260522.mbx

260522.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, May 22, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 102 Headlines ACADEMY AT THE LAKES: Case Management & Scheduling Order Entered ACXIOM LLC: Faces Doe Suit Over Privacy Law Violations ADVANCED FAMILY: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach AMCOL SYSTEMS: Parties Seek Nov. 9 Class Certification Filing AMERICAN FACILITY: Alay Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA AMERICAN FAMILY: Faces Castrillo Suit Over Illegal Spam Emails AMERICAN FAMILY: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive Spam Emails AMGEN INC: Faces Clark Suit Over Labor Code Violations APPLE INC: Faces Lacour Suit Over Collection of Voiceprints ARCADIUM LITHIUM: Chalasani Sues Over Misleading Material Info ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Sept. 4 BAKER MOTOR: Moss et al. Sue Over Underpaid Commissions BANK OF AMERICA: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to Oct. 19 BARKBOX INC: Faces Davidson Class Suit in Wash. State Court BAYER CORP: Faces Class Action Over Men's Multivitamin's False Ads BELL NURSERY: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA, Suit Says BERKELEY, CA: Appeals Preliminary Injunction Order in Prado Suit BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Kolnsberg Seeks to Certify Class Action BP PRODUCTS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Nachtrieb Due March 12, 2027 BRAVO SUPER: Faces Mo Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages BRIAN MUELLER: Settlement in Lookingback Gets Final Nod BUDSIES PR: Class Cert. Bid in Cavalier Due Sept. 17 CALENDARS.COM LLC: Randolph Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CAPRICOR THERAPEUTICS: Faces Class, Derivative Suits CARSON'S OF MALTA: Court Adjourns Class Cert Bid Deadlines CELGENE CORP: Louisiana Appeals Denied Motion to Leave for Amend CELGENE CORP: New York Appeals Denied Motion to Leave for Amend CENTRAL NATIONAL: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Campbell Says CLUTCH INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Cesario Says CONOPCO INC: Faces Class Action Over Dove Bodywash False Ads CONSERVICE LLC: Jolicoeur-Louis Wins Class Certification Bid COOKEVILLE REGIONAL: Daugherty Sues Over Data Security Failures CRESSET CAPITAL: ClassAction.org Investigates Potential Data Breach DENTALPLANS.COM: Bradley Appeals Court Judgment to 4th Circuit DIGIMARC CORP: Derivative Suit Stayed Pending Bid to Nix Ullom Suit DOLLAR TREE: Class Cert Oral Argument in JMB Set for June 1 EDGEWOOD CLINICAL: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Livesey Alleges EOS ENERGY: Class, Derivative Suits Filed over SEC Disclosures ESTWING MANUFACTURING: Underpays Company Employees, Donahue Says EUROPEAN WAX: Dunn Securities Suit Resolved After Mediation FCA US: Reply in Support of Summary Judgment Due May 29 FIRST SERVICE: Parties Seek OK of Bid to Amend Final Sched Order FITZGERALD WEALTH: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $250,000 FLAGSTAR BANK: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $31.5MM FLUKE CORP: ClassAction.org Investigates Potential Data Breach FORMULA SYSTEMS: Settlement Talks Advance in Zap Class Action FRISKA LLC: Lopez Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users FUEGO SMOKE: Class Certification Bid Filing Extended to July 13 GALDERMA LABORATORIES: Most False Label Suit Removed to N.D. Ill. GLAMNETIC LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Hills Due August 2, 2027 GOOD DAY: Faces Suit for Recreational Marijuana Market Monopoly GOOGLE LLC: Sued Over Use of Journalists' Voices for AI Products GVS BAKERY: Lastra Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL HARCROS CHEMICALS: Jeffries Bid to Compel Discovery Tossed HEALTH CARE: Class Cert Hearing in Rutherford Reset to May 22 HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: Dalton Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website HORIZON HOBBY: Barlow Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website HOSPITAL SISTERS: Brahm Reconsideration of Remand Order HULKEN INC: Faces Henderson Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website HUMACYTE INC: Faces, Class and Derivative Suits ILLUMIFIN CORP: Cardwell Sues Over Unprotected Private Information INNOVATIVE SCIENTIFIC: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, McKay Says INOVIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Class and Derivative Suits Filed INSTRUCTURE HOLDINGS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Brownlee Says J. CREW: Class Certification Bid Filing in Leyden Due Dec. 18 JC RESORTS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Courter Suit Says JOHN DOE: Pretrial Management Order Entered in Strike 3 Suit KARS4KIDS INC: Court Rules Ad Jingle Violates False Advertising Law KENTUCKY: Class Certification Bid in Kennedy Due Dec. 1, 2027 KENVUE BRANDS: Noohi Seeks Approval of Notice of Certification L'OREAL USA: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Hicks Extended to Oct. 26 LESLIES INC: Faces Class and Derivative Suits LIBERTY MUTUAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Francis Alleges LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Cert Filing in Matthews Due July 24 LUCKY STRIKE: Doehr Sues Over Anticompetitive Scheme MAK PHARMA: Prelim. Approval of Settlement Sought MARSHA MCLANE: Court Dismisses Richards Suit MARYGOLD COMPANIES: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit MAX NASTASEE: Court Conditionally Appoints Pro Bono Counsel MEDTRONIC INC: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Jackson Says MESA, AZ: Court Tosses Culbertson Suit w/o Prejudice METROPOLITAN LIFE: Gaudet Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit MIAMI GALAXY: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Brito Alleges MINISO GROUP: Nova Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Settles Suit Over Defective Outlander Vehicles MONEYLION TECHNOLOGIES: Appeals Court Order in Burkhardt Suit MVI FIELD: Fails to Pay Field Inspectors Proper OT, Salisbury Says NATIONAL PRESTO: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due August 7 NAVY FEDERAL: Preston Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit NCAA: Class Settlement in Ray Suit Gets Final Nod NEBIUS BV: Birmingham Residents Sue Over Proposed AI Facility NESTLE WATERS: Seeks Denial of Renewed Class Cert Bid NETWORKING TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Geiger Says NEW YORK, NY: Class Certification Schedule in Bennett Tossed NRC HEALTH: Berger Sues Over Unlawful Removal Provision OCTONUTS LLC: Crumwell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website OLIN CORP: Files Cross Appeals in Landel Suit to 8th Circuit OPENAI GLOBAL: Discloses Users' Information, Couture Suit Alleges PACIFICORP: Wildfire Survivors Ask Court to Reverse Panel's Opinion PATRICK INDUSTRIES: Wilds et al. Sue Over Insurance Surcharges PEACE OUT: Meade E-mail Fraud Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. PORSCHE AG: Sued Over Alleged Dealer-Only Repair Restrictions PORSCHE CARS: Monopolizes Market for Repair Services, Fleet Says RACK ROOM: Class Certification Bid Filing in Smith Due May 29 RACK ROOM: More Time to File Class Certification Bid Sought REYES FLEET: Fails to Pay All Hours Worked, Gamez Suit Alleges RWJBARNABAS HEALTH: Desormes et al. Sue Over ERISA Breaches SALEM HEALTH: Class Cert. Bid Filing in M.R. Suit Due Dec. 15 SAPIENCE GROUP: Faces Castrillo Suit Over Illegal Spam Emails SEAFOLLY US: Bahena Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users SEEL INC: Class Certification Bid Filing Due July 13, 2027 SHERYL MAXFIELD: Bleick Class Cert Filing Modified to June 1, 2027 SILVER STATE SCHOOLS: Quinata Seeks to Certify Class Action SLEEP E-Z: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Anderson Says SOUTH CENTRAL SUGAR: Avila-Soto Allowed Leave to Amend Complaint SOUTHERN AUTO: Brown Appeals FDCPA Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit SPERO THERAPEUTIC: Faces Class, Derivative Suits over UTI Meds STATE FARM: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss California FAIR Plan Suits SUPER MICRO: Consolidated Derivative Suit Stayed SUPER MICRO: Continues to Defend Covey Financial Securities Suit SUPER MICRO: Continues to Defend NCRS Securities Suit SWEET BASIL: Liu Seeks More to Time to File Reply Memo SWITCHGEAR POWER: Bid for More Time to File Class Cert. Sought TAPESTRY INC: Wins Summary Judgment v. Merrell TEA HORSE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Lopez Suit Says TIGER BROKERS: ClassAction.org Investigates Possible Data Breach TOWN OF GILBERT: Court Tosses Armitage Complaint w/o Prejudice TOYOTA MOTOR: Cornejo Seeks Refund of Unlawful IEEPA Tariffs TPH PARALEGAL: Class Cert Bid Filing Due March 1, 2027 TRIBUNE PUBLISHING: Hanson Sues Over Use of Third-Party Trackers UFP TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Glade Says UNITED STATES: Dermaceutical Laboratories Sues Over Unlawful Duties UNITED STATES: Sued Over IRS's Guidance on Withholding Tax UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT: Reply in Support of Class Cert Due July 17 VERU INC: Faces Consolidated Derivative Suit, Class Action VIRGINIA WHITE: Must File Second Amended Verified Counterclaim WALMART INC: Class Cert Filing in McEnheimer Extended to Dec. 4 WARNER BROS: Faces Frost Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website WAYNE BANK: Continues to Defend Data Breach Suit WEBSTER FINANCIAL: M&A Probes Proposed Sale to Banco Santander WERNER ENTERPRISES: Class Cert Bid Filing in Hike Due June 14 WHOLE FOODS: Silberstein Seeks Extension of Class Cert Deadline WONDERFUL COMPANY: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Hernandez Due July 15 WONDERLABS INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Thorne Suit Says Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Co. Has 850 Pending PI Suits at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Defends Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coty Inc. Defends Product liability Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Defends Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: DNOW Inc. Defends 446 PI Lawsuits at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Domtar Corp. Defends Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Has $386MM Reserves March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: ESAB Corp. Reports 15,712 Unresolved Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Group Has $165MM Reserves at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: FG Nexus Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire & Rubber Reports 30,550 PI Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Still Faces Exposure Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Int'l. Paper Has $110MM Liability as of March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Receives 2,782 Claims in 2025 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Co-Defends 118 Exposure Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Perrigo Co. Faces Product Liability Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Inc. Defends Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Defends PI Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Defends Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Defends 497 Lawsuits as of March 31 ********* ACADEMY AT THE LAKES: Case Management & Scheduling Order Entered ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMANTHA MICHAEL and CORY MICHAEL, individually and on behalf of their minor children B.M. and C.M., v. ACADEMY AT THE LAKES, Case No. 8:25-cv-03291-LSG (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Griffin entered a case management and scheduling order as follows: Deadline for providing mandatory initial June 8, 2026 disclosures: Deadline for moving to join a party or June 8, 2026 amend the pleadings: Deadline for completing discovery and Feb. 5, 2027 filing any motion to compel discovery: Deadline for moving for class N/A certification, if applicable: Deadline for filing any dispositive and Mar. 31, 2027 Daubert motion: Deadline for participating in mediation: Sept. 30, 2026 Date of the final pretrial meeting: May 20, 2027 The Defendant is a private-independent college preparatory co-educational PreK3–12 school in Land o' Lakes, Florida. A copy of the Court's order dated May 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UAvIxv at no extra charge.[CC] ACXIOM LLC: Faces Doe Suit Over Privacy Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------ JANE DOE AND JANET DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ACXIOM LLC, THE INTERPUBLIC GROUP OF COMPANIES, INC., OMNICOM PRECISION MARKETING GROUP LLC, OMNICOM GROUP INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-03984 (N.D. Cal., May 1, 2026) accuses the Defendant of negligence, intrusion upon seclusion, and of violating the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the California Constitution, the California Business and Professions Code, and the Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act. The class action lawsuit concerns the business practices of Defendants that amount to deliberate surveillance of millions of Americans via their activity on the Internet and mobile applications. Using online tracking technologies, Defendants collect various pieces of user-identifying information to match users to non-anonymous profiles they maintain. Those profiles, which are specific to individual users, contain highly detailed information about the users, including personal identifiers, demographic attributes, financial attributes, behavioral and psychographic data, device and digital activity data, location and movement data, marketing attributes, and more. As a result of this process, Class Members, including Plaintiffs, suffered harms associated with the collection and dissemination of their information by Defendants and other data brokers and the wide dissemination of their personal information through the real-time bidding process. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring this action to enforce their constitutional rights to privacy and to seek damages under Federal and California law for the harm caused by the interception, collection, and sale of their confidential data and personal information. Headquartered in Conway, AR, Acxiom LLC operates as a database marketing company. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Foster C. Johnson, Esq. Joseph Ahmad, Esq. AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS & MENSING, PLLC 1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2500 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 655-1101 E-mail: fjohnson@azalaw.com joeahmad@azalaw.com ADVANCED FAMILY: 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 Advanced Family Surgery Center 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 Advanced Family Surgery Center data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Advanced Family Surgery Center Security Incident: What Happened? Advanced Family Surgery Center (AFSC) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, which is part of a major regional healthcare network called Covenant Health, has reported a data breach that might have exposed sensitive information. A notice posted on the company's website states that the surgery center detected a network intrusion affecting its systems on November 26, 2025. In response, AFSC worked with forensic experts to investigate and confirm that protected health information may have been accessed. The information potentially compromised in the Advanced Family Surgery Center data breach includes first and last names, addresses, dates of birth, dates of service, health insurance information, medical diagnosis information, medical record numbers, Medicare/Medicaid numbers, patient account numbers, prescription and treatment information, provider names, and Social Security numbers. Individuals impacted by the incident are being notified by mail. What You Can Do After the Advanced Family Surgery Center Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Advanced Family Surgery Center 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 Advanced Family Surgery Center 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] AMCOL SYSTEMS: Parties Seek Nov. 9 Class Certification Filing ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON KARPIEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMCOL SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-22358-KMW (s.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order setting a deadline for the filing of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, and a briefing schedule for a response and reply to the Motion. To avoid any confusion as to the deadline for the Plaintiff to file his class certification motion, the parties propose the following briefing schedule: Event Deadline The Plaintiff shall file his Motion for class certification on or before: Nov. 9, 2026 The Defendant shall file its response to 30 days after the the Plaintiff's motion for class filing of the Motion certification by: The Plaintiff shall file her reply in 14 days after the support of the Plaintiff's motion for filing of the class certification by: Response Setting the above proposed deadline and briefing schedule will not conflict with any deadlines set by the Court, is in the best interest of the parties and the Court, and will promote the efficient litigation and resolution of this matter. The Defendant offers self pay collection, bad debt recovery, and insurance claims resolution services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DWmlaK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 246 Shore Court Lauderdale-by-the-Sea, FL 33308 Telephone: (305) 336-7466 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com AMERICAN FACILITY: Alay Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- VICTORIA ALAY, individually and for others similarly situated v. AMERICAN FACILITY SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-02685-MHC (N.D. Ga., May 12, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from AFS under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Plaintiff Alay and the Straight Time Workers regularly worked for Defendant in excess of 40 hours each week. But Defendant did not pay them overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, Defendant improperly paid Alay and the Straight Time Workers straight time for overtime for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The lawsuit includes a collective action pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. sections 201, et. seq., to recover overtime wages. Plaintiff Alay and the Straight Time Workers worked for the Defendant as cleaning operators. AFS is Georgia limited liability company engaged in commercial facility cleaning and maintenance service throughout Georgia and the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julie H. Burke, Esq. HILL, KERTSCHER & WHARTON, LLP 3625 Cumberland Blvd., SE, Ste. 1050 Atlanta, GA 30339-6406 Telephone: (770) 953-0995 E-mail: jb@hkw-law.com - and - Carl A. Fitz, Esq. FITZ LAW PLLC 3730 Kirby Drive, Ste. 1200 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (713) 766-4000 E-mail: carl@fitz.legal AMERICAN FAMILY: Faces Castrillo Suit Over Illegal Spam Emails -------------------------------------------------------------- ASMINE CASTRILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, S.I., a Wisconsin entity, d/b/a AMFAM. CO., Case No. 3:26-cv-02995-CAB-JAC (S.D. Cal., May 13, 2026) alleges that the Defendant uses a marketing company called The Wisdom Companies LLC to blanket Californians with illegal spam. Accordingly, once a recipient visit's Defendant's website at AMFAM.COM, the Defendant secretly installs a web of illegal tracking pixels on every visitor's device. Those tracking technologies enable Defendant and its partners to follow visitors' behavior across the internet, converting a single deceptive email into ongoing digital surveillance, the suit says. The Plaintiff contends that the intentional deception followed by invisible surveillance is what makes the practice not just unlawful, but truly insidious. Both the spam and the surveillance are illegal under California law. The Plaintiff has received countless misleading spam e-mail advertising AMFAM. AMFAM is an insurance company headquartered and incorporated in Wisconsin. It's website notes that it conducts business in all fifty states, including California. See https://www.amfam.com/companyid (last accessed May 2026).[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 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com AMERICAN FAMILY: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive Spam Emails ------------------------------------------------------------ Tez Romero, writing for Insurance Business Mag, reports that an insurer is being sued over emails that allegedly posed as the Department of Veterans Affairs to push insurance ads. Jasmine Castrillo filed the proposed class action on May 13 in the US District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint accuses American Family Mutual Insurance Company of using a marketing affiliate, The Wisdom Companies LLC, to send Californians deceptive spam. The emails appeared to come from "Department of VA Records," according to the filing, with the subject line "Unclaimed Adjustment: Check your entitlement status." The complaint says recipients were told their "service records" had been "audited" and that they "must" access a secure portal or their "benefits" would be suspended. Castrillo says clicking the link sent her to veterandiscounts.live, which she alleges was built to look like an official US government page. From there, the complaint says, another link routed her to midasrates.com, which advertised American Family policies. She then landed on AMFAM.COM. The filing alleges the emails carried a forged header, a spoofed domain, and failed authentication checks -- DKIM failure and DMARC rejection. It also alleges the messages held invisible 1x1 tracking pixels that monitored recipients without consent. The first count is built on California's anti-spam statute, Business and Professions Code Secs. 17529.5, which sets liquidated damages at $1,000 per email. The complaint relies on Hypertouch v. ValueClick for the principle that the law "impos[es] strict liability on advertisers who benefit from (and are the ultimate cause of) deceptive e-mails." The theory: a carrier whose products were advertised can be on the hook even if it did not send the messages itself. The second count is privacy. Once Castrillo reached AMFAM.COM, the complaint says, the site installed tracking pixels that captured "routing, addressing and/or other signaling information of website visitors" and fed data to brokers including Google Analytics. Castrillo calls that a "trap and trace" device under California Penal Code Secs. 638.51, which bars installing one without a court order. She also alleges intrusion upon seclusion. The complaint says the class is believed to include over 10,000 members - and elsewhere puts the figure at least 100,000 -- with an amount in controversy believed to exceed $100 million. It alleges American Family or its affiliates send over 100,000 spam emails to Californians a year. Castrillo is seeking statutory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. The allegations have not been tested in court. American Family has not yet filed a response, and no court has ruled. [GN] AMGEN INC: Faces Clark Suit Over Labor Code Violations ------------------------------------------------------ DENYSE CLARK, individually and on behalf of all other aggrieved employees; Plaintiff v. AMGEN INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV14005 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 1, 2026) accuses the Defendants of violating the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff was employed by Amgen Inc., on or about August 5, 2024, and worked for employers until on or about May 31, 2025. During the relevant time period, Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of eight, and in excess of 12 hours in a workday and/or 40 hours in a workweek. As routinely required by the Defendants, Plaintiff performed work tasks before and/or after their scheduled shifts, and/or during off-the-clock meal breaks, and/or during rest breaks. However, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees all the wages to which they were entitled, says the suit. Headquartered in California, Amgen Inc. operates as a global biotechnology company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq. Cathy Gonzalez, Esq. Joseph C. Rocha, Esq. HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC 801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1015 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 696-2306 Facsimile: (818) 696-2307 E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com cathy@hbklawyers.com joseph@hbklawyers.com APPLE INC: Faces Lacour Suit Over Collection of Voiceprints ----------------------------------------------------------- YOHANCE LACOUR, CAROL MARIN, PHILIP ROGERS, ROBIN AMER, LINDSEY DORCUS, and VICTORIA NASSIF, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. APPLE INC., a California corporation, Case No. 1:26-cv-05536 (N.D. Ill., May 13, 2026) alleges that Apple unlawfully collected, retained, commercialized, and disseminated their voiceprints, failed to protect them from disclosure, and did so without notice, informed written consent, a written release, or any publicly available retention and destruction policy applicable to non-users pursuant to the Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered concrete, particularized injuries. Apple invaded their legally protected privacy interest in their own biometric identifiers by extracting voiceprints and biometric information without notice or consent. Apple deprived them of the right, guaranteed by BIPA, to make an informed decision about whether a private entity may collect, store, and use their biometric data. Apple retains their biometric data in its commercial models and continues to profit from it, the suit says. The Plaintiffs also assert that Apple's commercial use of their voices and identities to build and sell AI products that mimic them violates the Illinois Right of Publicity Act. The Plaintiffs further assert claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the common law of unjust enrichment. Plaintiff Lacour is a journalist and audio storyteller whose investigative podcast You Didn't See Nothin' was awarded the 2024 Pulitzer Prize for Audio Reporting. Plaintiff Rogers is a four-decade Chicago broadcast journalist whose career at WBBM Newsradio (CBS) and WMAQ-TV (NBC 5) earned him a National Emmy Award. Apple is a leading global technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California. Known for its iconic hardware—including the iPhone, Mac, and iPad—along with software (iOS, macOS) and digital services, it is one of the most valuable and recognizable brands in the world.