to provide on-demand medical care, telehealth support, and non-emergency medical transportation. DOCGO INC: Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Court OK ------------------------------------------------------ DocGo 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 Southern District of New York approved the Naclerio securities class suit settlement on March 24, 2026. A putative class action complaint for violation of federal securities laws was filed on October 27, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by Joe Naclerio, individually and purportedly on behalf of all others similarly situated, against the Company, its then-Chairman and former Chief Executive Officer, another former Chief Executive Officer, current Chief Financial Officer, and former Chief Financial Officer (who currently serves as Executive Vice President of Strategy). On January 17, 2024, the Court appointed the Genesee County Employees Retirement System as the Lead Plaintiff. On March 18, 2024, the Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the Company, its now former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, another former Chief Executive Officer, and former Chief Financial Officer (who currently serves as Executive Vice President of Strategy). On June 21, 2024, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and on March 28, 2025, the motion was granted in part and denied in part. On April 25, 2025, the remaining defendants answered the complaint. The parties reached an agreement to settle the action for an amount of $12,500,000 (covered by the Company's insurance policy, subject to retention), and on March 24, 2026, the court approved the settlement. DocGo Inc. is a technology-enabled mobile health services and medical transportation provider that delivers healthcare services outside traditional hospital and clinic settings. The Company partners with healthcare organizations and governments to provide on-demand medical care, telehealth support, and non-emergency medical transportation. DOCKETWISE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Abdi Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------- ISSE ABDI, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DOCKETWISE and 8AM, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-01210 (W.D. Tex., May 7, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiff's and/or Class Members' personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network, including, without limitation, names and Social Security Numbers. Representative Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause Representative Plaintiff and thousands of other, similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendant on February 19, 2026, by which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network and accessed the Private Information which was being kept there (the Data Breach). While Defendant claims to have discovered the breach as early as February 19, 2026, Defendant did not begin informing victims of the Data Breach until much later and failed to inform victims when or for how long the Data Breach occurred. The Defendant acquired, collected and stored Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. Therefore, at all relevant times, Defendant knew or should have known that Representative Plaintiff and Class Members would use Defendant’s services to store and/or share sensitive data, including highly confidential Private Information. The Defendant disregarded the rights of Representative Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly and/or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent an unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use, says the suit. The Defendant is a for-profit enterprise with a principal place of business located in Austin, Texas. The Company is a cloud-based immigration case management solution.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark T. Freeman, Esq. Scott Edward Cole, Esq. Laura Van Note Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 E-mail: sec@colevannote.com lvn@colevannote.com DOLLAR GENERAL: Anthony Seeks Refund of Unlawful IEEPA Tariffs -------------------------------------------------------------- LEON ANTHONY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DOLLAR GENERAL CORP. and DOLGENCORP LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-04675 (C.D. Cal., April 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, unjust enrichment, and money had and received. The case arises from Dollar's retention of windfall profits generated by the unlawful tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). According to the complaint, the windfall is a direct result of Dollar's systematically passing on the costs of IEEPA tariffs to its own customers, including the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that Dollar is obligated to return to him and proposed Class members all IEEPA duties passed on to customers in the form of higher prices on products, with interest. Dollar General Corporation is an American chain of grocery stores, with its principal place of business in Goodlettsville, Tennessee. Dolgencorp, LLC is the operating and real estate subsidiary of Dollar General Corporation, with its principal place of business in Goodlettsville, Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Theodore W. Maya, Esq. Alyssa Brown, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Ave., Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com abrown@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Bradley K. King, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (917) 336-0171 Facsimile: (917) 336-0177 Email: bking@ahdootwolfson.com DREXEL UNIVERSITY: Deadline to Opt Out $2.2M COVID Suit Set June 25 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Danielle Toth of ClaimDepot reports that Students enrolled at Drexel University during the spring 2020 term who paid any part of their tuition or fees may be eligible to claim a cash payment from a class action settlement. Drexel University agreed to pay $2.2 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment after the university transitioned from in-person to remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Who are the class members? Class members must meet all of the following criteria: -- They enrolled as a student at Drexel University during the spring 2020 term. -- They or someone else paid any part of their payment obligation for tuition and/or fees for that term. The settlement administrator identified eligible students using Drexel's records and sent notices to those who may qualify. Who is excluded from the class? -- Students who enrolled solely in online classes through Drexel University Online during spring 2020. -- Students whose tuition and fees for spring 2020 Drexel fully funded (i.e., they did not pay or have an obligation to pay any tuition or fees themselves). How much can class members receive? Pro rata payment: The settlement administrator will distribute the net settlement fund, after deductions for attorneys' fees, class representative awards and administrative costs, equally among all eligible class members who do not opt out. The exact amount each class member will receive depends on the number of eligible participants and the final net settlement fund. The settlement does not specify a minimum or maximum payment per person. No action needed to receive payment Class members do not need to file a claim to receive their payment. The settlement administrator will automatically send checks by first class U.S. Mail to the last known permanent mailing address on file with the university registrar. Class members can update their address or choose a payment method online or by downloading, printing and completing a PDF form and mailing it to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Deller v. Drexel University, c/o RG/2 Claims Administration LLC, P.O. Box 59479, Philadelphia, PA 19102-9479 $2.2 million settlement fund breakdown The $2,200,000 settlement fund includes: -- Settlement administration costs: Estimated not to exceed $50,000 -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $733,260 -- Attorneys' expenses: To be determined -- Service award to class representative: Up to $10,000 -- Payments to approved class members: Remainder of the settlement fund Important dates -- Deadline to update address or select payment method: 45 days after the effective date (to be posted on the settlement website) -- Deadline to opt out: June 25, 2026 -- Fairness hearing: Aug. 5, 2026 When is the Drexel COVID settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will distribute payments within 60 days after the settlement becomes final. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit claimed Drexel University breached its contract with students and received unjust enrichment when it switched from in-person to remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. The lawsuit alleged students paid for in-person instruction and campus services but received remote education instead. Drexel denies any wrongdoing or liability but agreed to settle the case to avoid further litigation, costs and risks for both parties. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Pro rata payment [GN] DREYFUSS MANAGEMENT: Loses Bid to Keep "Aguilar" in Federal Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Yoselin Michelle Aguilar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Dreyfuss Management LLC, Defendant, Civil Case No. SAG-25-03381 (D. Md.), Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted Plaintiff's motion to remand the case to the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland, in a Memorandum Opinion issued May 4, 2026. Plaintiff filed this class action in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, alleging that Dreyfuss, which manages the apartment complex where she resides, (1) collected from or attempted to collect from its residential tenants while lacking the consumer collection agency license required under state law and (2) failed to comply with state and local laws regarding residential leases. The putative class consists of all individuals who were residential tenants with a Maryland address that Dreyfuss sought to collect from in the three years preceding the filing of the complaint. Dreyfuss removed the case to federal court, citing both diversity jurisdiction and Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) jurisdiction. Plaintiff then moved to remand. Federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over cases between citizens of different states when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Defendants seeking removal may not aggregate multiple plaintiffs' damages to meet that threshold. Because the complaint alleged no specific amount of individual damages for Plaintiff alone, Dreyfuss was required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that her damages would exceed $75,000. Dreyfuss advanced three arguments. First, it contended that Maryland Rule 2-305 required Plaintiff to have sought over $75,000 on her own behalf. The court rejected this, finding that a committee note to a state rule could not dictate the application of a federal statute. Second, Dreyfuss sought to add attorneys' fees to its amount in controversy calculation. The court denied this, concluding that because attorneys' fees were conspicuously requested throughout the complaint, Dreyfuss had made a strategic choice to omit them from its notice of removal and could not amend to include them after the fact. Third, Dreyfuss raised emotional distress damages, which the court rejected on the same basis -- the complaint contained no such request and the notice of removal made no reference to them. Dreyfuss therefore failed to establish diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff did not dispute that Dreyfuss satisfied the basic CAFA requirements but argued that the local controversy exception under Section 1332(d)(4)(A), the home state exception under Section 1332(d)(4)(B), or discretionary remand under Section 1332(d)(3) applied. On the mandatory exceptions, the central disputed element was whether at least two-thirds of the putative class members were Maryland citizens. The court took judicial notice of U.S. Census Bureau Table B07413 for 2022, 2023, and 2024, which showed that approximately 5.4%, 5.8%, and 4.7% of Maryland renters left the state in those years, respectively. Applying the margins of error in Dreyfuss's favor yielded only slightly higher figures -- 5.9%, 6.5%, and 5.2%. Even assuming Dreyfuss gained no replacement tenants, approximately 82% of its tenants during the class period likely remained Maryland residents at the time of filing. The court assumed without deciding that Plaintiff had not met her burden for mandatory remand under Section 1332(d)(4), because discretionary remand under Section 1332(d)(3) was clearly warranted. Under Section 1332(d)(3), the court found that Plaintiff had shown at least one-third of the putative class members were Maryland citizens. Weighing the statutory factors, the court found they pointed heavily toward remand: the claims did not involve matters of national or interstate interest; all claims would be governed by Maryland law; Maryland had a distinct nexus to the dispute, which arose from agreements between Maryland residents and a company operating in Maryland; no similar class actions had been filed in the three preceding years; and Dreyfuss, the only defendant, was a Maryland citizen. The court concluded that, in the interests of justice, remand was appropriate. Accordingly, the court granted Plaintiff's motion to remand. The motion to stay was denied as moot, and the motion to dismiss was left for adjudication in state court. A copy of the Court's decision dated May 4, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CpU5xr from PacerMonitor.com EGNYTE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Spridgen Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- SARA SPRIDGEN; SARAH CURVIN; and ROBERT OLSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EGNYTE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-00290-M (N.D.N.C., May 1, 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. Plaintiffs Curvin and Olson was employed by the Defendant as sales development representatives. Plaintiff Spridgen was employed as account executive. Egnyte, Inc. operates as an enterprise software company. The Company provides integration, product overview, large file collaboration, insider risk management, ransomware detection, content lifestyle management, and sensitive content classification solutions. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Narendra K. Ghosh, Esq. PATTERSON HARKAVY LLP 100 Europa Dr., Ste. 420 Chapel Hill, NC 27517 Telephone: (919) 942-5200 Facsimile: (866) 397-8671 Email: nghosh@pathlaw.com - and - Melissa L. Stewart, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (646) 509-2057 Email: mstewart@outtengolden.com - and - Alina M. Pastor-Chermak, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1500 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 237-8102 Facsimile: (415) 638-8810 Email: apastor-chermak@outtengolden.com EGP OCEANSIDE: Faces Perez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------- ERIK RONALDO MORALES PEREZ, FELIPE MALDONADO SANCHEZ, LINDER ADALY MAZARIEGOS MALDONADO, NORIS ALEYDA OSEGUERA MALDONADO, and WALTER OSEQUERA RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EGP OCEANSIDE, LLC d/b/a EGP LAND & SEA, DUCK FAT INC. d/b/a EAT GASTROPUB, SAND STORM, INC., and TIMOTHY M. O'HAGAN, SCOTT A. RUSSELL, BRIANNA O'HAGAN, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02541 (E.D.N.Y., April 29, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as restaurant employees at any time between 2018 and 2025. Gagan General Construction Corp. is a construction firm based in Ozone Park, New York. EGP Oceanside, LLC, doing business as EGP Land & Sea, is a restaurant owner and operator located in Island Park, New York. Duck Fat Inc., doing business as Eat Gastropub, is a restaurant owner and operator located in Oceanside, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. Helen F. Dalton & Associates, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 ELANCO ANIMAL: Barpar Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal to 4th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH BARPAR, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Joseph Barpar, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Elanco Animal Health Incorporated Securities, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02912-BAH, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit alleged claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and specifically alleged that Elanco and the two executives made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose certain facts about the safety of and labeling for its Zenrelia(R) product, as well as the approval and launch timelines for Zenrelia and its Credelio Quattro(TM) product. On May 20, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which Judge Brendan Abell Hurson granted on Mar. 26, 2026. The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under Section 10(b) and Rule l0b-5, and because of that their allegations under Section 20(a) necessarily fail as well. The appellate case is styled as Joseph Barpar v. Elanco Animal Health Incorporated Securities, Case No. 26-1534, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on April 30, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants JOSEPH BARPAR, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Joshua E. Fruchter, Esq. WOHL & FRUCHTER LLP 25 Robert Pitt Drive Monsey, NY 10952 Telephone: (845) 290-6818 - and - Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 3rd Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 - and - Daniel S. Sommers, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Defendants-Appellees ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH INCORPORATED SECURITIES, et al. are represented by: Susan Grace, Esq. Stacy Nettleton, Esq. WHITE & CASE, LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 819-2585 (212) 819-8334 - and - Scott Lerner, Esq. WHITE & CASE, LLP 701 13th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 636-3600 EMPOWER HEALTH: Sends Spam Emails, Rodriguez Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- TAWNYA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EMPOWER HEALTH LABS LLC, d/b/a NATURALHEARINGSUPPORT.COM, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-02708-LL-SBC (S.D. Cal., April 28, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California's Business & Professions Code, the California Trap and Trace Law, and California's intrusion upon seclusion. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged practice of sending spam messages to consumers in California. According to the complaint, the Defendant sent spam emails with a forged header, spoofed domain, and deceptive subject line to trick unwary recipients into opening messages they would otherwise ignore. Moreover, the Defendant also installs tracking pixels on its website, naturalhearingsupport.com, without consent to enable it and its surveillance partners to monitor visitors' behavior across the internet. As a result of the Defendant's illegal practice, the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals have been harmed. Empower Health Labs LLC is a company that offers wellness programs based in Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS 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 ENDUE SOFTWARE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $870,000 -------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Endue Software agreed to an $870,000 class action settlement to resolve claims that a February 2025 data breach compromised sensitive consumer information. The Endue Software settlement benefits individuals whose private information may have been compromised in the Endue Software data breach in February 2025. According to the class action lawsuit, Endue Software failed to protect consumer information from a data breach. Plaintiffs in the case claim the company could have prevented the data breach through reasonable cybersecurity measures. Endue Software is a software company that provides services to the healthcare, insurance and financial industries. Endue Software has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to an $870,000 class action settlement to resolve the data breach class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Endue Software class action settlement, class members can receive two years of free credit monitoring and identity theft protection services. Class members can also receive a cash payment from the settlement. Class members who experienced documented losses as a result of the Endue Software data breach can receive up to $2,500 in compensation for out-of-pocket expenses, such as identity theft, fraud, credit fees and ID replacement costs. Class members who did not experience documented losses can receive a one-time payment of $65. The settlement includes a $260,000 fund for these payments, which will be distributed on a pro rata basis, meaning individual amounts may increase or decrease depending on the total number of valid claims filed. The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 30, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Endue Software settlement is scheduled for July 15, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by June 30, 2026. Who's Eligible The class action settlement benefits individuals residing in the United States whose private information may have been impacted in the February 2025 data breach. Potential Award Up to $2,500 for documented losses or a $65 one-time payment. Proof of Purchase Documentation of losses, such as bank statements, credit reports and receipts. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 06/30/2026 Case Name Pauley, et al. v. Endue Inc. d/b/a Endue Software, Case No. CACE-25-015155, in the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida Final Hearing 07/15/2026 Settlement Website EndueSoftwareDataSettlement.com Claims Administrator Endue Data Incident Settlement c/o Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 25226 Santa Ana, CA 92799-9958 info@EndueSoftwareDataSettlement.com (833) 386-6509 Class Counsel Jeff Ostrow KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. A. Brooke Murphy MURPHY LAW FIRM Defense Counsel Carolyn Purwin Ryan Emmanuella Jean-Jacques MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC [GN] EQUITY BANK: Agrees to $1 Million Overdraft Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that Equity Bank agreed to a $1 million class action settlement to resolve claims it improperly charged certain overdraft and nonsufficient funds fees to accountholders. The Equity Bank settlement benefits current and former accountholders who were charged certain "challenged fees" between Jan. 1, 2017, and Nov. 21, 2025. These challenged fees include overdraft fees charged between Jan. 1, 2017, and Dec. 7, 2019, and between Nov. 8, 2020, and Sept. 1, 2024, on debit card transactions that were authorized on a sufficient available balance and settled in the authorized amount; overdraft or nonsufficient funds fees charged between Feb. 22, 2018, and Dec. 31, 2023, on the second or third presentment of the same item; and overdraft fees charged between Feb. 2, 2017, and Nov. 21, 2025, on days when the end-of-day balance was not overdrawn. According to the class action lawsuit, Equity Bank improperly assessed these fees against customers in violation of its account agreements and applicable law. Equity Bank denies any wrongdoing but agreed to a $1 million class action settlement to avoid the expense and uncertainty of ongoing litigation. Under the terms of the settlement, Equity Bank will create a $1 million settlement fund. The bank also agreed to forgive and charge off at least $225,000 in unpaid challenged fees that were not collected. The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 7, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Equity Bank settlement is scheduled for June 29, 2026. Class members do not need to submit a claim form to receive benefits. Eligible consumers who remain in the settlement class will automatically receive a payment by check, account credit or forgiveness of unpaid challenged fees. Payments will be distributed on a pro rata basis based on the amount of challenged fees paid by each class member. Who's Eligible The class action settlement benefits Equity Bank current and former accountholders who were charged one or more of the following fees during the applicable class periods: APSN fees: Jan. 1, 2017, to Dec. 7, 2019, and Nov. 8, 2020, to Sept. 1, 2024 Retry fees: Feb. 22, 2018, to Dec. 31, 2023 Sufficient funds fees: Feb. 2, 2017, to Nov. 21, 2025 Potential Award Varies Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form Deadline 06/07/2026 Case Name Merrell, et al. v. Equity Bank, Case No. 2216-CV02011, in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri Final Hearing 06/29/2026 Settlement Website MerrellFeesSettlement.com Claims Administrator Merrell, et al. v. Equity Bank Settlement Administrator c/o Verita Global P.O. Box 301130 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1130 admin@MerrellFeesSettlement.com (888) 808-7281 Class Counsel Marty Schubert STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY PLLC Defense Counsel Andrew J. Demko MAYER BROWN LLP [GN] ESTEE LAUDER: Labaton Secures $210MM Settlement in Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Labaton Keller Sucharow, serving as Lead Counsel, achieved a significant victory in a securities class action against The Estee Lauder Companies Inc., the Company's former CEO, and its CFO, securing a $210 million settlement on behalf of wronged investors. The settlement represents one of the largest securities recoveries of the year. The case centered on allegations that Estee Lauder -- the global leader in luxury cosmetics and skincare -- and its top executives misled investors by touting strong revenue growth while concealing the Company's heavy reliance on grey-market sales channels. At the heart of the scheme was a practice known as "daigou," in which resellers purchase luxury goods at reduced, duty-free prices and resell them to end-consumers below retail price. When regulators cracked down on these resellers, Estée Lauder's sales took a significant hit, inventories piled up, and the Company was forced into steep discounting that crushed its revenues and profit margins. Under the leadership of Partners Michael P. Canty and James T. Christie, the Firm overcame several hurdles in the prosecution of this matter. Notably, in March 2026, Labaton overcame Defendants' motion to dismiss. After engaging in extensive fact discover, the Firm filed a motion for class certification, appointment of class representatives, and appointment of class counsel in February 2026. The Parties mediated and ultimately agreed to settle the matter for $210 million (pending final court approval) in May 2026. "This settlement represents a significant recovery for investors who were harmed by Estée Lauder's failure to disclose its reliance on grey-market sales," said Michael P. Canty. "We are proud to have achieved this result on behalf of the class." [GN] EYEMART EXPRESS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Iwanicki Says ------------------------------------------------------------- FRAN IWANICKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EYEMART EXPRESS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01420-E (N.D. Tex., May 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information and protected health information, resulting in a data breach. On or around April 17, 2026, the Defendant reported to the Attorney General of Texas that it had experienced a data breach. According to the Texas Attorney General's website, the types of information compromised during the data breach included highly sensitive PII and PHI of Plaintiff and other current and former patients, employees, and customers of Defendant. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and are at an imminent, immediate, and continuing increased risk of suffering, ascertainable losses in the form of harm from identity theft and other fraudulent misuse of their Private Information, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, and potential out-of-pocket expenses to remedy or mitigate the effects of the data breach. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct. The private information that Defendant collected and maintained is now in the hands of data thieves and other unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Eyemart Express LLC is a national optical retailer with nearly 250 stores across 42 states. The Company provides eyecare medical services and vision products to customers and patients across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce W. Steckler, Esq. STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE PLLC 12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: (972) 387-4040 Facsimile: (972) 387-4041 - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com EYEMART EXPRESS: Lewis Sues Over Clients' Compromised Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- LISA LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EYEMART EXPRESS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01402-D (N.D. Tex., April 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on March 10, 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Eyemart Express LLC is a national optical retailer based in Farmers Branch, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce W. Steckler, Esq. STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE PLLC 12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: (972) 387-4040 Facsimile: (972) 387-4041 - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive-Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 Email: jnelson@milberg.com FEDEX CORP: Ross Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to W.D. Tennessee ----------------------------------------------------------- The case KEVIN ROSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FEDEX CORPORATION, Case No. 1:26-cv-02227, was removed from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on April 29, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Tennessee assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-02483-SHL-atc to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendant for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment by routinely charging its customers purported duties, tariffs, and related surcharges as part of the importation and delivery process. FedEx Corporation is a transportation, logistics, e-commerce, and business services provider, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Reese, Esq. Carlos F. Ramirez, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 Email: mreese@reesellp.com cramirez@reesellp.com FINANCIAL BUILDERS: Dismissal of Haskins Class Suit Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, Jeffrey Haskins, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. Financial Builders Federal Credit Union, Appellee-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 25A-PL-1810 (Ind. App.), Judge Stephen E. Scheele of the Court of Appeals of Indiana affirms the trial court's grant of Financial Builders' Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss. Haskins was a member of Financial Builders, where he held a checking account pursuant to a "Membership and Account Agreement." On December 30, 2024, he filed a class action complaint against Financial Builders. On March 7, 2025, he amended his complaint asserting, in relevant part, a breach of contract claim based on Financial Builders' assessment of overdraft fees. Specifically, Haskins challenged overdraft fees charged to his account on three dates—February 2, 2022, August 8, 2022, and September 1, 2022—alleging they were assessed while his account held sufficient funds to cover his transactions. Financial Builders filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6) on March 27, 2025, alleging Haskins' claim was time-barred under Indiana Code section 34-11-2-9(c)'s two-year limitations period. On June 26, the trial court granted Financial Builders' motion and dismissed Haskins' claim. Haskins now appeals. He raises one issue for the Court of Appeals' review, which it restates as whether the trial court erred in dismissing his overdraft fees claim as time-barred under Indiana Code section 34-11-2-9(c). The Court of Appeals explains that the gravamen of Haskins' complaint is a dispute regarding overdraft fees charged to his account. If a party disputes the credits, debits, or fees on that account, then the action is a dispute over the accounting itself. Thus, a challenge to the fee—whether that fee stems from the bank's services to the depositor or from the depositor's credit to the account—is still a cause of action upon the deposit account. In other words, the Court of Appeals finds that without the existence of Haskins' deposit account, there would be no cause of action. Because Haskins' action upon the account concerns overdraft fees charged more than two years prior to the date he filed his cause of action, his claim is time-barred. It thus affirms the trial court's dismissal of Haskins' action under Trial Rule 12(B)(6). A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://l1nq.com/ts4vtiv Lynn A. Toops, Gabriel A. Hawkins, Lisa M. LaFornara, Cohen & Malad, LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana, ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT. Finis Tatum IV -- ftatum@grsm.com -- Janet L. Thompson -- jlthompson@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana, ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE. Libby Y. Goodknight -- lgoodknight@kdlegal.com -- Brett J. Ashton -- bashton@kdlegal.com -- Krieg DeVault LLP Indianapolis, Indiana, ATTORNEYS AMICI CURIAE INDIANA BANKERS ASSOCIATION AND INDIANA CREDIT UNION LEAGUE. FIRST ROUND: Faces Johnson Class Suit in D. Nev. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against First Round Management, LLC. The case is captioned as Kajan Johnson, Clarence Dollaway and Tristan Connelly, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. First Round Management, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-01322-GMN-EJY (D. Nev., April 7, 2026). The nature of suit states Statutory Actions. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Gloria M. Navarro. First Round, based in Miami, Florida, is a family-oriented management company dedicated to supporting professional athletes across various sports. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin E Rayhill, Esq. Brent Jordan, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM 555 Montgomery St., Suite 1210 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 E-mail: tbjordan@saverilawfirm.com - and - Benjamin Jacobs Widlanski, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN THROCKMORTON LLP 2525 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, 9th Floor Miami, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 372-1800 Facsimile: (305) 372-3508 FIRST ROUND: Plaintiffs Seek to Transfer Bid to Compel Subpoena --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAJAN JOHNSON, CLARENCE DOLLAWAY, and TRISTAN CONNELLY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. FIRST ROUND MANAGEMENT,LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-01322-GMN-EJY (S.D. Fla., April 17, 2026), Plaintiffs Kajan Johnson, Clarence Dollaway and Tristan Connelly in the underlying class action will move the Court for an Order granting transfer of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel First Round Management, LLC's Subpoena Compliance to the District of Nevada pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, or in the alternative to compel FRM to comply with the subpoena issued in the Nevada Court on January 16, 2025. The underlying class action is captioned as "Johnson et al. v. Zuffa LLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01189-RFB-BNW (D. Nev.) The underlying action is a class action alleging that Zuffa has unlawfully obtained market power in the mixed martial arts industry, which it exploits to suppress compensation for Plaintiffs and similarly situated MMA fighters, in violation of the Sherman Act.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin J. Widlanski, Esq. KOZYAKTROPINTHROCKMORTON,LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, 9th Floor Miami, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 372-1800 Facsimile: (305) 372-3508 E-mail: bwidlanski@kttlaw.com - and - Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Christopher K.L. Young, Esq. Kevin E. Rayhill, Esq. Itak Moradi, Esq. T. Brent Jordan, Esq. SAVERI LAWFIRM,LLP 550 California Street, Suite 910 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com cyoung@saverilawfirm.com krayhill@saverilawfirm.com imoradi@saverilawfirm.com tbjordan@saverilawfirm.com FIRST SEACOAST: M&A Investigates Sale to Cambridge Financial ------------------------------------------------------------ Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a law firm headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating -- First Seacoast Bancorp, Inc. (NASDAQ: FSEA) related to its sale to Cambridge Financial Group, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, First Seacoast shareholders are expected to receive $17.25 per share in cash. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/first-seacoast-bancorp-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- FLUENT Corp. (OTCQB: CNTMF) related to its merger with Vireo Growth, Inc. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/fluent-corp/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- CECO Environmental Corp. (NASDAQ: CECO) related to its merger with Thermon Group Holdings, Inc. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, CECO shareholders are expected to own approximately 62.5% of the combined company. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for May 27, 2026. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/ceco-environmental-corp/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Thermon Group Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: THR) related to its sale to CECO Environmental Corp. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Thermon shareholders may elect to receive, for each share of Thermon common stock, either: (i) $10.00 in cash and 0.6840 shares of CECO common stock, (ii) $63.89 in cash per share, or (iii) 0.8110 shares of CECO common stock per share. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for May 27, 2026. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/thermon-group-holdings-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] FONAR CORP: Faces Taylor Stockholder Class Suit ----------------------------------------------- FONAR 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 11, 2026, that the Company faces the Taylor stockholder class suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery. On February 2, 2026, a Verified Stockholder Class Action Complaint entitled Bruce Taylor v. Fonar Corporation et al., C.A. No. 2026-0142-JTL (Del. Ch.) (the "Complaint"), was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery by a putative FONAR stockholder (the "Delaware Plaintiff"), on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders, against FONAR, the Parent Entities, and members of the FONAR Board. The Complaint alleges that the Parent Entities reached an agreement, arrangement, or understanding, as those terms are defined in Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law ("DGCL") ("Section 203"), among certain FONAR stockholders prior to the FONAR Board's approval of the merger, thereby triggering Section 203's requirement that at least 66 2/3% of the outstanding Company Capital Stock unaffiliated with the Parent Entities vote in favor of the merger (after giving effect to the respective voting powers of each class of Company Capital Stock under FONAR's existing amended and restated certificate of incorporation). The Complaint seeks, among other things, (1) an order declaring that the merger is subject to Section 203's supermajority voting requirement, (2) an order enjoining the vote on the merger unless and until stockholders are informed that the merger can close only if it is subject to Section 203's supermajority voting requirement, and (3) a finding that the members of the Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the Merger Agreement without providing for a supermajority stockholder vote contemplated by Section 203. FONAR disputes the Complaint's allegations, including the allegation that Section 203's supermajority voting requirement applies to the merger. Fonar Corp. is a medical technology company specializing in the design, manufacture and sale of MRI scanners. The company also provides diagnostic imaging services through physician and management services at MRI facilities. FROST BANK: Fails to Secure Clients' Personal Info, McQuerry Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARJORIE MCQUERRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FROST BANK, Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-02825 (W.D. Tex., April 29, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on or about April 20, 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Frost Bank is a chartered bank with its principal place of business located in San Antonio, 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 Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com - and - Grayson Wells, Esq. Greg Mullens, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gwells@stranchlaw.com gmullens@stranchlaw.com FS KKR: Faces Stuart Securities Class Suit in Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------- FS KKR Capital Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2026, that the Company faces the Stuart securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On May 4, 2026, a purported Company stockholder filed a putative securities class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against FS KKR Capital Corp. and certain of our current officers (collectively, the Defendants). The case is captioned Stuart v. FS KKR Capital Corp., et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-02969 (E.D. Pa.). The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making materially false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions concerning, among other things, portfolio valuations, portfolio restructuring, and the Company's quarterly distribution strategy. FS KKR Capital Corp. is a publicly traded business development company that primarily provides customized credit solutions to private middle-market U.S. companies. The company is externally managed by FS/KKR Advisor, LLC, a partnership between FS Investments and KKR Credit. GAGAN GENERAL: Millingalli Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages in E.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE RODRIGO GUAMAN MILLINGALLI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GAGAN GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CORP, GAGAN G.C. INC, and SANDEEP KAUR, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-02523 (E.D.N.Y., April 28, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from in or around May 2021 until in or around May 2025. Gagan General Construction Corp. is a construction firm based in Ozone Park, New York. Gagan G.C. Inc. is a construction firm based in Ozone Park, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. Helen F. Dalton & Associates, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 GLOBANT SA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Misleading Statements ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Globant S.A. ("Globant" or the "Company") (NYSE:GLOB) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Globant common stock between February 15, 2024 and August 14, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until June 23, 2026 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. Allegation Details: According to the filed complaint, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that Globant's Latin American operations began experiencing turmoil in late 2023. Latin America was not, as defendants claimed, a "particularly beneficial" region that would allow for the "ability to grow" Globant's business. Nor was the market in Latin America "stable" or "improving a lot." In truth, Globant was facing decreasing demand across Latin America and had frozen wages in both Argentina and Mexico in late 2023 and Latin American clients were reducing and cancelling their projects with the Company. Moreover, it was misleading for Globant to discuss the effects of the depreciation of the Argentine currency on its project contracts without disclosing that it had frozen the wages of its Argentine employees and that, because of currency depreciation, those wage freezes amounted in practical terms to wage cuts. Next Steps: If you purchased or otherwise acquired Globant shares and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, South Carolina, and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in securities, derivative, and commercial litigation as well as individuals in consumer protection and data privacy litigation. The firm has a nationwide practice and routinely handles cases in both federal and state courts. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Contact Information: Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] GOOGLE LLC: Denial of Bid to Intervene in Brown Privacy Suit Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHASOM BROWN; MARIA NGUYEN; WILLIAM BYATT, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. GOOGLE LLC, a Delaware company, Defendant-Appellee, v. ADAM SALCIDO, Movant-Appellant, Case No. 24-5692 (9th Cir.), Judge Kenneth K. Lee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the denial of the Salcido Plaintiffs' motion to intervene. In June 2020, several plaintiffs filed a putative class action lawsuit against Google, alleging that it improperly collected and misused data of Incognito mode users of the Google Chrome browser. The proposed class action seeks injunctive relief and damages on behalf of Incognito users under Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3). The case claims that Google misled users about the privacy protections offered by Chrome's Incognito mode. Although Google stated that Incognito would not store certain information, the Plaintiffs alleged the company continued collecting and using browsing data. After more than two years of discovery, the district court certified a class seeking injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2) in December 2022. However, it refused to certify a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3), finding that individual issues outweighed common questions. The Plaintiffs later asked the appellate court to review that ruling under Rule 23(f), but the court declined to hear the appeal in March 2023. The Plaintiffs continued pursuing injunctive relief for the certified class while also seeking individual damages. After the district court denied Google's summary judgment motion and trial was scheduled for February 2024, the parties reached a proposed settlement. Under the agreement, Google agreed to update its disclosures about data collection and address certain retained data. The named Plaintiffs could still pursue their own damages claims through arbitration but agreed not to appeal the denial of the damages class. The settlement did not waive damages claims for absent class members or limit their ability to appeal the denial of class certification. Three months later, a group of 185 Google Chrome users (the Salcido Plaintiffs) moved to intervene to preserve the "appellate rights" of absent class members seeking class damages. The Salcido Plaintiffs moved to intervene in July 2024, shortly before the final settlement approval hearing. They sought to appeal the denial of damages class certification, obtain discovery materials and the tolling agreement, and argue that the settlement unfairly affected absent class members by limiting their appellate rights. The district court denied the motion, finding it untimely because it was filed more than a year after the denial of damages class certification. It also found that the Salcido Plaintiffs did not justify waiting three months after learning about the settlement's appellate waiver provision. It further concluded that allowing intervention could delay or disrupt the proposed settlement. Shortly after the settlement agreement was filed, the Salcido Plaintiffs sued Google in California state court for individual damages related to the alleged collection of private browsing data. The California Superior Court ruled that some of their claims, including alleged violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), were barred by the statute of limitations, though it allowed them time to amend their complaint. According to the state court docket, the Plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint within the deadline. Judge Lee opines that the case presents an example of "too little, too late" for would-be class action intervenors. He holds that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the intervention motion untimely. The Salcido Plaintiffs claim that they want to intervene to appeal the denial of a damages class and insist that they will not derail the injunctive relief settlement. But they have offered no reason to believe that such an outcome is likely or even possible. If the Salcido Plaintiffs intervene, they will likely unravel the settlement agreement at the midnight hour and thus prejudice the named Plaintiffs and Google. And they have not offered any justification for their delay in seeking intervention until just before the final class settlement approval hearing. Hence, the denial of the Salcido Plaintiffs' motion to intervene is affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://l1nq.com/uqbawt9. David Boies (argued) -- dboies@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Armonk, New York; Mark C. Mao -- mmao@bsfllp.com -- Sean Rodriguez, and Beko O. Reblitz-Richardson -- brichardson@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, San Francisco, California; Alison L. Anderson -- alanderson@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Los Angeles, California; James Lee -- jlee@bsfllp.com -- and Rossana Baeza -- rbaeza@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Miami, Florida; John A. Yanchunis -- jyanchunis@forthepeople.com -- and Ryan J. McGee -- rmcgee@forthepeople.com -- Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group, Tampa, Florida; Amanda K. Bonn -- abonn@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey LLP, Los Angeles, California; Amy Gregory, William C. Carmody -- bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com -- and Steven M. Shepard -- sshepard@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey LLP, New York, New York; Jenna G. Farleigh, Susman Godfrey LLP, Seattle, Washington; Jean Sutton Martin, Law Office of Jean Sutton Martin PLLC, Wilmington, North Carolina; Samuel Issacharof, Samuel Issacharof, New York, New York; for Plaintiffs-Appellees. Stephen A. Broome (argued) -- sb@quinnemanuel.com -- Viola Trebicka -- violatrebicka@quinnemanuel.com -- Rachael L. McCracken, and Alyssa Olson, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Los Angeles, California; Joseph H. Margolies, Andrew H. Schapiro -- andrewschapiro@quinnemanuel.com -- and Teuta Fani, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Chicago, Illinois; Diane Doolittle -- dianedoolittle@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Redwood Shores, California; Christopher G. Michel, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Washington, D.C.; Aarti G. Reddy, Cooley LLP, San Francisco, California; for Defendant-Appellee. Russell C. Handy (argued) -- info@potterhandy.com -- and Barry M. Walker, Potter Handy LLP, San Francisco, California, Movant-Appellant. David A. Straite -- dstraite@dicellolevitt.com -- DiCello Levitt LLP, New York, New York; Amy E. Keller -- akeller@dicellolevitt.com -- DiCello Levitt LLP, Chicago, Illinois; Lesley E. Weaver, Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP, Oakland, California; Jason Barnes, Simmons Hanly Conroy LLP, New York, New York; for Amici Curiae Calhoun Plaintiffs. GRAYROBINSON PA: Faces Napodano Tort Suit in Fla. Cir. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against GRAYROBINSON PA. The case is captioned as ROSEANN NAPODANO, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GRAYROBINSON PA, Case No. 2026-CA-004500-O (Fla. Cir., Orange Cty., April 7, 2026). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Brian Sandor. The nature of suit states Business Torts. GrayRobinson is a multidimensional team of professionals providing integrated legal, lobbying, and regulatory services to leading and emerging businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Ostrow, Esq. OSTROW LLP 20 Woodgate Ct Hillsborough, CA 94010-6245 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 The Defendant is represented by: Ara Ayvazian, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON Telephone: (813) 202-7147 Facsimile (813) 221-8837 E-mail: aayvazian@shb.com GRAYROBINSON PA: Montgomery Sues Over Compromised Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------------- BRITTANY MONTGOMERY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRAYROBINSON, PA, Defendant, Case No. 6:26-cv-00936 (M.D. Fla., April 28, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence/negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach from March 5, 2025, through March 24, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. GrayRobinson, PA is a law firm with its principal place of business in Orlando, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tonyia J. Johnson, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: tjohnson@shamisgentile.com GROWPRO INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Wood Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL WOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GROWPRO, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04797 (N.D. Ill., April 28, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://mountaincrestgardens.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order, inaccessible drop-down menus, empty links that contain no text, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Growpro, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N. Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Email: Achan@ealg.law HANESBRANDS INC: Court Greenlights Class Suit on Marketing Emails ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a federal judge ruled that a class action lawsuit against Hanesbrands Inc. should proceed. Why: The judge rejected Hanes' argument that Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA) is unconstitutional. Where: The Hanes class action lawsuit is pending in Washington federal court. A federal judge has ruled that a class action lawsuit against Hanesbrands over the company's allegedly misleading marketing emails should proceed. Plaintiff Jessica Jackson alleges Hanesbrands violated Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act and Consumer Protection Act (CPA) by sending marketing emails with misleading subject lines. Hanesbrands asked the court to dismiss the Hanes class action lawsuit, arguing that CEMA is unconstitutional because it creates a nationwide standard for commercial emails and burdens interstate commerce. U.S. District Judge Stan Bastian rejected Hanesbrands' argument, finding that CEMA does not violate the U.S. Constitution. The Washington attorney general's office also intervened in the case after Hanesbrands argued that the CEMA was unconstitutional. "CEMA's central requirement is that companies communicating with Washington residents be truthful in their communications," Judge Bastian wrote in his order denying Hanesbrands' motion to dismiss the Hanes class action lawsuit. "Any requirement imposed by CEMA applies equally to any company, regardless of [its] location, and the statute hinges on the contact those companies make with Washington residents." Hanesbrands class action alleges company misled consumers about promotions Jackson filed the class action lawsuit in October 2025, and Hanesbrands removed the case to federal court the following month. Jackson claims Hanesbrands' marketing emails misrepresented the timing of promotions on free shipping and discounted items. She says the company used urgent subject lines that did not reflect the true availability of the deal and ended promotions only to later offer a similar one or extend the promotion based on business considerations. Jackson alleges Hanesbrands sent emails advertising a free shipping deal with the subject line "LAST DAY!" but continued to offer the promotion three days later. The judge found that Jackson's allegations were sufficient to support her CEMA and CPA claims and that CEMA is not preempted by the federal Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act (CAN-SPAM), which broadly preempts state regulation of commercial emails except for laws that prohibit falsity or deception. "Courts have already determined that CEMA's regulation of ‘false or misleading' email contents falls squarely within CAN-SPAM's exception for state laws that regulate falsity or deception," Bastian wrote. Jackson seeks to represent a class of consumers who received similar marketing emails from Hanesbrands. What do you think about the Hanes class action lawsuit? Join the discussion in the comments! Jackson is represented by Samuel J. Strauss and Raina C. Borrelli of Strauss Borrelli PLLC; Lynn A. Toops, Natalie A. Lyons and Ian R. Bensberg of Cohen Malad LLP; and J. Gerard Stranch IV, Michael C. Tackeff and Andrew K. Murray of Stranch Jennings & Garvey PLLC. The Hanes class action lawsuit is Jackson v. Hanesbrands Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00440, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. [GN] HEALTHPLEX INC: Davis Appeals TCPA Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- EMORY DAVIS is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing the lawsuit entitled Emory Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Healthplex, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-1682, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. The suit is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). On Feb. 9, 2026, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which Judge Anthony J. Brindisi granted on Apr. 14, 2026. The Court concludes that the burden is not on the Defendant at this stage to prove the precise medical necessity of the treatment; rather, the Plaintiff must plausibly allege that the calls were unrelated to health or safety. The Plaintiff has not met this burden, and his speculation to the contrary is insufficient to defeat dismissal. Accordingly, the case is dismissed without prejudice. The appellate case is styled as Davis v. Healthplex, Inc., Case No. 26-1173, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 30, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant EMORY DAVIS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: James L. Davidson, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 5550 Glades Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Defendant-Appellee HEALTHPLEX, INC. is represented by: Jeffrey A. Backman, Esq. GREENSPOON MARDER, PA 200 East Broward Boulevard, Suite 1500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 HELIX INNOVATIONS: Faces Card Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages -------------------------------------------------------------- ALEJANDRO GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HELIX INNOVATIONS, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-04438-RGK-E (C.D. Cal., April 17, 2026) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Helix is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group that manufactures and markets oral nicotine pouches, primarily known for its on!(R) and on! PLUS(TM) brands. It was founded in 2019 and serves as a key component in Altria's "smoke-free" product portfolio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Action Suit Over Driver Data Sharing ------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Home Depot runs a "covert surveillance operation" in the parking lots of its California stores by using automated license plate recognition (ALPR) cameras to capture vehicle data and feed it to a database accessible to law enforcement nationwide. The 57-page complaint contends that Home Depot has violated California law by deploying large-scale camera systems that capture the license plate, make, model, color and "distinguishing features" of every vehicle that enters or exits its parking lots. Per the case, this identifying data is logged with precise timestamps and location information and funneled into a "centralized, searchable database" accessible to nationwide law enforcement agencies. According to the lawsuit, Home Depot has failed to comply with several requirements of California's Automated License Plate Recognition Privacy Act, including by failing to identify the title of the official custodian responsible for the ALPR system, failing to set a defined retention period for the captured data, and allowing for "open-ended" law enforcement sharing with no meaningful restrictions on federal and/or out-of-state agencies or immigration enforcement. Per the suit, the retailer has also failed to identify training requirements for any employees and contractors that use the system, describe how the system will be monitored and identify the measures that will be taken to ensure the system's accuracy and correct errors. "Every day, the vehicles, and the movements, habits, and lives of California residents shopping at Home Depot are being covertly captured and funneled into a national surveillance network, with or without notice sufficient to satisfy California law," the class action lawsuit summarizes. The filing also notes that ALPR data can have significant economic value as it may be aggregated by data brokers for targeted advertising and consumer profiling. The complaint argues that Home Depot's noncompliance with the California ALPR Act is particularly concerning given the size of the company and prior reports concerning Flock Safety, Home Depot's ALPR vendor. According to the suit, Flock secretly re-enabled "nationwide" data-sharing settings for ALPR cameras deployed by state law enforcement agencies in Mountain View and Ventura Counties without authorization, exposing vehicle data to agencies not approved by either department. "The Mountain View and Ventura County incidents establish a documented pattern: Flock routinely configures or re-enables 'nationwide' or 'statewide' access settings on California customer systems without authorization, resulting in the exposure of California ALPR data to federal agencies," the suit alleges. The lawsuit claims that the Flock ALPR systems have also contributed to wrongful law enforcement encounters, including at least 12 misread incidents in which innocent people were stopped at gunpoint, arrested or attacked by police dogs after being misidentified. Despite scrutiny surrounding Flock's practices, Home Depot has not announced that it will stop using the company's surveillance systems or make any modifications to its data-sharing procedures, the case says. The Home Depot license plate reader class action lawsuit looks to represent all individuals whose vehicles were captured by automated license plate reader systems operated by Home Depot or its vendors at any California retail location from the date Flock cameras were first installed through the present. [GN] HOME DEPOT: Schmierer Sues Over Illegal ALPR Surveillance Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM F. SCHMIERER, MARK AUSSEIKER, ELZY LINDER, JOHN HOPTON and MICHAEL J. HARHAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. and THE HOME DEPOT, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-03967 (N.D. Cal., May 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California's Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) Privacy Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, and California Consumer Privacy Act, invasion of privacy under California Constitution, intrusion upon seclusion, negligence and negligence per se. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged illegal, secretive, invasive, and negligent use of automated license plate recognition ("ALPR") cameras and the storage and use of private information captured or generated from ALPR operations. According to the complaint, Home Depot failed to disclose material facts to shoppers and visitors, including that: (a) Home Depot deployed ALPR cameras capturing every visitor's vehicle data at each California store; (b) that data was being shared with and made accessible to law enforcement with no meaningful restriction on federal agencies or immigration enforcement; and (c) Home Depot's ALPR policy omits mandatory statutory elements that would have given class members meaningful information about their rights. The Plaintiffs and the Class would not have patronized Home Depot had they known the full truth about Home Depot's surveillance practices and policy deficiencies. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. is a home improvement retailer based in Atlanta, Georgia. The Home Depot, Inc. is a home improvement retailer based in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. Brandon P. Jack, Esq. EMERY REDDY, PC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (916) 823-6955 Facsimile: (206) 441-9711 Email: anderson@emeryreddy.com gregory@emeryreddy.com brandon@emeryreddy.com - and - Heather M. Lopez, Esq. Mike Acciavatti, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (331) 240-3015 Email: hlopez@milberg.com macciavatti@milberg.com HUMAN SECURITY: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, Chavez Says --------------------------------------------------------------- OLGA CHAVEZ and ANDREW GARCIA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HUMAN SECURITY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03727 (S.D.N.Y., May 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of federal and state laws in connection with Defendant's unlawful acquisition, aggregation, collection, retention, and use for profit of sensitive information during the applicable statutory period and continuing through the present day. The complaint relates that the Defendant uses its technology to track the Plaintiffs across the internet including on over 1,200 websites. When Plaintiffs visited these websites or used other services operated by a participating business client, Defendant used tracking technology to recognize Plaintiffs as the intended recipients of a targeted advertisement. Defendant and its business clients profited from this data collection apparatus. Defendant's profile on Plaintiffs facilitated real-time bidding for digital ad spaces (on websites, applications, Connected TVs, and elsewhere online) that would ultimately be served to them specifically. Plaintiffs did not consent to Defendant intercepting their PII, assigning and using unique identifiers to track them across internet-enabled services and devices, or intercepting their private communications for profit. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered harm as a direct result of Defendant's violations of their constitutional right to privacy, including the loss of control over their personal information, the commercial exploitation of their private data without compensation, and the ongoing risk of further disclosure and use of their intimate personal details. The Plaintiffs and Class members, therefore, seek compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, restitution, and such other relief as the Court may deem proper. Plaintiffs and Class members are millions of Americans who are tracked and have their data secretly collected on over 1,200 websites in order for the owners of those websites to seek and eliminate the threat of illegitimate visitors -- like "bots," which are artificial intelligence or programmatic devices that manipulate consumer marketplaces. Defendant HUMAN SECURITY INC. operates one of the most pervasive and covert consumer surveillance networks on the internet, secretly collecting and monetizing the personal data of hundreds of millions of Americans without their knowledge or consent.