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ross Kimbarovsky, Esq. Jon Loevy, Esq. Michael Kanovitz, Esq. Matthew Topic, Esq. Aaron Tucek, Esq. LOEVY & LOEVY LOEVY & LOEVY 311 North Aberdeen, 3rd Floor Chicago, IL 60607 Telephone: (312) 243-5900 Facsimile: (312) 243-5902 E-mail: ross@loevy.com jon@loevy.com mike@loevy.com matt@loevy.com aaron@loevy.com ARCADIUM LITHIUM: Chalasani Sues Over Misleading Material Info -------------------------------------------------------------- SATISH CHALASANI and KELLY JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ARCADIUM LITHIUM PLC, PAUL GRAVES, JUAN CARLOS CRUZ CHELLEW, and GILBERTO ANTONIAZZI, Case No. 240900690 (Pa Com. Pl., Pennsylvania County, May 13, 2026) is a securities class action on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Arcadium ordinary shares under an S-4 registration statement, 424B3 prospectus, and materials incorporated (Offering Materials). According to the complaint, the shares were issued in January 2024 to former Livent stockholders in connection with the transactions by which Allkem and Livent merged and became subsidiaries of Arcadium (the Merger). The Plaintiffs assert non-fraud, strict liability claims under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against Arcadium and certain current and former officers and directors of Arcadium and Livent. Allkem and Livent are lithium chemical producers. The combined Company has assets and operations in South America, Australia, and Canada, and claims that its lithium deposit base is amongst the largest in the world. In connection with the Merger, each share of Allkem and Livent are incorporated under the laws of Australia and the State of Delaware, respectively. Livent common stock was converted into the right to receive 2.406 Arcadium ordinary shares issued under the Registration Statement. On January 4, 2024, such Arcadium shares were issued to former Livent stockholders, and the shares were listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol ALTM. The Offering Materials issued to solicit the Merger to Livent stockholders were materially false and misleading and omitted material facts required to be disclosed under governing SEC regulations. Among other things, the Offering Materials stated that there are "no known environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socioeconomic, marketing, political or other relevant factors" that might affect lithium production at Sal de Vida, Allkem's mining facility under construction in Catamarca Province, Argentina. Plaintiff Chalasani directly acquired newly-issued Arcadium ordinary shares in the Merger in exchange for Livent securities pursuant to the Registration Statement and was damaged thereby. Plaintiff Kelly Johnson directly acquired newly-issued Arcadium ordinary shares in the Merger in exchange for Livent securities pursuant to the Registration Statement and was damaged thereby. Arcadium is a corporation formed under the laws of the Bailiwick of Jersey. A lithium chemicals producer, Arcadium is the successor to Livent and serves as the holding company to Livent and Allkem. Arcadium and the other Defendants orchestrated, negotiated, and/or controlled the Merger.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq. Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Esq. FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C. One S. Broad Street, 23rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 567-6565 E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com jgittleman@finekaplan.com ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Sept. 4 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUMLEE ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, et al., v. ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-01189-RSH-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Butcher entered a scheduling order regulating discovery and class certification motion filing deadline. -- Counsel1 shall refer to the Civil Pretrial and Trial Procedures for the Honorable Robert S. Huie, which are accessible via the Court's website at www.casd.uscourts.gov. -- Any motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional pleadings shall be filed by June 26, 2026. -- A telephonic Status Conference to discuss the status of the case and discovery will be held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher on July 10, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. -- Merit and class discovery are not bifurcated; however, all discovery for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification must be completed on or before Aug. 7, 2026. -- A motion for class certification and any motion for conditional certification must be filed no later than Sept. 4, 2026. The Defendant provides policy guidance to Arizona State University, Northern Arizona University, and the University of Arizona. A copy of the Court's order dated May 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vGdnLM at no extra charge.[CC] BAKER MOTOR: Moss et al. Sue Over Underpaid Commissions ------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES MOSS; MICHAEL BROWN; and RANDALL THOMPSON; Plaintiffs v. BAKER MOTOR COMPANY OF CHARLESTON, INC.; TOMMY B. BAKER; MERCEDES BENZ OF CHARLESTON, LLC; BAKER INFINITI OF CHARLESTON, LLC; MASERATI OF CHARLESTON, LLC; BAKER MOTOR COMPANY OF SUMMERVILLE, LLC; MERCEDES BENZ VAN CENTER, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2026-CP-1002313 (S.C. Ct. Com. Pl., 9th Judicial, Charleston Cty., May 1, 2026) is a class action brought under the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act. The Defendants allegedly underpaid commissions to Plaintiffs and its other sales employees for a period of over two years. Unbeknownst to its sales employees, the Defendants changed the amount of the lot fee deduction from what was stated in the written terms of employment, resulting in lower commissions on every sale, says the suit. Based in Charleston County, South Carolina, Baker Motor Company of Charleston is a car dealership company and parent company of subsidiary dealerships. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David A. Nauheim, Esq. NAUHEIM LAW OFFICE, LLC 101 Sycamore Ave. Charleston, SC 29407 Telephone: (843) 534-5084 Facsimile: (843) 350-3572 E-mail: david@nauheimlaw.com - and - Jacob Modla, Esq. CROMER BABB & PORTER 1418 Laurel St., Ste. A, Columbia, SC 29201 Telephone: (803) 799-9530 E-mail: jake@cromerbabb.com BANK OF AMERICA: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to Oct. 19 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Georgion, et al., v. Bank of America Corporation, Case No. 3:22-cv-00618 (W.D.N.C., Filed Nov. 11, 2022), the Hon. Judge Timothy M. Reif entered an order extending the deadline to file motions seeking class certification to and including October 19, 2026, with responses due on or before November 16, 2026 and any replies due on or before December 7, 2026. The nature of suit states Banks and Banking -- Electronic Fund Transfers. The Defendant is an American multinational investment bank and financial services holding company.[CC] BARKBOX INC: Faces Davidson Class Suit in Wash. State Court ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against BARKBOX, INC. The lawsuit is captioned as BRYLEE DAVIDSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. BARKBOX, INC., Case No. 26-2-15886-0 SEA (Wash. Super., Kings Cty., May 13, 2026). The Plaintiff seeks jury demand. BarkBox is a monthly subscription business providing dog products, services, and experiences.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cody Hoesly, Esq. BARG SINGER HOESLY PC 121 SW Morrison St., Ste. 600 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 241-3311 E-mail: choesly@bargsinger.com - and - Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: jonas@dovel.com BAYER CORP: Faces Class Action Over Men's Multivitamin's False Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------ Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Bayer's One A Day Men's Pre-Conception Health Multivitamin is falsely and misleadingly advertised as able to support healthy sperm. The 14-page lawsuit against manufacturer Bayer Corporation states that the Better Business Bureau's National Advertising Division (NAD) recently found that the One A Day Men's supplement does not support the idea that the product will improve the chances of conception or that it can improve sperm health and viability. The filing, citing NAD, states that one of Bayer's competitors challenged the sperm-health claims for the One A Day pre-conception supplement, particularly the representation that the product "supports healthy sperm and contains 'powerful' antioxidants, including lycopene." After evaluating the evidence, the false advertising suit says, NAD found that ingredient testing "did not support the challenged claims," and the group recommended that Bayer "discontinue or modify" the representations to "avoid conveying the unsupported message" that the pre-conception supplement will boost the chances of conception or improve sperm health or viability. The defendant, per NAD, stated that "it will comply with NAD's recommendations." The lawsuit contends that consumers paid a premium for the One A Day Men's Pre-Conception Health Multivitamin supplement based on the "supports healthy sperm" claim and the messaging it conveys. Had the plaintiff and class members known that the supplements did not improve men's chances of conception, sperm health, and viability, they would have paid less for the supplements or skipped purchasing them altogether, the case says. According to the complaint, the marketing for the One A Day supplement says men "should prep for pre-conception too," encouraging men to "do their part by supporting the health of their sperm." Bayer additionally represents that the product should be taken for "at least" three months before trying to conceive, the case states. Per the filing, falling fertility rates in the United States have led to an increased demand -- and willingness to pay a premium for -- fertility supplements, which the suit says Bayer seeks to capitalize on with the claim that the product improves sperm health. The lawsuit notes that the Pre-Conception Health Multivitamins cost far more than Bayer's standard One A Day Men's Multivitamins, which reportedly retail for $0.50 per pill compared to $0.09 per pill. The complaint contends that consumers have been injured economically given the premium price they paid based on Bayer's "false and misleading representations." The Bayer class action lawsuit looks to cover all individuals in New York who purchased One A Day Men's Pre-Conception Health Multivitamin during the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] BELL NURSERY: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANDREW BUNCHUK, individually, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BELL NURSERY USA LLC; CENTRAL GARDEN & PET COMPANY; ABC COMPANIES 1-5; and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 1:26-cv-05439 (D.N.J., May 13, 2026) is a class suit against the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New Jersey Wage and Hour Law for failure to pay wages for all hours worked. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay required minimum wages and overtime wages for all hours worked and under NJWPL. Mr. Bunchuk was an employee and/or joint and/or dual and/or special employee of Defendants within the meaning of the FLSA. Bell conducts business in the State of New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Miriam S. Edelstein, Esq. COSTELLO & SILVERMAN, LLC 18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Telephone: (856) 727-9700 E-mail: medelstein@costellosilverman.com BERKELEY, CA: Appeals Preliminary Injunction Order in Prado Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF BERKELEY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction in the lawsuit entitled Yesica Prado, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. City of Berkeley, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-04537-EMC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The case arises out of the City of Berkeley's planned abatement of the encampment located along 8th Street and Harrison Street. On Mar. 5, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for temporary restraining order (TRO), which Judge Edward M. Chen granted in part and denied in part on Apr. 3, 2026. The Court granted protection with respect to vehicle seizures and denied the Plaintiffs' remaining requests. The Court ruled that the City could not seize, impound, or destroy any vehicles in the planned abatement zone absent a specific, fact-based determination that the particular vehicle obstructs traffic or poses a concrete public safety threat. The appellate case is captioned as Prado, et al. v. City of Berkeley, et al., Case No. 26-2823, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 5, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on May 11, 2026; -- Appellant's Preliminary Injunction Opening Brief is due on June 2, 2026; and -- Appellee's Preliminary Injunction Answering Brief is due on June 30, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees YESICA PRADO, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Brigitte Nicoletti, Esq. East Bay Community Law Center 2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 - and - Thomas Philip Zito, Esq. Michael Steven Nunez, Esq. Sean Paul Betouliere, Esq. Jameelah Najieb, Esq. Emily Roznowski, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 Center Street, 3rd Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 Defendants-Appellants CITY OF BERKELEY, et al. are represented by: Farimah Faiz Brown, Esq. Laura Iris Mattes, Esq. Stephen Andrew Hylas, Esq. OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 2180 Milvia Street, 4th Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Kolnsberg Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANNON Z. KOLNSBERG, et al., v. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM USA CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-01515-JCH (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) certifying a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(1); (2) appointing the Plaintiffs as representatives of the certified Class; and (3) appointing Walcheske & Luzi, LLC and Cowdery, Murphy & Healy, LLC, as counsel for the certified Class. This motion is made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1) and is based on the accompanying memorandum of law and authorities cited therein, the declaration of Paul M. Secunda with exhibits attached thereto, the declarations of Named Plaintiffs Shannon Z. Kolnsberg, Richard J. Von Culin, and Glinda Denise Colter, and all files, records, and proceedings in this matter. Boehringer is a pharmaceutical company specializing in human pharma and animal health. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=H5d3Fi at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul M. Secunda, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 1200 N. Mayfair Rd., Suite 270 Wauwatosa, WI 53226 Telephone: (414) 828-2372 E-mail: psecunda@walcheskeluzi.com - and - James J. Healy, Esq. COWDERY, MURPHY & HEALY, LLC 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 278-5555 E-mail: jhealy@cmandh.com BP PRODUCTS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Nachtrieb Due March 12, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as HOWARD NACHTRIEB, et al, v. BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA INC, Case No. 2:25-cv-02116-TL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Lin entered an order setting class certification briefing schedule and other pretrial deadlines as follows: Event Date Deadline for joining additional parties: June 11, 2026 Deadline for completing all discovery on Oct. 16, 2026 class certification issues: Deadline for class expert depositions: Feb. 19, 2027 The Plaintiff's deadline to move for Mar. 12, 2027 class certification: The Defendant's deadline to file Apr. 24, 2027 opposition to class certification: The Plaintiff's deadline to file reply May 14, 2027 to the Defendant's opposition to class certification: The Defendant explores, develops, refines, and markets oil and natural gas. A copy of the Court's order dated May 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LZjGL6 at no extra charge.[CC] BRAVO SUPER: Faces Mo Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------- HERLINDA XI MO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRAVO SUPER PHARMACY, INC. D/B/A BRAVO SUPERMARKET, and JOSE POLIBIO TORRES, and HENRY TORRES, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02705 (E.D.N.Y., May 6, 2026) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from in or around January 2012 until in or around January 2026. During the months of November and December of each calendar year during the relevant statutory period, the Plaintiff regularly worked approximately 60 hours per week. However, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL. In addition, the Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff with an accurate wage statement that included all hours worked and all wages received each week when Plaintiff was paid in violation of the NYLL, says the suit. Headquartered in New York, Bravo Super Pharmacy, Inc. operates as a supermarket chain and does business as Bravo Supermarket. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 BRIAN MUELLER: Settlement in Lookingback Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICKY DEAN LOOKINGBACK, v. BRIAN MUELLER, PENNINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF, IN OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; LUCAS OYLER, PENNINGTON COUNTY 24-7 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR, IN OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; PENNINGTON COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA, JOHN DOES 1 TO 10, Case No. 5:23-cv-05065-CCT (D.S.D.), the Hon. Judge Theeler entered an order granting final approval of class action settlement. -- Pursuant to Rule 23(a), the Court certifies the follow class: "Lookingback and other indigent people who—without counsel and without a hearing to determine their ability to pay—have been or will in the future be incarcerated in Pennington County, or threatened with incarceration or sanctions, based in whole or in part on inability to pay the fees required to participate in the 24-7 Program. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)." -- Pursuant to Rule 23(g), Attorney James Leach, previously appointed by the Court, is class counsel for the Settlement Class because he is experienced and will adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class. -- Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement: The Court approves a $10,000 payment to Lookingback as damages and an incentive award for services to the Class. The Court also approves payment by the Defendants of $37,000 to the James D. Leach Law Office Trust Account, representing $1,000 in damages on behalf of each of the 37 class members. The Court finds that the prerequisites to a class action under Rule 23(b) have been met because individual adjudications would be impossible or unworkable and the relief sought perforce affect the entire class at once. A copy of the Court's order dated May 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2EzlFz at no extra charge.[CC] BUDSIES PR: Class Cert. Bid in Cavalier Due Sept. 17 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOMINIQUE CAVALIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BUDSIES PR LLC, Case No. 9:26-cv-80018-AMC (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Cannon entered an order setting trial, setting pre-trial deadlines, and referring certain matters to Magistrate Judge. -- May 26, 2026 The parties shall select a mediator pursuant to Local Rule 16.2. -- June 3, 2026 Parties shall file motions to amend pleadings or join additional parties. -- Aug. 4, 2026 Parties exchange expert witness summaries or reports on issues of class certification. -- Aug. 25, 2026 Parties exchange rebuttal expert witness summaries or reports on issues of class certification. -- Sept. 4, 2026 Deadline for completing class certification discovery. -- Sept. 17, 2026 The Plaintiff files motion for class certification. -- Jan. 6, 2027 All discovery, including expert discovery, shall be completed. -- Jan. 22, 2027 The parties must have completed mediation and filed a mediation report. The Defendant is a provider of custom stuffed animals serving in South Florida. A copy of the Court's order dated May 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UJkPSO at no extra charge.[CC] CALENDARS.COM LLC: Randolph Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- ERIKA RANDOLPH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Calendars.com L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05114 (N.D. Ill., May 3, 2026) arises from Defendant's their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Plaintiff maintains that the Defendant has violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to or refusing to remove the access barriers to its website. As a result of Defendant's failure or refusal, Plaintiff was denied full and equal access to, and enjoyment of the goods, benefits and services of Defendant's website. Headquartered in Austin, TX, Calendars.com LLC owns and operates the website, https://www.calendars.com, which offers calendars and organizational products, such as planners and other scheduling tools. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com CAPRICOR THERAPEUTICS: Faces Class, Derivative Suits ---------------------------------------------------- Capricor 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 13, 2026, that on July 17, 2025, a putative securities class action was filed in the Southern District of California, naming Capricor Therapeutics, Inc. and the Companys chief executive officer, Linda Marban, as defendants, alleging certain violations of the U.S. federal securities laws and seeks unspecified damages. In addition, on August 1, 2025, a shareholder derivative action was filed in the Southern District of California naming each of the directors on the Board of Capricor Therapeutics, Inc. It alleges, among other things, that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to the company. Capricor Therapeutics, Inc. is a biotechnology company focused on developing transformative cell and exosome-based therapies for the treatment of rare disorders and other serious medical conditions. The company is headquartered in San Diego, California. CARSON'S OF MALTA: Court Adjourns Class Cert Bid Deadlines ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Conrick v. Carson's of Malta, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00585 (N.D.N.Y., Filed May 9, 2025), the Hon. Judge Anne M. Nardacci entered an order that the parties request that the deadlines with regard to the pending Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification be adjourned in order to focus on settlement and the forthcoming motion seeking approval of the settlement agreement. -- The request is granted and the deadlines as to the pending motion are adjourned without date at this time. -- Counsel shall advise as to the status of this matter by June 26, 2026. On May 4, 2026, the parties advised the Court that settlement has been reached in this matter. In light of this settlement. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).[CC] CELGENE CORP: Louisiana Appeals Denied Motion to Leave for Amend ---------------------------------------------------------------- LOUISIANA HEALTH SERVICE & INDEMNITY COMPANY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion for leave to amend and granting the Defendants' motion to strike in the lawsuit entitled Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Celgene Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-7871, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit alleges that pharmaceutical giants Bristol Myers and Celgene unlawfully extended, and continue to extend, a monopoly in the market for pomalidomide, a blockbuster drug used in the treatment of multiple myeloma and sold under the brand name Pomalyst. On July 31, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to strike Appendix A and Appendix B to the Plaintiffs' reply brief in support of their motion for leave to file the SAC. On Mar. 30, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file the second amended complaint ("SAC"). On Apr. 1, 2026, Judge Edgardo Ramos entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to strike and denying the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend. The Court grants the Defendants' motion to strike because it did not allow the Plaintiffs to file additional pages on top of the already-increased 15-page limit. Accordingly, Appendix A and Appendix B to the Plaintiffs' reply brief in support of their motion for leave to file the SAC are stricken from the record. Moreover, the Court finds that the SAC to identify references to or provision within any of the Pomalyst settlements mentioning Revlimid or any other plausible reason to believe that the Revlimid agreements were incorporated within them, or the reverse. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file the SAC is denied. The appellate case is styled as Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company v. Celgene Corporation, Case No. 26-1194, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on May 1, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants LOUISIANA HEALTH SERVICE & INDEMNITY COMPANY, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Thomas M. Sobol, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP One Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Defendants-Appellees CELGENE CORPORATION, et al. are represented by: Gavin John Rooney, Esq. LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP One Lowenstein Drive Roseland, NJ 07068 - and - Benjamin M. Greenblum, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY 680 Maine Avenue Washington, DC 20024 - and - Aaron M. Healey, Esq. JONES DAY 250 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 - and - Daniel B. Asimow, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP Three Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 CELGENE CORP: New York Appeals Denied Motion to Leave for Amend --------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK HOTEL TRADES COUNCIL & HOTEL ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK CITY, INC. HEALTH BENEFITS FUND is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion for leave to amend and granting the Defendants' motion to strike in the lawsuit entitled New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Health Benefits Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Celgene Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-2230, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit alleges that pharmaceutical giants Bristol Myers and Celgene unlawfully extended, and continue to extend, a monopoly in the market for pomalidomide, a blockbuster drug used in the treatment of multiple myeloma and sold under the brand name Pomalyst. On July 31, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to strike Appendix A and Appendix B to the Plaintiffs' reply brief in support of their motion for leave to file the SAC. On Mar. 30, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file the second amended complaint ("SAC"). On Apr. 1, 2026, Judge Edgardo Ramos entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to strike and denying the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend. The Court grants the Defendants' motion to strike because it did not allow the Plaintiffs to file additional pages on top of the already-increased 15-page limit. Accordingly, Appendix A and Appendix B to the Plaintiffs' reply brief in support of their motion for leave to file the SAC are stricken from the record. Moreover, the Court finds that the SAC to identify references to or provision within any of the Pomalyst settlements mentioning Revlimid or any other plausible reason to believe that the Revlimid agreements were incorporated within them, or the reverse. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file the SAC is denied. On Apr. 10, 2026, judgment is entered in favor of the Defendants. The appellate case is styled as New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Health Benefits Fund v. Celgene Corporation, Case No. 26-1228, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on May 5, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant NEW YORK HOTEL TRADES COUNCIL & HOTEL ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK CITY, INC. HEALTH BENEFITS FUND, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: Frank R. Schirripa, Esq. HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP 185 Madison Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10016 Defendants-Appellees CELGENE CORPORATION, et al. are represented by: Gavin John Rooney, Esq. LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP One Lowenstein Drive Roseland, NJ 07068 - and - Aaron M. Healey, Esq. JONES DAY 250 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 - and - Daniel B. Asimow, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP Three Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 CENTRAL NATIONAL: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Campbell Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- SAMANTHA CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENTRAL NATIONAL GOTTESMAN INC., Defendant, Case No. 7:26-cv-03756 (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2026) arises 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. The complaint relates that in the ordinary course of receiving service from Defendant, Plaintiff and Class Members were required to provide their Private Information to Defendant. On March 2, 2026, the Defendant experienced a data breach. The notorious ransomware group "Payoutsking" has claimed responsibility for the Data Breach wherein these types of Private Information were compromised: name, Social Security number, date of birth, contact information and addresses. The complaint alleges that 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, out-of-pocket expenses incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach. The Plaintiff, therefore, brings this class action lawsuit to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that it collected and maintained, and its failure to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and Class Members, of the Data Breach and the types of information unlawfully accessed. Plaintiff Samantha Campbell is a citizen and resident of Tarpon Springs, Florida and is a victim of the Data Breach. Defendant Central National Gottesman, Inc. is a privately held global pulp and paper merchant headquartered in Purchase, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com - and - Mark K. Svensson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (202) 975-0468 E-mail: msvensson@milberg.com CLUTCH INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Cesario Says ------------------------------------------------------------- DARREN CESARIO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CLUTCH, INC. & CARPE LOTION LLC, d/b/a MyCarpe Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03769 (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") arising from Defendant's failure to ensure that its e-commerce website, including pages hosted at and through mycarpe.com is accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. On January 23, 2026, March 14, 2026, and April 29, 2026, Mr. Cesario attempted to access Defendant's website using screenreading technology in order to evaluate and purchase Defendant's underarm sweat products, including a customizable underarm bundle with scent options such as Fresh Powder and Lavender Citrus. Despite multiple attempts, Mr. Cesario was unable to independently complete these tasks because Defendant's website contained pervasive accessibility barriers. These barriers prevented Mr. Cesario from independently understanding product choices, identifying scent selections, distinguishing interactive controls, and completing a purchase. Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its highly interactive commercial website in a manner compatible with screenreading technology denied Mr. Cesario equal access to the goods and services it provides to nondisabled customers, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief requiring Defendant to take all steps necessary to bring its website into full compliance with the ADA and to adopt policies to ensure ongoing accessibility. Plaintiff Darren Cesario is permanently disabled due to legal blindness and is a proficient user of screenreading software and keyboard navigation. Defendant Clutch, Inc. is a business entity that owns, operates, leases, or controls the commercial website through which it markets and sells sweat-management and personal-care products, including customizable underarm bundles and related items, to consumers throughout the United States, including residents of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG LLC 825 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212)227-5700 E-mail: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com CONOPCO INC: Faces Class Action Over Dove Bodywash False Ads ------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Conopco, Inc. falsely touts its Dove sensitive body wash as hypoallergenic when the product contains a known skin-irritating fragrance ingredient. The 30-page complaint contends that although Conopco markets Dove Sensitive Hypoallergenic Body Wash as safe for those with sensitive skin, independent testing has shown that the product contains d-Limonene, one of 26 fragrance allergens recognized by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). According to the lawsuit, the "hypoallergenic" label appears prominently on both the front and back of the Dove body wash bottle, suggesting to consumers that the product is formulated without ingredients known to trigger skin irritation or reactions. However, the lawsuit argues that Conopco fails to clearly disclose to consumers the alleged presence of d-Limonene in its product, which renders the "hypoallergenic" representations false and misleading. "By deceiving consumers about the nature, quality, and formulation of its Product, [Conopco] was able to capture market share from competing products and command a price premium, increasing its own sales and profits," the complaint asserts. The complaint bases its allegations on testing conducted in April 2026 by an independent laboratory, which allegedly detected d-Limonene in the Dove hypoallergenic body wash. The suit claims that d-Limonene is likely included within the product's generic "fragrance" ingredient listing. According to the complaint, d-Limonene is a fragrance compound commonly used in beauty and personal care products solely for the "aesthetic purpose" of adding scent. Per the case, the American Academy of Dermatology has recognized fragrance ingredients as skin irritants and a leading cause of contact dermatitis. The case alleges that growing consumer demand for hypoallergenic products has enabled companies to charge premium prices for products marketed as less likely to cause irritation. "Given the increased prevalence of allergic contact dermatitis and other skin conditions, consumers increasingly seek clean products looking for and relying on terms such as 'hypoallergenic' in making purchasing decisions," the filing states. Consumers reasonably understand the term "hypoallergenic" to mean a product is specifically formulated to reduce the likelihood of allergic reactions compared to regular products, including through the avoidance of known irritants, the suit says. The complaint notes that the FDA has similarly acknowledged that products labeled as hypoallergenic are understood to produce fewer adverse reactions. Because consumers have no practical way to independently verify whether a product contains fragrance allergens, they must rely on the manufacturer's labeling and marketing to accurately represent the product's qualities and ingredients, the suit argues. According to the case, consumers who observed the "hypoallergenic" claim on the Dove sensitive body wash reasonably believed that it would not include ingredients like d-Limonene that are "widely recognized" as a common cause of allergic contact dermatitis. The Dove class action lawsuit seeks to represent all consumers who purchased Dove Sensitive Hypoallergenic Body Wash in the United States during the maximum statute of limitations period permitted by law. [GN] CONSERVICE LLC: Jolicoeur-Louis Wins Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA JOLICOEUR-LOUIS and SOPHIE PHILIPS, v. CONSERVICE, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-03253-HDV-BFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vera entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. After careful consideration of the requirements of Rule 23, the Court finds class certification appropriate. The Plaintiffs' claims are exactly those suited for class treatment. The parties are ordered, however, to propose revised class definitions. Jolicoeur-Louis brought this putative class action on March 15, 2024 in Los Angeles Superior Court, and Conservice removed it on April 19, 2024. The Plaintiffs allege that Conservice collected fees from them while unlicensed under California's Debt Collection Licensing Act ("DCLA"), engaged in false advertising in doing so, and failed to make certain disclosures required by the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). On Dec. 24, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed the present Motion, which seeks to certify the following classes of individuals: UCL Unlicensed Fee Collection Class: "All citizens of the State of California with residential leases who, within the applicable statute of limitations, paid any service fee or late fee to Conservice arising from a residential lease and associated with a utility bill, during a period when Conservice was not licensed per Financial Code §100001 as required to lawfully engage in the business of debt Collection." Rosenthal Unauthorized Fee Collection Subclass: "All citizens of the State of California with residential leases who paid a service fee or late fee to Conservice arising from a lease that did not authorize such fees and associated with a utility bill during the period when Conservice was unlicensed as a debt collector, during the applicable statute of limitations through the date the class is certified." FAL False Advertising Class: "All citizens of the State of California with residential leases who paid any service fee or late fee to Conservice arising from a residential lease and associated with a utility bill, during a period when Conservice was not licensed under Financial Code section100001 as required to engage in debt collection activity lawfully." Rosenthal Mini-Miranda Class: "All citizens of the State of California with residential leases who, within the applicable statute of limitations, received an initial billing communication or outreach in which Conservice, acting as a debt collector on behalf of the property owner or manager, attempted to collect utility charges owed to the landlord, and who did not receive the disclosures required by 15 U.S.C. section 1692e(11)." The Plaintiff Amanda Jolicoeur-Louis was a tenant in Randolph Lofts between September 2023 and spring 2024. The Defendant provides various services to landlords in managing their properties. A copy of the Court's order dated May 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OXfBhb at no extra charge.[CC] COOKEVILLE REGIONAL: Daugherty Sues Over Data Security Failures --------------------------------------------------------------- SHONNA DAUGHERTY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COOKEVILLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00030 (M.D. Tenn., May 1, 2026) 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 and protected health information of over 337,000 individuals. The Defendant's investigation revealed that an unauthorized third party accessed its computer network and viewed or acquired certain files between July 11, 2025, and July 14, 2025. However, the Defendant did not begin notifying affected individuals until on or around April 14, 2026. Moreover, the Defendant's late data breach notice harmed Plaintiff and made it more difficult for Plaintiff to take swift action to respond to the breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a nationwide class, alleges claims of (1) negligence, (2) negligence per se, (3) breach of implied contract, (4) unjust enrichment, and (5) violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. Cookeville Regional Medical Center is a 289-bed hospital in Cookeville, TN. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (423) 737-3265 E-mail: ahoneycutt@milberg.com - and - Amber L. Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union St, Ste 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 E-mail: schubert@sjk.law CRESSET CAPITAL: ClassAction.org Investigates Potential Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Cresset 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 Cresset data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Cresset Security Incident: What Happened? Cresset Capital Management, a wealth management firm serving ultra-high-net-worth clients out of offices in 24 U.S. cities, has reported a data breach involving unauthorized access to its network. A sample notification letter (pictured below) states that suspicious activity within the company's computer network was identified on April 6, 2026. An investigation, aided by third-party cybersecurity professionals, revealed that names, contact details, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, passport numbers, and financial account information were accessed in the Cresset Capital Management data breach. What You Can Do After the Cresset Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Cresset 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 Cresset 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. Who Is ClassAction.org? ClassAction.org is a group of online professionals who are committed to exposing corporate wrongdoing and giving consumers the tools they need to fight back. We've been reporting on the legal space for nearly a decade and have built relationships with class action and mass tort attorneys across the country. [GN] DENTALPLANS.COM: Bradley Appeals Court Judgment to 4th Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- DEBORAH BRADLEY is taking an appeal from a court judgment in the lawsuit entitled Deborah Bradley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DentalPlans.com, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01094-BAH, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff brings a claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, alleging that the Defendants violated the statute by placing unauthorized telemarketing calls to her and the proposed class of former DentalPlans customers. On Apr. 2, 2026, the Plaintiff filed a joint motion for entry of final judgment. On Apr. 3, 2026, Judge Brendan Abell Hurson entered judgment in favor of the Defendants on the Plaintiff's claim for violation of the TCPA. The appellate case is styled as Deborah Bradley v. Dentalplans.com, Case No. 26-1537, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on May 1, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant DEBORAH BRADLEY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: Amanda J. Allen, Esq. AMANDA ALLEN ADVOCACY, PLLC 601 East Zack Street Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (727) 488-7202 - and - Alexander H. Burke, Esq. BURKE LAW OFFICES LLC 909 Davis Street Evanston, IL 60201 Telephone: (312) 729-5288 - and - Peter Albert Holland, Esq. Emanwel Josef Turnbull, Esq. HOLLAND LAW FIRM, PC 914 Bay Ridge Road Annapolis, MD 21403 Telephone: (410) 280-6133 - and - William Peerce Howard, Esq. CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM PLLC 401 East Jackson Street Truist Place Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 500-1500 Defendants-Appellees DENTALPLANS.COM, et al. are represented by: David B. Carpenter, Esq. Brian Donald Frey, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD, LLP 950 F. Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (404) 881-7000 (404) 239-3067 - and - Derin Bronson Dickerson, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD, LLP 1201 West Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 881-7454 - and - Kelsey Louise Kingsbery, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 555 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, NC 27601 Telephone: (919) 862-2200 DIGIMARC CORP: Derivative Suit Stayed Pending Bid to Nix Ullom Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Digimarc 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 13, 2026, that a it is facing a class action lawsuit claiming to recover damages allegedly caused by purported misstatements and omissions regarding the renewal status of a commercial contract, claiming that these alleged misstatements and omissions artificially inflated the price paid for the Company's common stock during the class period. Derivative suits were also filed based on similar allegations. On May 8, 2025, a class action lawsuit captioned "Ullom v. Digimarc Corp., et al.," No. 3:25-cv-00779-JR was filed against the company in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. An amended complaint was filed on November 26, 2025, which purports to assert claims against the company and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's shares between August 14, 2024 and February 26, 2025. On February 9, 2026, the company and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer moved to dismiss it. Separately, on February 11, 2026, two derivative lawsuits filed in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah, "Johnson v. McCormack et al.," No. 25-cv-56998, and "Sperry v. McCormack et al.," No. 26-cv-00621, were consolidated and remain stayed pending resolution of the defendants' motion to dismiss in the Ullom Action. Digimarc Corp. is a technology company that develops and licenses digital watermarking and related automatic identification solutions used in packaging, retail, media, and government applications. The company's platform is designed to enable more efficient product identification, supply chain management, and content protection. DOLLAR TREE: Class Cert Oral Argument in JMB Set for June 1 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.M.B. et al v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-04663 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 21, 2025), the Hon. Judge Hector Gonzalez entered an order on Motion to Strike Scheduling Order: Oral argument on Defendant's Motion to Strike Class Allegations and Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification will be held on June 1, 2026, at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 322 North before Magistrate Judge Peggy Cross-Goldenberg. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Product Liability. The Defendant is an American multi-price-point chain of discount variety stores.[CC] EDGEWOOD CLINICAL: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Livesey Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- DONNA LIVESEY, individually and on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons, known and unknown v. EDGEWOOD CLINICAL SERVICES, P.C. d/b/a LIFESTANCE and LIFESTANCE HEALTH, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-05539 (N.D. Ill., May 13, 2026) seeks redress for the Defendants’ willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law for failure to pay minimum wages owed. The Plaintiff is employed by Defendants pursuant to a written employment agreement. The Defendant is a for-profit entity that owns and operates mental health clinics in thirty-three states in the U.S, and it provides a range of mental health services, including therapy, psychiatric services, and psychological testing. Edgewood is a subsidiary of LifeStance, and it operates mental health clinics throughout Illinois under the "LifeStance" brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Dore, Esq. Daniel I. Schlade, Esq. 6232 N. Pulaski, No. 300 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (773) 415-4898 E-mail: james@dorelawoffices.com danschlade@gmail.com EOS ENERGY: Class, Derivative Suits Filed over SEC Disclosures -------------------------------------------------------------- Eos Energy Enterprises, 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 13, 2026, that on March 6, 2026, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court of New Jersey by plaintiff Shui Shing Yung against the company and two individual officers, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer. It alleges that the Yung Defendants violated federal securities laws by making knowingly false or misleading statements about its manufacturing capabilities and financial outlook. In addition, on March 13, 2026, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the District of New Jersey by plaintiff Paul Berger against certain defendants including the company's Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and nine of its current directors. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by allowing the company to make knowingly false or misleading statements about its manufacturing capabilities and financial outlook. Eos Energy Enterprises, Inc. is an energy technology company that designs, develops and manufactures zinc-based long-duration energy storage systems for utility, industrial and commercial customers. It focuses on solutions that support grid reliability and the integration of renewable energy resources. ESTWING MANUFACTURING: Underpays Company Employees, Donahue Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Donahue, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Estwing Manufacturing Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05280 (N.D. Ill., May 6, 2026) is a class and collective action against the Defendant for its failure to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and other employees who were compensated on a piece-rate basis, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), and Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL") for unauthorized deductions from Plaintiff's and other persons' wages. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per week. But the Defendant did not pay Plaintiff overtime compensation at 1.5 times his regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 per week. Plaintiff's piece rate did not increase for overtime hours, and Defendant did not pay an additional half-time premium as required under the FLSA and IMWL. Instead, Defendant compensated Plaintiff at a straight piece-rate regardless of the number of hours worked. Moreover, the Defendant regularly imposed "hot orders," requiring employees to prioritize certain tools and produce as many units as possible within limited timeframes. Due to production demands, employees regularly worked through meal and rest breaks. Employees were strongly encouraged to continue working in order to meet quotas and complete assigned orders. As a result, Plaintiff performed compensable work during unpaid break periods, the complaint adds. The Defendant also maintained unlawful practices including manipulation of production and/or time records and failure to compensate employees for all compensable work performed, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid compensation, additional damages, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and state law. Plaintiff Thomas Donahue was employed by Defendant from approximately 2021 through October 2025 as a production employee paid on a piece-rate basis. Defendant Estwing Manufacturing Company, Inc. is a manufacturer of striking and struck tools in Rockford, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francisco Fernandez Del Castillo, Esq. DEL CASTILLO LAW GROUP, LLC 11 E Adams Street #1401 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312)-216 0111 E-mail: francisco@delcastillolawgroup.com EUROPEAN WAX: Dunn Securities Suit Resolved After Mediation ----------------------------------------------------------- European Wax Center, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending April 4, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2026, that on July 1, 2025, a class-action lawsuit captioned "Sydney Dunn v. European Wax Center, Inc." was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the company by a putative class representing users who booked a reservation on the company's website, asserting various privacy-related claims stemming from its purported use of digital tracking technologies on its website. As of April 4, 2026, the parties reached a successful mediation that resolved the matter within the company's originally reported estimates. European Wax Center, Inc. is a franchisor and operator of out-of-home waxing services, offering hair removal, skincare, and related beauty services through a network of locations across the United States. The company supports its franchisees with training, marketing, and operational resources to promote consistent guest experiences and brand growth. FCA US: Reply in Support of Summary Judgment Due May 29 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ETIENNE MAUGAIN, et al., v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00116-JLH-SRF (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge Fallon entered an amended scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline Deadline for any opposition to FCA US's May 15, 2026 motion for summary judgment: Reply expert disclosures regarding class May 18, 2026 certification due: Deadline for any reply in support of FCA May 29, 2026 US's motion for summary judgment: Expert discovery regarding class June 22, 2026 certification cut-off: Deadline for any motion for class May 18, 2026 certification: Deadline for case dispositive motions Aug. 3, 2026 (other than FCA US's Motion for Summary Judgment at D.I. 272): On June 25, 2026, counsel shall submit a joint interim report to the Court on the nature of the matters in issue and the progress of discovery to date. FCA designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. A copy of the Court's order dated May 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NnPDx0 at no extra charge.[CC] FIRST SERVICE: Parties Seek OK of Bid to Amend Final Sched Order ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WORLD FUEL SERVICES, INC. v. FIRST SERVICE BANK and ROBERT EDWARD RAMSEY, Case No. 4:26-cv-00259-JM (E.D. Ark.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint motion to amend final scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline Trial Date: June 21, 2027 Add Parties or Amend Pleadings: Sept. 18, 2026 Discovery: April 7, 2027 Expert disclosures and reports: Jan. 22, 2027 Motion deadline (except motions for class April 22, 2027 certification and motions in limine): Stipulations: June 16, 2027 Counsel for First Service Bank has a trial in another case during the week of April 5, 2027. On March 12, 2026, this action was transferred from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. On April 30, 2026, the Court issued a Final Scheduling Order. First provides personal and business banking services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XHCILB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Shults, Esq. Steven Shults, Esq. SHULTS LAW FIRM LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1600 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 375-2301 E-mail: pshults@shultslaw.com sshults@shultslaw.com - and - Scott B. Cosgrove, Esq. Devin Weinberg, Esq. LEON COSGROVE JIMÉNEZ, LLP 255 Alhambra Circle, 8th Floor Miami, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 740-1975 E-mail: scosgrove@leoncosgrove.com dweinberg@leoncosgrove.com The Defendants are represented by: Steven W. Quattlebaum, Esq. J. Houston M. Downes, Esq. QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS & TULL PLLC 111 Center Street, Suite 1900 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 379-1700 E-mail: quattlebaum@qgtlaw.com hdownes@qgtlaw.com - and - Wendy L. Johnson, Esq. Christopher D. Plumlee, Esq. RMP LLP 5519 Hackett Street, Suite 300 Springdale, AR 72762 Telephone: (479) 443-4850 E-mail: wjohnson@rmp.law cplumlee@rmp.law FITZGERALD WEALTH: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $250,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Fitzgerald Wealth Management, LLC has agreed to a settlement of up to $250,000 to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the financial services firm failed to protect sensitive information in its system from an April 2025 data breach. The $250,000 Fitzgerald Wealth Management class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on April 6, 2026. The deal covers all United States residents whose personal information was compromised in the data breach discovered by Fitzgerald Wealth Management in April 2025. The court-approved website for the Fitzgerald Wealth Management (FWM) data breach settlement can be found at FWMDataSettlement.com. Fitzgerald Wealth Management settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form can receive up to $3,500 for "extraordinary" losses incurred between April 29, 2025 and August 4, 2026 due to the data breach. Class members must submit proof, such as receipts, to receive an extraordinary-loss payment. Losses covered by this benefit include expenses related to identity theft or fraud stemming from the data breach. Class members can also file a claim form to receive up to $400 for "ordinary" losses incurred between April 29, 2025 and August 4, 2026 due to the Fitzgerald Wealth Management data breach. This benefit covers the costs of credit reports, credit monitoring services, freezing or unfreezing credit, replacement IDs, and miscellaneous expenses, such as postage and notary fees. Class members must submit proof, such as receipts, to obtain an ordinary-loss payment. In addition to an extraordinary- and/or ordinary-loss payment, class members can also claim four hours of lost time spent responding to the breach, at a rate of $20 per hour. In the alternative to the aforementioned settlement benefits, class members can instead file a claim form to receive a $50 cash payment, with no proof required. Payments to class members may be subject to a pro rata reduction if the total amount of valid claims exceeds the aggregate $250,000 settlement cap. In addition to monetary benefits, all class members can file a claim form to receive an enrollment code for two years of CyEx Financial Shield Complete, which includes one-bureau credit monitoring and financial fraud insurance. To file a Fitzgerald Wealth Management settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the login ID and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF of the claim form to print, fill out and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Fitzgerald Wealth Management settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by August 4, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Fitzgerald Wealth Management data breach settlement following a hearing on July 10, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Fitzgerald Wealth Management class action lawsuit alleged that the Arizona-based financial planning and investment services company failed to implement proper cybersecurity safeguards to protect the sensitive information in its care, which led to a data breach on or around April 29, 2025. Per court documents, private information that may have been exposed in the breach included full names and Social Security numbers. [GN] FLAGSTAR BANK: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $31.5MM ------------------------------------------------------------ Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that current and former customers and other individuals who received notice that the 2021 Flagstar Bank data breaches affected their personal information may be eligible to submit a claim for up to $25,000 from a class action settlement. Flagstar Bank agreed to pay $31.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it failed to adequately protect consumer data and delayed notifying individuals after two separate data breaches in January and December 2021. These cyberattacks compromised personal information belonging to approximately 2.19 million people in the United States. Who can file a claim for a Flagstar data breach payout? Class members are individuals Flagstar identified as having their personal information impacted by one or both of the 2021 data breaches, including those who received a notice. How much can class members get? Class members have the following benefit options: -- Reimbursement for documented monetary losses: Class members can claim up to $25,000 in out-of-pocket losses fairly traceable to the data breaches. Eligible losses include unreimbursed losses from fraud or identity theft, professional fees, such as attorneys' or accountants' fees, costs for credit monitoring or freezing/unfreezing credit and miscellaneous expenses, including postage or notary fees. -- California statutory payment: Class members residing in California at the time of the data breaches can submit a claim to receive a cash payment of up to $100. -- Residual cash payment: All class members can submit a claim to receive a cash payment from the net settlement fund after the settlement administrator pays all other claims. The payment is estimated at $60 but could be up to $599. The administrator will determine the final payment amount by the total number of claims filed. -- Credit monitoring services: All class members can elect to receive three years of three-bureau credit monitoring and identity theft protection services. 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: Flagstar Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 4427, Baton Rouge, LA 70821 The claim deadline is Aug. 11, 2026. Required proof and claim information -- All claims require the settlement claim ID from the settlement notice the class member received. -- Documented monetary losses claims require supporting documentation, which may include receipts, invoices for services, bank or credit card statements showing unreimbursed fees or fraudulent charges and other proof of identity theft or fraud. Payout options -- Venmo -- Zelle -- PayPal -- Paper check Settlement fund breakdown The $31,500,000 settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $10,500,000 -- Attorneys' expenses: Up to $500,000 -- Service awards to class representatives: Up to $2,500 each -- Credit monitoring: Cost determined by the number of claims filed -- Payments to approved claimants: Remaining settlement funds Important dates -- Deadline to opt out: June 29, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: Aug. 11, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: Oct. 1, 2026 When is the Flagstar Bank data breach settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments after the court resolves any appeals and grants final approval of the settlement. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged Flagstar Bank failed to adequately protect consumers' personal information and delayed providing notice after the data breaches. Flagstar denies any wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the expense and uncertainty of continued litigation and a possible trial. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Up to $25,000 plus other benefits Deadline: August 11, 2026 [GN] FLUKE CORP: ClassAction.org Investigates Potential Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Fluke 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 Fluke data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Fluke Security Incident: What Happened? Fluke Corporation, which manufactures, distributes, and services industrial engineering testing equipment, has announced a data breach affecting 18,517 individuals. A sample notification letter states that the breach, discovered on September 29, 2025, stemmed from a vulnerability in a third-party business application used by Fluke. As a result, an unauthorized actor had access to a segment of Fluke’s network from August 10 to October 7 of the same year. An analysis of the data potentially compromised, which concluded on May 8, 2026, found that the Fluke data breach may have impacted Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and disability status indicators. What You Can Do After the Fluke Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Fluke 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 Fluke 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. Who Is ClassAction.org? ClassAction.org is a group of online professionals who are committed to exposing corporate wrongdoing and giving consumers the tools they need to fight back. We've been reporting on the legal space for nearly a decade and have built relationships with class action and mass tort attorneys across the country. [GN] FORMULA SYSTEMS: Settlement Talks Advance in Zap Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Formula Systems (1985) Ltd. disclosed in its annual report on Form 20-F, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission that a proposed settlement of Class Action #60508-02-20 is currently underway following publication of the proposed settlement arrangement in newspapers and on Zap Group's websites, the Attorney General's position was expected by March 8, 2026, but due to the situation in Israel it had not been submitted as of that date. On May 13, 2026, a motion for the approval of a class action () was filed on December 24, 2019 against Zap Group, a subsidiary of Formula, in the Israeli district court, in an initial amount of NIS 793.8 million (approximately $217.7 million). The motion alleges that Zap Group illegally generated income from paying customers through the ZAP price comparison website. At a pre-trial hearing, the court directed the plaintiffs to explain why they believed they were fit to serve as class action plaintiffs and why they had performed prohibited clicks on competitors' websites through Zap Group's website. The plaintiffs were also asked to indicate whether they were willing to reduce the amount of the claim. On July 15, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reduce the amount of the claim to NIS 63 million (approximately $17.3 million). On December 15, 2021, a pre-trial hearing was held at which the court clarified that it did not intend to interfere with Zap Group's business considerations regarding the click filtering mechanisms it operates. The court recommended that the plaintiffs reach an agreed solution with Zap Group on the disclosure Zap Group should include in its customer contracts, as available on its website. The parties were requested to file a joint notice in accordance with the court's recommendation by January 15, 2022, and the plaintiffs submitted a request for an extension. On April 5, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a notice stating that they had not reached an agreement with Zap Group and therefore requested that the case be set for an evidentiary hearing. On December 12, 2022, the parties filed a joint notice stating their agreement to initiate a mediation process. A mediation meeting took place on February 6, 2023, but the mediation ended without an agreement. As a result, evidentiary hearings were held between March 6, 2024 and July 10, 2024, during which expert and fact witness for both sides were examined, and deadlines for the parties' summations were subsequently set. On August 8, 2024, the parties informed the court that they had agreed to refer the matter to a mediation process before a different judge of the same court. Mediation sessions were then held on December 11, 2024 and January 21, 2025 before Judge Rami Haymovitz. On March 3, 2025, plaintiffs' counsel informed the court that disagreements had arisen between the defendants and their counsel over the course of the mediation and requested a decision on whether they could continue to represent the plaintiffs. Following a hearing on March 24, 2025, the court requested that plaintiffs' counsel and Zap Group propose settlement terms by June 4, 2025 so that the plaintiffs could determine whether to accept them. On May 20, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to replace their legal representation and dismiss their current class counsel, citing a breakdown in trust and lack of adequate representation, and requested suspension of any judicial decision on the proposed settlement until new counsel was appointed. On May 22 and May 26, 2025, the existing class counsel and Zap Group filed responses opposing the plaintiffs' motion. On June 9, 2025, the court decided that the settlement process would continue and instructed the parties to submit a settlement agreement by July 8, 2025. The court stated that only after the agreement was submitted would it determine how to proceed, including how to address the plaintiffs' request to replace their representation and the continued management of the case. On July 22, 2025, the court held a hearing and determined that the plaintiffs' arguments would be heard only after responses to the motion for approval of the class action were submitted. On August 5, 2025, Zap Group and the existing class counsel filed a motion for approval of a proposed settlement arrangement. The court instructed that the motion be forwarded to the Israeli Attorney General for review and that the plaintiffs be allowed to submit their responses within the prescribed timeframe. On November 16, 2025, the court ordered the publication of a notice regarding the proposed settlement arrangement and declined to dismiss it outright at that stage. The court further decided that the Attorney General's position, as well as any objections submitted by the plaintiffs, would be considered before any final decision on approval of the settlement arrangement. As the claim was filed against Zap Group before its acquisition by Formula, any potential liability arising from these proceedings is covered by indemnification obligations of Zap Group's former shareholders to Formula. Formula Systems (1985) Ltd is an Israel-based holding company that owns and operates information technology, software, and services businesses serving enterprise and government customers worldwide. Its portfolio includes interests in several publicly traded Israeli tech companies operating across sectors such as software solutions, IT infrastructure, and digital services. FRISKA LLC: Lopez Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users ------------------------------------------------------------ VICTOR LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRISKA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03733 (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.getfriska.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 New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on February 25, 2026, in an attempt to purchase Men's Daily Enzyme + Probiotic Support Capsules from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him 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. He was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website. 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. Friska, LLC operates the website that offers probiotic supplements.[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: Dana@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal FUEGO SMOKE: Class Certification Bid Filing Extended to July 13 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHLEEN DIAL, v. FUEGO SMOKE & VAPE, LLC, MANKI INVESTMENTS, LLC, HYWAZE, LLC, OUTER LIMITS SALES TWO, LLC, A&A SMOKE SHOP, LLC, PUFFZILLA, LLC, GIVINGO, LLC, PLUTO BRANDS, LLC, GALAXY GAS, LLC, DIMO HEMP, LLC, FUSION INT'L TRADING, LLC, UNITED BRANDS, LLC, SWEET & SOUR HOLDINGS, LLC, MONSTER GAS, LLC, and BAKING BAD GROUP, LLC, Case No. 6:25-cv-00551-AGM-NWH (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Hill entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motion for extension of class certification deadline. The Plaintiff's deadline for seeking class certification is extended to July 13, 2026. Further requests for extensions of time will be strongly disfavored absent a clear, specific showing of good cause. The extension requested by the Plaintiff is lengthy, and the Defendants are correct that the Plaintiff has already received one extension of time and that this action has been pending for over a year. However, due to change in circumstances caused by the newly amended pleadings and the dismissal of the related action, the Court finds that good cause exists for granting another extension of time of the deadline for seeking class certification. The Plaintiff’s deadline for seeking class certification was January 9, 2026, which the Court extended to April 9, 2026. The Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on April 28, 2026. Fuego is a retail establishment located in Orlando, FL, specializing in a wide range of smoke and vape products A copy of the Court's order dated May 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nX7pO4 at no extra charge.[CC] GALDERMA LABORATORIES: Most False Label Suit Removed to N.D. Ill. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled MICHAEL MOST, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GALDERMA LABORATORIES, L.P., Defendant, Case No. 2026LA000322, was removed from the from the Circuit Court of Will County, Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May 6, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-05273 to the proceeding. The case arises from Defendant's intentional labeling of its Differin Cleanse Daily Oil-Free Hydrating Cleanser with a false and misleading claim that it is oil-free. Moreover, Plaintiff asserts three causes of action: (1) violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Businesses Practices Act, (2) common law fraud, and (3) unjust enrichment. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-05273 to the proceeding. Headquartered in Dallas, TX, Galderma Laboratories L.P. manufactures and distributes dermatological treatments and skin care products. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: William J. Cadigan, Esq. AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 190 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 207-0222 E-mail: wcadigan@akingump.com GLAMNETIC LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Hills Due August 2, 2027 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKAELA MARIE STEVENS-HILLS and STEPHINE STEWART, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. GLAMNETIC, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-05003-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Estudillo entered an order as follows: Glamnetic's deadline to file a brief regarding the choice of law issues associated with the claims set forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint is June 8, 2026. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file an opposition is July 9, 2026, and Glamnetic's deadline to file a reply brief is July 23, 2026. The Plaintiffs' deadline to provide their expert disclosures and affirmative expert reports is April 1, 2027, the Defendant's deadline to provide its expert disclosures and responsive expert reports is May 3, 2027, and Plaintiffs’ deadline to provide any rebuttal expert reports is May 31, 2027. Depositions of all experts shall be completed by July 15, 2027. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file a Motion for Class Certification is August 2, 2027. The Defendant's deadline to file an opposition is September 8, 2027, and Plaintiffs' deadline to file a reply brief is September 29, 2027. A copy of the Court's order dated May 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6t91ty at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, LLP 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone.: 872-263-1100 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Natalie A. Lyons, Esq. Ian R. Bensberg, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com nlyons@cohenmalad.com ibensberg@cohenmalad.com - and - Gerard J. Stranch, IV, Esq. Michael C. Tackeff, Esq. Andrew K. Murray, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone.: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com mtackeff@stranchlaw.com amurray@stranchlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Lauren B. Rainwater, Esq. Rachel Herd, WSBA, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 E-mail: laurenrainwater@dwt.com rachelherd@dwt.com - and - Philip N. Yannella, Esq. Thomas P. Cialino, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP 130 North 18th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 569-5500 E-mail: philip.yannella@blankrome.com thomas.cialino@blankrome.com GOOD DAY: Faces Suit for Recreational Marijuana Market Monopoly --------------------------------------------------------------- Susan Szuch, writing for Springfield New-Leader, reports that a marijuana dispensary chain with locations in Springfield and Columbia is again facing allegations of creating a monopoly to take advantage of the Missouri recreational marijuana market. Damon Toussaint Frost Jr. filed a class-action lawsuit May 4 in Jackson County Circuit Court against Good Day Farm, Missouri's largest dispensary chain. Frost, who is identified in the court filing as a Missouri resident who has purchased recreational cannabis from GDF, alleges that the dispensary chain's and its affiliates have conspired to monopolize recreational cannabis sales in Missouri, resulting in Missouri consumers paying significantly higher prices than they would have in a free market. Frost and other class members -- defined in the suit as Missouri citizens who have purchased recreational cannabis products from Good Day Farm or its affiliates in Missouri -- are seeking that the "illegal conspiracy" be dismantled and that they be compensated for damages. Frost is represented by Michael Williams of Williams Dirks Dameron in Kansas City. Williams did not respond to a request for comment as of publication. A spokesperson for GDF denied the allegations. "The claims in this lawsuit are baseless and without merit. Our company operates in full compliance with all applicable Missouri state laws and regulations, and we will vigorously defend that record," the spokesperson wrote in an email Friday, May 15, afternoon. "We will not allow aggressive legal tactics to distract us from what matters most: our mission to deliver uninterrupted service and exceptional products to the patients, customers and employees who rely on us.” This isn't the first class-action lawsuit filed against the dispensary chain. In April, two Missouri-licensed cultivators and manufacturers alleged that GDF violated the Missouri Constitution and created a "cartel." Like in the April lawsuit, Frost's lawsuit alleges that the "GDF consortium" -- which includes Good Day Farm Dispensaries, Codes Dispensaries, Greenlight, 3Fifteen Primo and Fresh Karma -- has control of about 25% of dispensary licenses in Missouri. The Missouri Constitution mandates that entities are limited to owning, controlling or managing no more than 10% of the total dispensary licenses in Missouri. In order to circumvent the 10% cap, GDF "arranged for investors to invest into limited liability companies" that would then acquire already-licensed entities from owners, court records said, and would then be operated by GDF. The lawsuit alleges that GDF created four limited liability companies. It also alleges that GDF employees, including the compliance director, general counsel and former director of investor relations, were listed on paperwork for various Codes, Greenlight and Fresh Karma dispensaries. "Defendants anticompetitive conduct (i) robs consumers of choice and selection of products, and (ii) leaves third parties to compete for a significantly (and increasingly) small sliver of shelf space in the overall Missouri market," the petition said. "In addition, Defendants misconduct will likely result in fewer competitive brands on the market, substantially reduced diversity of products available and sold, and, ultimately, to fewer choices, lower quality, and higher prices for consumers." [GN] GOOGLE LLC: Sued Over Use of Journalists' Voices for AI Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hannah Meisel, writing for Capitol News Illinois, reports that a group of well-known Chicago journalists, podcasters and voice actors are behind nine class-action lawsuits filed May 2026 alleging major tech companies used their voices without their permission in order to train AI products. The lawsuits represent a new area of focus for Illinois' strongest-in-the-nation biometric data privacy law, which has spawned thousands of lawsuits in the last decade or so. The litigation has netted Illinoisans millions of dollars in settlements, mostly over the collection of employees' fingerprints in timeclock technology. Plaintiffs include locally famous broadcast journalists Carol Marin and Phil Rogers, both retired from Chicago's NBC 5 news station, along with prolific audiobook narrators and podcasters. This summary was written by the reporters and editors who worked on this story. Over hundreds of pages in legal filings this week, a group of well-known Chicago-based journalists, podcasters and voice actors accused tech giants like Google, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft and others of "stealing" their voices to train Artificial intelligence. The nine class action lawsuits, filed in Chicago's federal court, represent a new frontier for Illinois' strongest-in-the-nation biometric data privacy law. In the last decade or so, the state's Biometric Information Privacy Act, or BIPA, has spawned thousands of lawsuits against companies alleged to have collected and stored biometric data from employees and customers without proper notice or consent. The vast majority of that litigation -- which has paid out millions of dollars to Illinoisans mostly via class-action settlements -- has been over employee fingerprints collected by timeclock technology, though Facebook's $650 million settlement in 2020 was with users over facial recognition. But as companies adopted policies to comply with BIPA and the pool of plaintiffs began to dry up, technology has rapidly evolved. Smart security cameras, safety cameras focused on workplaces, online "try-on" technology that allows users to envision, for example, what a certain pair of glasses would look like on their face, have become popular targets of BIPA litigation. And with the breakneck speed of AI development, companies focused on building that technology could prove to be the next major focus for BIPA lawyers. In the cases filed this week, locally famous broadcast journalists like Carol Marin and Phil Rogers, both retired from Chicago's NBC 5 news station, along with podcast hosts and voice actors allege the companies ingested recordings of their voices in order to train their AI "foundational voice models." "What we are seeing is an illegal and unethical exploitation of talent on a massive scale, and one of the largest violations of biometric privacy ever committed," Ross Kimbarovsky, an attorney with Chicago-based law firm Loevy & Loevy, said in a statement announcing the lawsuits. Kimbarovsky accused the companies of disregarding BIPA despite knowing "exactly how to build consent systems that comply with BIPA." "They've built a billion-dollar industry on stolen voices because they thought no one would make them pay for it," he said. Other plaintiffs include journalist Robin Amer, audiobook narrators and voice actors Lindsay Dorcus and Victoria Nassif, and podcasters Yohance Lacour and Alison Flowers -- all Illinois residents. Tech heavyweights named The lawsuits name Amazon, Adobe, Google and its parent company Alphabet, Apple, Microsoft and Samsung, as well as Facebook parent company Meta, text-to-speech AI company ElevenLabs, and advanced computer chip maker NVIDIA. None of the companies responded to a request for comment on the lawsuits. BIPA defenders point out that biometric information is unique, and losing control of it can be irrevocable. If an individual's Social Security number is stolen, for example, it may be a nuisance to get a new one but not impossible. But there's no remedy for a stolen fingerprint, retinal, voice or face scan, they argue. Under the law, companies deploying this technology must obtain written consent before biometric information is collected. But the lawsuits allege the companies never gave anyone a chance to give consent for their voiceprints to be ingested into their AI training models. "None of them was told that their voice was being used to train Amazon's commercial voice AI," the lawsuit against Amazon said. "None of them was asked. None of them consented." A voiceprint "is a digital fingerprint of the human voice," according to the complaints, which go on to characterize it as "a mathematical representation" of someone's voice, including pitch, timbre and resonance determined by a speaker's physiology. A voice is also defined by speech patterns "developed over a lifetime," including accent, cadence and articulation. "Like a fingerprint, a voiceprint identifies the individual and cannot be changed," the lawsuits say. "A Social Security number can be reissued. . . . A person whose voiceprint has been taken cannot recover it by altering their voice -- the biological and behavioral patterns that produced the voiceprint are the same ones used to speak every day." Voiceprint-focused lawsuits may very well become fertile ground for BIPA, especially if judges weighing the complaints filed this week agree the cases should move forward. Industry experts believe the cases could hinge on whether the voiceprints are identifiable. In early 2023, upscale grocer Whole Foods -- which was acquired by Amazon in 2017 -- settled a case brought by 330 warehouse employees who alleged the company collected their voiceprints without permission and used them to verify workers' identities. The $300,000 payout was the first BIPA settlement resulting from voiceprint-focused litigation. [GN] GVS BAKERY: Lastra Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL ------------------------------------------------------------- RUBEN LASTRA ARCOS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. GVS BAKERY INC. (D/B/A MARTHA'S COUNTRY BAKERY), GEORGE STERTSIOS, and CHRISTO KOLIOTASIS, Case No. 1:26-cv-02875 (E.D.N.Y., May 13, 2026) contends that Plaintiff Lastra regularly worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime compensation for any of the hours that he worked each week pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants' alleged conduct extended beyond Plaintiff Lastra to all other similarly situated employees. The Defendants also failed to maintain accurate records of hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Lastra appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Lastra the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day, the suit says. Plaintiff Lastra was an employee of Defendants GVS Bakery Inc. Martha's Country Bakery is a Bakery owned by George Stertsios, located at 36 21 Ditmars Blvd., Astoria, New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 HARCROS CHEMICALS: Jeffries Bid to Compel Discovery Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELLSWORTH WILLIAM JEFFRIES, III, et al., v. HARCROS CHEMICALS INC., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02352-KHV-ADM (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Angel D. Mitchell entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery against the Defendant. The court does not see how information and documents dating back to 1961 are relevant to the claims in this case given the district judge's Memorandum and Order granting in part Harcros's motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the court denies the plaintiffs' motion to compel and limits discovery related to the plaintiffs' remaining claims against Harcros (strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities, gross negligence, negligence, wrongful death, and failure to warn) to a reasonable timeframe of ten years from the date the lawsuit was filed—June 30, 2015 to present. The plaintiffs allege that the defendant Harcros Chemicals Inc. owns and operates an industrial facility located at 5200 Speaker Road, Kansas City, Kansas and that toxic emissions from the Facility caused or contributed to community exposures and related harms from the poisoned air. Harcros distributes and manufactures industrial and specialty chemicals. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated May 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9RzjeO at no extra charge.[CC] HEALTH CARE: Class Cert Hearing in Rutherford Reset to May 22 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rutherford, et al., v. Health Care Service Corporation, et al., Case No. 6:24-cv-00081 (D. Mont., Filed Nov. 14, 2024), the Hon. Judge Brian Morris entered an order that the motion hearing is reset for May 22, 2026. The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract. Health Care is a member-owned health insurance company in the United States.[CC] HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: Dalton Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Herbalife International of America, Inc., Case No. 0:26-cv-02607 (D. Minn., May 13, 2026) alleges that the Defendant's website, www.herbalife.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 HORIZON HOBBY: Barlow Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL BARLOW, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Horizon Hobby, LLC d/b/a Arrma, Case No. 1:26-cv-05500 (N.D. Ill., May 13, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.arrma-rc.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 HOSPITAL SISTERS: Brahm Reconsideration of Remand Order ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATALIE BRAHM, JAMES QUAID, SUE BORNEMANN, and KIM WARD, v. HOSPITAL SISTERS HEALTH SYSTEMS, SACRED HEART HOSPITAL OF THE HOSPITAL SISTERS OF THE THIRD ORDER OF ST. FRANCIS, PREVEA HEALTH SERVICES, INC., and PREVEA HEALTH NETWORK, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00444-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion and altering its judgment to find the Plaintiffs have standing to proceed in this Court. The Plaintiffs move the Court to reconsider its order remanding this case to state court under Rules 59(e) and 56(f). The Court's order misunderstood the record and deprived the Plaintiffs a chance to argue their case on standing -- even though the Defendants did not challenge the Plaintiffs' standing in briefing. This led to an error of fact and law. On the facts, the order suggests Defendants "anonymized" Plaintiffs' patient data before they sent it to Google when no evidence supports that finding, the Plaintiffs aver. The Plaintiffs' proposition is simple: the Defendants cannot send identifiable and protected medical data to Google without the Plaintiffs' consent, the suit says. As the Court found, the Defendants installed Google Analytics tracking pixels on their patient portals. Those trackers then disclosed IP addresses, cookies, user agent, device properties, and URLs to Google during each patient visit. While the Court appears to have believed Defendants when they called that data "anonymous," nothing in the record supports that finding, the suit adds. Hospital Sisters operates a network of 15 hospitals and other healthcare facilities throughout the midwestern U.S. states of Illinois, and Wisconsin. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JuazqK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alex Phillips, Esq. Raina Borrelli, Esq. Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: aphillips@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com sam@straussborrelli.com - and - Foster C. Johnson, Esq. AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, & MENSING, PLLC 1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2500 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 655-1101 Facsimile: (713) 655-0062 E-mail: fjohnson@azalaw.com dwarden@azalaw.com - and - Mark Christopher Holden, Esq. Foster C. Johnson, Esq. Kevin Leyendecker, Esq. David Warden, Esq. AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, & MENSING, PLLC 1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2500 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 655-1101 Facsimile: (713) 655-0062 E-mail: mholden@azalaw.com fjohnson@azalaw.com dwarden@azalaw.com HULKEN INC: Faces Henderson Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH HENDERSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hulken Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05198 (N.D. Ill., May 5, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://hulken.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Henderson and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On March 31, 2026, during his online search for rolling tote bag, Plaintiff Henderson discovered the Defendant's website. Interested in the products offered on the website, he decided to explore the available options with the intention of making a purchase. During his visit, he became interested in the Hulken Signature Rolling Tote Bag and attempted to purchase it. However, while navigating the Website using a keyboard and screen reader, he encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented him from completing the purchase independently. The Plaintiff contends that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by him and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. Plaintiff Henderson seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Hulken Inc. operates the website that offers utility and carry products, including foldable rolling tote bags, reusable shopping and travel totes, organizers, storage solutions, and related accessories such as hats, phone cords, and luggage tags.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (716) 281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law HUMACYTE INC: Faces, Class and Derivative Suits ----------------------------------------------- Humacyte, 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 13, 2026, that it facing securities and corresponding derivative suits over its disclosures related to the biologics license application (BLA) for the vascular trauma indication and to alleged deficiencies at the company's Durham, North Carolina manufacturing facility. On November 18, 2024, James A. Cutshall filed a putative class action lawsuit, captioned "Cutshall v. Humacyte, Inc., et al.," No. 1:24-cv-00954, against the company and certain of the its officers in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired its securities between May 10, 2024 and October 17, 2024, based on allegations that the defendants made or were responsible for false or misleading statements and omissions. It seeks a variety of relief, including unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On January 31, 2025, the court appointed co-lead plaintiffs. On May 22, 2025, the co-lead plaintiffs filed the amended complaint expanding the putative class to include persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the Company between August 14, 2023 and March 25, 2025, and alleges that the defendants made or were responsible for false or misleading statements and omissions related to the safety of "Symvess," alleged deficiencies at its manufacturing facility, and the company's financial condition and liquidity. On July 25, 2025, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety and with prejudice. On March 31, 2026, the court partially granted and partially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing without prejudice claims about the company's financial condition, liquidity and manufacturing facility deficiencies, while sustaining at the pleading stage claims related to alleged product safety misrepresentations and omissions. Discovery on the remaining claims is expected to start shortly. In addition, on January 7 and 10, 2025, putative stockholders of the company filed two verified stockholder derivative actions in the Middle District of North Carolina, captioned "Silva v. Sebelius, et al.," No. 1:25-cv-00005 and "Misko v. Niklason, et al.," No. 1:25-cv-00028. Each of these derivative actions was brought on behalf of the company against certain of its current or former directors and officers, as well as Ayabudge LLC. The complaints in each action assert claims for violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets, based on a variety of allegations including claims that the defendants are responsible for any damages sustained by the company as a result of the Securities Litigation. The Misko action also includes a claim for contribution against certain defendants under Sections 10(b) and 21(d) of the Exchange Act for any liability the company may sustain as a result of the Securities Litigation. On February 18, 2025, the court issued an order consolidating the two and staying the defendants' obligation to respond to any complaint in the consolidated derivative action pending the submission of a proposed scheduling order. On March 11, 2025, the parties entered a joint motion to stay it pending final resolution of the securities litigation, which the court granted. Further, on April 21, 2026, the parties filed a joint motion to stay the case pending a decision on summary judgment in the Securities Litigation. The court requested additional briefing explaining the need for this stay on April 24, 2026. Humacyte, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on developing off-the-shelf, bioengineered human tissues and organs for use in vascular and other diseases. The companys lead product candidates are designed to address unmet medical needs in vascular trauma, dialysis access, and other life- and limb-saving indications. ILLUMIFIN CORP: Cardwell Sues Over Unprotected Private Information ------------------------------------------------------------------ JANETTE CARDWELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ILLUMIFIN CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-02453 (D. Minn., May 2, 2026) arises from a recent cyberattack discovered by Defendant on November 4, 2025, resulting in a data breach of sensitive information in the possession and custody and/or control of Defendant. The data breach resulted in unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration, and theft of current and former consumers’ highly personal information, including name, date of birth, Social Security number and policy number. On or about April 22, 2026--five months after the data breach was first discovered--Defendant finally began notifying Plaintiff and the Class of the breach through breach notices. In addition, the Defendant's breach notice obfuscated the nature of the breach and the threat it posted--refusing to tell consumers how many people were impacted, how the breach happened, and why it took Defendant until April 22, 2026, to begin notifying victims that hackers had gained access to highly private sensitive information as early as November 4, 2025. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence, breach of third-party contract, unjust enrichment, and invasion of privacy. Headquartered in Woodbury, MN, Illumifin Corporation operates as a third-party administrator serving the North American life, long-term care, annuity, and health insurance markets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brittany Resch, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: bresch@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Jason M. Wucetich, Esq. WUCETICH & KOROVILAS LLP 222 N Pacific Coast Hwy Suite 2000, El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 335-2001 E-mail: jason@wukolaw.com INNOVATIVE SCIENTIFIC: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, McKay Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ TERRI MCKAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INNOVATIVE SCIENTIFIC SOLUTIONS LLC d/b/a LUXOR SCIENTIFIC, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:26-cv-01855-TMC (D.S.C., May 6, 2026) arises 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. The complaint relates that the Defendant had numerous statutory, regulatory, contractual, and common law duties and obligations, including those based on its affirmative representations to Plaintiff and Class Members, to keep their sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI" collectively with PII as "Private Information") confidential, safe, secure, and protected from unauthorized disclosure or access. On September 6, 2025, Defendant learned that certain systems in its network environment were affected by a cybersecurity incident. Upon investigation, Defendant determined that an unauthorized actor gained access to a limited number of systems within its network for a period of time and accessed certain files stored within those systems. These types of Private Information may have been compromised in the Data Breach: names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, financial information, medical information, and health insurance information. On April 7, 2026, Defendant started sending notice letters to impacted individuals. On April 17, 2026, notice of the Breach was published on the Massachusetts Attorney General website. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals, the complaint alleges. Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries, including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for: negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment; breach of implied contract; and breach of confidence. Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons whose Private Information was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. Defendant Innovative Scientific Solutions LLC d/b/a Luxor Scientific, LLC offers laboratory testing services for clinical and research purposes. Defendant is headquartered in Greenville, South Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Wilkerson, Esq. WILKERSON JUSTUS PLLC 9 SW Pack Square, Suite 301 Asheville, NC 28801 Telephone: (828) 316-6902 - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. Tyler A. Litke, Esq. Melissa G. Meyer, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: mreich@zlk.com E-mail: tlitke@zlk.com E-mail: mmeyer@zlk.com INOVIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Class and Derivative Suits Filed -------------------------------------------------------- Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2026, that it is currently facing securities suits as well as derivative actions regarding its "INO-3107" license application with the Food and Drugs Authority. On February 6, 2026, a purported shareholder class action complaint, "Carlson v. Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Jacqueline Shea, and Peter Kies," was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, naming the company, Jacqueline Shea, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and Peter Kies, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the Inovio made materially false and misleading statements regarding its submission to the FDA and the FDA's review timeline for the Biologics License Application for INO-3107 in its public disclosures in violation of certain federal securities laws. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees. Another purported shareholder class action complaint has been filed against the company and its executive officers as defendants, and alleging that it made materially false and misleading statements regarding the submission to the FDA and the FDA's review timeline for the Company's Biologics License Application for INO-3107 in violation of certain federal securities laws. Additionally, on March 5, 2026, a purported shareholder derivative complaint, "Shin v. Shea, et al.," was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, naming Jacqueline Shea, the company's Chief Executive Officer, Peter Kies, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, and seven current directors as defendants. The lawsuit asserts state and federal claims and is based on the same alleged misstatements as the shareholder class action complaint. The lawsuit accuses the company board of directors of failing to exercise reasonable and prudent supervision over management, policies, internal controls and operations. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the company as well as governance reforms. Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biotechnology company focused on the discovery, development and commercialization of DNA medicines to treat and prevent infectious diseases, cancer and HPV-associated diseases. The company leverages its proprietary DNA technology platform to develop immunotherapies and vaccines designed to generate robust and durable immune responses. INSTRUCTURE HOLDINGS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Brownlee Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ GAYLE BROWNLEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INSTRUCTURE HOLDINGS INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-04452 (N.D. Cal., May 13, 2026) arises out of a massive and preventable data breach affecting the Canvas learning management platform Canvas LMS is used by millions of students, teachers, administrators, and educational institutions for coursework, assignments, grading, communications, file storage, scheduling, and other educational functions. To use Canvas LMS, students and educational institutions were required to provide the Defendant with highly sensitive personally identifiable information (PII), including names, email addresses, student identification numbers, telephone numbers, grades, assignments, academic records, communications, and other sensitive educational information. Accordingly, on or around April 29, 2026, cybercriminals associated with the hacker group known as "ShinyHunters" gained unauthorized access to Defendant’s systems and exfiltrated sensitive information belonging to millions of Canvas users. The Defendant subsequently acknowledged additional unauthorized activity associated with the same incident on or around May 7, 2026. According to public reporting and Defendant's own disclosures, the compromised data included, at minimum, names, email addresses, student identification numbers, and private communications between users. 7. Public reporting further indicated that approximately 275 million records associated with nearly 9,000 schools, universities, and educational platforms worldwide may have been impacted. Plaintiff Brownlee is a citizen and resident of Berkeley, California. Plaintiff has been a student at San Mateo Community College since August 2024. In connection with her coursework and enrollment, the Plaintiff used Canvas LMS in the Northern District of California and provided personally identifiable information to Defendant through the Canvas platform while residing and studying in this District. The Defendant develops, owns, operates, maintains, markets, and controls the Canvas LMS platform. The Defendant collects and stores substantial amounts of sensitive personal information from students, teachers, administrators, and educational institutions. Canvas LMS is a web-based educational software platform used by schools, colleges, and universities throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sabita J. Soneji, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1970 Broadway, Suite 1070 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 254-6808 E-mail: ssoneji@tzlegal.com J. CREW: Class Certification Bid Filing in Leyden Due Dec. 18 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Leyden v. J. Crew Group, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01448 (D. Or., Filed Aug. 15, 2025), the Hon. Judge Amy M. Baggio entered an order setting the following case schedule: -- Motion for Class Certification is due Dec. 18, 2026 -- Opposition to Motion for Class Certification is due Jan. 29, 2027 -- Reply to Motion for Class Certification is due Feb. 26, 2027 -- The Court will set a date for Oral Argument on the Motion for Class Certification as appropriate -- Mediation deadline is sixty (60) days after the Court's Order on class certification The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. J. Crew operates as a clothing company.[CC] JC RESORTS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Courter Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ KATHRYN COURTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JC RESORTS, LLC, Case No. 26CU026392C (Cal. Super, San Diego County, May 13, 2026) is a class action lawsuit against the Defendant for its negligent failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive personally identifiable information (PII) culminating in a massive and preventable data breach (the Data Breach). As a result of Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and necessary data security practices, cybercriminals easily infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected computer systems and stole the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former employees and/or customers of Defendant. On or about March 3, 2026, Defendant JC discovered that on January 19, 2026, unauthorized cybercriminals gained access to Defendant's inadequately protected computer system and Plaintiff's and the Class Member's Private Information stored thereon. As part of the business practices and to provide services and employment, the Defendant collects, stores, and maintains employees' and customers' confidential PII, including Plaintiff's and Class Members'. JC owns and operates boutique resorts and golf courses throughout California, with one additional golf course located in New Mexico.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Frost, Esq. Kevin S. Dicker, Esq. FROST LLP 10960 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 254-0441 Facsimile: (424) 600-8504 E-mail: chris@frostllp.com kevin@frostllp.com - and - Jonathan Herrera, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: jjh@federmanlaw.com JOHN DOE: Pretrial Management Order Entered in Strike 3 Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC, v. JOHN DOE, subscriber assigned IP address 97.237.64.182, Case No. 1:26-cv-03279-AT-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management. All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. Parties and counsel are cautioned: Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court proceeding (including a telephonic court conference), or to extend a deadline, must be made in writing and in compliance with section 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Telephone requests for adjournments or extensions will not be entertained. A copy of the Court's order dated May 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WDIH7c at no extra charge.