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq. YAGMAN PLLC Forest Hills Tower 118-35 Queens Boulevard, Suite 400 Forest Hills, NY Telephone: (929) 709-1493 E-mail: blake.yagman@yagmanpllc.com - and - Lina Kaisey, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LINA KAISEY 100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (213) 927-6923 E-mail: lina@kaiseylaw.com IEM ENERGY: Warren Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- AARON WARREN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IEM ENERGY CONSULTANTS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-02477 (D. Minn., May 5, 2026) is a collective action against the Defendant to recover overtime wages and liquidated damages brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Although Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members have routinely worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members were not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Plaintiff was employed by IEM as a Consultant from approximately October 2024 until January 2026. IEM Energy Consultants LLC is a consulting firm that provides project development, engineering, scheduling, commissioning, and management services to companies in the energy infrastructure industry, including natural gas and power generation projects, throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com IHM LIVING: Paladins Discrimination Suit Removed to W.D. Wis. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case PALADINS OF TRUTH MINISTRY, as Representative for Carlos J. Cangiano & Orchid Morningstar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. IHM LIVING TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 10, 2022; MARK IHM, as Trustee; JULIANNA IHM; MARK IHM; JOHN BEST, Case No. 2026SC000085, was removed from the Grant County Circuit Court to the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin on May 1, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Wisconsin assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00409-wmc to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act by refusing to make reasonable accommodations and by threatening eviction. IHM Living Trust Dated February 10, 2022 is a private family trust. [BN] IMPAC MORTGAGE: Faces Espejo Class Suit in C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. The case is captioned as Monica P. Espejo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., Case No. 8:26-cv-00994 (C.D. Cal., April 7, 2026). The nature of suit states Diversity-Contract Dispute demanding $5,000,000 in damages. Impac and its subsidiaries provide innovative mortgage brokerage solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Z. Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM PC 468 N. Camden Dr. Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 471-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com INCLUDED HEALTH: Sends Unwanted Telemarketing Calls, Peer Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- KYLE PEER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INCLUDED HEALTH, INC. D/B/A DOCTOR ON DEMAND, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-03908-HSG (N.D. Cal., May 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of placing unwanted telemarketing calls to the cellular telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers in an attempt to promote its products or services without obtaining prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's action, the Plaintiff and Class members have been harmed including intrusion upon seclusion, invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of the Plaintiff and Class members. Included Health, Inc., doing business as Doctor On Demand, is a provider of an employed, dedicated medical practice headquartered in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com INSTRUCTURE INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Coelho Says ----------------------------------------------------------- THERESA COELHO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. INSTRUCTURE, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-00395-TC (D. Utah., May 8, 2026) is a class action complaint against Instructure for its failure to secure and safeguard personally identifiable information that was entrusted to Instructure. According to the complaint, in or around late April and early May 2026, data extortion group ShinyHunters publicly claimed responsibility for two cyberattacks against Instructure. This cyberattack resulted in the breach and/or compromise of certain files containing the sensitive personal data of Plaintiff and other current and former Instructure users, the suit says. As a sophisticated technology company with substantial resources, Instructure had the resources available to take seriously the obligation to protect Private Information. However, Instructure failed to invest the resources necessary to protect the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class members. The actions of Instructure related to this Data Breach are unconscionable, says the suit. As a result of these failures, the Plaintiff and Class members face a litany of harms that accompany data breaches of this magnitude and severity. As such, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, brings this Action for restitution, actual damages, nominal damages, statutory damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, and all other relief that this Court deems just and proper. Instructure is a Utah-based learning management system that provides services to schools and students across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beau Burbidge, Esq. BURBIDGE | MITCHELL 215 South State Street, Suite 920 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 355-6677 Facsimile: (801) 355-2341 E-mail: beau@burbidgemitchell.com INSTRUCTURE INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Escoto Says ----------------------------------------------------------- CESAR ESCOTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INSTRUCTURE, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-00388 (D. Utah, May 7, 2026) is a class action against Instructure for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members', personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network. The Defendant acquired, collected, and stored Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII. The Defendant knew or should have known, that Plaintiff and Class Members would use Defendant's services to store and/or share sensitive data, including highly confidential PII. Accordingly, on no later than April 30, 2026, unauthorized third-party cybercriminals gained access to Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII as hosted with Defendant, with the intent of engaging in the misuse of the PII, including marketing and selling Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII. The Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the provisions of Rules 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of himself and the following Class: All individuals within the United States of America whose PII was exposed to unauthorized third-parties as a result of the data breach experienced by Defendant on April 2026. The Defendant is a cloud-based education technology company best known for its Canvas learning management system, which schools and universities use to manage coursework, assignments, grading, and communication.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason R. Hull, Esq. Marshall Olson & Hull, Pc Ten Exchange Place, Suite 350 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 456-7655 E-mail: jhull@mohtrial.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, No. 10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Ayala Appeals Labor Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ FLORENCE AYALA, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Florence Ayala, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JetBlue Airways Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-259, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements. On Feb. 28, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry granted on Mar. 30, 2026. The Court agrees with the Defendant that the case lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the case is dismissed. The appellate case is styled as Ayala v. JetBlue Airways Corporation, Case No. 26-1167, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 30, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants FLORENCE AYALA, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Catherine Anderson, Esq. GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON, LLP New York 1 Rockefeller Plaza, 8th Floor New York, NY 10020 - and - David R. Markham, Esq. THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM 888 Prospect Street, Suite 200 La Jolla, CA 92037 - and - Maggie Realin, Esq. COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER 605 C. Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 Defendant-Appellee JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION is represented by: Brendan T. Killeen, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178 JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Squire Sues Over Data Privacy Violations --------------------------------------------------------- CYNTHIA SQUIRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02629 (E.D.N.Y., May 1, 2026) alleges violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant is engaged in surveillance pricing and surreptitious use of consumer data in order to set pricing based on consumer behavior. JetBlue Airways Corporation provides non-stop passenger flight services. The Company offers flights and vacation packages to hundred plus destinations. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd S. Garber, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER LLP 1 North Broadway, Ste 900 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298-3283 Email: tgarber@FBFGLaw.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hides Asbestos Risk in Baby Talc, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that families of three women are suing Johnson & Johnson and Red River Talc LLC. Why: Plaintiffs allege J&J knowingly concealed asbestos contamination in its baby talc powder while marketing the product as safe. Where: The bellwether trial is underway in Los Angeles Superior Court. How to get help: Did you use talcum powder on a daily basis for at least four years and were later diagnosed with ovarian cancer? If so, you may be eligible to join a talcum powder class action lawsuit. Families of three women who died from ovarian cancer told a California jury that Johnson & Johnson knowingly concealed asbestos risks associated with its talc-based baby powder products for decades. The claims were presented during opening statements in a bellwether trial involving consolidated lawsuits alleging Johnson & Johnson's talc products caused ovarian cancer after years of use. The families of Mary Owens, Bonnie Tienken and Geneva Williams -- three women who died of ovarian cancer -- allege J&J knew its talc products were dangerous even as it aggressively marketed them as gentle and pure. Plaintiffs' counsel walked jurors through internal company documents dating from the 1960s through the 1980s, arguing the records show J&J was aware of asbestos in its talc and the health hazards posed by talc itself, Law360 reports. The attorneys argued that rather than alerting consumers, J&J continued for decades to promote the product as safe and encouraged women to use it on themselves and their children. The bellwether trial is the second ovarian cancer trial to proceed in Los Angeles following J&J's failed attempts to resolve talc litigation through bankruptcy proceedings. The first bellwether, conducted in the same courtroom, resulted in a $40 million jury verdict finding the companies' talc products were a substantial contributing cause of two women's ovarian cancer. In February, a Philadelphia jury ordered J&J to pay $250,000 in damages to the estate of Gayle Emerson after finding the company liable for talc cancer allegations. Johnson & Johnson disputes asbestos claims and links to cancer, citing 'global conspiracy' According to Law360, J&J's defense team argued that scientific evidence will show its products never contained asbestos and that talc does not cause cancer, describing the plaintiffs' claims as an implausible global conspiracy theory. Defense counsel told jurors J&J's 2020 U.S. reformulation of its baby powder -- replacing talc with cornstarch -- was driven by consumer misperceptions rather than legitimate health concerns. The current trial is proceeding alongside ongoing disqualification disputes involving lead plaintiffs' firm Beasley Allen Law Firm, which J&J has sought to remove from talc cases nationwide. Several courts, including in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, have granted those motions, but Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Theresa Traber denied J&J's bid as untimely, a ruling that was upheld on appeal. Plaintiff John Owens is represented by Daniel S. Robinson of Robinson Calcagnie Inc. Plaintiffs Kimberly Hedrick, Eric Tienken and Kevin Tienken are represented by Ari S. Friedman of Wisner Baum. Plaintiff Harold Williams Jr. is represented by Andy Birchfield of Beasley Allen Law Firm and Daniel S. Robinson of Robinson Calcagnie Inc. The cases are Owens, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. CIVDS1618507; Tienken, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. 18CECG01553; Williams Jr. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. CIVDS1807370; and the coordinated proceeding Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Cases, Case No. JCCP4872, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. [GN] JOHNSON GMC: Denial of Bid to Dismiss Minchin Counterclaims Vacated ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOHNSON GMC CADILLAC, INC., CHRISTOPHER McDONALD, ANNE ESKOW, and JASON PALECCO, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. EDWIN B. MINCHIN, III, Defendant-Respondent, Docket No. A-1278-25 (N.J. Super. App. Div.), the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, vacated the trial court's order denying the Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss various counterclaims asserted by Defendant Minchin and to compel arbitration of the remainder of Minchin's counterclaims. On August 25, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a verified complaint against Minchin. They alleged that in March 2024, Minchin decided to purchase a 2021 Cadillac model CT4 from Johnson. As part of the sales transaction, Johnson and Minchin executed an Order Contract. In addition, they executed a "Retail Installment Sale Contract – Simple Finance Charge (With Arbitration Provision)." The Plaintiffs alleged that during the vehicle purchase process, Johnson had multiple interactions with Minchin. Before delivery, Johnson agreed to repair a cosmetic issue and a suspension problem at no cost. Minchin later became frustrated with the delays and asked to cancel the contract on April 30, 2024, and Johnson agreed, refunding the down payment. The Plaintiffs claimed that after the vehicle dispute was resolved and both sides were "made whole," they had no further dealings with Minchin. They alleged that Minchin later launched a campaign to damage their reputations, including registering the domain "badcadillac.com" in July 2025 and posting a defamatory manifesto. They also asserted that he used offensive language to describe them and distributed business cards encouraging others in the automotive industry to visit the website. The Plaintiffs' five-count complaint alleged defamation, defamation by republication, tortious interference with business relations, injunctive relief, and civil conspiracy. Their attorney certified the matter is not presently the subject of a pending arbitration proceeding. Further, no other arbitration proceeding is being contemplated at this time. On September 4, 2025, Minchin filed an answer to the complaint denying the allegations and asserting various affirmative defenses. He certified the matter is not the subject of any arbitration proceeding. In addition, he asserted nineteen counterclaims. The Plaintiffs moved to dismiss counterclaims one (violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to -233), four (common law fraud), seven (Civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1(c)), nine (defamation), twelve (abuse of process/Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-49 to -61), and fourteen (class action). On October 9, 2025, the Plaintiffs moved to compel arbitration and to dismiss, under Rule 4:6-2(e), the Defendant's aforementioned counterclaims. The court heard the parties' arguments on November 6. Minchin opposed the motion, arguing there was no valid arbitration agreement, relying on Atalese v. U.S. Legal Services Group, L.P., 219 N.J. 430 (2014), and the Plaintiffs waived their right to arbitration, relying on Cole v. Jersey City Medical Center, 215 N.J. 265 (2013). On December 15, 2025, the court issued a written explanation denying the Plaintiffs' motion to compel arbitration. It found that the Plaintiffs had knowingly and intentionally waived their arbitration rights, that the arbitration clause covered all disputes between the parties rather than only those tied to the sales contract, and that public policy prevented arbitration of Minchin's counterclaims because they involved public-interest statutes aimed at preventing consumer fraud and deception. The court also found that dismissal of Minchin's counterclaims was not appropriate at this stage. After reviewing the pleadings, it concluded that Minchin had potentially stated viable claims under consumer protection statutes, contract law, common law, and constitutional theories that could entitle him to relief if proven. On appeal, the Plaintiffs argued the district court erred in refusing to compel arbitration of certain counterclaims. They contended the court wrongly found they waived arbitration, misread the Installment Contract as requiring arbitration of all disputes instead of a more limited scope, and improperly relied on public policy to exclude consumer fraud-type claims from arbitration. As to the motion to dismiss, the Plaintiffs argued the court failed to comply with Rule 1:7-4. They claimed it issued a broad, generalized review without analyzing the elements of each challenged counterclaim. They also argued that, although the court recognized the heightened pleading standard for fraud, it did not explain how the counterclaim met that standard. The Appellate Division concluded the trial court overstepped in its analysis. The parties agreed that issues including the interpretation and scope of this Arbitration Provision, any allegation of waiver of rights under this Arbitration Provision, and the arbitrability of the claim of dispute shall be resolved by neutral, binding arbitration and not by a court action. It opined that the court impermissibly ventured into these areas when it rendered its decision. Because the parties contractually agreed these issues were to be resolved in arbitration, the court should have transferred the matter, in its entirety, to arbitration. On remand, the Appellate Division said the matter must be transferred and the litigation stayed. The parties agreed the Federal Arbitration Act would govern and the act requires a stay. The arbitrator may conclude some or all of the parties' claims are not subject to arbitration. In that circumstance, if a challenged counterclaim is returned to the Law Division, the trial court should allow Minchin to amend his pleading. The Appellate Division recognized, as the trial court did, motions pursuant to Rule 4:6-2(e) require pleadings to be searched in depth and with liberality to ascertain whether the fundament of a cause of action may be gleaned even from an obscure statement of claim. However, as presently stated, Minchin's counterclaims fell short. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://sl1nk.com/iephoau Lavery, Selvaggi & Cohen, attorneys for appellants (William H. Pandos -- wpandos@lsaclaw.com -- of counsel and on the briefs). Edwin B. Minchin, III, self-represented respondent. JUMP TRADING: Faces Ward Class Suit Over Investors' Funds --------------------------------------------------------- AUSTIN WARD, DAVID KREVAT, and NABIL MOHAMAD, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. JUMP TRADING, LLC; JUMP CRYPTO HOLDINGS LLC; and TAI MO SHAN LIMITED, Case No. 1:26-cv-05346 (N.D. Ill., May 8, 2026) arises from Jump's wrongful taking of tens of millions of dollars' worth of investors' funds in May 2022. According to the complaint, beginning in 2019, Defendant Jump began to quietly position itself at the center of the Anchor Protocol ecosystem, entering into a series of written and unwritten agreements with Terraform and others to supply liquidity for UST transactions, to serve as UST's market-maker, and to help UST maintain its one-dollar "peg." Defendant Jump undertook these obligations for the explicit benefit of investors. In exchange, Terraform offered Jump options to buy other Terraform assets at deep discounts, ultimately generating more than a billion dollars in profit for Jump, the lawsuit says. In May 2022, a UST de-peg triggered a death spiral, as UST rapidly lost its value and plummeted toward zero. Jump was the sole liquidity provider and market maker for UST investors like Plaintiffs, who purchased UST through companies that provided digital "wallet" services. In this role, Defendant Jump was obligated to continuously post bid and ask quotes for UST's price. But when Plaintiffs and investors attempted to redeem their UST for U.S. dollars at Jump's quoted price, Jump refused to authorize the debits and went dark, leaving Plaintiffs and the Class locked in their investments with no counter party to fill orders even at reduced prices. UST's price plummeted, largely because of Defendant Jump's unwillingness to fill investor sell orders. The collapse wiped out $40-$50 billion of investor funds. Jump's intentional withholding of the funds it held for Plaintiffs' benefit and its refusal to honor its obligations caused Plaintiffs and the Class to lose as much as 90 percent of their UST-linked investments, even as Jump retained its discounted profits and the proceeds from the investors' UST purchases. The Plaintiffs assert claims under Illinois law for breach of contract as third-party beneficiaries, as Jump explicitly recognized that its liquidity services were intended to benefit UST investors. The Plaintiffs further assert claims for conversion, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, seeking to recover the losses suffered by Plaintiffs and the Class and to reclaim the money wrongfully taken by Jump. The Plaintiffs and the Class, which is composed of thousands of investors, were holders of the algorithmic stablecoin TerraUSD (UST). UST was one of the tokens within the Anchor Protocol ecosystem created by Terraform Labs Pte. Ltd. and was supposedly pegged in value to the U.S. dollar. Jump Trading is a private trading firms, with a crypto trading arm that served as the primary market maker and liquidity provider for UST and other Terra ecosystem tokens.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Elizabeth A. Kramer, Esq. Julie C. Erickson, Esq. Elizabeth A. Kramer, Esq. Kevin M. Osborne, Esq. RICKSON KRAMER OSBORNE LLP 959 Natoma Street San Francisco, CA 94103 Telephone: (415) 635-0631 Facsimile: (415) 599-8088 E-mail: julie@eko.law elizabeth@eko.law kevin@eko.law KBI SERVICES: Faces Olivier Breach of Contract Suit in S.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against KBI Services. The case is captioned as Casey Olivier, Amelia Walsh and Michaella Walsh individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KBI Services, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-03458-GBD (S.D.N.Y., April 7, 2026). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge George B. Daniels. The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract demanding $5,000,000 in damages. KBI Services, Inc. is doing business as Kindbody, a tech-enabled health and fertility company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alyssa Tolentino, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (888) 783-8439 E-mail: atolentino@sirillp.com KEEL INFRASTRUCTURE: Continues to Defend Bitfarms Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Keel Infrastructure 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 11, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Bitfarms securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On May 9, 2025, and as amended on October 21, 2025, a purported shareholder filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, in a case now titled In re: Bitfarms Securities Litigation, case no 1:25-cv-02630. Co-Lead Plaintiffs Zhao Jun, Gong Lanfang, Michael Pearl, Kazim Khan, and Michael Lawarre sued Bitfarms Ltd., Benjamin Gagnon, Jeffrey Lucas and Geoffrey Morphy alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder. The lawsuit alleges that the Company, its current CEO, its former CFO and its former CEO made materially false and/or misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations and internal controls over financial reporting. The Plaintiff seeks class certification, unspecified damages plus interest and attorney and expert witness fees and other costs on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons and entities (subject to specified exceptions) that purchased or otherwise acquired Company common stock from March 21, 2023 and December 9, 2024. The lawsuit was filed by Pomerantz Law Firm. The Company cannot predict the duration or outcome of this lawsuit at this time. As a result, the Company is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible loss arising from this lawsuit and no provision was recognized as of March 31, 2026. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Keel Infrastructure Corp. is a North America-focused infrastructure company engaged in the development, ownership, and operation of energy and transportation assets. The company invests in and manages long-lived projects designed to support economic growth and essential services. KEMPER CORP: Fails to Secure Clients' Personal Info, Lismon Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- GREG LISMON, CAROLYN PETERSON, MARIE PRICE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KEMPER CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04868 (N.D. Ill., April 28, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach discovered on April 13, 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiffs and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Kemper Corporation is an insurer based in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert A. Clifford, Esq. Shannon M. McNulty, Esq. CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES 120 North LaSalle Street, 36th Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Email: rac@cliffordlaw.com smm@cliffordlaw.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ronald Podolny, Esq. Riya Sharma, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 275-5272 Facsimile: (813) 222-4736 Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com rsharma@forthepeople.com KING COUNTY, WA: Summary Judgment to Assessor in WHA Suit Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, WASHINGTON HOSPITALITY ASSOCIATION, a Washington nonprofit trade association, on behalf of its members; AND RUNNING REBELS OWNER LLC, a foreign limited liability company, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellants, v. JOHN WILSON, KING COUNTY ASSESSOR, an individual in his official capacity, Respondent, Case No. 87714-3-I (Wash. App.), the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, affirms the trial court's order granting summary judgment to the Assessor. The Washington Hospitality Association (WHA) filed a class action lawsuit against the King County Assessor seeking declaratory relief and/or a writ of mandamus that the COVID-19 pandemic was a natural disaster for the purposes of property tax relief. WHA is a nonprofit trade group association that includes over 60 owners or taxpayers for hotel properties in King County. On February 29, 2020, Washington State Governor Jay Inslee issued a state of emergency for all counties in Washington. On March 12, 2020, Governor Inslee successfully asked President Donald Trump to declare a "major disaster" for Washington State. In 2022, WHA filed claims with the Assessor seeking tax relief under RCW 84.70.010(1) alleging that it was entitled to property tax relief because the COVID-19 pandemic was a natural disaster. In 2023, the Assessor reviewed and denied the claims for tax relief. WHA appealed to the King County Board of Equalization and later the Board of Tax Appeals; both appeals were dismissed. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Assessor. WHA appeals. It argues that it is entitled to property tax relief because the COVID-19 pandemic qualifies as a natural disaster under RCW 84.70.010(1). The Court of Appeals disagrees. It opines that it is undisputed that WHA's properties sustained no physical damage in whole or in part by the COVID-19 pandemic. It is also undisputed that Governor Inslee declared all Washington counties a "disaster area" in March 2020 and that all of WHA's properties were in a disaster area. Therefore, the analysis turns to the language "as a result of a natural disaster." Considering the related statutory provisions and the dictionary definitions, the Court of Appeals concludes, like the trial court, that a "natural disaster" means a physically destructive event in nature that originates in Earth atmosphere, surface, or within the planet. Accordingly, the trial court did not err when it awarded summary judgment to the Assessor. There, the Court of Appeals affirms. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://l1nq.com/7m3st2c Michelle Delappe -- mdelappe@foxrothschild.com -- Fox Rothschild LLP, 1001 4th Ave. Ste. 4400, Seattle, WA, 98154-1065, Annie Isaac Barouh, Scheer Law PLLC, 701 5th Ave. Ste. 3860, Seattle, WA, 98104-7011, Ariel L. Cook -- arielcook@foxrothschild.com -- Fox Rothschild LLP, 1001 4th Ave. Ste. 4400, Seattle, WA, 98154-1192, Counsel for Appellant(s). Julie Dee Cook, King County Prosecuting Attorney's Offic, 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 600, Seattle, WA, 98104-2362, Casey Lynn Dowdy, King County Prosecutors Office, 701 5th Ave. Ste. 600, Seattle, WA, 98104-7108, Counsel for Respondent(s). KNOW BRAINER: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Crumwell Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- DENISE CRUMWELL, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. KNOW BRAINER FOODS, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-03776 (S.D.N.Y., May 7, 2026) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.maxsweets.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Plaintiff contends. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, including on February 1, 2026 and February 10, 2026, in an attempt to purchase Dark Chocolate Sugar-Free YumYums from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public; and that denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the goods, and services of the Website by being unable to purchase Dark Chocolate Sugar-Free YumYums, as well as other products available online and to ascertain information relating to Defendant’s: keto candy, as well as other types of goods, pricing, privacy policies and internet pricing specials. The Plaintiff visited the Website in order to purchase Dark Chocolate Sugar-Free YumYums. Plaintiff attempted to purchase Dark Chocolate Sugar-Free YumYums but was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item[s] to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's Website, which prevented her from doing so. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. The Defendant operates the Max Sweets online retail store, as well as the Max Sweets interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal LAFARGE CANADA: Court Certifies Cement Plant Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Noah Brennan of Calgary Herald reports that the Alberta Court of King's Bench has certified a class-action lawsuit against Lafarge Canada Inc. over allegations that emissions from its cement plant in Exshaw have exposed nearby residents to carcinogenic dust and excessive noise, among other claims. The lawsuit, brought on behalf of residents and property owners in the hamlets of Exshaw and Lac Des Arcs, claims emissions from the plant have damaged residents' homes and negatively affected their quality of life. Lafarge, now called Amrize Canada Inc., owns and operates the Exshaw facility, which is Canada's largest cement plant. According to court filings, the representative plaintiff on the class-action bought a home about 500 metres from the plant in 2008, and claims the facility has emitted "huge quantities of harmful and destructive fine powder" since Lafarge expanded the plant's capacity in 2016. In a recent decision, Justice C.D. Simard ruled the claims outlined in the lawsuit could proceed under Alberta's Class Proceedings Act. The court also certified claims seeking punitive damages. Adam Bordignon, the plaintiffs' lawyer, said the ruling is a win for class members, describing certification as a major hurdle in advancing class-action lawsuits. "Obtaining certification is a massive step forward for this case," he said. "It allows all of (the class members') potential claims to be litigated under a single process as opposed to fragmented individual claims or other less efficient procedures. "We believe strongly in the validity and the merits of the alleged claims, and this provides us with an opportunity now to establish those claims in court," he added. "The representative plaintiff and class members are very pleased with the outcome." Bordignon said the class could include around 700 people. He did not provide an estimate for the amount of damages being sought. Statement of claim first filed in December 2023 Neighbours of the Exshaw cement plant launched the legal action in 2023, claiming the plant east of Canmore has been a source of annoyance for local residents for years. The plaintiffs claim problems stemming from the plant worsened after the facility expanded in 2016. The statement of claim, filed in December 2023, states "huge clouds of fine powder, including particles of bottom and fly ash, dolomite, granite, gravel, gypsum, limestone, Portland cement, sandstone and shale regularly leave the cement plant." The certified class includes people who owned or lived on residential properties in Exshaw or Lac Des Arcs between Sept. 12, 2016, and the date the class action was certified. The lawsuit covers anyone who lived within the class area during that period, including people who have since moved away. The judge directed both sides to come up with a litigation plan within 45 days to outline how the case will proceed. Next steps will include notifying potential class members that the lawsuit has been certified. In the certification decision, the judge rejected arguments from lawyers for Lafarge that the case should not proceed as a class action, ruling that the proposed class action would be the most efficient means of resolving the class members' claims. The Exshaw cement plant has been a fixture in the Bow Valley for decades, with its origins dating back to 1906. Its products have contributed to building large parts of Calgary and other centres. Amrize, formerly Lafarge, and its lawyers did not respond to a request for comment. None of the lawsuit's allegations has been proven in court. [GN] LAUREL EYE: Faces Chase Class Action Suit in W.D. Pa. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Laurel Eye Clinic, LLP. The case is captioned as Christine Chase, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Laurel Eye Clinic, LLP, Case No. 2:26-cv-00707-MRH (W.D. Pa., April 7, 2026). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Mark R. Hornak. The nature of suit states Diversity-Personal Injury demanding $5,000,000 in damages. Laurel provides medical services. The Company offers cataract, lasik, eye care, glaucoma treatment, cosmetic and plastic surgery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edward Cole, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 E-mail: sec@colevannote.com LCT OPCO: Vaughn Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------- KENDRICK VAUGHN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LCT OPCO LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04924 (N.D. Ill., April 29, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.lacolombe.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. LCT OpCo LLC owns and operates coffee shops. The Company offers packaged coffee and blended coffee products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N, Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (716) 281-5496 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law LEGAL AID: Faces Class Suit Over Disability Accommodation --------------------------------------------------------- Tez Romero, writing for HRD, reports that The Legal Aid Society -- which describes itself as the oldest and largest provider of legal services to low-income New Yorkers -- is being sued by one of its own social workers over how it handled her disability accommodation request. Marissa Kubicki, a forensic social worker in the Bronx Parole Revocation Defense Unit, filed a putative class action on May 11, 2026 in the Southern District of New York. The complaint names the organization, its Chief Human Resources Officer Connie Park, a senior employee relations specialist, and three supervisors. It alleges they denied her disability accommodation request and required her to sit in court for up to seven hours a day on coverage days while she was undergoing immunosuppressive treatment. Kubicki has ankylosing spondylitis, a chronic autoimmune condition. According to the filing, she had worked under an approved accommodation -- three remote days, two in-office days a week -- and went to court when an attorney, client, or hearing actually needed her. The complaint says she started immunosuppressive treatment in October 2025, which made unnecessary courthouse exposure medically risky. The shift Kubicki challenges came after she sought to amend her accommodation. The complaint states she submitted updated documentation on November 24, 2025, and a comprehensive amended request on December 9, 2025. What began in August 2025 as a one-hour court-presence instruction directed at two Bronx social workers became, the filing alleges, an expectation applied only to Kubicki that she remain in court for as long as seven hours a day and confer with two supervisors before leaving. Kubicki alleges the employer used the interactive process to expand her job duties rather than evaluate whether she could cover court from the office across the street. While the request was pending, the complaint says, no interim accommodation was put in place. Kubicki alleges she fell ill twice in December 2025 -- a stomach virus on or about December 3, and a week-long upper respiratory infection on or about December 22 -- and that the second illness forced her to pause immunosuppressive treatment. She says her health has deteriorated significantly since. According to the filing, she now uses a wheelchair, is largely bedbound, and cannot tolerate screens. She remains employed by The Legal Aid Society on medical leave. The complaint also describes a January 28, 2026 court appearance Kubicki was directed to make. According to the filing, the client she was sent to meet said, in sum and substance, "I'm shocked you would pull me out of my cell to talk about this." Kubicki argues the in-person requirement was not tied to any client need. The case names individual HR and supervisory defendants under the New York City Human Rights Law, which permits personal liability. Park is alleged to have participated in the January 20, 2026 denial meeting and reaffirmed the seven-hour expectation. The complaint alleges that Laura Walsh, a senior employee relations specialist, administered the process and held the line on extended courthouse presence. Two social work supervisors and the director of social work for the criminal defense practice are named on similar grounds. Kubicki pleads ten causes of action under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the NYCHRL, including failure to accommodate, retaliation, interference and intimidation, medical inquiry violations, and failure to engage in a cooperative dialogue. The filing seeks to certify four classes covering Legal Aid employees in New York City who, since May 11, 2023, had disability-based requests denied or partially denied, faced job-duty changes within 75 days of asking for accommodation, waited more than 45 days for a written determination, or were asked for new medical records on already-documented conditions. The complaint also alleges the organization routed parts of the accommodation process through a third-party administrator, Reliance Matrix, on its behalf. For HR leaders, the case is a map of where accommodation processes tend to break. Interim relief while a request is pending. The way essential functions get described -- and re-described -- once an employee asks for protection. The point at which repeated medical-information requests cross from due diligence into a problem. And the personal exposure HR staff can face under city law for the calls they make on individual files. The complaint notes that The Legal Aid Society runs its own Government Benefits and Disability Advocacy Project and has brought class-action litigation to secure accommodations for people accessing public benefits. Kubicki argues the organization held its own workforce to a lower standard. The allegations have not been tested in court. The Legal Aid Society has not yet filed a response. No court has ruled on the merits or on class certification. {GN} LIFE360 INC: Continues to Defend Ireland-Gordy Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Life360, 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 Ireland-Gordy class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The company was named as a defendant, along with Tile and Amazon.com, Inc., in a putative class action lawsuit filed by plaintiffs Stephanie Ireland-Gordy and Shannon Ireland-Gordy on August 14, 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, in which plaintiffs seek damages as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. An amended complaint was filed on April 26, 2024, adding named plaintiffs Melissa Broad and Jane Doe. Plaintiffs allege that Tile trackers were used by third parties to monitor their movements without their consent and assert product liability and other claims. On February 14, 2025, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss. As of August 6, 2025, the Court granted the Company's Motion to Dismiss the claims of the Ireland-Gordy plaintiffs with prejudice, and the remaining plaintiffs' claims are stayed pending an appeal of the Court's ruling on the Company's Motion to Compel Arbitration, which was granted in part and denied in part. On March 3, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in the Company's favor, reversing the district court's partial denial of the Motion to Compel Arbitration and directing that all remaining claims be compelled to arbitration. Plaintiffs have until June 1, 2026 to file a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. At this time, a loss is not probable nor estimable, and as a result, no legal accrual has been recorded on the condensed consolidated balance sheets as of March 31, 2026. Life360, Inc. is a technology company that provides location-based services and safety solutions for families and individuals, including the Life360 mobile app and related hardware products. The company focuses on real-time location sharing, driving safety, and emergency assistance features for users worldwide. LIFEMD INC: Faces Johnston Securities Suit ------------------------------------------ LifeMD, 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 purported shareholder filed a putative class action complaint on August 27, 2025 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the company, its Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Schreiber, and its former Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Benathen, captioned "Johnston v. LifeMD, Inc., et al.," Case No. 25-cv-04761, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Defendants for making false and misleading statements, and violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by the individual officer defendants as alleged control persons. On October 24, 2025, the Eastern District of New York granted the joint motion to transfer the class action complaint to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On November 24, 2025, the Southern District of New York appointed a Lead Plaintiff. On January 30, 2026, the Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on March 27, 2026, Lead Plaintiff's opposition is due on May 15, 2026, and defendants' reply brief is due on June 12, 2026. In the months following the filing of the class action complaint, four putative shareholder derivative complaints were filed, captioned: (i) Greenberg v. Schreiber et al., Case No. 25-cv-5075 (E.D.N.Y.), (ii) Poulos v. Schreiber et al., Case No. 25-cv-5197 (E.D.N.Y.), (iii) Shibata v. Schreiber et al., Case No. 25-cv-5284-JMW (E.D.N.Y.), and (iv) Ellis v. Schreiber, et al., Case No. 125-cv-09343 (S.D.N.Y.), alleging violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and violations of Exchange Act Sections 10(b) and 21D by the Company's officers and directors, based primarily on the same alleged conduct underlying the class action complaint and seeking damages in an unspecified amount and other relief. On December 11, 2025, the three derivative actions filed in the Eastern District of New York were consolidated and stayed pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss in the securities class action, including any related appeals, and on December 17, 2025, the derivative action filed in the Southern District of New York was stayed on the same terms. LifeMD, Inc. is a direct-to-patient telehealth company that provides virtual medical services and prescription products across a range of chronic and other conditions in the United States. The company leverages technology and affiliated medical providers to deliver care, diagnostics, and pharmacy services primarily through online platforms. LINCOLN HOLDINGS: Lockett Alleges Unauthorized Personal Info Access ------------------------------------------------------------------- TIFFANY LOCKETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LINCOLN HOLDINGS LLC d/b/a MONUMENTAL SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01499 (D.D.C., April 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach between December 8, 2025, and 9, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Lincoln Holdings LLC, doing business as Monumental Sports & Entertainment, is a company that owns and operates six sports teams based in Washington, D.C. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark K. Svensson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (202) 975-0468 Email: msvensson@milberg.com - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com MAC PIZZA: Joseph Sues Over Illegal Procurement of Consumer Reports ------------------------------------------------------------------- LAKISHA MONIQUE JOSEPH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAC PIZZA MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00160 (E.D. Tex., April 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the FCRA by, inter alia, failing to: (i) comply with the FCRA's authorization requirements in obtaining the permission of the Plaintiff and other consumers to procure their consumer reports for employment purposes; (ii) provide copies of consumer reports to the Plaintiff and other consumers prior to taking adverse employment action against them based on such reports; and (iii) certify that the Defendant complied with the FCRA's mandates prior to obtaining copies of consumer reports referencing the Plaintiff and other consumers. The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and all other relief available pursuant to the FCRA. MAC Pizza Management, Inc. is a pizza retailer based in Austin, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Courtney C. Washington, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 107 S. McGraw Ave. Forney, TX 75126 Telephone: (972) 349-1906 Facsimile: (646) 417-5967 Email: cwashington@sirillp.com MAJCO LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Melkonian Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- VARAZ MELKONIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAJCO LLC dba BIG BRAND TIRE & SERVICE; and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, Case No. 26STCV13777 (Cal. Sup., Los Angeles Cty., April 29, 2026) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Melkonian was employed by the Defendants as a staff. Majco LLC, doing business as Big Brand Tire & Service, retails auto parts. The Company offers new automobile tires, wheels, engine oil, batteries, and other auto parts and accessories, as well as provides repair, washing, and maintenance services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Eric Hahn, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 420 N. Camden Drive, Suite 100 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com eric@setarehlaw.com MARA HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Nevada Derivative Suit --------------------------------------------------------- MARA Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from the consolidated Nevada derivative suit in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. On July 8, 2023, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against current and former members of the Company's board of directors and senior management, alleging claims under Sections 14(a), 10(b), and 21D of the Exchange Act and for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets, based on allegations substantially similar to the allegations in the March 30, 2023 putative class action complaint in Moreno. On July 12, 2023, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against current and former members of the Company’s board of directors and senior management, alleging claims under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and for breach of fiduciary duty, based on allegations substantially similar to the allegations in the March 30, 2023 putative class action complaint in Moreno. On August 14, 2023, the two derivative actions pending in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada were consolidated (the "Nevada Derivative Action"). On April 1, 2024, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada appointed co-lead counsel for plaintiffs in the Nevada Derivative Action. On June 25, 2024, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint in the Nevada Derivative Action alleging breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, claims under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and for contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act. On August 9, 2024, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in the Nevada Derivative Action. On November 7, 2024, the motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the Nevada Derivative Action was fully briefed. On February 20, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada heard the Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint and granted the motion, while also granting plaintiffs thirty days to amend to avoid permanent dismissal. On March 21, 2025, plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended consolidated complaint on May 20, 2025. On August 20, 2025, the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was fully briefed. A hearing on the Company’s motion to dismiss was held on February 13, 2026, and the parties currently await a decision from the court. MARA Holdings, Inc. (formerly Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc.) is a digital asset technology company focused on supporting and securing the Bitcoin ecosystem through large-scale, energy-conscious Bitcoin mining operations. The company also evaluates and develops related technologies and infrastructure to enhance the efficiency and sustainability of digital asset mining. MARA HOLDINGS: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal -------------------------------------------------------- MARA Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2026, that the lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the United States District Court for the District of Nevada's dismissal of the securities class suit. The Company and certain current and former senior management were named as defendants in a putative class action complaint filed on March 30, 2023, in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, arising out of the Company's announcement of accounting restatements on February 28, 2023. On March 29, 2024, the court appointed lead plaintiffs and counsel, and on June 4, 2024, lead plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint styled as Langer et al. v. Marathon et al., asserting allegations substantially similar to those in the March 30, 2023 putative class action complaint. On August 5, 2024, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and on December 6, 2024, the motion to dismiss the amended class action complaint was fully briefed. On March 3, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada heard the Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint, granted the motion, and provided plaintiffs thirty days to amend their complaint to avoid permanent dismissal. That on April 2, 2025, lead plaintiffs filed a second amended class action complaint, and on June 2, 2025, the Company moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. On September 10, 2025, the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was fully briefed, and a hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was held on February 13, 2026. On March 31, 2026, the court dismissed the case with prejudice, and on April 30, 2026, lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Separately, shareholder derivative actions were filed based on allegations substantially similar to those in the March 30, 2023 putative class action complaint in Moreno. On June 22, 2023, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit for Broward County, Florida, against certain current members of the Company's board of directors and senior management, alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. On July 8, 2023, a second shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against current and former members of the Company's board of directors and senior management, alleging claims under Sections 14(a), 10(b), and 21D of the Exchange Act and for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets. On July 12, 2023, a third shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against current and former members of the Company's board of directors and senior management, alleging claims under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and for breach of fiduciary duty. On July 13, 2023, a fourth shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit for Broward County, Florida, against current members of the Company's board of directors and senior management, alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste of corporate assets, with the June 22, 2023 and July 13, 2023 complaints together referred to as the Florida Derivative Actions. MARA Holdings, Inc. (formerly Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc.) is a digital asset technology company focused on supporting and securing the Bitcoin ecosystem through large-scale, energy-conscious Bitcoin mining operations. The company also evaluates and develops related technologies and infrastructure to enhance the efficiency and sustainability of digital asset mining. MARCUS CORP: Morris Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users -------------------------------------------------------------- ZACHARY MORRIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE MARCUS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-783 (E.D. Wis., May 3, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.grandgeneva.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on May 29, 2025, to access Defendant's website from his home in an effort to book a hotel room, but encountered barriers that denied his full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content and services. The suit asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Marcus Corporation operates the website that serves as a hotel offering amenities and activities, including championship golf courses, a spa and wellness center, skiing and snowboarding facilities, multiple dining options, and event spaces.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com MEDPACE HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------- Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Medpace Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ: MEDP) and certain of the Company's senior executives for securities fraud after significant stock drops resulting from the potential violations of the federal securities laws. If you invested in Medpace, you are encouraged to obtain additional information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/medpace-class-action-lawsuit. Key Details of the Medpace ($MEDP) Class Action: -- Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 8, 2026 -- Alleged Misconduct: Securities fraud regarding Medpace's alleged understatement of cancellation rates and overstatement of book-to-bill ratio. -- Largest Alleged Stock Decline: February 9, 2026 – 15.9% Stock Drop -- Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio -- Action: Contact BFA Law to discuss your rights Investors have until June 8, 2026, to ask the Court to be appointed to lead the case. The complaint asserts securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors in Medpace common stock. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. It is captioned Durbin v. Medpace Holdings Inc., et al., No. 1:26-cv-00346. Why is Medpace Being Sued For Securities Fraud? Medpace is a clinical contract research organization focused on providing scientifically-driven outsourced clinical development services to the biotechnology, pharmaceutical, and medical device industries. During the relevant period, Medpace allegedly misled investors concerning its book-to-bill ratio for 4Q 25. According to Medpace, "our award notifications were strong. Cancellations were down across the pipeline." Medpace also discussed how cancellations were "very well behaved." As alleged, in truth, Medpace's cancellations had increased causing its book-to-bill ratio to decline. Why did Medpace's Stock Drop? On February 9, 2026, Medpace released its 4Q 2025 financial results, reporting that its book-to-bill ratio declined to 1.04 due to elevated cancellations. This news caused the price of Medpace stock to drop nearly 16%, from $530.35 per share on February 9, 2026 to 446.05 per share on February 10, 2026. BFA is also investigating recent reports that Medpace's cancellations continued to increase and book-to-bill ratio continued to decline, reaching as low as 0.88 for 1Q 26. The company's President, Jesse Geiger, also announced his intention to resign. On this news, the price of the company's stock declined roughly 23% during afternoon trading on April 23, 2026. What Can You Do? If you invested in Medpace, you may have legal options and are encouraged to submit your information to the firm. All representation is on a contingency fee basis; there is no cost to you. Shareholders are not responsible for any court costs or expenses of litigation. The firm will seek court approval for any potential fees and expenses. Submit your information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/medpace-class-action-lawsuit Why Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP? BFA is a leading international law firm representing plaintiffs in securities class actions and shareholder litigation. It has been named a top plaintiff law firm by Chambers USA, The Legal 500, and ISS SCAS, and its attorneys have been named "Elite Trial Lawyers" by the National Law Journal, "Litigation Stars" by Benchmark Litigation, among the top "500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers" by Lawdragon, "Titans of the Plaintiffs' Bar" by Law360 and "SuperLawyers" by Thomson Reuters. Among its recent notable successes, BFA recovered over $900 million in value from Tesla, Inc.'s Board of Directors, as well as $420 million from Teva Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. For more information about BFA and its attorneys, please visit https://www.bfalaw.com. https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/medpace-class-action-lawsuit [GN] MEDTRONIC INC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Trevino Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- WANDA TREVINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDTRONIC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-02446-DWF-DLM (D. Minn., May 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence and negligence per se. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach in April 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Medtronic, Inc. is a developer and manufacturer of device-enabled medical therapies based in Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Michael J. Laird, Esq. Madison M. DeMaris, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com michael.laird@zimmreed.com madison.demaris@zimmreed.com - and - MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq. GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 4279 Roswell Road, Suite 208-108 Atlanta, GA 30342 Telephone: (678) 642-2503 Email: marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com MEDTRONIC INC: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Tanner Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tristan Tanner, Plaintiff v. Medtronic, Inc.; Medtronic USA, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 0:26-cv-02445-DWF-DLM (D. Minn., May 1, 2026) is a class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated whose sensitive and personally identifiable information was stolen by cybercriminals in a cyber-attack that accessed Defendants' data on or around April 17, 2026. The Defendants store a tremendous amount of Plaintiff's PII, including his name, birth date, billing and mailing address, financial information, and Social Security number. The Defendant also stores vast quantities of protected health information, likely including that of Plaintiff, it collects from its business associates and directly from patients. Presumably, this PII and PHI has been compromised for Plaintiff and Class members. As of May 1, 2026, the Defendants have yet to notify Plaintiff or provide the public with any specific information regarding its mitigation efforts in the fallout of this data breach. If Plaintiff knew his PII would have been improperly handled, he would have refused to share PII with Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of negligence, negligence per se, and unjust enrichment/quasi-contract. Medtronic, Inc. is a medical device company with its principal place of business in Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. David A. Goodwin, Esq. Joe E. Nelson, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com jnelson@gustafsongluek.com - and - James F. Woods, Esq. Annie E. Causey, Esq. WOODS LONERGAN PLLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 1410 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 684-2500 E-mail: jwoods@woodslaw.com acausey@woodslaw.com MEDTRONIC INC: Marquardt Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- SABRINA MARQUARDT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDTRONIC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-02418-ECT-DTS (D. Minn., April 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, violations of California Unfair Competition Law, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and injunctive/declaratory relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach in April 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Medtronic, Inc. is a developer and manufacturer of device-enabled medical therapies based in Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicole S. Frank, Esq. BRADFORD ANDRESEN NORRIE & CAMAROTTO 3600 American Boulevard West, Ste. 670 Bloomington, MN 55431 Telephone: (612) 474-1811 Email: nfrank@banclaw.com - and - Bart D. Cohen, Esq. Panida Anderson, Esq. BAILEY GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 Email: bcohen@baileyglasser.com panderson@baileyglasser.com MEDTRONIC INC: McCollough Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD MCCOLLOUGH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDTRONIC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-02436-LMP-DJF (D. Minn., May 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' personally identifying information and protected health information. The Plaintiff and Class Members are individuals who were required to indirectly and/or directly provide Defendant with their private information. By collecting, storing, and maintaining Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information, Medtronic has a resulting duty to secure, maintain, protect, and safeguard the private information that it collects and stores against unauthorized access and disclosure through reasonable and adequate data security measures. Despite Medtronic's duty to safeguard that private information, upon information and belief, Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information in Defendant's possession was compromised on or about April 18, 2026. The data breach occurred when cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network servers and accessed highly sensitive PII that was being kept, says the suit. As a result, Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information was, upon information and belief, compromised by an unauthorized third-party. The Plaintiff and Class Members have a continuing interest in ensuring that their information is and remains safe, and are entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief. Medtronic, Inc. is a global medical device and medical technology company that designs, manufactures, markets, and sells implantable and external medical devices and related products used in the diagnosis, treatment, and management of various medical conditions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Michael J. Laird, Esq. Madison M. DeMaris, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 641-0400 E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com michael.laird@zimmreed.com madison.demaris@zimmreed.