[CC] KARS4KIDS INC: Court Rules Ad Jingle Violates False Advertising Law ------------------------------------------------------------------- Rob Hayes of ABC 7 reports that a California Superior Court judge in Orange County has ruled that Kars4Kids' long-running advertising jingle violates the state's False Advertising Law and ordered the nonprofit to stop airing the ads in their current form beginning June 8. The decision targets the charity's widely known commercials -- including the familiar "1-877-Kars4Kids" refrain -- which have been the subject of pop-culture jokes for years. But the ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by an Orange County man who said he donated a car believing the proceeds would help underprivileged children across the country. According to the judge, the organization's ads misled donors by implying that funds supported needy children broadly, when the vast majority of money raised by Kars4Kids was instead directed to another nonprofit that funneled money to Orthodox Jewish programs in New York, New Jersey and the Middle East. Legal analyst Neama Rahmani said the court focused on how the charity portrayed its mission. "When you're running ads with young kids and the funds are going to older kids in another state and maybe even another country that's a problem," he said. Attorney Anthony Graham, who represented the plaintiff, said the ruling required proving intent. "We have to show that they knowingly and intentionally misled the public and it's not an easy thing to do, but we did it," he said. In a written statement, Kars4Kids called the ruling "deeply flawed" and said its website makes clear that it is a Jewish organization. "We believe this case was nothing more than a lawyer-driven attempt to siphon off charitable funds for their own gain. We expect to win on appeal because the law and the facts are clearly on our side," said Wendy Kirwan, the group's director of communications. The charity is also facing a federal class-action lawsuit that could carry significant financial consequences, said Graham. "You have to be looking at least ($400 million) to $500 million," he said. Legal experts say the organization could face further scrutiny. If regulators or prosecutors take interest, Kars4Kids executives could face potential criminal investigations. [GN] KENTUCKY: Class Certification Bid in Kennedy Due Dec. 1, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMIAHIA KENNEDY and WILLOW NEAL, on Behalf of Themselves Individually and All Others Similarly Situated, v. KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00016-GNS-HBB (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Brennenstuhl entered a scheduling order as follows: (1) No later than May 15, 2026, the parties shall have made all initial disclosures required of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1). (2) All motions to amend the pleadings shall be filed by the no later than Nov. 30, 2026. (3) No later than Nov. 1, 2027, the parties shall complete all pretrial fact discovery. (4) No later than April 5, 2027, counsel for the Plaintiff shall disclose the identity of any person who may be used at trial to provide expert testimony under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(A). (5) The discovery depositions of all expert witnesses shall be completed no later than Oct. 1, 2027. (6) The Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class certification on or before Dec. 1, 2027, the Defendants shall have 45 days to file their Response, the Plaintiff's reply shall be due within 15 days thereafter. The Defendant is one of the five departments under the Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet. A copy of the Court's order dated May 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=B2G9g0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Laura E. Landenwich, Esq. David J. Agnew, Esq. ADAMS LANDENWICH LAY, PLLC 517 West Ormsby Avenue Louisville, KY 40203 Telephone: (502) 561-0085 E-mail: laura@justiceky.com - and - AndErin Stemle, Esq. ALEX R. WHITE, PLLC 904 Minoma Avenue Louisville, KY 40217 Telephone: (502) 882-7552 E-mail: erin@arwhitelaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Mark F. Bizzell, Esq. JUSTICE & PUBLIC SAFETY CABINET OFFICE OF LEGAL SERVICES 125 Holmes Street Frankfort, KY 40601 Telephone: (502) 782-1097 Facsimile: (502) 564-6686 E-mail: mark.bizzell@ky.gov KENVUE BRANDS: Noohi Seeks Approval of Notice of Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NARGUESS NOOHI, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC SIMILARLY SITUATED, V. KENVUE BRANDS, LLC, DOES 1-100, INCLUSIVE, Case No. 2:20-cv-03575-TJH-SSC (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on June 15, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., will move the Court for an Order approving the notice of certification to the Class and the notice plan, as proposed by the Plaintiff. The Parties have met and conferred regarding the substance of the instant motion. The Defendants' counsel indicated that they do not intend to oppose the motion for class notice. Kenvue is a key operating subsidiary of Kenvue Inc., the world's largest pure-play consumer health company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DMZENx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 23586 Calabasas Rd., Suite 105 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com L'OREAL USA: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Hicks Extended to Oct. 26 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZAIDA HICKS, et al., v. L'OREAL U.S.A., INC., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01989-JPC-HJR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ricardo entered an order granting parties request for a 30-day extension of the fact discovery Deadline: -- Fact discovery shall be completed by July 10, 2026; -- The parties are directed to file a further joint status letter by Aug. 10, 2026; -- Expert discovery shall be completed by Oct. 12, 2026; -- The Plaintiff shall move for class certification by Oct. 26, 2026. Additionally, pursuant to Rule II(A) of the undersigned's Individual Rules and Practices for Civil Cases, any future extension requests must be made by letter motion and should not be included in a joint status letter. L'Oreal manufactures and markets cosmetic products. A copy of the Court's order dated May 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uB4Lde at no extra charge.[CC] LESLIES INC: Faces Class and Derivative Suits --------------------------------------------- Leslie's, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending April 4, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2026, that it is currently facing an amended securities suit and derivative actions over allegations that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements that failed to disclose adverse facts about the company's financial guidance, business operations, and prospects. On September 8, 2023, a class action complaint for violation of federal securities laws was filed by West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona against the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer, and its former Chief Financial Officer. The complaint seeks class certification, damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other relief. On April 22, 2024, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and the court granted that motion and dismissed the claims on July 14, 2025, but allowed the plaintiff to file a second amended complaint. On August 13, 2025, the plaintiff filed the second amended complaint and on September 12, 2025, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, and that motion is fully briefed and pending before the court. Additionally, on March 13, 2024, March 14, 2024, and December 17, 2024, three derivative actions were separately filed in the Districts of Arizona and Delaware by John Clemens, Sally Flynn, and Ian Mednick, respectively, on behalf of the company and against its current and former officers and directors. Each of the three complaints includes allegations similar to those in the securities class action and alleges that the defendant directors and officers harmed the company by either making false or misleading statements or allowing false or misleading statements to be made. The complaints seek the award of damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and other declaratory relief. The two derivative actions pending in the District of Arizona have been consolidated into a single proceeding. All of the derivative actions are stayed pending a decision on the motion to dismiss in the securities class action. Leslie's, Inc. is a specialty retailer and service provider of swimming pool and spa supplies and related products in the United States. The Company operates a nationwide network of retail stores and digital platforms serving residential, professional, and commercial customers. LIBERTY MUTUAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Francis Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT FRANCIS and JOHN GOODWIN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-12056-AK (D. Mass., May 6, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs' and Class Members' sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. On or around April 30, 2026, the notorious criminal ransomware group known as "Everest" accessed Defendant's or its third-party vendor's computer network and then targeted and exfiltrated the private information of Liberty Mutual's current and former clients. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiffs' and Class Members' private information––and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted private information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect its clients' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiffs' and Class Members' private information because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiffs and Class Members. The present and continuing risk to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes, says the suit. The Plaintiffs are clients of Defendant and a data breach victims. They bring this class action on behalf of themselves, and all others harmed by Defendant's misconduct. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company is the ninth largest global property and casualty insurer with more than 40,000 employees that generates more than $50 billion in annual consolidated revenue.[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 - Raina Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC  980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611  Telephone: (872) 263-1100  Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Cert Filing in Matthews Due July 24 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARRY MATTHEWS, et al., v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02944-FLA-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Aenlle-Rocha entered an order approving stipulation extending last date to hear motion for class certification by 60 days. The court continues the following dates: Event Date Deadline to file motion for class July 24, 2026 certification: Deadline to file opposition: Aug. 14, 2026 Deadline to file reply: Sept. 4, 2026 Last Date to hear motion for class Sept. 18, 2026 certification: The parties should not expect a further continuance absent a specific showing, dating back to the filing of the Complaint, of all their efforts to timely complete discovery and other litigation activity. This detailed showing must demonstrate the work still to be performed reasonably could not have been accomplished within the applicable deadline(s). General statements are insufficient to establish good cause. Los Angeles is a Southern California city and the center of the nation's film and television industry. A copy of the Court's order dated May 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yGusAI at no extra charge.[CC] LUCKY STRIKE: Doehr Sues Over Anticompetitive Scheme ---------------------------------------------------- BENJAMIN DOEHR, ZACH SOLIZ, MITCHEL FEUER, KEVIN HOWARD, ANDRE HOWARD, MICHAEL CORDERO, ED MCDONALD, THEODORE HARKNESS, TIM KELLY, MAOR KRAMER, and CASEY GOODMAN, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LUCKY STRIKE ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION (f/k/a/ BOWLERO CORP), AMF BOWLING CENTERS, INC.; LUCKY STRIKE ENTERTAINMENT LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-01535 (W.D. Wash., May 6, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants challenging Bowlero's multi-year anticompetitive scheme to consolidate bowling centers in communities throughout the United States, drive up the cost of bowling for millions of consumers, worsen those consumers' bowling experience, and increase its own profits. The complaint relates that in recent years, Bowlero -- the single largest bowling center operator in the world -- has entered or spread in dozens of cities in America, not by offering better lanes or a superior customer experience, but by gobbling up its competitors through unlawful acquisitions, and then cutting supply, raising prices, pushing alcohol, promoting gambling, and alienating virtually every customer except those who have no interest in bowling. Bowlero's "mousetrap" business model has not only increased prices for consumers, but also made the quality of the experience much worse, including lanes that are not properly conditioned and often break down, centers that are understaffed and lacking needed mechanical technicians, unclean bathrooms, and atmospherics like night-club blacklights and extremely loud music that detract from the experience and distract bowlers, adds the complaint. Bowlero's consolidation strategy has been so effective that it now leverages its dominance to obtain more favorable terms from suppliers than its competitors can obtain, savings it then funnels directly into marketing and advertising, giving it an enormous advantage as it drowns out its smaller local competitors on the airwaves and the internet. Through this action, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public, seek to halt Bowlero's unlawful acquisition scheme, to be made whole for the harm it has already inflicted on them, and for an order from the Court unwinding Bowlero's unlawful acquisitions. They also seek damages, injunctive relief, and other relief, pursuant to federal and state antitrust and state unfair competition laws, and demand a jury trial. Plaintiffs Mr. Doehr, Mr. Soliz, Mr. Feuer, Mr. K. Howard, Mr. A. Howard, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Harkness, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Kelly, and Mr. Goodman are all bowlers impacted by increased prices at bowling centers in their area in the last four years and have been directly harmed by Bowlero's anticompetitive conduct. Defendants Lucky Strike Entertainment Corporation f/k/a/ Bowlero Corp., AMF Bowling Centers, Inc. and Lucky Strike Entertainment LLC operates bowling centers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Catherine S. Simonsen, Esq. SIMONSEN SUSSMAN LLP 1120 Pacific Avenue, Suite 100 Tacoma, WA 98402 Telephone: (917) 747-5196 Facsimile: (913) 262-0058 E-mail: catherine@simonsensussman.com - and - Nico Gurian, Esq. SIMONSEN SUSSMAN LLP 307 West 38th Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (718) 510-5495 Facsimile: (913) 262-0058 E-mail: nico.gurian@simonsensussman.com - and - John P. Fiske, Esq. Lindsay Stevens, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 11440 West Bernardo Court, Suite 265 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 251-7424 Facsimile: (214) 523-6600 E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com lstevens@baronbudd.com MAK PHARMA: Prelim. Approval of Settlement Sought ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERTO BERMUDEZ, on his own behalf and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. MAK PHARMA USA, LLC, and all other affiliated entities and/or joint employers, and SNEHAL ANTANA, individually, Case No. 2:24-cv-07737-MCA-JSA (D.N.J.), the Parties will move the Court, on June 15, 2026, at 9:30 a.m., for preliminary approval of the Plaintiffs' motion for class and collective action settlement. Mak Pharma is a contract pharma / nutraceutical packaging company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5yQI0L at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Glenn, Esq. Jodi Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com MARSHA MCLANE: Court Dismisses Richards Suit -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES RICHARDS, Institutional ID No. 02346971, v. MARSHA MCLANE, TCCO Executive Director, et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-00075-H-BV (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Burch entered an order as follows: (1) Grant the Defendants McLane and MTC's motions to dismiss; (2) Deny his motion to certify class; (3) Deny his motion for leave to join party as defendant; and (4) Dismiss his official capacity claims against McLane for retrospective relief without prejudice and all others with prejudice. Mr. Richards does not claim that he is licensed to practice law. While he can represent himself under 28 U.S.C. section 165, he cannot represent others and "should be limited to seeking relief for the damages that he alleges he personally suffered." The undersigned recommends that Richards's pending motion to certify a class be denied, and that all class claims be dismissed without prejudice. Pro se Plaintiff James Richards, a sexually violent predator (SVP) confined at the Texas Civil Commitment Center (TCCC), filed this civil-rights action against the Defendants Marsha McLane, who serves as Executive Director of the Texas Civil Commitment Office (TCCO), and Management & Training Corporation (MTC), the private company that operates the TCCC. Mr. Richards purports to bring his claims as a class representative of TCCC residents. He claims that the Defendants routinely violate residents' due process rights by creating and enforcing an "unconstitutional treatment scheme that is punitive in effect" and "fails provide appropriate treatment" for SVPs. A copy of the Court's recommendation dated May 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tyaQPT at no extra charge.[CC] MARYGOLD COMPANIES: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Marygold Companies, 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 8, 2026, that its subsidiaries have been sued over its SEC disclosures on its financial status in 2020. On June 19, 2020, the company's subsidiaries USCF LLC, USO, board members John P. Love, and Stuart P. Crumbaugh were named as defendants in a putative class action filed by purported shareholder Robert Lucas. The court consolidated this with two related putative class actions filed on July 31, 2020 and August 13, 2020, and appointed a lead plaintiff. This is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption "In re: United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation," Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-04740. These allegations stem from USO's disclosures and defendants' alleged actions in light of the extraordinary market conditions in 2020 that caused demand for oil to fall precipitously, including the COVID-19 global pandemic and the Saudi Arabia-Russia oil price war. The complaints seek, on behalf of USO, compensatory damages, restitution, equitable relief, attorney's fees, and costs. Marygold Companies, Inc. is a diversified holding company that acquires and manages operating subsidiaries across financial services and related industries, including investment management and fintech. The company pursues a strategy of building long-term value through strategic acquisitions and organic growth within its portfolio businesses. MAX NASTASEE: Court Conditionally Appoints Pro Bono Counsel ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT HARRY COLLINS, et al., v. MAX NASTASEE, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-02543-JPW-EW (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer P. Wilson will conditionally appoint pro bono counsel to represent L.R. and grant four of the six motions to proceed in forma pauperis. The court will deny the motion to proceed in forma pauperis filed by K. Collins and L.R. without prejudice. The court will grant K. Collins the opportunity to file a current application to proceed in forma pauperis. The court will deny the motion for class certification and the motion for appointment of counsel. The court will serve the complaint on the Defendants. At this point in litigation, appointment of counsel for any Plaintiffs other than the minor child is premature. The Defendants have not yet been served with the complaint. Therefore, the motion for appointment of counsel will be denied without prejudice. The Plaintiff may renew this motion, or the court may appoint counsel sua sponte if it deems necessary. On Dec. 29, 2025, the court received and docketed a complaint from the Plaintiffs. The complaint alleges that the Defendants were involved in an unconstitutional search of the residence shared by the Plaintiffs following an alleged parole violation of R. Clark. A copy of the Court's memorandum dated May 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IVmL1R at no extra charge.[CC] MEDTRONIC INC: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Jackson Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Carlos Jackson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Medtronic, Inc., Case No. 0:26-cv-02598-DWF-DLM (D. Minn., May 13, 2026) 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 (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of Plaintiff and Class Members. Accordingly, Medtronic "transforms the lives of millions worldwide" as a healthcare technology company with "13,600+ scientists and engineers in more than 43 companies, 41,000+ active patent matters across [its] portfolio, and 70+ conditions in the human body treated with [its] therapies." The Defendant owes Plaintiff and Class Members an affirmative duty to adequately protect and safeguard their Private Information against theft and misuse the suit says. Despite such duties created by statute, regulation, and common law, at all relevant times, Defendant utilized deficient data security practices, thereby allowing sensitive and private data to fall into the hands of strangers. Defendant learned that an unauthorized third party accessed data in certain Medtronic corporate IT systems, added the suit. Medtronic manufactures a range of medical products, including pacemakers, defibrillators, heart valves, coronary stents, insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitoring systems, neurosurgery products and imaging systems, surgical robotics, ventilators, and gastrointestinal products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. Jacob E. Lanthier, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Ave. S., Ste. 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612-339-0981 E-mail: kmbaxterkauf@locklaw.com khriebel@locklaw.com jelanthier@locklaw.com - and - Amber L. Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union St, Ste 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 E-mail: aschubert@sjk.law MESA, AZ: Court Tosses Culbertson Suit w/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Steven Culbertson, et al., v. City of Mesa, Case No. 2:25-cv-02341-SPL (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Logan entered an order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended complaint. The Court further entered an order thatL -- the Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend. -- If Plaintiffs elect not to file an amended complaint, the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment dismissing this action without further order of this Court. The Plaintiffs' claims are based on the overarching allegation that they should not be exempted as employees in fire protection activities when they are working on the ambulance service, and therefore, they are entitled to overtime pay. However, the Plaintiffs do not allege sufficient facts to state a claim for overtime payments because they do not allege that they worked in excess of 40 hours in any given workweek. The Plaintiffs initiated this action on Aug. 14, 2025. On Nov. 5, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs are current or former employees of the Mesa Fire & Medical Department who allege that they were denied overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") when they worked shifts as a paramedic or emergency medical technician ("EMT"). Mesa is a city just east of Phoenix, in Arizona. A copy of the Court's order dated May 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Y98T2k at no extra charge.[CC] METROPOLITAN LIFE: Gaudet Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- GERMAINE GAUDET is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing the lawsuit entitled Germaine Gaudet, individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-00694-PCP, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiff Gaudet brings three California state law claims based on MetLife's failure to inform her until 2021 of the rate increase or any of the issues leading to the rate increase: (1) fraud by omission; (2) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and (3) violation of California Insurance Code Section 10234.8. On Sept. 22, 2025, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss on Oct. 20, 2025. On Mar. 26, 2026, Judge P. Casey Pitts entered an Order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court held that because the California Department of Insurance (CDI) must approve any premium increase, MetLife was not under any duty to notify policy holders of premium increases until the CDI had approved them. The Court therefore concluded that the facts pleaded did not support a claim that MetLife committed fraudulent omission (because there was no duty to disclose information about potential future rate increases), a violation of the UCL (because there was no violation of any statutory duty), or a breach of Section 10234.8. The appellate case is captioned Gaudet v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Case No. 26-2761, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 1, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on May 6, 2026; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on May 8, 2026; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on June 8, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on July 17, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on August 17, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant GERMAINE GAUDET is represented by: Robert R. Duncan, Esq. James Podolny, Esq. DUNCAN LAW GROUP, LLC 161 N. Clark Street, Suite 2550 Chicago, IL 60601 Defendant-Appellee METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY is represented by: Michael J. Duvall, Esq. DENTONS US, LLP 601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 - and - Sandra Hauser, Esq. DENTONS, LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 - and - Drew William Marrocco, Esq. SNR DENTON US LLP 1301 K Street, N.W. Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005 MIAMI GALAXY: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Brito Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS BRITO v. MIAMI GALAXY LLC F/K/A MIAMI GALAXY CORP D/B/A GALAXY SHOPPING CENTER, and CARIBE RESTAURANT OF 27TH AVE INC D/B/A CARIBE RESTAURANT, Case No. 1:26-cv-23384 (S.D. Fla., May 13, 2026) is a class action seeking injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff contends that the he found the commercial property and commercial mini mart business located within the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. He encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property and commercial mini mart business located within the commercial property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises. MIAMI GALAXY LLC owns, operates, and oversees the commercial property, including the parking areas, walkways and all areas open to the public. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 E-Mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com jr@ajperezlawgroup.com MINISO GROUP: Nova Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- NOVA SCOTIA HEALTH EMPLOYEES' PENSION PLAN, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Nova Scotia Health Employees' Pension Plan, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MINISO Group Holding Limited, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-9864, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit, which was transferred from the U.S. District Court for Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York, is brought against the Defendants for violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. On June 30, 2025, the Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' third amended complaint (TAC), which Judge Edgardo Ramos granted on Mar. 31, 2026. The Court concludes that the TAC adds minimal factual allegations and is deficient for substantially similar reasons as the SAC. The Court believes that another amendment of the complaint would be futile and denies the Plaintiffs' request to amend the TAC. The case is closed. The appellate case is styled as In re MINISO Group Holding Limited Securities Litigation, Case No. 26-1196, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on May 1, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants NOVA SCOTIA HEALTH EMPLOYEES' PENSION PLAN, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Matthew L. Tuccillo, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Defendants-Appellees MINISO GROUP HOLDING LIMITED, et al. are represented by: Scott Musoff, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP One Manhattan West New York, NY 10001 - and - Jason C. Hegt, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Settles Suit Over Defective Outlander Vehicles ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. has agreed to a settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the hoods on certain 2022 Outlander vehicles were predisposed to a "fluttering" defect that caused them to shudder and bounce while driving. The Mitsubishi Outlander class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on January 21, 2026. The settlement covers all current and former owners and lessees of certain model year 2022 Mitsubishi Outlander vehicles in the United States, as determined by the cars' vehicle identification numbers (VINs). The court-approved website for the Mitsubishi hood defect settlement can be found at HoodSettlement.com. Consumers can determine if they are eligible to participate in the class action settlement by using the VIN lookup tool on the settlement website. As part of the deal, Mitsubishi has agreed to perform a hood replacement on all covered Outlander vehicles for drivers who express concerns about hood fluttering. Mitsubishi settlement class members who file a timely, valid claim form can receive 100 percent reimbursement of parts and labor costs for hood repairs and replacements made at an authorized Mitsubishi dealer before May 1, 2026. The settlement agreement explains that reimbursement for past repairs or replacements performed by outside service entities or facilities that are not authorized Mitsubishi dealers will be subject to a $4,595 payout cap. For these claims, class members will need to submit records or a sworn declaration reflecting that they attempted to have their car repaired at an authorized Mitsubishi dealer first but the dealer declined or was unable to perform the repair. Class members can also file a claim to receive full reimbursement for certain rental car expenses incurred prior to May 1, 2026 while their Outlander was undergoing a hood repair or replacement. To file a Mitsubishi settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and select whether they received a settlement notice with a claim ID and PIN. Class members are required to submit supporting documentation with their claim form, such as repair invoices and receipts. All Mitsubishi settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by July 30, 2026. In addition to monetary relief, Mitsubishi will extend its new vehicle limited warranty to cover 100 percent of the cost of hood replacements and repairs at authorized dealers for eligible Outlander vehicles. This warranty period will last for 18 months after May 1, 2026 for all vehicles, regardless of whether an Outlander is still under the original five-year/60,000-mile warranty. For Outlander vehicles that already underwent a hood repair or replacement before May 1, 2026, the warranty period will last 18 months from the date of the repair, or if the repair was performed more than 18 months before May 1, 2026, the warranty period will last six months, beginning on May 1, 2026. Mitsubishi dealers will also provide a complimentary loaner vehicle to class members whose vehicles are undergoing hood repairs and replacements pursuant to the warranty extension. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Mitsubishi Outlander hood defect settlement following a hearing on August 3, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Mitsubishi class action lawsuit alleged that certain 2022 Outlander vehicles were manufactured with defective hoods that may flutter and bounce during vehicle operation. [GN] MONEYLION TECHNOLOGIES: Appeals Court Order in Burkhardt Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- MONEYLION TECHNOLOGIES INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motions to compel arbitration and dismiss in the lawsuit entitled Jonathan Burkhardt, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MoneyLion Technologies Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-6761, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff Deven Burkhardt, an Instacash and Credit Builder Plus customer, sued on behalf of all active duty servicemembers and their dependents who obtained an Instacash loan or Credit Builder loan from Defendant within the applicable statute of limitations. On Sept. 26, 2025, the Defendants filed motions to compel arbitration and dismiss, which Judge Dale E. Ho granted on Apr. 15, 2026. The Court joined many others across the nation in concluding that these early payday services constitute the extension of credit under the Military Lending Act, which generally prohibits lenders from requiring servicemembers to submit to mandatory arbitration as a condition of a loan. The Court relied on its prior ruling in Lowe v. MoneyLion Technologies Inc., No. 25 Civ. 4098 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2026). The Court concludes that Plaintiff has stated a claim for a violation of Section 987(e)(3). The appellate case is captioned as Burkhardt v. MoneyLion Technologies Inc., Case No. 26-1197, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on May 1, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees JONATHAN BURKHARDT, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 328 Barry Avenue S., Suite 200 Wayzata, MN 55391 - and - Janet R. Varnell, Esq. VARNELL AND WARWICK PA 400 N. Ashley Drive, Suite 1900 Tampa, FL 33602 - and - Shennan Kavanagh, Esq. NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER 7 Winthrop Square Boston, MA 02110 - and - Kevin J. Abramowicz, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC 6901 Lynn Way, Suite 503 Pittsburgh, PA 15208 Defendants-Appellants MONEYLION TECHNOLOGIES INC., et al. are represented by: Ephraim A. McDowell, Esq. COOLEY LLP 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 MVI FIELD: Fails to Pay Field Inspectors Proper OT, Salisbury Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ ROBERT SALISBURY, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. MVI FIELD SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00591 (M.D. Tenn., May 5, 2026) is a collective action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees to remedy Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the FLSA by misclassifying Plaintiff and other employees as exempt from receiving overtime compensation when Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were nonexempt employees entitled to overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. This collective action seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation for Plaintiff, as well as for all similarly situated current and former salaried employees who worked at MVI as salaried field inspectors or in similar, salaried roles and worked over 40 hours in at least one workweek during the 3 years prior to the filing of this lawsuit. Plaintiff Salisbury worked for MVI as a field inspector from approximately 2021 until approximately August 26, 2025. MVI Field Services, LLC provides services for owners and operators of fuel facility sites in 48 States, including but not limited to inspecting underground storage tanks and above-ground storage tanks, facility management for rental car facilities, and petroleum fluid services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq. Melody Fowler-Green, Esq. N. Chase Teeples, Esq. YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC 2901 Dobbs Avenue Nashville, TN 37211 Telephone: (615) 250-2000 Facsimile: (615) 250-2020 E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com mel@yezbaklaw.com teeples@yezbaklaw.com - and - Adam Taub, Esq. CROSON TAUB & MICHAELS PLLC 455 E. Eisenhower Pkwy, Suite 75 Ann Arbor, MI 48108 Telephone: (734) 519-0872 Facsimile: (734) 519-0876 E-mail: ataub@ctmlawyers.com NATIONAL PRESTO: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due August 7 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as McCabe v. National Presto Industries, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-06552 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Sept. 18, 2024), the Hon. Judge Ann M. Donnelly entered an order granting request for an extension of time of the briefing schedule for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The plaintiff's motion is due by May 19, 2026. The defendant's opposition is due by August 7, 2026. The plaintiff's reply, if any, is due by August 28, 2026. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Personal Property Damage. National Presto engages in the manufacture of housewares, small appliances, defense, and absorbent products.[CC] NAVY FEDERAL: Preston Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- DEMARIO PRESTON, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Demario Preston, et al., individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Navy Federal Credit Union, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-08372-JGB-DTB, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit seeks monetary damages, restitution, and injunctive relief due to Navy Federal's policy and practice to assess Overdraft or Non-Sufficient Funds (NSF) Fees on items that had previously triggered NSF Fees. On Dec. 27, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed first amended complaint (FAC) against the Defendants. On Jan. 10, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which Judge Jesus G. Bernal granted on Mar. 31, 2026. The FAC is dismissed without leave to amend. The appellate case is captioned Preston, et al. v. Navy Federal Credit Union, et al., Case No. 26-2887, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 6, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on May 11, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on June 15, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on July 15, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants DEMARIO PRESTON et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Taras P. Kick, Esq. KICK LAW FIRM, APC 815 Moraga Drive, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90049 Defendants-Appellees NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, et al. are represented by: Frederick B. Burnside, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP 920 5th Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104 - and - Sancho Accorsi, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP 350 S. Grand Avenue, 27th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 NCAA: Class Settlement in Ray Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANNON RAY, KHALA TAYLOR, PETER ROBINSON, KATHERINE SEBANNE, and RUDY BARAJAS, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated association, Case No. 1:23-cv-00425-WBS-CSK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Shubb entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motions for final approval of the class action settlement, and for attorneys' fees, litigation costs, and service awards. -- The Court reaffirms its determination that the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3) are satisfied, including for settlement and judgment purposes. The Class is defined as: "All persons who, from March 17, 2019, to June 30, 2023, worked for an NCAA Division I sports program other than baseball in the position of 'volunteer coach,' as designated by NCAA Bylaws." -- Class Counsel's requested award of attorneys' fees in the amount of 30% of the $303,000,000.00 Settlement Fund (plus accrued interest), i.e., a fee award of $90,900,000.00 plus accrued interest, is within the applicable range of reasonable attorneys' fees percentage-of-recovery awards established by relevant precedent. -- Class Counsel's request for service awards of $25,000.00 for each of the five Class Representatives is granted. The Plaintiffs brought this class action against the Defendant, alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. On March 11, 2025, the court certified the proposed class in this action. The Defendant is a US-based nonprofit organization regulating athletics for over 1,100 schools and 500,000 student-athletes. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated May 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LpDYVX at no extra charge.[CC] NEBIUS BV: Birmingham Residents Sue Over Proposed AI Facility ------------------------------------------------------------- Riley Conlon, writing for Birmingham Times, reports that residents near Birmingham's Oxmoor Valley area have sued Nebius B.V. and the City of Birmingham over a proposed AI data center campus, arguing the project violates zoning rules and threatens nearby neighborhoods with noise, pollution and falling property values. The class-action lawsuit, filed May 13 in Jefferson County Circuit Court, seeks to stop construction of the planned "Birmingham AI Factory," a 300-megawatt AI computing campus proposed near Milan Parkway and Venice Road. Plaintiffs Madelyn Greene and David Butler, who live near the site, claim the city allowed the project to move forward without required zoning approvals or public hearings. They argue the site's mixed-use zoning does not allow a hyperscale AI facility and say permits tied to the project should be voided. The complaint also argues Nebius lost any "grandfathered" development rights when the former Regions Bank operations center on the property was demolished. At the center of the dispute is a proposed power substation and switching station tied to the project. The lawsuit says both facilities required special approval from Birmingham's Zoning Board of Adjustment and notes the applications failed to receive enough votes for approval during a March zoning meeting. That March meeting drew strong opposition from Oxmoor Valley residents concerned about environmental impacts and home values. "We don't want this in our neighborhood," Joey Amberson, president of the Oxmoor Glen subdivision, said at the time. "It's not good for our area." Nebius defended the project following the meeting, saying it would benefit Birmingham and the surrounding community. The lawsuit also challenges an internal memo allegedly issued by Birmingham's city attorney stating that the facilities did not qualify as utility substations under city code. Plaintiffs argue the memo improperly attempted to override the zoning board's action. The lawsuit says demolition and grading work are already underway and notes the city issued a roughly $7 million permit tied to the project. Plaintiffs are asking the court to stop further work and award damages tied to property values and quality of life. "To my knowledge, we have not been served," the city's Office of Public Information said in a statement. "Regarding lawsuits, the city does not discuss pending legislation." [GN] NESTLE WATERS: Seeks Denial of Renewed Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK J. PATANE, JULIE HARDING, HEATHER HARRIGAN, STEPHEN S. SHAPIRO, CATHERINE PORTER, ERICA RUSSELL, TINA MORETTI, BRIDGET KOPET, JENNIFER S. COLE, BENJAMIN A. FLETCHER, and DIANE BOGDAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. NESTLE WATERS NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 3:17-cv-01381-VDO (D. Conn.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order denying the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification or granting the Defendant leave to file a supplemental opposition to the Plaintiffs' class-certification motion and/or schedule a status conference to discuss with the parties the impact on the litigation of the Plaintiffs' decision to not supplement Dr. Johnson's opinions before a class-certification ruling. The Plaintiffs proposed two classes. The first class is defined as: "All natural persons and entities in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island who [1] purchased Poland Spring brand bottled still water between Nov. 5, 2003, and Dec. 30, 2022, and [2] did not purchase or consume Poland Spring brand bottled still water between Jan. 1, 1996, and Nov. 5, 2003." The second class is defined as: "All natural persons and entities in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island who [1] purchased Poland Spring brand bottled still water between April 1, 2014, and Dec. 30, 2022, and [2] purchased or consumed Poland Spring brand bottled still water between Jan. 1, 1996, and Nov. 5, 2003." These definitions are problematic because Dr. Johnson provides the Plaintiffs' only "proof" that class-wide damages are capable of determination, and he did not calculate damages for either of these classes (or any subclass). As the Court has already recognized, he purported to calculate damages based on all sales between November 2003 and March 2023, but neither proposed class encompasses all such sales. Dr. Johnson's damages calculations thus include purchases that are not at issue in this case, the suit contends. Nestle is a company that specializes in the production and distribution of bottled water products. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hcRmGh at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Leah Godesky, Esq. Hannah Y. Chanoine, Esq. Jason Zarrow, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 17th Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 326-2000 Facsimile: (212) 326-2000 E-mail: lgodesky@omm.com hchanoine@omm.com jzarrow@omm.com - and - Jeffrey M. Garrod, Esq. Craig A. Ollenschleger, Esq. Alexander S. Firsichbaum, Esq. ORLOFF, LOWENBACH, STIFELMAN & SIEGEL, P.A. 44 Whippany Road, Suite 100 Morristown, NJ 07960 Telephone: (973) 622-6200 Facsimile: (973) 622-3073 E-mail: jmg@olss.com co@olss.com asf@olss.com - and - Jonathan B. Tropp, Esq. DAY PITNEY LLP 195 Church Street, 15th Floor New Haven, CT 06510 Telephone: (203) 752-5000 Facsimile: (203) 752-5001 E-mail: jbtropp@daypitney.com - and - Thomas B. Mayhew, Esq. Kyle A. McLorg, Esq. FARELLA, BRAUN & MARTEL LLP One Bush Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 954-4400 Facsimile: (415) 954-4480 E-mail: tmayhew@fbm.com kmclorg@fbm.com NETWORKING TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Geiger Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- FAITH GEIGER and PATRICK MCNEILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NETWORKING TECHNOLOGY, INC. d/b/a RXNT, Case No. 1:26-cv-01895-CJC (D. Md., May 13, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) -- about its customers' current and former patients. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach, the suit says. Accordingly, cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class’s Private Information. The Plaintiffs are Data Breach victims, and they bring this class action on behalf of themselves, and all others harmed by Defendant's misconduct. The Defendant is a software development company offering a suite of Clinical & Practice Management technology to healthcare providers including "electronic prescribing, electronic health records, patient portal, practice management, medical billing, scheduling, mobile apps."[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 323-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com NEW YORK, NY: Class Certification Schedule in Bennett Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bennett, et al., v. The City Of New York, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-05654 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 8, 2025), the Hon. Judge Lashann Dearcy Hall entered an order denying the class certification schedule, but it will revisit the schedule as appropriate. To the extent any party wishes to make a summary judgment motion before expert discovery, or to make the class certification motion after any summary judgment motion is made, the party must raise that proposed schedule with the District Judge assigned to this case, the Court says. The parties are on notice that the proposed order of proceeding is not the usual practice in this District and under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, so any request for such a schedule must account for the proposed variance. The nature of suit states Prisoner Civil Rights. New York comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean.[CC] NRC HEALTH: Berger Sues Over Unlawful Removal Provision ------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL BERGER, Plaintiff v. NRC HEALTH, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2026-0560 (Del. Ch., May 1, 2026), is a class action seeking for a declaratory relief relating to the Company's violation of Delaware General Corporation Law Section 141(k) and Delaware common law. The Plaintiff maintains that a certain provision of the Defendant's certificate of incorporation provides that the Defendant's directors may be removed from office only for cause, contrary to Delaware law. Moreover, the Defendant has acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class by maintaining the unlawful removal provision. Headquartered in Lincoln, NE, NRC Health offers analytics and insights to measure and improve patient and employee experience for healthcare organizations. The company is presently listed on the Nasdaq Stock Market and its common stock trades under the symbol NRC. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake A. Bennett, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A. 1000 N. West St., Suite 1500 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 984-3889 - and - Brian P. Murray, Esq. BRIAN MURRAY LAW PLLC 750 E. Main Street, Suite 620 Stamford, CT 06902 Telephone: (203) 883-217 E-mail: bmurray@brianmurraylaw.com - and - Werner R. Kranenburg, Esq. KRANENBURG 80-83 Long Lane London EC1A 9ET United Kingdom Telephone: (44) 20-3174-0365 E-mail: werner@kranenburgesq.com OCTONUTS LLC: Crumwell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- DENISE CRUMWELL, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OCTONUTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03732 (S.D.N.Y., May 6. 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant failed to ensure that its website is compatible with computer screen reader programs, depriving blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. Headquartered in Stockton, CA, Octunuts, LLC owns and operates the website, www.octonuts.com, which offers nut oils and almond protein powders for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal OLIN CORP: Files Cross Appeals in Landel Suit to 8th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------ OLIN CORPORATION, et al. are taking a cross appeal from a court order dismissing the lawsuit entitled Lou Ann Landel, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Olin Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00096-CMS, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The suit is brought against the Defendants who unlawfully shortchanging retirees of the Olin Corporation Employees' Pension Plan (the "Plan") by millions of dollars through their use of outdated formulas to determine certain types of pension benefits in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). On May 19, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on June 6, 2025. On Mar. 20, 2026, Judge Cristian M. Stevens entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs' amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice. On Apr. 17, 2026, the Plaintiffs appealed the Mar. 20 Order. The appellate case is styled as Lou Ann Landel, et al. v. Olin Corporation, et al., Case No. 26-1857, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on May 5, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appendix is due on June 1, 2026; -- Appellant's brief is due on June 1, 2026; and -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees LOU ANN LANDEL, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD 100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (772) 783-8436 - and - Rachana A. Pathak, Esq. STRIS & MAHER 17785 Center Court Drive, N., Suite 600 Cerritos, CA 90703 Telephone: (213) 995-6800 - and - William Hancock Payne, IV, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD 8 Campus Drive, Suite 105, PMB 161 Parsippany, NJ 07054 Telephone: (717) 967-5529 Defendants-Appellants OLIN CORPORATION, et al. are represented by: Melissa Zigler Baris, Esq. JoAnn T. Sandifer, Esq. HUSCH & BLACKWELL 8001 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1500 Saint Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 480-1500 OPENAI GLOBAL: Discloses Users' Information, Couture Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- AMARGO COUTURE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OPENAI GLOBAL, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-03000-H-GC (S.D. Cal., May 13, 2026) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all United Staes residents who have accessed and entered queries into ChatGPT.com. Accordingly, so much information is put into ChatGPT that some sources estimate "The average company leaks confidential material to ChatGPT hundreds of times per week." The same is true of individuals, who increasingly rely on ChatGPT to gather information and advice to their most personal issues. Through the acts alleged, the Defendant violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) and the California Constitution and Common Law by disclosing Plaintiff's and Class Members' private and confidential information without consent. As such, personal privacy on ChatGPT is an issue with broad implications for individuals' control of their privacy and personal information. Despite reasonable expectations of privacy, and Defendant’s legal duties to prevent the disclosure of such private information, Defendant disclosed information provided by consumers to Meta Platforms, Inc. and Google, LLC by incorporating technology owned by each third party into the code of its website. The Plaintiff visited the Website and entered queries related to sensitive information about her health, finances, and other private information. The Plaintiff has had an active Facebook account for several years. Plaintiff routinely accesses Facebook on their computer using the same browser she used to access the Website. The Defendant owns and operates the ChatGPT.com website, an AI chatbot service designed to provide answers to almost any question a user asks, including queries regarding sensitive and personal topics like the user's finances, health, and legal issues.