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Stephen E. Connolly, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 609-6910 Facsimile: (267) 609-6955 E-mail: jerry@lcllp.com steve@lcllp.com MEDTRONIC INC: McLain Sues Over Clients' Compromised Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ ADAM MCLAIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDTRONIC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-02416 (D. Minn., April 29, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach in April 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Medtronic, Inc. is a developer and manufacturer of device-enabled medical therapies based in Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq. Brant D. Penney, Esq. REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (651) 287-2100 Email: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com b.penney@rwblawfirm.com - and - Israel David, Esq. Adam M. Harris, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 60 Broad Street, Suite 2900 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 350-8850 Email: israel.david@davidllc.com adam.harris@davidllc.com - and - Mark A. Cianci, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 399 Boylston Street, Floor 6, Suite 23 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 295-7771 Email: mark.cianci@davidllc.com MEDTRONIC INC: Sanders Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- KAREN SANDERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDTRONIC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-02406-JMB-DLM (D. Minn., April 29, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach in April 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Medtronic, Inc. is a developer and manufacturer of device-enabled medical therapies based in Minnesota. [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 - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive-Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 Email: jnelson@milberg.com MEMBERSOURCE CREDIT: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the MemberSource Credit Union data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the MemberSource Credit Union data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. MemberSource Credit Union Security Incident: What Happened? MemberSource Credit Union (MSCU), which operates five branches in Texas, has disclosed a data breach affecting 22,308 Texas residents. A sample notification letter states that on June 3, 2025, MemberSource detected disruptions in certain branch computer networks and initiated an investigation, which confirmed unauthorized data extraction from the company's network. Following the MSCU data breach, the credit union analyzed the data to determine whether unencrypted sensitive information had been compromised. By April 1, 2026, it was confirmed that files stolen in the MemberSource CU data breach contained names, Social Security numbers, driver's license or state ID numbers, and financial account information. Those affected by the MemberSource data breach are being notified by mail. What You Can Do After the MemberSource Credit Union Data Breach If your information was exposed in the MemberSource Credit Union data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force MemberSource Credit Union to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. [GN] MEMORIAL SLOAN: Faces Martinez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- JULIO MARTINEZ, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03615 (S.D.N.Y., May 1, 2026) is a class action and a collective action brought against the Defendant to remedy violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants have engaged in a common practice of requiring Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to work without proper pay, including substantial overtime work. 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 Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt worker for Defendants at the 530 East 74th Street location in New York, from approximately September 2023 to approximately December 2024. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center provide healthcare and operate a private cancer treatment and research institution in New York and New Jersey.[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 MERRILL LYNCH: 4th Cir. Corrects Counsel Name in Milligan Opinion ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KELLY MILLIGAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INCORPORATED; BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees, and JOHN/JANE DOE 1, the Senior Vice President-Human Resources Global Banking and Global Wealth and Investment Management Administration at Bank of America Corp., Defendant. SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; THE CENTER ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION; THE AMERICAN BENEFITS COUNCIL; THE ERISA INDUSTRY COMMITTEE; SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL MARKETS ASSOCIATION, Amici Supporting Appellee, Case No. 25-1385 (4th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an Order amending its Opinion filed on April 17, 2026. The Order stated that, on page 2, in the attorney information section, the name of counsel for Amicus Society for Human Resource Management was corrected to read "Jules A. Levenson." In the Opinion, the Fourth Circuit agreed with the district court that the WealthChoice Awards program qualifies as an excepted bonus payment program and is not an employee pension benefit plan. Therefore, it affirmed the district court's order granting summary judgment to Merrill Lynch because the WealthChoice Awards program does not fall within ERISA' protections. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available https://l1nq.com/vnlf995. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available https://sl1nk.com/hwek0bc. ARGUED: Mathew Paul Jasinski -- mjasinski@motleyrice.com -- MOTLEY RICE LLC, Hartford, Connecticut, for Appellant. Michael E. Kenneally -- michael.kenneally@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. ON BRIEF: John S. Edwards, Jr. -- jedwards@ajamie.com -- AJAMIE LLP, Houston, Texas; Robert A. Izard, Jr. -- rizard@ikrlaw.com -- IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE, LLP, West Hartford, Connecticut; Riley Breakell, MOTLEY RICE LLC, Hartford, Connecticut, for Appellant. Samuel S. Shaulson, Miami, Florida, Matthew A. Russell, Chicago, Illinois, Andrew R. Hellman, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Ian H. Morrison -- imorrison@seyfarth.com -- Sam Schwartz-Fenwick, Jules A. Levenson, SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for Amicus Society for Human Resource Management. Andrew J. Pincus-- apincus@mayerbrown.com -- Archis A. Parasharami, Charles A. Rothfeld, Daniel E. Jones, MAYER BROWN LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amici the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, the Center on Executive Compensation, the American Benefits Council, and the ERISA Industry Committee. Janet Galeria -- jgaleria@uschamber.com -- Mariel A. Brookins, UNITED STATES CHAMBER LITIGATION CENTER, Washington, D.C., for Amicus the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America. Ani Huang, CENTER ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION, Arlington, Virginia, for Amicus the Center on Executive Compensation. Michael Delikat -- mdelikat@orrick.com -- Alyssa Barnard-Yanni, New York, New York, Robert M. Loeb, ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amicus the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. METAGENOMI THERAPEUTICS: Response to Complaint Due May 27 --------------------------------------------------------- Metagenomi Therapeutics, 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 defendants' response to the operative complaint is due on May 27, 2026. A class action complaint was filed on September 26, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of the Company's officers and certain of its current and former directors, captioned Vreeland v. Metagenomi Inc. et al., No. 5:24-cv-06765 (the Securities Action). The operative complaint in the Securities Action alleges violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act against all defendants and control person violations of Section 15 against the individual defendants, and alleges that the defendants made misleading statements and omitted to disclose material information concerning the Company's collaboration with Moderna in the Company's registration statement and final prospectus materials filed in January 2024 and February 2024. The Securities Action seeks, among other things, compensatory damages as well as costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees. On February 10, 2025, the court appointed Mingxi Bi as lead plaintiff, and on April 4, 2025 the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which is the operative complaint in the Securities Action. On May 16, 2025, all defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claims of the Securities Action, and on March 24, 2026, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss. The defendants' response to the operative complaint is due on May 27, 2026. That the Company is currently unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss, if any, nor estimate a range of possible loss, and that the Company intends to defend vigorously against this litigation. Metagenomi Therapeutics, Inc. is a biotechnology company focused on developing next-generation gene-editing medicines using a broad portfolio of gene-editing systems to treat a range of serious diseases. MILE HIGH: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Jackson Says ------------------------------------------------------------ SYLINIA JACKSON, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. MILE HIGH ATHLETIC INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03688 (S.D.N.Y., May 5, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.powder7.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on February 22, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Women's Flylow Ski Jacket from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and visually-impaired consumers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the goods, and services Defendant offers to the public on its Website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff SYLINIA JACKSON is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant MILE HIGH ATHLETIC INC. operates the Powder7 online retail store, as well as the Powder7 interactive Website which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's: ski gear and accessories, as well as other types of goods, pricing, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and internet pricing specials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal MINNESOTA: Class Certification Order in MPPOA's MGDPA Suit Reversed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association, Respondent, v. Minnesota Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training, Appellant, Case Nos. A25-1101, A25-1102 (Minn. App.), the Court of Appeals of Minnesota (i) affirms the district court's denial of the Appellant Board's motion to dismiss under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 12 and (ii) reverses the district court's class-certification order because of deficiencies. The action alleges violations of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA), Minn. Stat. Sections 13.01-.991 (2024 & Supp. 2025). The matter involves an assertion that Appellant Minnesota Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training (the Board) violated the MGDPA when it responded to a data request by disseminating, as alleged in the Respondents' amended complaint, the names and dates of birth of officers assigned to work undercover. The Board is an entity established by the legislature to, among other things, regulate the licensing of peace officers. All peace officers in Minnesota must be licensed by the Board. The Respondents are the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association (MPPOA) and three undercover law enforcement officers, identified as officers 1, 2, and 3, who claim that their private data was unlawfully disseminated by the board. MPPOA alleges that it represents over 90% of the police and peace officers in Minnesota and is the largest organization representing police and peace officers in Minnesota, with a membership of over 10,000. Officers 1, 2, and 3 seek to represent a class of undercover officers. The Respondents allege in the amended complaint that the Board failed to protect the Undercover Law Enforcement Officers' private data; and in responding to a Minnesota Government Data Practices Act Request in 2024, released the names and dates of birth of at least 257 Minnesota undercover police officers. The amended complaint explains that the Board obtains information on the undercover status of officers because its website allows chief law enforcement officers (CLEOs) to provide that information if the CLEOs have officers working undercover whose personnel data should be kept private per Minn. Stat. Section 13.43, subd. 5. The Respondents assert that the Board's release of the disseminated data violated the MGDPA because the disseminated data is personnel data under section 13.43 and that "all personnel data maintained by a government entity relating to an individual employed as or an applicant for employment as an undercover law enforcement officer are private data on individuals. They allege that, since the release of the data, the harm to them has been immense and accumulating and active investigations have been placed as risk. Officers 1, 2, and 3 also allege they have, for example, invested in home security and taken other measures to protect themselves and their families. The amended complaint is styled as a class action, asserting violations of the MGDPA for, among other things, unlawfully disseminating private data under section 13.05, subdivision 4, and for failing to timely notify undercover officers of that dissemination under section 13.055, subdivision 2(a). It seeks injunctive relief on behalf of respondents and the class members and damages on behalf of officers 1, 2, and 3 and the class members. The Board moved to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(e), arguing that the disseminated data was licensing data under section 13.41 of the MGDPA, not personnel data under section 13.43, and was properly classified as public. It also moved to dismiss MPPOA's claims for lack of standing under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(a). The Respondents moved to certify a class pursuant to Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The district court denied the Board's motion to dismiss and granted the Respondents' motion for class certification. The Board argues that the district court erred by concluding MPPOA has standing, denying its motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and granting the Respondents' motion for class certification. The Fourth Circuit affirms the district court's determination that the Respondent association has standing. In Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977), an organization can sue on behalf of its members if: (1) its members would have a standing on their own, (2) the interests involved relate to the organization’s purpose, and (3) the case does not require individual members to participate. The board only challenges the second and third requirements. On the second Hunt requirement, the Fourth Circuit rejects the Board's argument that MPPOA's purpose was too broad. It finds that representing over 90% of Minnesota peace officers and focusing on officer safety, including undercover officers, is clearly related to its mission. It also notes that MPPOA is well positioned to advocate for undercover members who may not be able to appear publicly. As a result, the second Hunt element is met. As to the denial of the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the Fourth Circuit agrees with the Appellant that the district court applied an incorrect legal standard but, nevertheless, affirms the denial because it cannot conclude to a certainty that no facts could be introduced that would support granting the relief requested. It opines that resolving the Respondents' MGDPA claims thus will an analysis of the Board's purpose(s) for maintaining the disseminated data. But such an analysis requires further development of the record. The Fourth Circuit cannot conclude to a certainty that no facts could be introduced which would support the relief demanded. Finally, because of deficiencies in the district court's class-certification order, the Fourth Circuit reverses that order and remands to allow the district court to make additional findings and issue a new decision on class certification. It says because the district court failed to make any findings regarding potential conflicts of interest, it is unable to review the district court's adequacy determination. A full-text copy of the Court's Nonprecedential Opinion is available https://l1nq.com/ktoulwa. Cassandra B. Merrick -- cmerrick@madellaw.com -- Christopher W. Madel -- cmadel@madellaw.com -- Madel PA, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Stephen Foertsch -- info@brunolaw.com -- Bruno Law PLLC, Golden Valley, Minnesota (for respondent). Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Michael McSherry, Nick Pladson, Assistant Attorneys General, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant). Leita Walker -- walkerl@ballardspahr.com -- Isabella Salomão Nascimento -- salomaonascimentoi@ballardspahr.com -- Anna Kaul -- kaula@ballardspahr.com -- Ballard Spahr LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for amici curiae American Public Media Group, Axios Media Inc., Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., The Invisible Institute, Pro Publica Inc., Star Tribune Media Company LLC, and TEGNA, Inc.) Mahesha P. Subbaraman, Subbaraman PLLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for amicus curiae Minnesotans for Open Government). MISS692 LLC: Faces Lee Suit Over Line Cooks' Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------- HAEUN LEE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MISS692, LLC d/b/a Salt Korean BBQ d/b/a Sang Hi, SAE DA KIM a/k/a Rich Kim, DONG SHIN LEE, and DONGKEUN LEE, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02981 (E.D. Pa., May 4, 2026) is brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, arising from Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment policies, patterns and practices. The Plaintiff alleges, pursuant to the federal and state laws, that she is entitled to recover from the Defendant: (1) unpaid overtime wages; (2) front pay due to retaliation for protected activity; (3) liquidated damages or prejudgment interest, (4) post-judgment interest; and/or (5) attorney's fees and costs. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants in September 2022 through about January 2026 to work as a line cook at "Salt Korean BBQ." MISS692, LLC is a domestic limited liability company organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania where it operates the restaurants "Salt Korean BBQ" and "Sang Hi."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com MODIV INDUSTRIAL: M&A Investigates Sale to Global Net Lease ----------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a law firm headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Modiv Industrial, Inc. (NYSE: MDV) related to its sale to Global Net Lease, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Modiv Industrial shareholders are expected to own approximately 11% of the combined company. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/modiv-industrial-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Global Business Travel Group, Inc. (NYSE: GBTG) related to its sale to Long Lake Management Holdings, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Global Business Travel shareholders are expected to receive $9.50 per share in cash. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/global-business-travel-group-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- First Seacoast Bancorp, Inc. (NASDAQ: FSEA) related to its sale to Cambridge Financial Group, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, First Seacoast shareholders are expected to receive $17.25 per share in cash. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/first-seacoast-bancorp-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- FLUENT Corp. (OTCQB: CNTMF) related to its merger with Vireo Growth, Inc. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/fluent-corp/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] MOON NUDE: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Mueller Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- TARA NICOLE MUELLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOON NUDE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00872-TWP-MKK (S.D. Ind., April 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://moonnude.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading hierarchy, inadequate focus order, inaccessible contact information, changing of content without advance warning, 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. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Moon Nude LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in Indiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason B. Marshall, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N. Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Email: jmarshall@ealg.law MOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES: Agrees to Settle Robocalls Suit for $21.4MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Motive Technologies, Inc. has agreed to a settlement potentially worth more than $21.4 million to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the manufacturer of GPS and dashcam systems unlawfully sent prerecorded or artificial voice messages to consumers' cell phones. The Motive Technologies class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on April 3, 2026. The deal covers all individuals in the United States who, from November 26, 2020 through April 3, 2026, received one or more calls to their cell phone sent using a prerecorded or artificial voice message from or on behalf of Motive Technologies. The court-approved website for the Motive Technologies class action settlement can be found at DashCamCallingSettlement.com. Motive Technologies settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form can receive a $50 product voucher redeemable for any products or services purchased from Motive Technologies' website. Product vouchers are limited to one per phone number, and voucher codes will be distributed via email to class members, the settlement agreement states. Per court documents, product vouchers are freely transferable from individuals to their employers, and class members who receive multiple vouchers may stack their value to obtain higher-value products or services. To submit a Motive Technologies settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the class member ID found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, complete, and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Motive Technologies settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked no later than July 6, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant the Motive Technologies settlement final approval following a hearing on August 10, 2026. Vouchers will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. According to the settlement website, approximately 414,374 people are covered by the deal. The Motive Technologies class action lawsuit alleged that the company, which manufactures vehicle GPS and dashcam systems, violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending prerecorded or artificial voice messages to consumers' cell phones. [GN] MOUNT SINAI: O'Hara Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Mary M. O'Hara, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and Class Members v. MOUNT SINAI HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., MOUNT SINAI DOCTORS OF LONG ISLAND, ALBERT ALVAREZ, RAYMOND FOWLER and JOSEPHINE BROOKS, Case No. 2:26-cv-026 (E.D.N.Y., May 5, 2026), is brought seeking to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and statutory penalties on behalf of herself and similarly situated collective and class members under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). The Plaintiff brings this action against her former employer, Defendants, to redress a systemic deprivation of earned wages, unlawful discrimination, and a vicious campaign of retaliation that culminated in her wrongful termination. During her nearly eight-year tenure, Defendants fostered an exploitative work environment. Plaintiff, along with a collective of similarly situated hourly employees, was routinely expected and required to perform off-the clock work, including working through unpaid meal breaks and staying well past scheduled shifts to ensure continuity of patient care. Defendants knowingly accepted the benefits of this labor while deliberately and systematically denying these employees their lawfully earned overtime compensation, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a dedicated Registered Nurse with twenty-six years of experience. The Defendants are domestic corporate entities, healthcare systems, and/or organizations that operate medical facilities within the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taimur Alamgir, Esq. Matthew J. Daidola, Esq. TA LEGAL GROUP PLLC 205 E Main Street, Suite 3-4 Huntington, NY 11743 Phone: (914) 552-2669 Fax: (631) 942-7399 Email: tim@talegalgroup.com matthew@talegalgroup.com NATIONAL ENTERTAINMENT: Nelson Balks at Illegal Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN NELSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL ENTERTAINMENT COLLECTIBLES ASSOCIATION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-04999-JXN-JRA (D.N.J., May 4, 2026) arises from the Defendant's violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for contacting Plaintiff's number that was placed on the National Do Not Call Registry. The Plaintiff and putative class members never consented to receive these calls. Because telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to hundreds of thousands or even millions of potential customers en masse, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons who received illegal telemarketing calls from or on behalf of Defendant. National Entertainment Collectibles Association, Inc. is a New Jersey for-profit corporation that sells collectibles typically licensed from films, video games, sports, music and television.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Max S. Morgan, Esq. THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC 1515 Market Street #1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 587-6240 Facsimile: (215) 689-0875 E-mail: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com NEW YORK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Phillip Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- JAMAL PHILLIP; CHANNA WYNNE; ABIODUN OWOADE; MURPHY ABIODUN; SULEIMAN AHMED; ISABELLA ALMANZAR; KHALID ALY; KATHERINE ARAUJO; TASHAREE ARNOLD; NOELANI BROWNE; ANGELA CAMBRIDGE; NORA CAMERON; CHARLES CARTER; TIARA COLLAZO; VIOLA COLLINS; DEJONA COOPER; JULIA DANIELOWSKI; ALICIA DAY; CHIKEZIE DUKE; MOYIN ENIOLORUNDA; SAMUEL ETSEKHUME; ANTIGUA FEATHERSTONE; MARIBEL FELIZ; DAVID FIGUEROA; KEMELIA FORRESTER; VENAE GIBSON; GARY GRANT; CYNTHIA GREGG; RAE'SHANNA HATCHER; EVELYNA HERNANDEZ; MARIELA HERNANDEZ; and WILLIAM HERRERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03595 (S.D.N.Y., April 30, 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 Defendant at the Department of Homeless Services in the positions of Community Associate, Community Assistant, Community Coordinator, and Caseworker in the Housing Emergency Referral Operations Unit and Street Homelessness Solutions Unit. New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. At its core is Manhattan, a densely populated borough that’s among the world’s major commercial, financial and cultural centers. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hope Pordy, Esq. Elizabeth Sprotzer, Esq. SPIVAK LIPTON, LLP 1040 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 765-2100 Email: hpordy@spivaklipton.com esprotzer@spivaklipton.com - and - Sara L. Faulman, Esq. Rachel Lerner, Esq. Patrick Miller-Bartley, Esq. McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP 1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 833-8855 Email: slf@mselaborlaw.com rbl@mselaborlaw.com NEXTERA ENERGY: Hossfeld Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT HOSSFELD, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEXTERA ENERGY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01165 (W.D. Tex., May 3, 2026) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff Hossfield brings this action under the TCPA alleging that NextEra Energy called him using a pre-recorded voice. The call was made without the call recipient's prior express written consent. Because the call was transmitted using technology capable of generating thousands of similar calls per day, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons who were sent the same illegal calls, says the suit. NextEra Energy, Inc. is a corporation headquartered in Juno Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 2657 Mount Carmel Avenue Glenside, PA 19038 Telephone: (215) 225-5529 Facsimile: (888) 329-0305 E-mail: a@perronglaw.com NIKE INC: Faces Farrington Over Unlawful Tariff-Related Price ------------------------------------------------------------- TRAVELL FARRINGTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NIKE, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-02131-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill., May 8, 2026) contends that the Plaintiff and Class Members conferred a direct financial benefit upon Defendant by paying tariff-related charges in the form of increased prices on goods. Accordingly, the Defendant knowingly received and accepted these benefits. The tariff-related price increases that Defendant imposed and collected were unlawful and unauthorized. The Defendant collected and retained funds to which it was not legally entitled. The Defendant retained these funds despite knowing, or having reason to know, that such charges were unlawful, invalid, or subject to refund. The Plaintiff is a resident citizen of Decatur, Illinois. The Plaintiff has purchased goods from Nike that were imported from countries subject to tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The purchase price for the goods that Plaintiff Farrington purchased from Nike was increased to account for the tariffs imposed on those products. The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(1), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3). The class Plaintiff seeks to represent can be defined as: Nationwide Class: All persons in the United States who, within the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased goods from Defendant and paid higher prices for those goods as a result of tariffs imposed on Defendant pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act who have not been refunded the imposed tariffs nor any applicable processing fees imposed upon them for collecting the tariffs. Specifically excluded from the Class are Defendant, its officers, directors, agents, trustees, parents, children, corporations, trusts, representatives, principals, servants, partners, joint venturers, or entities controlled by Defendant, and its heirs, successors, assigns, or other persons or entities related to or affiliated with Defendant and/or its officers and/or directors, the judge assigned to this action, and any member of the judge’s immediate family. The Defendant is among the largest importers of consumer goods and therefore stands to recover roughly $1.5 billion in tariff refunds. Those expected refunds are especially significant here because Nike previously passed tariff-related cost increases through to consumers in the form of higher retail prices, meaning Defendant will recover duties whose economic burden was borne, in whole or in part, by Plaintiff and Class Members.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY| ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com NORDIC NATURALS: Parties Must Submit Briefing Schedule by May 22 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Orrico v. Nordic Naturals, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03195 (E.D.N.Y., Filed May 31, 2022), the Hon. Judge Nina R. Morrison entered an order directing the parties to submit a proposed briefing schedule for the motion for class certification by May 22, 2026. The nature of suit states Torts - Personal Property - Other Fraud. Nordic manufactures supplements such as animal oils, including fish oil and other marine animal oils, and fish and animal meal.[CC] NORTH AMERICAN: Fails to Properly Pay Factory Workers, Ricks Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- SHELIA N. RICKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTH AMERICAN LIGHTING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02125-JEH-RLH (C.D. Ill., May 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant at its Muscle Shoals, Alabama manufacturing facility from January 2018 until her end of employment on November 24, 2025. North American Lighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of automotive lighting systems doing business in Alabama. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq. HASSLER KONDRAS LLP 100 Cherry St. Terre Haute, IN 47807 Telephone: (812) 232-9691 Facsimile: (812) 234-2881 Email: kondras@hklawfirmllp.com OCELOT VENTURES: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Excelas data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Excelas data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Excelas Security Incident: What Happened? Ocelot Ventures, LLC, which operates as Excelas, has disclosed a data breach involving unauthorized access to its computer systems. A notice on the company's website states that on January 28, 2026, Excelas detected suspicious network activity. An investigation aided by third-party cybersecurity specialists revealed that an unauthorized actor had accessed company systems between November 27 and December 3, 2025. The information that may have been compromised in the Excelas data breach includes names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, government-issued IDs, medical and diagnosis information, medication details, medical record images, insurance information, and payment details. Excelas is sending written notification to potentially impacted individuals. The company provides medical legal solutions, including electronic record management and medical analysis, for the defense in long-term and acute care claims, litigation and audits. What You Can Do After the Excelas Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Excelas data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Excelas to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] OMNI AT CORAL: Property Inaccessible to Disabled, Pardo Says ------------------------------------------------------------ NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OMNI AT CORAL WAY INC.; and 2367 UNIVERSAL INVESTMENTS INC. D/B/A EL GALLEGAZO RESTAURANT, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-23057-JEM (S.D. Fla., April 30, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' commercial property at 7467 Coral Way, Miami, Florida 33155, is not accessible to mobility-impaired individuals in violation of ADA. Omni at Coral Way Inc. owns and manages residential community in Miami, FL, offering modern living spaces and amenities for its residents. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, Florida 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 E-Mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com OMTA TECH: Faces Saula Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------- EDISON RAUL DE LA CRUZ SAULA, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. OMTA TECH INC., OMER TALE, IIHAN OEZGAN and SAHIN YILDIZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03614 (S.D.N.Y., May 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as electricians at any time between May 2025 and December 2025. OMTA Tech Inc. is an electrical contractor based in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. Helen F. Dalton & Associates, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 ONE POINT: Settles Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit for $750,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that One Point HR Solutions, LLC has agreed to a $750,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the workforce staffing and payroll provider failed to protect private information from a seven-month-long data breach that began in July 2023. The One Point HR Solutions class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on March 16, 2026. The settlement covers all United States residents whose information was potentially compromised in the One Point data breach, including all who received notice of the incident. Approximately 22,885 people are covered by the class action settlement, court documents state. The court-approved website for the One Point data breach settlement can be found at OPHRDataSettlement.com. One Point settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form can receive up to $400 for "ordinary" losses stemming from the data breach. Class members must submit proof, such as receipts, to receive an ordinary-loss payment. This benefit covers out-of-pocket losses or expenses related to the data breach, including losses from fraud or identity theft, as well as the costs of professional fees, credit repair services, freezing or unfreezing credit, credit monitoring services, and miscellaneous expenses, such as notary and postage. Class members can also claim up to three hours of lost time spent responding to the breach, at a rate of $30 per hour. Lost-time payouts are subject to the $400 ordinary-loss payment cap. Additionally, class members can file a claim form for up to $5,000 for "extraordinary" losses incurred between July 3, 2023 and July 29, 2026 due to the One Point data breach. This benefit covers losses for class members who were victims of identity theft or fraud, provided that their expenses are not already covered by the ordinary-loss or lost-time benefits. Class members must submit proof to receive an extraordinary-loss payment. In lieu of a payment for ordinary or extraordinary losses, class members can instead file a claim form to receive a $65 cash payment, with no proof required. The settlement agreement explains that payments to class members may be subject to a pro rata reduction, depending on the number of valid claims filed. Lastly, all class members can file a claim form to receive an enrollment code for two years of one-bureau credit monitoring and identity theft protection insurance, among other features. To file a One Point settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the notice ID and confirmation code found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF of the claim form to print, fill out and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All One Point HR Solutions settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by July 29, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the One Point HR Solutions data breach settlement following a hearing on July 31, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The One Point HR Solutions class action lawsuit claimed that the professional staffing organization failed to implement proper cybersecurity safeguards to protect private information in its care, which led to a data breach between July 3, 2023 and February 14, 2024. Per court documents, personal information that may have been exposed during the breach included names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, driver's license and state identification numbers, employer identification numbers, financial information, health insurance information, tax identification numbers, medical information, passport information, payment card information, contact information, usernames and passwords. [GN] OURARING INC: Stephenson Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------------- JARON STEPHENSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v, OURARING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03618 (S.D.N.Y., May 1, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.ouraring.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. Ouraring Inc. operates as a health technology company. The Company offers wellness rings and application that measures and monitors sleep patterns. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com PC RICHARD: Appeals Court Greenlights Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Isabella Gallo, writing for AMNY, reports that a state appeals court greenlit a class action against PC Richard & Sons, alleging the company violated city law by employing improperly-certified technicians to install gas appliances for more than a thousand people. The litigants argue that the appliance chain charged customers for an illegal service, deceptively marketed it, and potentially put their health at risk. The Appellate Division, Second Department shot down PC Richard's second attempt to dismiss the suit last week, saying customers suing the appliance company had enough evidence that those it hired to install appliances like ovens, stovetops and washers/dryers that required a gas hookup since 2015 did not perform those installations in accordance with city law, allowing the case to move toward trial. The decision stems from a 2021 suit that argues PC Richard advertised its installation technicians as “certified” when they weren't actually certified to install gas appliances without supervision as required by city law, and therefore fraudulently induced customers to purchase appliances and installations they wouldn't have had they known the installation would be illegal. The suit claims the appliance giant broke city business laws and left customers open to potential civil and criminal penalties from the city for having paid for and agreed to illegal gas installations. PC Richard did not respond to a request for comment. In court filings, the company argued that its technicians were certified and did not carry out illegal installations. Those suing the appliance company argue that they paid hundreds of dollars for installations they wouldn't have otherwise, and that some of their appliances subsequently began leaking gas after allegedly improperly certified technicians installed them, putting their health at risk. If the suit is successful, all those who had an appliance installed by PC Richard & Son's technicians found to be acting without proper certification would be entitled to monetary damages. Additionally, the company would be obligated by court order to employ only people certified by the city to install gas appliances according to regulations. The case will now move forward in New York Supreme Court. [GN] PEACHTREE HOTEL: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Purifoy Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHA PURIFOY, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PEACHTREE HOTEL GROUP II, LLC d/b/a PEACHTREE GROUP, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02534-TWT (N.D. Ga., May 5, 2026) arises out of the recent targeted ransomware attack and breach on Defendant's network that resulted in unauthorized access to highly sensitive data. The complaint relates that the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive information. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach on April 30, 2026. It was discovered that notorious cybercriminal gang "Payoutsking" executed a cyberattack against Defendant after the group posted on its dark web site that it exfiltrated 698GB of personally identifiable information ("PII") from Defendant on February 19, 2026. Defendant further failed to provide timely, accurate and adequate notice to Plaintiff and Class Members. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a present, heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. Plaintiff and Class Members must now closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft for the rest of their lives. Plaintiff and Class Members may also incur out-of-pocket costs for purchasing credit monitoring services, credit freezes, credit reports, or other protective measures to deter and detect identity theft, says the suit. By her Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals whose PII was accessed during the Data Breach including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief including improvements to Defendant's data security systems, future annual audits, and adequate, long term credit monitoring services funded by Defendant, and declaratory relief. Defendant Peachtree Hotel Group II, LLC is a Georgia-based investment firm with over $2.4 billion in acquisitions, $10.6 billion in credit/lending transactions, and $2.1 billion in development investments in its portfolio which involves clients and properties located across dozens of states. Defendant also provides investment services, including asset management, construction project management, and hotel management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (771) 772-3086 E-mail: cturner@milberg.com - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com PLAYA BOWLS: Faces Class Vargas Action Suit in S.D. Fla. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PLAYA BOWLS FLORIDA LLC. The suit is captioned as JESSICA VARGAS, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. PLAYA BOWLS FLORIDA LLC, Case No. 0:26-cv-61231 (S.D. Fla., April 17, 2026). The Defendant operates as a franchise management and corporate entity for the popular national superfruit chain.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vinit R. Venkatesh, Esq. PLG DAMAGE ATTORNEYS 2750 SW 145th Ave Miramar, FL 33027 E-mail: vv@plgdamage.com POMO INDIANS: Williams Alleges Wrongful Debt Collection Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- KEIRA WILLIAMS; CASEY COOK; LEROY CARDONA; ZACHARY MILES; JULIAN GRIFFIN; NIA JOHNSON; TWESHA PATEL; JEFFREY MOFFITT; SCOTT ELLIOTT; JACOB BUTE; JOSEPHINE GORRUSO; JERRY RICE; MARIO COCHRAN; and SHARON VOSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FLAMAN MCCLOUD, JR. as Chairman of the TRIBAL COUNCIL OF THE BIG VALLEY BAND OF POMO INDIANS; NICK JACK; ALIYA PONCE; VIVIAN MCCLOUD; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01678-RDB (D. Md., April 29, 2026) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The Tribal Council (also known as the Business Committee) of the Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians is the governing body for the federally recognized tribe based in Lakeport, California. They manage tribal operations, economic development, and cultural preservation on the Big Valley Rancheria. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kristi C. Kelly, Esq. Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq. KELLY GUZZO, PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7572 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 Email: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com PORTMANTOS INC: Randolph Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ------------------------------------------------------------------ ERIKA RANDOLPH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PORTMANTOS INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05113 (N.D. Ill., May 3, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, declaratory relief, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.luggageonline.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of adequate labeling of form fields, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Portmantos Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com PRESTIGE FEED: Agrees to Settle Noxious Odors Suit for $900,000 --------------------------------------------------------------- Danielle Toth of ClaimDepot reports that individuals who lived in, owned or rented a residential property within a half mile of the Prestige Feed facility at 431 North Lakeview Court, Suite A, Mount Prospect, Illinois, at any time since March 2019 may be eligible to claim a cash payment from a class action settlement. Prestige Feed LLC and Cereal Byproducts Co. Inc. agreed to pay $900,000 to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging they emitted noxious odors and airborne contaminants from their facility, creating a nuisance for nearby residents. Who can file a claim? The settlement considers individuals who meet the following criteria as class members who may be eligible for compensation: -- They owned, rented or leased any residential property located in whole or in part within a half-mile radius of the Prestige Feed facility at 431 North Lakeview Court, Suite A, Mount Prospect, Illinois. -- They occupied the property at any time from March 2019 through the present. Additional details: -- The settlement includes all owners or occupants who previously provided a data sheet to class counsel prior to Sept. 18, 2025. -- Only one claim per household/address. -- Both owners and tenants are eligible but must provide documentation to support their claim. Documentation requirements differ for owners and tenants. How much can class members get? Pro rata payment: The total settlement fund is $900,000. The amount each class member receives will depend on the number of valid claims submitted as the fund is distributed on a pro rata basis after deducting attorneys' fees, expenses, service awards and administrative costs. The calculation for each approved claim is as follows: -- Net settlement fund = $900,000 minus attorneys' fees, expenses, service awards and administrative costs -- Each valid claim = Net settlement fund / total number of approved addresses with claims The settlement administrator will determine the actual payment per household after it processes all claims. How to claim a class action payment Class members can download, print and complete the PDF claim form and mail it to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Liddle Sheets P.C., Attn: Prestige Feed Claim Forms, 975 E. Jefferson Ave., Detroit MI 48207-3101 Class members must postmark the claim form by June 20, 2026. The settlement administrator will only accept one claim per household/address. What proof or documentation is necessary to submit a claim? Claimants must provide: -- For owners: Documentation of ownership, such as a current utility bill -- For tenants: A valid rental agreement or a current utility bill -- A copy of a government-issued photo ID (such as a driver's license or state ID) to verify identity and current address -- Dates of ownership or occupancy at the claimed address Payout options The settlement administrator will issue payments by check to the address provided on the claim form. Class members must cash their checks within 180 days of issuance. $900,000 settlement fund breakdown The $900,000 settlement fund covers: -- Administrative costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees and costs: Up to $300,000 -- Service awards to class representatives: $10,000 each ($20,000 total) -- Payments to eligible class members: Remainder of the net fund Important dates -- Deadline to opt out: June 5, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: June 20, 2026 -- Fairness hearing: July 21, 2026 When is the Prestige Feed settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments after the court resolves any appeals and grants final approval of the settlement. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit alleged the Prestige Feed LLC and Cereal Byproducts Co. Inc. facility emitted noxious odors and airborne contaminants, creating a nuisance for nearby residents. The companies denied liability but agreed to settle to avoid the cost, delay and risk of continued litigation. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Pro rata payment Deadline: June 20, 2026 [GN] QUEST SOFTWARE: Padlo Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Sales Reps --------------------------------------------------------------- GERALD PADLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUEST SOFTWARE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01158 (W.D. Tex., May 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Padlo worked for the Defendant first as a Business Development Representative, and then as an Inside Sales Representative from August 2022 through February 2026. Quest Software, Inc. is a software company, with its principal place of business in Austin, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq. 4106 Bridge Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 222-2222 Facsimile: (888) 604-9299 Email: scott@tittlelawfirm.com R.M.T. CONTRACTING: Faces Bernardino Labor Suit in Cal. Super. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against R.M.T. Contracting. The case is captioned as Fidel Bernardino, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. R.M.T. Contracting, Inc., a California corporation, Case No. 26CUB01625 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., April 7, 2026). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Gregory A. Pulskamp. The suit alleges employment-related violations. RMT is a Commercial & Residential Construction, and Construction company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Michael Treglio, Esq. POTTER HANDY, LLP 100 Pine St, Ste 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111-5235 Telephone: (415) 534-1911 Facsimile: (888) 422-5191 E-mail: jimt@potterhandy.com RATIO HOLDINGS: Henderson Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------------ KENNETH HENDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RATIO HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05048 (N.D. Ill., April 30, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://ratiocoffee.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. Ratio Holdings, LLC offers coffee machines for espresso, whole coffee beans, freshly brewed filter coffee, and instant coffee. [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 REALPAGE INC: Maravillas Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Elisa Maravillas, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. REALPAGE, INC., PROPERTYWARE LLC, REALPAGE PAYMENT PROCESSING SERVICES, INC., and REALPAGE PAYMENTS SERVICES LLC, Case No. 26CV008111 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 5, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-at-00750. The Plaintiff brings four causes of action on behalf of a putative class against Defendants for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (the "CLRA"), tortious interference with contract, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants "contract with property management companies and landlords throughout the country to provide Propertyware, an online portal where tenants can pay their monthly rent" and by which Plaintiff paid a convenience fee that Plaintiff alleges was neither avoidable nor properly disclosed. The Plaintiff further alleges that doing so is an unlawful "pay-to-pay" scheme.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jeremy S. Smith, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Email: jssmith@gibsondunn.com - and - Erin M. Choi, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 2001 Ross Avenue Suite 2100 Dallas, TX 75201-2923 Phone: 213.229.7000 Facsimile: 213.229.7520 Email: echoi@gibsondunn.com REDISCOVER: Lane Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Registered Nurses ----------------------------------------------------------------- PATRICIA LANE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REDISCOVER, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00365-DGK (W.D. Mo., April 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Missouri law. Ms. Lane was employed by the Defendant as a registered nurse from approximately November 2020 to December 2025. ReDiscover is a mental health services provider, headquartered in Lee's Summit, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael F. Brady, Esq. BRADY & ASSOCIATES 2118 W. 120th Street Leawood, KS 66209 Telephone: (913)-696-0925 Email: brady@mbradylaw.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 5847 San Felipe St., Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 5847 San Felipe St., Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com REVIVE ESSENTIAL: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Wilson Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ HOWARD WILSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. REVIVE ESSENTIAL OILS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-5161 (N.D. Ill., May 4, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.revive-eo.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. On December 16, 2025, Plaintiff visited Defendant's website to purchase the Immunity Boost essential oils blend. Despite his efforts, however, Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred Plaintiff from having an unimpeded shopping experience. The Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and visually-impaired customers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the facilities, products, and services Defendant offers to the public on its website. The access barriers Plaintiff encountered have caused a denial of Plaintiff's full and equal access in the past, and now deter Plaintiff on a regular basis from equal access to the Website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff HOWARD WILSON is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant REVIVE ESSENTIAL OILS, LLC owns and operates the website which offers a range of essential oils, blends, and related products for home and personal use.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com RICHFIELD CONCRETE: May Face Suit Over Defective Titan Concrete Mix ------------------------------------------------------------------- ClassAction.org reports that anyone who experienced spalling, flaking, peeling or other issues with a new driveway installed in 2025 or later using Richfield Concrete's Titan 5000 concrete mix -- manufactured by Amrize -- as well as contractors who repaired or replaced the driveways. What's Going On? Attorneys working with ClassAction.org believe that the Amrize-produced Titan 5000 concrete may be defective despite being advertised as appropriately durable for harsh Minnesota winters. They're looking into whether lawsuits can be filed on behalf of consumers and contractors who had to pay to replace or repair driveways that were damaged after just one winter. How Could a Lawsuit Help? A successful class action lawsuit could help compensate consumers for the cost of repairing and/or replacing their driveways, and help contractors recoup business expenses incurred while having to redo or repair driveways they recently installed. What You Can Do If your driveway was installed using Titan 5000 concrete mix in 2025 or later and started flaking, spalling or peeling, or if you are a contractor who covered some or all of the costs to repair any of these driveways, fill out the form on this page to learn about your options and help the investigation. Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are investigating whether there is a defect with Titan 5000 concrete that causes new driveways to degrade prematurely. Lawsuits are being considered to help compensate both homeowners whose new driveways have been damaged and contractors who've repaired or replaced new Titan 5000 driveways. Consumers have reported that their new, Titan 5000 driveways began peeling, flaking and spalling -- meaning the surface layer has started to break apart, often resulting in the concrete crumbling, chipping, and developing small, crater-like pits -- after just one winter. The attorneys are looking to hear from anyone whose Titan 5000 driveway was installed in 2025 or later and has started flaking, spalling or peeling, as well as any contractors who've had to pay all or part of the cost of replacing or repairing these damaged driveways. Fill out the form on this page to learn more about what you can do. What Is Titan 5000 Concrete? In 2023, Richfield Concrete -- a contractor local to the Twin Cities area in Minnesota -- announced it was rolling out a new, proprietary granite-concrete mix called Titan 5000, manufactured by Amrize, a spin-off of international construction supplier Holcim. Per Richfield's announcement, the Titan 5000 mix "has been formulated to withstand the harsh Minnesota winters while producing 50% fewer carbon emissions than the industry standards." The company additionally claims that its granite-concrete mix is a high-performance material with features including a low water-to-cement ratio, rebar reinforcement, and an above-industry strength of 5000 PSI. However, the attorneys investigating this case believe that driveways installed using Titan 5000 may have already seen significant concrete spalling, flaking and peeling, which they suspect could indicate the new concrete mix may be defective. How Could an Amrize Concrete Lawsuit Help? If filed and successful, a class action lawsuit could help compensate affected homeowners for the costs of repairing or replacing their driveways, as well as potentially helping contractors who performed the installations recover business costs incurred in the replacement of recently installed driveways. If you purchased a Titan 5000 concrete driveway that has experienced serious damages after just one winter, or are a contractor who incurred new costs repairing or replacing the Titan 5000 driveways you previously installed, fill out the form on this page. After you get in touch, an attorney or legal representative may reach out to you directly to ask you some questions about your experience and explain how you may be able to help the investigation. It costs nothing to fill out the form or speak with someone, and you're not obligated to take legal action if you don't want to. [GN] RLCL ACQUISITION: Lee Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Bus Drivers ---------------------------------------------------------------- CONSTANCE LEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RLCL ACQUISITION, LLC d/b/a GRAY LINE OF TENNESSEE, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00544 (M.D. Tenn., April 28, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Lee was employed by the Defendant as a bus driver from approximately 2016 to November 2025. RLCL Acquisition, LLC, doing business as Gray Line of Tennessee, is a transportation company based in Nashville, Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. Nicole A. Chanin, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC 200 31st Avenue North Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 Email: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com nchanin@barrettjohnston.com - and - Mathew R. Zenner, Esq. ZENNER LAW, PLLC 320 Seven Springs Way, Suite 250 Brentwood, TN 37027 Telephone: (615) 425-3476 Email: mrzennerlaw@gmail.com ROGUE & CO: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Jackson Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- SYLINIA JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROGUE & CO., LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03647 (S.D.N.Y., May 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.randco.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Rogue & Co., LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal SALIMETRICS LLC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Smith Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ SHARON SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SALIMETRICS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-01131-MWB (M.D. Pa., April 29, 2026) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information and protected health information, resulting in a devastating data breach. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant failed to properly monitor and properly implement data security practices with regard to the computer network and systems that housed the Private Information. If Defendant had properly monitored its networks, it would have discovered the Breach sooner. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct. The Private Information that Defendant collected and maintained is now in the hands of data thieves and other unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Salimetrics, LLC is a biotechnology research company that develops salivabased assays and collection tools and provides DNA analysis services for salivary bioscience research worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Kennedy M. Brian, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 101 Park Avenue Suite 1300, #16982799 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Email: tbean@sirillp.com kbrian@sirillp.com SECURE HEALTH: Faces Broughman Suit Over Breach of Clients' Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- SUSAN BROUGHMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SECURE HEALTH PLANS OF GEORGIA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-00164-CAR (M.D. Ga., April 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on or about March 31, 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Secure Health Plans of Georgia, LLC is a provider of health insurance plans and related administrative services, with its principal place of business in Macon, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allison E. McCarthy, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ALLIE MCCARTHY 1055 Prince Avenue, Suite 2 Athens, GA 30606 Telephone: (678) 637-6243 Email: attorneymccarthy@gmail.com - and - Ra O. Amen, Esq. MASON & PERRY LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Ste. 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 Email: ramen@masonllp.com SEFAS INNOVATION: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Shelton Says ------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN SHELTON, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. SEFAS INNOVATION, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-12087-RGS (D. Mass., May 7, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information that was exposed as a result of a cyber incident (Data Breach). In the ordinary course of its business operations, the Defendant collects and stores substantial amounts of Private Information and has a resulting duty to ensure the data it maintains is safeguarded from unauthorized disclosure. Accordingly, on or around April 20, 2026, the Defendant experienced a Data Breach in which an unauthorized third-party gained access to its IT Network and exfiltrated substantial amounts of Private Information containing highly sensitive Private Information. Since the Data Breach occurred, upon information and belief, the notorious ransomware group "Everest" has claimed responsibility for the Data Breach by posting online that is has obtained the Private Information of Defendant’s Clients, including Frost Bank, the lawsuit says. The Private Information compromised as a result of the Data Breach includes at least: names, Social Security numbers, contact information, addresses, and financial information. The Plaintiff and Class Members would not have allowed Defendant to obtain their Private Information if they had known that Defendant would not ensure that it used adequate security measures, the lawsuit adds. The Defendant is a customer communication management and enterprise communications processing software vendor that provides services to companies across multiple industries, including healthcare and financial services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (771) 772-3086 E-mail: cturner@milberg.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: : wbf@federmanlaw.com SEFAS INNOVATION: Fails to Secure Private Info, Adams Says ---------------------------------------------------------- OCTAVIA ADAMS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. SEFAS INNOVATION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-12032-NMG (D. Mass., May 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information") that was exposed in a cyber incident. The complaint relates that in the ordinary course of its business operations, Defendant collects and stores substantial amounts of Private Information and has a resulting duty to ensure the data it maintains is safeguarded from unauthorized disclosure. On April 20, 2026, Defendant experienced a breach wherein an unauthorized third-party gained access to its IT Network and exfiltrated substantial amounts of Private Information containing highly sensitive Private Information. The notorious ransomware group "Everest" has claimed responsibility for the Data Breach. The Private Information compromised as a result of the Data Breach includes at least: names, Social Security numbers, contact information, addresses, and financial information. Now, and for the rest of their lives, Plaintiff and the Class Members will have to deal with the danger of identity thieves possessing and misusing their Private Information. Even those Class Members who have yet to experience identity theft have to spend time responding to the Data Breach and are at an immediate and heightened risk of all manners of identity theft as a direct and proximate result of the Data Breach. Plaintiff and Class Members have incurred and will continue to incur damages in the form of, among other things, identity theft, attempted identity theft, lost time and expenses mitigating harms, increased risk of harm, damaged credit, deprivation of the value of their Private Information, loss of privacy, and/or additional damages, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Fort Worth, Texas. Defendant Sefas Innovation, Inc. is a customer communication management and enterprise communications processing software vendor that provides services to companies across multiple industries, including healthcare and financial services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (771) 772-3086 E-mail: cturner@milberg.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com SEFAS INNOVATION: Fuller Files Suit Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------- CHARLES FULLER, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. SEFAS INNOVATION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-12030-RGS (D. Mass., May 5, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information") that was exposed as a result of a cyber incident. The complaint relates that in the ordinary course of its business operations, Defendant collects and stores substantial amounts of Private Information and has a resulting duty to ensure the data it maintains is safeguarded from unauthorized disclosure. On April 20, 2026, an unauthorized third-party gained access to Defendant's IT Network and exfiltrated substantial amounts of Private Information containing highly sensitive Private Information. The notorious ransomware group "Everest" has claimed responsibility for the Data Breach. The Private Information compromised as a result of the Data Breach includes at least: names, Social Security numbers, contact information, addresses, and financial information. The complaint alleges that now, and for the rest of their lives, Plaintiff and the Class Members will have to deal with the danger of identity thieves possessing and misusing their Private Information. Even those Class Members who have yet to experience identity theft have to spend time responding to the Data Breach and are at an immediate and heightened risk of all manners of identity theft as a direct and proximate result of the Data Breach. Plaintiff and Class Members have incurred and will continue to incur damages in the form of, among other things, identity theft, attempted identity theft, lost time and expenses mitigating harms, increased risk of harm, damaged credit, deprivation of the value of their Private Information, loss of privacy, and/or additional damages. The Plaintiff, therefore, seeks remedies including compensation for time spent responding to the Data Breach and other types of harm, free credit monitoring and identity theft insurance, and injunctive relief including substantial improvements to Defendant's data security policies and practices. Plaintiff Charles Fuller is a citizen and resident of Chateaguay, New York. Defendant Sefas Innovation, Inc. is a customer communication management and enterprise communications processing software vendor that provides services to companies across multiple industries, including healthcare and financial services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (771) 772-3086 E-mail: cturner@milberg.com SHEIN US: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Using Fake Sales ---------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Shein has misled unsuspecting consumers by advertising false "reference" or original prices for certain in-house-branded products that, in truth, were rarely, or likely never, sold at the stated reference prices, depriving shoppers of what they believed were genuine discounts. The 60-page Shein lawsuit contends that the company has reaped billions in revenue nationwide by offering purported sales that are "little more than deceptions" designed to entice consumers to buy house-brand items they believe are discounted from "illusory and misleading reference prices." According to the suit, the purportedly on-sale products and exclusives at issue "were rarely offered and likely never sold at the full reference price" in the recent past. By deploying false reference pricing online, Shein artificially drives up demand for Shein-exclusive products, "and by extension drives up their price," the filing says. "As a result, consumers receive Products worth less than the price paid," the case summarizes. The allegations in the class action lawsuit stem from data collected by third-party tracking tools, including AliPrice.com and Microsoft Shopping's price tracker. Across multiple clothing items tracked from eight Shein-exclusive brands and in-house labels, the case says, the products at issue were apparently sold at or near the discounted price during the prior six months and were "rarely, if ever" listed at higher reference prices. For instance, the case highlights a sports bra sold under Shein's GLOWMODE brand that was advertised with a reference price of $23.99 and a sale price of $19.19, accompanied by a "20%" off claim. However, the complaint says that, based on the tracking data, the item was consistently sold at or below the sale price for six months and never reached the original reference price. Under California's False Advertising Law, retailers are prohibited from advertising reference prices that were not the "prevailing market price" within the three months preceding the advertisement, the suit relays. Because Shein's reference prices are rarely charged -- or are charged for incredibly brief stints that do not constitute average pricing -- the company has violated state and federal law prohibiting deceptive price comparisons, the lawsuit alleges. The case cites research demonstrating the efficacy of deceptive pricing schemes employed by retailers like Shein, in that a higher reference price increases perceived value and consumers' desire to purchase a product. The Shein class action lawsuit looks to represent all individuals in the United States who purchased one or more items from US.Shein.com or the Shein mobile app at a discount from a higher advertised reference price during a period to be established by the court. [GN] SKYE BIOSCIENCE: Continues to Defend Domulot Derivative Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Skye Bioscience, 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 Domulot derivative suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. A putative derivative lawsuit was filed on January 29, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, captioned Domulot v. Dhillon et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-00600-WQH. The lawsuit asserts claims, purportedly on behalf of the Company, against certain officers and directors of the Company for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, violations of Sections 14(a) of the Exchange Act, and for contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act based on the dissemination of allegedly false and misleading statements related to nimacimab. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, an award of costs and expenses, including attorneys fees and expert fees, and other relief, including corporate governance reforms. Skye Bioscience, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing cutting-edge drug candidates, including therapies targeting eye diseases and other serious conditions. The Company leverages proprietary science and collaborations to advance novel treatments through clinical development. SKYE BIOSCIENCE: Continues to Defend Stout Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Skye Bioscience, 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 Stout securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. It is defending a putative securities class action lawsuit filed on November 17, 2025, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, captioned Stout v. Skye Bioscience, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-03177-WQH. The complaint asserts that the Company and certain of the Company's executives violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making materially false or misleading statements related to the efficacy of and prospects for nimacimab between November 4, 2024 and October 3, 2025. The plaintiff also alleges that the Company's executives, whom they named as defendants, violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks class certification, an award of unspecified damages, an award of costs and expenses, including attorneys fees and expert fees, and such further relief as the court may deem just and proper. On January 16, 2026, two stockholders moved to be appointed lead plaintiff. Skye Bioscience, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing cutting-edge drug candidates, including therapies targeting eye diseases and other serious conditions. The Company leverages proprietary science and collaborations to advance novel treatments through clinical development. SKYE BIOSCIENCE: Faces White Derivative Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------- Skye Bioscience, 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 faces theWhite derivative suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. A derivative lawsuit was subsequently filed on May 1, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, captioned White v. Dhillon et al. The lawsuit asserts claims, purportedly on behalf of the Company, against certain officers and directors of the Company for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, violations of Sections 14(a) of the Exchange Act, and for contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act based on the dissemination of allegedly false and misleading statements related to nimacimab. Skye Bioscience, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing cutting-edge drug candidates, including therapies targeting eye diseases and other serious conditions. The Company leverages proprietary science and collaborations to advance novel treatments through clinical development. SNIPES USA: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dalton Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Snipes USA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-02487 (D. Minn., May 5, 2026) arises because Defendant's website, www.snipesusa.com is not fully and equally accessible to Plaintiff and other people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant has violated Title III by, without limitation, failing to make its website's services accessible by screen reader programs, thereby denying Plaintiff and other individuals with visual disabilities the benefits of the website, providing them with benefits that are not equal to those it provides others, and denying them effective communication. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act Snipes USA LLC, a Pennsylvania company, operates the website that offers shoes and apparel for sale including, but not limited to, sneakers, running shoes, sandals, boots, tops, bottoms, dresses, denim, hoodies, jackets, outerwear, accessories, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com SONY INTERACTIVE: Qureshi Seeks Refund of Unlawful IEEPA Tariffs ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAMAL QURESHI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-03460 (S.D. Tex., April 29, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for unjust enrichment, money had and received, and declaratory relief. The case arises from the Defendant's retention of windfall profits generated by the unlawful tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). According to the complaint, the windfall is a direct result of the Defendant systematically passing on the costs of IEEPA tariffs to its own customers, including the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that Sony is obligated to return to him and proposed Class members all IEEPA duties passed on to customers in the form of higher prices on products, with interest. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC is a manufacturer of consumer electronics based in San Mateo, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq. ALI S. AHMED, PC 430 W. Bell Street Houston, TX 77019 Telephone: (713) 898-0982 Email: aahmedlaw@gmail.com SPIRIT AIRLINES: Employees Sue Over Mass Layoffs Without Notice --------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Sheldon of NJ.com reports that a class-action lawsuit was filed earlier this week against Spirit Airlines after the company abruptly announced that it was ceasing operations and laying off thousands of employees. The lawsuit, filed Tuesday, May 12, in the Southern District of New York on behalf of former employees, claims that Spirit violated labor laws when it shut down on May 2 and informed about 17,000 workers through a company email that their jobs had been immediately eliminated. In the suit, workers claim they lost their jobs, benefits, and access to company systems on May 2, and were owed accrued vacation and sick pay. They said they were told they would be paid through May 2 but many workers alleged that they had not yet received their final paychecks or compensation for unused vacation and sick time. The lawsuit seeks damages equal to 60 days of wages and benefits under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, or WARN Act. The act is a U.S. labor law that requires employers with 100 or more employees to provide 60 days advance written notice of plant closings or mass layoffs. Spirit Airlines reported in a WARN notice that 201 employees at its Newark facility were affected by layoffs. The abrupt shutdown was expected to hit New Jersey airports hard, particularly Atlantic City International Airport -- where Spirit has been one of only a handful of commercial carriers -- and Newark Liberty International Airport, where the airline maintained a major operating base. [GN] STRETTO INC: Faces Class Action Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stretto, Inc. The case is captioned as John Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Stretto, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-03477-JHR-JW (S.D.N.Y., April 7, 2026). The nature of suit states Diversity-(Citizenship) demanding $5,000,000 in damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Jennifer H. Rearden. Stretto is a technology and legal services partner providing consumer bankruptcy, corporate restructuring, claims administration and depository solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven M. Nathan, Esq. Hausfeld LLP, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 14th Fl New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (917) 805-9243 E-mail: snathan@hausfeld.com rwalker@hausfeld.com SUBARU OF AMERICA: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Batteries ------------------------------------------------------------ Justin Hughes, writing for Jalopnik, reports that a class action lawsuit against Subaru was filed for batteries that won't hold a charge. According to CarComplaints.com, the problem isn't the batteries themselves, but a parasitic drain that continues to draw power from the battery even when the car is turned off. Electrical system defects reportedly fail to correctly manage power consumption when a vehicle is shut off. The plaintiffs claim at least one electronic control module fails to put the vehicle into a low power sleep mode which allows the parasitic battery drain. This can manifest out of nowhere and leave the battery too weak to function before it finally dies. This lawsuit covers almost every model Subaru has on sale: -- 2021-2022 Subaru Outback -- 2021-2024 Subaru Forester -- 2021-2023 Subaru Legacy -- 2021-2023 Subaru WRX -- 2021-2022 Subaru Ascent -- 2019-2023 Subaru Crosstrek -- 2019-2024 Subaru Crosstrek Hybrid -- 2022-2025 Subaru Forester Wilderness -- 2019-2023 Subaru Impreza In each of these cases, the problem was initially diagnosed as a dead battery, but problems persist even with a replacement because the power drain issue keeps killing the battery, including replacements. Subaru has issued a service information bulletin with the proper diagnostic procedures to follow rather than assuming the problem lies in the Data Communication Module (DCM). There does not appear to be a standard known cure for these issues at this time. The reason Subaru techs tend to assume a faulty DCM is causing the power drain goes back to an earlier class action lawsuit for the same behavior on older models. This was one of the side effects of shutting down the cellular 3G network, which was how many cars provided features and connectivity at the time. Subaru's Starlink system (which has nothing to do with Elon Musk's satellite network of the same name) was one of them, and the excessive power drain comes from its constant attempts to connect to the 3G network that no longer exists. According to The Autopian, Subaru granted an extended warranty of the DCM, including its removal or replacement in cars diagnosed with this problem. This is why Subaru techs needed the guidance to actually look for the problem instead of assuming it's another DCM issue, because newer DCMs don't have this problem. Having already gone through one significant power drain issue, one might think that Subaru would make an effort to avoid similar issues in future vehicles. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case, and unlike the DCM there is no specific known cause of these latest problems. As the great Shirley Bassey sang, "It's all just a little bit of history repeating." [GN] SUBARU OF AMERICA: Taylor Sues Over Vehicles' Electrical Defect --------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINA TAYLOR, STUART SELIS, BETH CUSIMANO, and KARL GREISSINGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC. and SUBARU CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-04935 (D.N.J., May 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, breach of express warranty, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the New York General Business Law, and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged design, manufacturing, distribution, and selling of Subaru vehicles equipped with a defective electrical system. Specifically, the vehicles contain a defect that prevents one or more electronic control modules from entering or maintaining a proper low-power sleep state, resulting in excessive parasitic battery drain ("Electrical System Sleep-State Defect"), causing the battery to fail prematurely and ultimately leaving consumers with a disabled vehicle. Had the Plaintiffs known the defect, they would not have purchased or leased the vehicles. Subaru of America, Inc. is an automobile manufacturer with its principal place of business in Camden, New Jersey. Subaru Corporation is an automobile manufacturer with its principal place of business in Tokyo, Japan. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 Email: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com - and - Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq. Joseph B. Kenney, Esq. SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC 1109 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (610) 200-0581 Email: mds@sstriallawyers.com jbk@sstriallawyers.com SUPER MICRO: Consolidated Federal Derivative Suit Stayed -------------------------------------------------------- Super Micro Computer, 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 Northern District of California stayed a federal derivative suit. Several related shareholder derivative actions have been filed. On Sept. 11, 2024, certain current and former directors and certain current officers of the Company were named as defendants in a putative derivative lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Hollin v. Liang, et al on December 5, 2024. Four additional putative derivative lawsuits have been filed in the same court, captioned Latypov v. Liang, et al. (filed Sept. 26, 2024), Keritsis v. Liang, et al. (filed Nov. 6, 2024), Roy v. Liang, et al. (filed Nov. 14, 2024), and Jha v. Liang, et al. (filed Dec. 5, 2024) (together with the Hollin Action, the Federal Derivative Litigation). The Federal Derivative Litigation purports to allege derivative claims for breaches of Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and contribution arising out of allegations that the Company’s officers and directors caused the Company to issue materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's business operations and financial results. The Court in the Hollin Action consolidated the five previously stayed Federal Derivative Litigation actions. The plaintiffs in the Derivative Litigation seek unspecified money damages, in addition to punitive damages and other relief. Super Micro Computer, Inc. is a global provider of high-performance, high-efficiency server and storage systems optimized for data center, cloud computing, enterprise IT, big data, and embedded solutions. The company designs, develops, manufactures, and sells a broad range of server building blocks and complete systems to customers worldwide. SUPER MICRO: Continues to Defend Averza Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Super Micro Computer, 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 Averza securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. A putative securities class action complaint was filed against the Company, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and the Company's Chief Financial Officer in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Averza v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., et al., filed on Aug. 30, 2024. The complaint contains allegation, asserting that each of the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and that each of the Company's Chief Executive Officer and the Company's Chief Financial Officer violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act as controlling persons of the Company for the alleged violations under the foregoing Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, in each case due to alleged misrepresentations and/or omissions in public statements regarding the Company's financial results and its internal controls and procedures. The Court appointed Universal-Investment-Gesellschaft mbH as the Lead Plaintiff, and the Lead Plaintiff thereafter filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on Sept. 22, 2025. The appointment of Lead Plaintiff has been appealed to the Supreme Court of California. The Company filed its Motion to Dismiss on Nov. 21, 2025. The matter is too preliminary to form a judgment as to whether the likelihood of an adverse outcome is probable, and the Company is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any. Super Micro Computer, Inc. is a global provider of high-performance, high-efficiency server and storage systems optimized for data center, cloud computing, enterprise IT, big data, and embedded solutions. The company designs, develops, manufactures, and sells a broad range of server building blocks and complete systems to customers worldwide. SUPER MICRO: Continues to Defend Bhuva Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Super Micro Computer, 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 Bhuva securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. A putative securities class action complaint was filed against the Company, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and the Company's Chief Financial Officer in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Bhuva v. Super Micro Computer, Inc. et al., filed on March 25, 2026. The complaint contains allegation, asserting that each of the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and that each of the Company's Chief Executive Officer and the Company's Chief Financial Officer violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act as controlling persons of the Company for the alleged violations under the foregoing Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, in each case due to alleged misrepresentations and/or omissions in public statements regarding the Company's financial results and its internal controls and procedures. The Court appointed Universal-Investment-Gesellschaft mbH as the Lead Plaintiff, and the Lead Plaintiff thereafter filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on Sept. 22, 2025. The appointment of Lead Plaintiff has been appealed to the Supreme Court of California. The Company filed its Motion to Dismiss on Nov. 21, 2025. The matter is too preliminary to form a judgment as to whether the likelihood of an adverse outcome is probable, and the Company is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any. Super Micro Computer, Inc. is a global provider of high-performance, high-efficiency server and storage systems optimized for data center, cloud computing, enterprise IT, big data, and embedded solutions. The company designs, develops, manufactures, and sells a broad range of server building blocks and complete systems to customers worldwide. SUPER MICRO: Continues to Defend HERS Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Super Micro Computer, 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 City of Hialeah Employees Retirement System securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. A putative securities class action complaint was filed against the Company, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and the Company's Chief Financial Officer in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, City of Hialeah Employees Retirement System v. Super Micro Computer, Inc. et al., was filed on April 8, 2026, and included a former director of the Company as an additional defendant. The complaint contains allegation, asserting that each of the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and that each of the Company's Chief Executive Officer and the Company's Chief Financial Officer violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act as controlling persons of the Company for the alleged violations under the foregoing Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, in each case due to alleged misrepresentations and/or omissions in public statements regarding the Company's financial results and its internal controls and procedures. The Court appointed Universal-Investment-Gesellschaft mbH as the Lead Plaintiff, and the Lead Plaintiff thereafter filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on Sept. 22, 2025. The appointment of Lead Plaintiff has been appealed to the Supreme Court of California. The Company filed its Motion to Dismiss on Nov. 21, 2025. The matter is too preliminary to form a judgment as to whether the likelihood of an adverse outcome is probable, and the Company is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any. Super Micro Computer, Inc. is a global provider of high-performance, high-efficiency server and storage systems optimized for data center, cloud computing, enterprise IT, big data, and embedded solutions. The company designs, develops, manufactures, and sells a broad range of server building blocks and complete systems to customers worldwide. SYNGENTA CROP: Munoz Sues Over Herbicide Paraquat's Health Risks ---------------------------------------------------------------- Camilo F. Munoz, Plaintiff v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC and CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Defendants, Case No. N26C-05-029 PQT (Del. Super., May 4, 2026) is a class action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of products containing the herbicide Paraquat, which causes Parkinson's disease in humans. The Plaintiff maintains that Defendants' Paraquat products are defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff was exposed to Paraquat products mixed with adjuvants and/or surfactants designed, manufactured, and/or distributed by Chevron U.S.A. and its predecessors and, as a result of that use and/or exposure, developed Parkinson's disease, Parkinsonism, and/or Parkinson's symptoms or precursor conditions, notes the complaint. Syngenta Crop Protection LLC provides crop protection chemical products and agricultural services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th St. Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 E-mail: Raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Fidelma Fitzpatrick, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 40 Westminster Street, 5th Floor Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 457-7728 Facsimile: (401) 457-7708 E-mail: ffitzpatrick@motleyrice.com TEAM GROUP: Agrees to $1.1-Mil. DRAM Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that individuals who purchased a Team Group DDR-3, DDR-4 or DDR-5 DRAM computer memory product in the United States between May 3, 2020, and April 8, 2026, may qualify to submit a claim for a cash payment from a class action settlement. Team Group Inc. agreed to pay $1.1 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it misled consumers about the advertised speeds of certain DDR-3, DDR-4 and DDR-5 DRAM products. The plaintiffs claimed Team Group's product packaging and advertising led buyers to believe the memory would operate at the advertised speeds "out of the box" without requiring any additional configuration. Who can file a no-proof claim? Class members must meet the following criteria: -- They reside in the United States and purchased one or more Team Group DDR-3, DDR-4 or DDR-5 DRAM computer memory products. -- They made the purchase between May 3, 2020, and April 8, 2026. How much are settlement payments? -- No proof of purchase pro rata cash payment: Class members can submit a claim for up to five products per household with no proof of purchase. The settlement administrator will determine the final payment amount by the total number of claims filed. -- Proof of purchase pro rata cash payment: Class members submitting a claim for more than five products per household must include proof of purchase. The settlement administrator will determine the final payment amount by the total number of claims filed. How to claim a class action rebate To receive a settlement payment, class members can file a claim online or print the PDF claim form to complete and mail to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Griffin et al. v. Team Group Inc., c/o TGG Settlement Administrator, 1650 Arch St., Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA 19103 The claim deadline is July 7, 2026. Required proof Class members claiming more than five products must include proof of purchase. Payout options -- Virtual prepaid card -- PayPal -- Venmo -- Zelle -- Paper check mailed to the address provided Settlement fund breakdown The $1,100,000 settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: $200,000 -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $366,666.67 -- Attorneys' expenses: To be presented to the court for approval at a later date -- Service awards to class representatives: Up to $5,000 each -- Payments to approved claimants: Remaining settlement funds Important dates -- Deadline to opt out: June 22, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: July 7, 2026 -- Fairness hearing: Sept. 3, 2026 When is the Team Group DRAM settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments to approved claimants approximately 75 days after the court grants final approval of the settlement. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit alleged Team Group Inc. misrepresented the speeds of certain DDR-3, DDR-4 and DDR-5 DRAM products, causing consumers to believe the products would perform at advertised speeds without any adjustments. Team Group denies any wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the risk and expense of continued litigation and a possible trial. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Pro rata share Deadline: July 7, 2026 [GN] TEAMVIEWER US: Faces Class Suit Over Perpetual Software Licenses ---------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that TeamViewer has misleadingly sold "perpetual" licenses for its remote computer access software, given that it has withdrawn internet-based connectivity for legacy versions, leaving users with a "materially diminished" product unless they buy it again or upgrade their subscription. The 17-page lawsuit contends that TeamViewer, which offers remote-from-anywhere access to computers outside of a user's network without complex network configuration, sold "perpetual" licenses for TeamViewer Versions 11 and 12 that were later cut off from the software's servers and network, stripping the product of its core remote-access functionality. According to the class action lawsuit, TeamViewer's "perpetual" licenses were sold on the basis that, after one "substantial" upfront payment, customers would have continued access to remote-access functionality through TeamViewer-controlled infrastructure. Per the case, TeamViewer enables device identity, authentication, session negotiation, and NAT/firewall traversal for remote sessions over an internet connection, allowing users to connect to devices outside of their Local Area Network (LAN). Each of these services required an ongoing connection to TeamViewer's servers and infrastructure, the suit stresses. The filing contends that after shifting toward a subscription-based model, TeamViewer unfairly implemented an "end-of-support" action that unilaterally denied TeamViewer Versions 11 and 12 access to its servers and network, rendering the software "unable to perform its essential intended use." As a result, the case says, consumers with "perpetual" licenses have been left with LAN-only connectivity and the "resulting pressure" of being unable to work remotely until they purchase another subscription or upgrade. The lawsuit says that TeamViewer's decision to remove legacy versions of its software from its network ecosystem is more egregious than simply ending updates or customer support, given that consumers are left with LAN-only connectivity despite paying for remote-access functionality, the "defining" feature of the product. "TeamViewer's attempt to characterize the resulting 'LAN-only' connectivity as a continued benefit is misleading and commercially unreasonable," the suit argues. Consumers widely understood "perpetual" to mean more than simply the retention of the right to "run a local executable on a single network," and that continued remote-access use was the "essential" purpose of the license, per the case. As the complaint tells it, TeamViewer has failed to provide consumers with meaningful compensation—such as partial refunds or credits—to reimburse them for the license's premium price. The plaintiff says he purchased TeamViewer based on the representation that the perpetual license was a "paid-up" alternative to a subscription service, and paid a total of $2,799 for the software license. The complaint relays that when the plaintiff made his purchase, he did not expect that TeamViewer would later "extinguish" the software's intended use by removing access to its servers and network. The TeamViewer class action lawsuit seeks to cover all individuals and entities in the United States who purchased a perpetual license to TeamViewer Version 11 or Version 12. [GN] TENDIT GROUP: Meyerhoff Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice ------------------------------------------------------------------ BRANDI MEYERHOFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE TENDIT GROUP, LLC and OSCEOLA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01843 (D. Colo., April 29, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification ("WARN") Act. The case arises from the Defendants' action of terminating the employment of the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees as a result of a mass layoff ordered by the Defendants on or about on April 29, 2026, without providing adequate advance notice as required by the WARN Act. The Tendit Group, LLC is an exterior facility maintenance company with its principal place of business in Colorado. Osceola Capital Management LLC is a private equity investment firm headquartered in Tampa, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack A. Raisner, Esq. Rene S. Roupinian, Esq. RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP 270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1801 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 221-1747 Facsimile: (212) 221-1747 Email: jar@raisnerroupinian.com rsr@raisnerroupinian.com TENDIT GROUP: Sued Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice -------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER VIGIL; and DAVE EARLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE TENDIT GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01825 (D. Colo., April 29, 2026) alleges Defendant's violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant 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. The Tendit Group, LLC provides exterior facility maintenance and infrastructure services. The Company specializes in asphalt paving, landscaping, pressure washing, snow removal, striping and marking, sweeping, scrubbing, and window cleaning services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mary E. Olsen, Esq. M. Vance McCrary, Esq. THE GARDNER FIRM, PC 182 St. Francis Street, Suite 103 Mobile, AL 36602 Telephone: (251) 433-8100 Email: molsen@thegardnerfirm.com vmccrary@thegardnerfirm.com - and - Stuart J. Miller, Esq. LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP 100 Church Street,8th FL New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 581-5005 TEXAS: Faces Suit Challenging Constitutionality of Senate Bill 4 ---------------------------------------------------------------- L.M.L., K.G.S., on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FREEMAN F. MARTIN, in his official capacity as Director of the State of Texas Department of Public Safety, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01170 (W.D. Tex., May 4, 2026) challenges Senate Bill 4 which purports to give Texas state officials the unprecedented power to arrest, detain, and deport noncitizens in the State of Texas. According to the complaint, under this novel system, the State of Texas has created its own immigration crimes; state police arrest noncitizens for alleged violations of these crimes; state prosecutors bring charges in state courts; state judges order deportation to Mexico (no matter the country a person is from); and state officers carry out those orders. The federal government has no role in, and no control over, Texas' scheme. The suit alleges that S.B. 4 violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. S.B. 4 creates a new state system to regulate immigration that completely bypasses and conflicts with the federal system. It allows state officers to unilaterally arrest, detain, and remove individuals from the United States and mandates removal orders for those who are convicted of the new state crimes of illegal entry and reentry. S.B. 4 violates the Supremacy Clause because it attempts to regulate matters that are exclusively reserved to the federal government and because it operates in a field over which Congress has exercised exclusive authority, says the suit. Plaintiff L.M.L. is a 56-year-old lawful permanent resident of the United States and citizen of Honduras. He lives in Austin, Texas with his lawful permanent resident wife, his 21 year-old lawful permanent resident daughter, and his 11-year-old United States citizen son. He entered the United States for the first time in 1997 and was deported. In 2006, he entered the United States without inspection. In about 2023, he became a lawful permanent resident of the United States. L.M.L fears that he will be arrested, detained, and deported under S.B. 4's reentry provision. L.M.L. is the primary breadwinner and caretaker for his wife and children because his wife's diabetes and high blood pressure make it difficult for her to work. Defendant Freeman F. Martin is sued in his official capacity as the Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David A. Donatti, Esq. Adriana C. Pinon, Esq. Carolina Rivera Nelson, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF TEXAS P.O. Box 8306 Houston, TX 77288 Telephone: (713) 942-8146 Facsimile: (713) 942-8966 E-mail: ddonatti@aclutx.org apinon@aclutx.org criveranelson@aclutx.org - and - Daniel Hatoum, Esq. TEXAS CIVIL RIGHTS PROJECT P.O. Box 219 Alamo, TX 78516 Telephone: (956) 787-8171 ext. 208 E-mail: daniel@texascivilrightsproject.org - and - Kate Gibson Kumar, Esq. Daniel Woodward, Esq. TEXAS CIVIL RIGHTS PROJECT P.O. Box 17757 Austin, TX 78760 Telephone: (512) 474-5073 ext. 225 E-mail: kate@texascivilrightsproject.org danny@texascivilrightsproject.org - and - Dustin Rynders, Esq. TEXAS CIVIL RIGHTS PROJECT PO Box 1108 Houston, TX 77251-1108 E-mail: dustin@texascivilrightsproject.org - and - Cody Wofsy, Esq. Spencer Amdur, Esq. Hannah Steinberg, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT 425 California Street, 7th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 343-0770 Facsimile: (332) 220-1702 E-mail: cwofsy@aclu.org samdur@aclu.org hsteinberg@aclu.org - and - Kathryn Huddleston, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT 915 15th Street, NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (212) 549-2500 E-mail: khuddleston@aclu.org - and - Omar Jadwat, Esq. Lee Gelernt, Esq. Grace Choi, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT 125 Broad St., 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 549-2660 E-mail: ojadwat@aclu.org lgelernt@aclu.org gchoi@aclu.org TIFLIS TRANSPORTATION: Kilaulani Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- KEALA KILAULANI, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TIFLIS TRANSPORTATION INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00439-MRB (S.D. Ohio, May 1, 2026) challenges certain labor policies and practices of Defendant that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant regularly failed to pay Named Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Members the statutory minimum wage; engaged in a company-wide practice of failing to timely pay departing employees their full final compensation, instead loading final settlement statements, or final paystubs, with excessive charges to reduce or eliminate final pay; and engaged in unlawful deductions from Named Plaintiff's and the Illinois Class Members' wages. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from approximately late 2025 through February 7, 2026, as a truck driver, allegedly misclassified by Defendant as an independent contractor. Tiflis Transportation Inc. is a for-profit corporation with its headquarters in West Chester, Ohio. The Company is an interstate motor carrier that hauls general freight across the United States using a fleet of approximately 48 trucks operated by 50 drivers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES LEGAL GROUP LLC 7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. Nicholas A. Boggs, Esq. NILGES LEGAL GROUP LLC 700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 320 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com nboggs@ohlaborlaw.com - and - William "Jack" Simpson, Esq. SIMPSON PLLC 100 Parkgate Dr., Ext., Ste. 205 Tupelo, MS 38801 Telephone: (662) 913-7811 E-mail: jack@simpson-pllc.com TILLEY ENDURABLES: Nonato Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE NONATO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TILLEY ENDURABLES CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04808 (N.D. Ill., April 28, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.tilley.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: ambiguous link texts, inaccessible contact information, changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Tilley Endurables Corporation is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N. Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Email: Achan@ealg.law TRADER JOE'S: McIntosh Sues Over Roast Coffee's Low Acid Label -------------------------------------------------------------- KELLY MCINTOSH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRADER JOE'S COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03521 (S.D.N.Y., April 28, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of New York General Business Law, fraud, and breach of express warranty. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Trader Joe's Low Acid Dark French Roast Coffee. According to the complaint, testing has confirmed that the Defendant's coffee contains less than half the caffeine content as regular coffee, with nearly the same acid content as regular coffee. But the Defendant utilizes highly misleading packaging to trick consumers into believing that they are purchasing genuine "low acid" coffee, at low acid prices. Had the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers known the truth, they would not have purchased the product or would have paid less for it. Trader Joe's Company is a grocery store chain with its principal place of business in Los Angeles County, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. Matthew A. Girardi, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 874-0710 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com mgirardi@bursor.com TRISTAR INSURANCE: $1MM Breach Settlement Final Hearing Set June 23 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports TRISTAR Insurance Group agreed to a $1 million class action settlement to resolve claims it failed to prevent a November 2022 data breach. The TRISTAR settlement benefits individuals whose personally identifiable information was compromised in the November 2022 TRISTAR data breach and who received a notice around Feb. 1, 2024. TRISTAR Insurance Group is a third-party administrator that provides claims management services for various types of insurance. In November 2022, TRISTAR experienced a data breach that compromised sensitive information. According to a class action lawsuit, TRISTAR could have prevented the data breach through reasonable cybersecurity measures, which it failed to implement. TRISTAR has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $1 million class action settlement to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the TRISTAR class action settlement, class members can receive a cash payment for out-of-pocket expenses, lost time and extraordinary losses. Class members can claim up to $500 for documented out-of-pocket expenses related to the data breach. This includes up to $100 for lost time at a rate of $25 per hour. Class members can also claim up to $5,000 for extraordinary losses, such as fraud or identity theft. Class members can choose to receive an alternative cash payment of $100 if they are part of the California subclass or $40 if they are part of the non-California subclass. All class members are eligible for three years of free credit monitoring services. These services include three-bureau credit monitoring, managed fraud assistance and $1 million in identity theft insurance reimbursement. The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 15, 2026. The final approval hearing for the TRISTAR settlement is scheduled for June 23, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by July 15, 2026. Who's Eligible The class action settlement benefits individuals residing in the United States whose personally identifiable information was compromised in the November 2022 TRISTAR data breach and to whom TRISTAR sent a notice of data incident on or around Feb. 1, 2024. Potential Award Up to $5,000 for extraordinary losses, $500 for documented out-of-pocket expenses, a $100 alternative cash payment for the California subclass or $40 for non-California residents. Proof of Purchase Receipts, work orders or credit card statements. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 07/15/2026 Case Name Riggs, et al. v. TRISTAR Insurance Group Inc., Case No. CJ-2025-00745, in the Tulsa County District Court for the State of Oklahoma [GN] UNCOMMON JAMES: Echols Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- TAZINIQUE ECHOLS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. UNCOMMON JAMES, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-05372 (N.D. Ill., May 8, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://eagleclaw.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services the website provides to their non-disabled customers through its website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the ADA. Yet, the website contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. The access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website, says the suit. The Defendant provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Three Bird Nest.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law UNITED AIRLINES: De Leon Labor Suit Removed to D. Colo. ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as WARNER DE LEON, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2026CV31132, was removed from the District Court for the State of Colorado, Denver County, to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on May 1, 2026. The Clerk of the District Court for the District of Colorado assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-01894 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Colorado laws on behalf of a proposed class of all of United Airlines' non-flight crew hourly employees who worked in Colorado from March 31, 2023 through final judgment. The Plaintiff alleges that United Airlines failed to pay wages due by: (a) failing to provide rest breaks and compensate for missed rest breaks; (b) failing to compensate for mandatory pre-shift security screening and travel time; and (c) failing to compensate for off-the-clock work completed outside scheduled shifts. United Airlines, Inc. provides domestic and international airline services.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Aaron S. Markel, Esq. JONES DAY 150 West Jefferson Avenue, Suite 2100 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 230-7929 Facsimile: (313) 230-7997 E-mail: amarkel@jonesday.com - and - Elizabeth B. McRee, Esq. JONES DAY 110 North Wacker Drive, Suite 4800 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 782-3939 Facsimile: (312) 782-8585 E-mail: emcree@jonesday.com - and - Koree B. Wooley, Esq. JONES DAY 4655 Executive Drive, Suite 1500 San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (858) 314-1200 Facsimile: (844) 345-3178 E-mail: kbwooley@jonesday.com UNITED SERVICES: Fails to Honor Insurance Policy, Chambliss Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- CELESTE CHAMBLISS, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION ("USAA"), and GARRISON PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00349 (M.D. Ala., May 5, 2026) arises from Defendants' failure to pay the "actual cash value" ("ACV") of total loss vehicles as required by their automobile insurance policies. According to the complaint, Defendants' policy defines ACV as "the amount that it would cost at the time of loss to buy a comparable vehicle." The policy further defines a "comparable vehicle" as "one of the same make, model, model year, body type, and options with substantially similar mileage and condition." This definition requires Defendants to determine the real-world retail price necessary to purchase a comparable vehicle in the marketplace. Defendants do not do that, asserts the complaint. Instead, Defendants utilize a software platform referred to as a CCC One Market Valuation Report ("CCC One Report") that reduces the listed price of comparable vehicles before calculating ACV. These deductions artificially lower the price of comparable vehicles and result in systematic underpayment of vehicle total loss claims well below the promised "amount that it would cost at the time of loss to buy a comparable vehicle", says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and the classes to enforce the policy as written and to stop Defendants from continuing the use of a valuation methodology that violates the Defendants' contractual obligations. Plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of contract against Defendant USAA and Defendant Garrison. Plaintiff also asserts claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendant USAA and Defendant Garrison. Plaintiff Celeste Chambliss is a citizen and resident of Pike Road, Montgomery County, Alabama. Defendant United Services Automobile Association ("USAA") operates as the central controlling entity of the integrated insurance enterprise with Garrison, USAA Casualty Insurance Company ("CIC") and USAA General Indemnity Company ("GIC").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph "Jay" H. Aughtman, Esq. AUGHTMAN LAW FIRM, LLC 1772 Platt Place Montgomery, AL 36117 Telephone: (334) 215-9873 Facsimile: (334) 213-5663 E-mail: jay@aughtmanlaw.com - and - Aaron C. Hemmings, Esq. Kelly A. Stevens, Esq. HEMMINGS & STEVENS, P.L.L.C. 5540 McNeely Drive, Suite 202 Raleigh, NC 27612 Telephone: (919) 277-0161 Facsimile: (919) 277-0162 E-mail: ahemmings@hemmingsandstevens.com kstevens@hemmingsandstevens.com URNER'S INC: Faces Cotton Tort Class Suit in Cal. Super. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Urner's Inc. The case is captioned as Shirley Cotton vs. Urner's Inc., Case No. 26CUB01618 (Cal. Super. Kern Cty., April 7, 2026). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas S. Clark. The nature of suit states Tort: Business. Urner's is an appliance store, mattress store, furniture store and electronics store located in Bakersfield California offering home appliances.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Hattis, Esq. HATTIS LUKACS & CORRINGTON 11711 SE 8th St, Ste 120 Bellevue, WA 98005-3543 Telephone: (425) 233-8628 Facsimile: (425) 412-7171 E-mail: dan@hattislaw.com VACASA INC: Misleads Shareholders to OK Merger, Hartsoe Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRADLEY A. HARTSOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VACASA, INC., ROBERT GREYBER, JEFFREY PARKS, JOERG ADAMS, RYAN BONE, BENJAMIN LEVIN, CHAD COHEN, BARBARA MESSING, KARL PETERSON, and CHRIS TERRILL, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00852-IM (D. Ore., April 28, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendants authorized the filing of materially false and misleading Proxy statements that failed to provide all material information related to a merger consideration, whereby Vacasa, Inc. will be acquired by Casago Global, LLC. Specifically, the Proxy statement that Vacasa filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission to solicit shareholders to vote on the merger contained materially misleading statements concerning Vacasa's financial projections. As a result of the materially misleading Proxy, a majority of Vacasa's stockholders voted in favor of the merger, which closed on April 30, 2025. The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages that he and other similarly situated former stockholders suffered as a result of the Defendant's violations of the Exchange Act. Vacasa, Inc. is an international vacation rental management company based in Portland, Oregon. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy S. DeJong, Esq. Anuj Shah, Esq. STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER PC 209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 227-1600 Email: tdejong@stollberne.com ashah@stollberne.com - and - Miles D. Schreiner, Esq. Jonathan T. Lerner, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 971-1341 Facsimile: (212) 202-7880 Email: mschreiner@monteverdelaw.com jlerner@monteverdelaw.com VALLEY HEALTH: Faces Hauser-Merklin Wage-and-Hour Suit in D.N.J. ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROBYN HAUSER-MERKLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-04879 (D.N.J., April 30, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, New Jersey Wage and Hour Laws, and New Jersey Wage Theft Act including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay all wages earned, and failure to provide pay deductions. Plaintiff Hauser-Merklin was employed by the Defendant as a medical assistant from 2021 through October 2025. Valley Health System, Inc. is a healthcare services provider, with its headquarters in Ridgewood, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Christopher M. Timmel, Esq. KLAFTER LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 Email: seth@klafterlesser.com christopher.timmel@klafterlesser.com - and - Michael A. Galpern, Esq. JAVERBAUM WURGAFT HICKS KAHN WIKSTROM & SININS, PC Laurel Oak Corporate Center 1000 Haddonfield-Berlin Road, Suite 203 Voorhees, NJ 08043 Telephone: (856) 596-4100 Email: mgalpern@lawjw.com mclark@lawjw.com - and - Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC 11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 308 Strongsville, OH 44136 Telephone: (216) 912-2221 Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com VGAS LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ozuna Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- SANTOS OZUNA; and LEONARDO MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VGAS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-03498 (S.D. Tex., April 30, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as welders. VGAS LLC specializes in innovative engineering and manufacturing solutions for a variety of industries, including Oil & Gas, Renewable Energy, and Carbon Capture. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. P.O. Box 10099 Houston, TX 77206 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com VICTOR COMMUNITY: Faces Hemmert Employment Suit in Cal. Super. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against VICTOR COMMUNITY SUPPORT SERVICES, INC. The case is captioned as ERIN HEMMERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. VICTOR COMMUNITY SUPPORT SERVICES, INC., a California corporation, Case No. CU0002762 (Cal. Super., Nevada Cty., April 7, 2026), The suit alleges Defendant's employment-related violations. Victor provides a wide range of behavioral health, educational, and social support services to children, youth, families and adults throughout California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Michael Treglio, Esq. POTTER HANDY, LLP 100 Pine St, Ste 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111-5235 Telephone: (415) 534-1911 Facsimile: (888) 422-5191 E-mail: jimt@potterhandy.com WEBTOON ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Derivative Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------- WEBTOON Entertainment 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 faces securities derivative suit in the federal court for the Central District of Calfiornia. On May 5, 2026, a purported shareholder filed another shareholder derivative lawsuit against the Company's directors, naming the Company as a nominal defendant, in the federal court for the Central District of California. The complaint focuses on similar allegations as the putative securities class action described above, including that the Company's Registration Statement was materially false or misleading. The complaint includes claims for breach of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and contribution under Section 11(f) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 31D of the Exchange Act of 1934. At this early stage of the proceedings, the Company can neither predict the ultimate outcome of this later-filed derivative litigation nor estimate any range of possible losses. WEBTOON Entertainment Inc. operates a global digital comics platform, enabling creators to publish serialized web-based comics and connecting them with readers worldwide. The company generates revenue through advertising, content IP licensing, and related digital content services. WELLS FARGO: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of 401(K) Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Carleen Bongat, writing for HCA Mag, reports that Wells Fargo has fended off a class action over how it spends forfeited 401(k) match dollars, and benefits leaders should take note. In a decision dated May 12, 2026, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by Thomas O. Matula, Jr., a Wells Fargo employee. Matula sued the bank along with the Human Resources Committee of its board and its Employee Benefits Review Committee. He argued the company's choice to use forfeited matching contributions to offset its own employer contributions breached fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the federal law that governs workplace retirement plans. The math behind the dispute is simple. Wells Fargo matches up to six percent of what employees put into their 401(k) accounts. Worker contributions vest right away. The company match vests over three years. Employees who leave before that three-year mark forfeit any unvested match dollars back to the plan. In 2022 alone, those forfeitures added up to roughly $2 million. Under the plan rules, Wells Fargo had sole discretion to do one of three things with the forfeited money: offset its own contributions, pay plan expenses, or make corrective adjustments to accounts. It picked offset, reducing what comes out of the company treasury to meet its match obligations. Matula filed his class action on June 11, 2024. He argued the offset choice hurt participants. The district court tossed the case with prejudice, finding he lacked Article III standing -- the constitutional rule that a plaintiff has to show a concrete personal injury to sue in federal court. The Eighth Circuit agreed there was no standing, but got there a different way. Writing for the panel, Circuit Judge Gruender pointed to a concession Matula's lawyer made at oral argument. According to the decision, counsel acknowledged the complaint identified only plan-level harms, conceded no harm to Matula himself had been pleaded, and admitted the complaint did not identify any specific expenses Matula paid that could have been offset with forfeited funds. That admission sank the case. Without an injury to his own account, Matula could not move forward. The court did hand Matula one win. Dismissals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction generally cannot be issued with prejudice, the panel said, and nothing in this case justified the harsher version. The Eighth Circuit sent the matter back so the district court can enter the dismissal without prejudice. The amici lineup signals how much weight the wider employer community is putting on these cases. The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, The ERISA Industry Committee, and the National Retail Federation all backed Wells Fargo. The presence of three major employer-side groups suggests plan sponsors see real stakes in how courts handle forfeiture-use challenges. For HR and benefits teams, the lesson is narrow but useful. The Eighth Circuit did not bless Wells Fargo's interpretation of its plan rules on the merits. The court said only that this particular plaintiff failed to plead a personal injury. The bigger question -- whether using forfeitures to offset employer contributions can ever be successfully challenged under ERISA -- stays open in this circuit. Because the dismissal is now without prejudice, Matula could try again with a sharper theory of individual harm. Benefits administrators using forfeitures the same way should keep plan documents tight, document how discretion is exercised, and watch for the next plaintiff who arrives with a more carefully pleaded injury. [GN] WEST SHORE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Silvis Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- STEPHANIE SILVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WEST SHORE HOME, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01168-KMN (M.D. Pa., May 2, 2026) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. West Shore Home, LLC is a home renovation & remodeling company in your area, specializing in baths, windows, doors, and flooring. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy C. Jackson, Esq. BOWER LAW ASSOCIATES, PLLC 403 S. Allen St., Suite 210 State College, PA 16801 Telephone: (814) 234-2626 Email: jjackson@bower-law.com - and - Carly M. Roman, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, Illinois 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: croman@straussborrelli.com WESTROCK SERVICES: Jones Removed from State Court to C.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- BRANDON JARQUEZ JONES individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WESTROCK SERVICES, LLC, a limited liability company; SMURFIT WESTROCK, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:26-cv-04971 26STCV06311 (Filed Feb. 25, 2026) was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 7, 2026. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-04971 to the proceeding. In the Complaint, the Plaintiff asserts these causes of action: (1) failure to Pay Wages for All Hours Worked, including Minimum Wages and Overtime Wages, in Violation of Labor Code Sections 204, 1194 and 1197; (2) failure to Authorize or Permit Meal Periods in Violation of Labor Code Sections 512 and 226.7; and (3) failure to Authorize or Permit Rest Periods in Violation of Labor Code Section 226.7. The Defendant offers recycling of paper, cardboard, newsprint and industrial plastics.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Nicky Jatana, Esq. Sehreen Ladak, Esq. Kris Khodaverdian, Esq. Scott P. Jang, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Telephone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 E-mail: Nicky.Jatana@jacksonlewis.com Sehreen.Ladak@jacksonlewis.com Kris.Khodaverdian@jacksonlewis.com Scott.Jang@jacksonlewis.com WORLD THREADS: Faces Dalton Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. World Threads, Inc. d/b/a Eberjey, Case No. 0:26-cv-02547-ECT-JFD (D. Minn., May 8, 2026) alleges that the Defendant's website, www.eberjey.com is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations. As a consequence of her experience visiting the Defendant's website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found the Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like the Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content -- content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users, the suit alleges. In addition to her claim under the ADA, the Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in the Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota pursuant to Minn. Stat. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website’s development and maintenance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com WYZE LABS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dalton Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Wyze Labs, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-02488-PJS-DTS (D. Minn., May 5, 2026) arises because Defendant's website, www.wyze.com is not fully and equally accessible to Plaintiff and other people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant has violated Title III by, without limitation, failing to make its website's services accessible by screen reader programs, thereby denying Plaintiff and other individuals with visual disabilities the benefits of the website, providing them with benefits that are not equal to those it provides others, and denying them effective communication, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act Wyze Labs, Inc., a Washington Company, operates the website that offers cameras and security equipment for sale including, but not limited to, wired cameras, lighting cameras, battery powered cameras, video doorbells, smart home equipment, smart wellness equipment, accessories, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com XTEND HEALTHCARE: Dargon Appeals WARN Suit Dismissal to 6th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- KRISTAL DARGON is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her lawsuit entitled Kristal Dargon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Xtend Healthcare, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00013, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The suit is brought against the Defendants for failure to give the Plaintiff and the other similarly situated employees 60 days' advance notice of termination, as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and the New Jersey Millville Dallas Airmotive Plant Job Loss Notification Act. On Mar. 6, 2025, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which Defendants Xtend Healthcare, LLC and Navient Corporation moved to dismiss on Mar. 18, 2025 and Apr. 25, 2025, respectively. On Mar. 31, 2026, Judge Eli J. Richardson entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The case is dismissed. The appellate case is captioned as Kristal Dargon v. Xtend Healthcare, LLC, et al., Case No. 26-5387, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on April 29, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant KRISTAL DARGON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: Jack A. Raisner, Esq. RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP 270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1801 New York, NY 10016 Defendants-Appellees XTEND HEALTHCARE, LLC, et al. are represented by: Aaron Richard Krauss, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR 1650 Market Street, Suite 2800 Philadelphia, PA 19103 - and - Cameron M. Redfern, Esq. STRADLEY, RONON, STEVENS, AND YOUNG 2005 Market Street, Suite 2600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (216) 564-8019 ********* 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 ***