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. Max S. Roberts, Esq. Joshua R. Wilner, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 874-0708 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com mroberts@bursor.com jwilner@bursor.com PACIFICORP: Wildfire Survivors Ask Court to Reverse Panel's Opinion ------------------------------------------------------------------- April Ehrlich, writing for Oregon Capital Chronicle, reports that wildfire survivors are asking Oregon's highest court to reverse a decision that could imperil their case against utility giant PacifiCorp. They've been seeking payments from PacifiCorp over its role sparking massive wildfires in 2020, and had been awarded more than $1 billion in damages. But those payouts have been on hold since last month and could be canceled altogether after a panel of judges found a procedural flaw in the class action lawsuit. Now attorneys representing wildfire survivors are petitioning the Oregon Supreme Court to reverse the panel's opinion, based on concerns first raised by the Oregon Journalism Project about one judge on that panel, Anna Joyce. Joyce, who led the three-judge Oregon Appeals Court panel when it issued its decision last month, previously represented PacifiCorp as a private attorney. A petition, filed Wednesday, May 13, by attorneys representing wildfire survivors, highlights Joyce's history. It raises "appearance-of-justice" concerns and cites the Oregon Journalism Project article. If the Oregon Supreme Court doesn't take up the petition, last month's decision will stand. All wildfire survivors in the 2023 class action lawsuit, including the initial 17 plaintiffs, would have to go back to court to prove PacifiCorp's liability. But if the state Supreme Court does agree to consider the petition, it could decide the fate of this years-long lawsuit about who should pay for wildfires. "PacifiCorp is confident the Oregon Supreme Court will quickly recognize the unanimous decision of the Oregon Court of Appeals should stand," a PacifiCorp spokesperson said in a statement. The spokesperson added that Joyce's past work with PacifiCorp "has no bearing on this case." Power lines and liability Over the 2020 Labor Day weekend, PacifiCorp managers left electrical lines charged despite forecast hurricane-force winds, resulting in downed live wires in wooded areas. More than 2,000 fires burned across Oregon that weekend, destroying more than 3,000 buildings and killing 11 people. In 2023, a court decision allowed more than 2,000 people harmed by four wildfires to bring cases against PacifiCorp. The fires included the 242 Fire near Chiloquin, the Echo Mountain Complex Fire near Lincoln City, the South Obenchain Fire near Eagle Point, and the Santiam Canyon Fire in Marion County. So far, about 170 people have gone to trial and won more than $1 billion in damages. Last month's appeals court decision reversed those damages trials and stalled payments. PacifiCorp is now demanding payment from wildfire survivors for its legal expenses, amounting to about $6 million, according to the petition filed Wednesday, May 13. Many of the wildfire survivors are seniors and struggle with serious health conditions, the petition says. More than 50 of them have died while waiting for legal proceedings to conclude. [GN] PATRICK INDUSTRIES: Wilds et al. Sue Over Insurance Surcharges -------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN D. WILDS, CHERIE A. HOLBROOK, and HENRY A. MOORE, individually and as a representative of a Class of Participants and Beneficiaries of Patrick Industries, Inc. Group Life and Health Plan, Plaintiffs v. Patrick Industries, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00582 (N.D. Ind., May 1, 2026) challenges Defendant's imposition of a tobacco-use health insurance surcharge through an employee wellness program that failed to comply with Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, the Public Health Service Act, and the implementing regulations. The Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated were required to pay an additional premium or contribution per year based on a health status-related factor--their use of tobacco products. They were forced to pay the tobacco surcharge to remain insured under the Plan. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs maintain that Defendant's tobacco surcharges are discriminatory, health-based surcharges. Headquartered in Elkhart, IN, Patrick Industries, Inc. designs, manufactures, and distributes component products and building materials for recreational vehicles, marine craft, manufactured housing, and industrial markets. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq. HASSLER KONDRAS LLP 100 Cherry Street Terre Haute, IN 47807 Telephone: (877) 656-7602 Facsimile: (812) 234-2881 E-mail: kondras@hklawfirmllp.com - and - Paul M. Secunda, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Dr., Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (414) 828-2372 E-mail: psecunda@walcheskeluzi.com PEACE OUT: Meade E-mail Fraud Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled MARIAH MEADE, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PEACE OUT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 00002-07326-6, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for Pierce County, Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on May 6, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05472 to the proceeding. The case arises from Defendant's e-mail messages that were sent to Plaintiff and that allegedly violated the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act and Washington Consumer Protection Act. Headquartered in Altadena, CA, Peace Out, LLC manufactures and distributes cosmetic products such as acne serums, skin moisturizer and accessories. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Brian Ferrasci-O'Malley, Esq. NOSSAMAN LLP 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1200 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 395-7630 E-mail: bferrasciomalley@nossaman.com - and - Jeffrey A. Backman, Esq. Roy Taub, Esq. GREENSPOON MARDER LLP 200 E. Broward Blvd., Suite 1800 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 491-1120 E-mail: jeffrey.backman@gmlaw.com rene.vazquez@gmlaw.com roy.taub@gmlaw.com cheryl.cochran@gmlaw.com PORSCHE AG: Sued Over Alleged Dealer-Only Repair Restrictions ------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Kucinski, writing for Road Track, reports that Porsche is facing a class-action lawsuit in federal court because vehicle owners allege that the automaker forces repair and maintenance work to be completed only at authorized dealers. As first reported by CarComplaints.com, the lawsuit contends that only dealers have access to the data and tools required to complete repairs; as a result, Porsche owners are forced to pay higher dealership prices, and can't use an independent repair facility. The plaintiff in the lawsuit filing is listed as Fleet Salvage Systems, Inc. And the matter all started when Fleet Salvage reportedly brought their Porsche Cayenne to an independent repair shop called Tire Kingdom on June 6, 2025, for a simple oil and filter change. While it was possible to change the oil and filter, the lawsuit says Tire Kingdom informed Fleet Salvage that they would not be able to reset the oil life indicator, as only Porsche dealers can perform the reset. The plaintiff argues that this gives Porsche a monopoly on repairs and maintenance and allows dealers to set higher prices for such work. The lawsuit claims that vehicles sold by Porsche between January 1, 2021, and the present are the "affected vehicles" that only Porsche dealers can access fully in order to complete repairs. The lawsuit alleges that owners of these vehicles are precluded from using lower priced independent shops and are forced to use dealership services. This situation seems to be what the Right to Equitable and Professional Auto Industry Repair (REPAIR) Act, currently making its way through the U.S. House of Representatives, was designed to protect against. That bill was drafted "to ensure consumers have access to data relating to motor vehicles of the consumers and critical repair information and tools for such motor vehicles, to provide such consumers with choices for the maintenance, service, and repair of such vehicles, and for other purposes." Supporters believe the bill will give customers more choices when it comes to getting their vehicle serviced. The National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), however, opposes this legislation. That organization claims the act is unnecessary, and that "The information independent shops need to repair vehicles is readily available from auto and truck manufacturers." NADA also says that if this bill were to pass that it could "expose sensitive driver data and creates a significant new federal regulatory structure." The bill currently sits with the House Energy and Commerce Committee. As for the lawsuit, which has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, the plaintiff is requesting that Porsche provides fully functional servicing and repair capabilities in respect of affected vehicles. They also want actual and punitive damages as well as all attorneys' fees. A request for a jury trial has been made. [GN] PORSCHE CARS: Monopolizes Market for Repair Services, Fleet Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- FLEET SALVAGE SYSTEMS, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02553-ELR (N.D. Ga., May 6, 2026) is an antitrust class action challenging Defendant's unlawful monopolization of the market for repair services for Porsche vehicles in the United States brought pursuant to the Sherman Act. According to the complaint, Porsche has designed its vehicles' electronic architecture so that only Porsche-authorized dealers can access essential diagnostic, calibration, coding, and software tools required to complete any servicing or repair. The Defendant conspired with its dealers to implement its unlawful anti-competitive practices. The Defendant, by employing proprietary software and hardware embedded in its vehicles, enables only its Porsche-authorized dealers to perform repair and diagnostic services on the Affected Vehicles. Independent repair providers are unable to perform certain essential repairs and thus unable to competitively constrain Porsche-authorized dealers in the provision of these and other key repair services. The Plaintiff and other Porsche vehicle owners are forced to turn to Porsche-authorized dealers for repairs that they would do themselves or take to an IRP or independent mechanic but for Porsche's restrictions. As a result, Porsche has acquired and maintained monopoly power in a relevant market for repair services. Porsche's dealers are able to maintain a 100% market share and charge supracompetitive prices for all repairs and maintenance on Affected Vehicles, and Porsche itself reaps additional profits through parts sales. Porsche vehicle owners, including the Plaintiff, are forced to obtain many repairs and maintenance exclusively from Porsche-authorized dealers at supracompetitive prices, says the suit. Porsche Cars North America, Inc. is headquartered in the United States. The company's line of business includes the retail sale of new and used automobiles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory Bosseler, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 191 Peachtree Street N.E., Suite 4200 P.O. Box 57007 Atlanta, GA 30343-1007 E-mail: gbosseler@forthepeople.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 RACK ROOM: Class Certification Bid Filing in Smith Due May 29 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEMETRIUS SMITH and MAIA WILLIAMS, v. RACK ROOM SHOES, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-06709-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lin entered an order granting stipulation to extend deadline to move for class certification The Plaintiffs shall move for class certification on May 29, 2026. The Defendant's opposition and rebuttal pleading are due July 13, 2026. The Plaintiffs' reply in support of class certification is due on Aug. 10, 2026. Rack markets shoes for men, women, and kids. A copy of the Court's order dated May 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QiDXZp at no extra charge.[CC] RACK ROOM: More Time to File Class Certification Bid Sought ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEMETRIUS SMITH, ROBIN SAVAGE, and MIA WILLIAMS, v. RACK ROOM SHOES, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-06709-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their stipulation to extend deadline to move for class certification. The Plaintiffs' counsel's father was admitted to the ICU on March 15th and passed away on March 18th. Given these personal developments, on April 2, 2026, the Plaintiffs' counsel asked the Defendant for a two-week extension to prepare and move for class certification. The Defendant agreed. Therefore, the parties are currently in agreement to extend the briefing schedule for class certification an additional two weeks: -- Motion for Class Certification due May 29, 2026. -- The Defendant's opposition and rebuttal pleading due July 13, 2026. -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support of class certification due on Aug. 10, 2026. Rack markets shoes for men, women, and kids. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4ilYK8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher R. Reilly, Esq. Michael A. Pineiro, Esq. MARCUS RASHBAUM PINEIRO & MEYERS LLP 2 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2530 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 402-9050 E-mail: mpineiro@mrpfirm.com creilly@mrpfirm.com - and - Brian Levin, Esq. Jacob Polin, Esq. LEVIN LAW, P.A. 2665 S. Bayshore Dr., Ph. 2B Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 400-4260 E-mail: brian@levinlawpa.com jpolin@levinlawpa.com The Defendant is represented by: Ana Tagvoryan, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP One Logan Square130 North 18th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 569-5500 Facsimile: (215) 569-5555 REYES FLEET: Fails to Pay All Hours Worked, Gamez Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- RICARDO L. GAMEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. REYES FLEET MANAGEMENT, L.L.C.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV15316 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 13, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code. The suit arises from Defendants' failure to pay for all hours worked (including minimum wages, straight time wages, and overtime wages). The Defendant also failed to provide meal periods, failed to authorize and permit rest periods, and failed to maintain accurate records of hours worked and meal periods. The Plaintiff seeks only to recover penalties for himself, on behalf of all Aggrieved Employees that worked for Defendants, and on behalf of the State of California. The Defendants own and operate an industry, business, and establishment within the State of California, including Los Angeles County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. Allen Feghali, Esq. Enzo Nabiev, Esq. Jason Kwak, Esq. MOON LAW GROUP, PC 725 S. Figueroa Street, 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 232-3128 Facsimile: (213) 232-312 E-mail: kmoon@moonlawgroup.com afeghali@moonlawgroup.com enabiev@moonlawgroup.com jkwak@moonlawgroup.com RWJBARNABAS HEALTH: Desormes et al. Sue Over ERISA Breaches ----------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA DESORMES and ROSE TARANTINO, and RICHARD MULLER, JR. on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RWJBARNABAS HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-04942-BRM-CF (D.N.J., May 1, 2026), challenges Defendants' unlawful practice of charging a tobacco surcharge under the RWJBarnabas Health and Welfare Plan in a manner that violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the implementing regulations. According to the complaint, the Defendant imposes a discriminatory tobacco surcharge without making available, or notifying participants of, a reasonable alternative standard. In addition, the Defendant fails to disclose in its benefits materials whether participants who satisfy that standard during the Plan year receive reimbursement or retroactive relief from the tobacco-user surcharge. RWJBarnabas Health, Inc. is an academic medical center and health system in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William H. Payne, IV, Esq. Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 8 Campus Drive, Suite 105, PMB #161 Parsippany, NJ 07054 Telephone: (862) 350-0042 E-mail: wpayne@sirillp.com ofaircloth@sirillp.com SALEM HEALTH: Class Cert. Bid Filing in M.R. Suit Due Dec. 15 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as M.R. v. Salem Health Hospitals and Clinics, Case No. 6:23-cv-01691 (D. Or., Filed Nov. 15, 2023), the Hon. Judge Ann L. Aiken entered an order granting Joint Motion for Extension of Discovery & PTO Deadlines: -- Motion for Class Certification and Plaintiff's Class Certification Expert Disclosure are due by Dec. 15, 2026 -- Response to Motion for Class Certification and Defendant's Class Certification Expert Disclosure are due by Feb. 22, 2027. -- Reply in support of Motion for Class Certification and Plaintiff's Expert Rebuttal to Defendant's Class Certification Expert Report are due by March 15, 2027. The nature of suit states Breach of Contract. Salem is a not-for-profit health system guided by a volunteer Board of Trustees.[CC] SAPIENCE GROUP: Faces Castrillo Suit Over Illegal Spam Emails ------------------------------------------------------------- JASMINE CASTRILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SAPIENCE GROUP LLC, a Delaware entity, d/b/a NODRILLGRABBAR.COM, Case No. 3:26-cv-04453 (S.D. Cal., May 13, 2026) alleges that the Defendant uses a marketing company called The Wisdom Companies LLC to blanket Californians with illegal spam. According to the complaint, once a recipient visit's Defendant's website at AMFAM.COM, the Defendant secretly installs a web of illegal tracking pixels on every visitor's device. Those tracking technologies enable Defendant and its partners to follow visitors' behavior across the internet, converting a single deceptive email into ongoing digital surveillance, the suit says. The Plaintiff contends that the intentional deception followed by invisible surveillance is what makes the practice not just unlawful, but truly insidious. Both the spam and the surveillance are illegal under California law. The Plaintiff has received countless misleading spam e-mail advertising AMFAM. AMFAM is an insurance company headquartered and incorporated in Wisconsin. It's website notes that it conducts business in all fifty states, including California. See https://www.amfam.com/companyid (last accessed May 2026).[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 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com SEAFOLLY US: Bahena Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users -------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY BAHENA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEAFOLLY (US) LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05185 (N.D. Ill., May 5, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://us.seafolly.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Bahena and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On April 2, 2026, Plaintiff Bahena was searching for a new swimsuit online and found us.seafolly.com in the search results. After reviewing product's information and browsing the product categories, she became interested in purchasing a one-piece swimsuit. However, while navigating the website with her screen reader, the Plaintiff encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from completing her purchase. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by her and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, inaccessible contact information, changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. Plaintiff Bahena seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Seafolly (US) LLC operates the website that offers women's beachwear and swimwear, including bikinis, one-piece swimsuits, bikini separates, cover-ups, beach dresses, resortwear apparel, rash guards, and beach accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (716) 281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law SEEL INC: Class Certification Bid Filing Due July 13, 2027 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kareem Jalad, v. Seel, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-01181-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Trina L. Thompson entered a case management and scheduling order as follows: Trial date: July 24, 2028 Final pretrial conference: June 15, 2028 Expert discovery cut-off: Jan. 4, 2028 Fact discovery cut-off: Oct. 5, 2027 Class certification: Last day to be heard: Sept. 7, 2027, 2:00 p.m. Reply due: Aug. 24, 2027 Opposition due: Aug. 10, 2027 Motion due: July 13, 2027 A copy of the Court's order dated May 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XxCsJo at no extra charge.[CC] SHERYL MAXFIELD: Bleick Class Cert Filing Modified to June 1, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY BLEICK, et al., v. SHERYL MAXFIELD, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01140-EAS-SCS (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge S. Courter M. Shimeall entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Parties' request to modify the case schedule as follows: The Defendants' MJOP: May 11, 2026 The Plaintiffs' opposition to the June 15, 2026 Defendants' MJOP: The Defendants' reply in support of June 29, 2026 The Defendants' MJOP: Amendment/Joinder: June 30, 2026 Initial disclosures: June 30, 2026 Discovery: Jan. 31, 2027 Primary expert: March 17, 2027 Class certification motion: June 1, 2027 Dispositive motions: Aug. 1, 2027 A copy of the Court's order dated May 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qs1mWi at no extra charge.[CC] SILVER STATE SCHOOLS: Quinata Seeks to Certify Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AGATHA CRUZ QUINATA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SILVER STATE SCHOOLS CREDIT UNION, Case No. 2:25-cv-00640-RFB-EJY (D. Nev.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class action on behalf of the following Classes: The Account Balance Class: "All Defendant checking accountholders who, from June 6, 2017, through March 31, 2024, were assessed an overdraft fee on a transaction that did not actually overdraw the account." The APSN Class: "All Defendant checking accountholders who, from June 6, 2017, through June 30, 2024, were assessed an overdraft fee on a debit card transaction that was authorized on sufficient funds and settled on negative funds in the same amount for which the debit card transaction was authorized." The Multiple Fee Class: "All Defendant checking accountholders who, from June 6, 2017, through May 31, 2021, were assessed multiple fees on an item." The Opt-In Class: "All Defendant checking accountholders who, from April 4, 2024, through the date of class certification, were opted in to overdraft protection for onetime debit card transactions and ATM transactions and were assessed overdraft fees on such Transactions." Further, the Plaintiff moves the Court to appoint her as Class Representative and her counsel as Class Counsel. On June 6, 2023, the Plaintiff filed this case against the Defendant in Clark County, Nevada. The Plaintiff's initial complaint challenged the Defendant's fee practices and asserted common law claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, as well as violations of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("NDTPA"). The Defendant is a financial cooperative owned and operated by its members. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MyhI6M at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan R. Ring, Esq. Marty Schubert, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 703 South 8th Street Las Vegas, NV 89101 Telephone: (702) 301-0081 E-mail: nring@stranchlaw.com mschubert@stranchlaw.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Vess A. Miller, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com vmiller@cohenmalad.com SLEEP E-Z: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Anderson Says ------------------------------------------------------------- LISA ANDERSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sleep E-Z USA Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05188 (N.D. Ill., May 5, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://sleepez.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Anderson and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On March 31, 2026, Plaintiff Anderson searched online for latex toppers and discovered Defendant's website. Interested in the products offered on the website, she decided to explore the available options and intended to make a purchase. During her navigation, she became interested in the Box Stitched Latex Topper and attempted to purchase it. However, while navigating the Website using a keyboard and screen reader, she encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from independently completing the purchase. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by her and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, the lack of navigation links, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. Plaintiff Anderson seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Sleep E-Z USA Inc. operates the website that offers sleep products and bedding, including mattresses, toppers, pillows, and adjustable bed bases.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (716) 281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law SOUTH CENTRAL SUGAR: Avila-Soto Allowed Leave to Amend Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FELIPE DE JESUS AVILA-SOTO, et al., v. SOUTH CENTRAL SUGAR CANE GROWERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Case No. 6:24-cv-01392-RRS-CBW (W.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Summerhays entered a judgment that the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation is correct and adopts the findings and conclusions therein as its own, with the exception of the statement that "Defendants are sugar cane farmers." The Court agrees with the Objection by the Plaintiffs that this statement could be interpreted as a factual conclusion which is at the heart of the dispute in this proceeding. The Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend their complaint for the sole purpose of asserting claims on behalf of the 2025 workers, and the Plaintiffs' motion for Rule 23 class certification is granted. South Central is an organization involved in agricultural support activities, specifically focusing on sugar crops and machine harvesting services. A copy of the Court's judgment dated May 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cVsSf2 at no extra charge.[CC] SOUTHERN AUTO: Brown Appeals FDCPA Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- JORDAN BROWN is taking an appeal from a court order denying his motion to alter or amend judgments in the lawsuit entitled Jordan Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Southern Auto Finance Company, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-00128-RAJ-LRL, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The suit is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Virginia law. On Sept. 29, 2025, Judge Raymond A. Jackson entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's amended complaint. On Oct. 27, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration the Sept. 29 Order, which Judge Jackson denied on Apr. 2, 2026. The Court concludes that the Plaintiff failed to state a claim under the FDCPA because upon his default, the Defendants had a present right to repossess the vehicle under Virginia law. The appellate case is styled as Jordan Brown v. Southern Auto Finance Company, LLC, Case No. 26-1555, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on May 4, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JORDAN BROWN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq. Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq. Adam W. Short, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, PC 763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 - and - Dale Wood Pittman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DALE W. PITTMAN, PC 112-A West Tabb Street Petersburg, VA 23803 Telephone: (804) 861-6000 - and - Phillip R. Robinson, Esq. CONSUMER LAW CENTER LLC 1220 Blair Mill Road Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 448-1304 Defendants-Appellees SOUTHERN AUTO FINANCE COMPANY, LLC, d/b/a SAFCO, et al. are represented by: John T. Bergin, Esq. Sean Donlan, Esq. KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP 701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005 - and - Timothy E. Taylor, Esq. KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON 2001 Ross Avenue Dallas, TX 75201 - and - Brandi Allison Law, Esq. OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 22 Lincoln Street Hampton, VA 23669 Telephone: (757) 727-6127 SPERO THERAPEUTIC: Faces Class, Derivative Suits over UTI Meds -------------------------------------------------------------- Spero 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 13, 2026, that it is facing suits over "tebipenem HBr" used to treat urinary tract infections. Two putative securities class action lawsuits were filed in 2022 against the company and certain of its former officers after the announcement of a strategic restructuring or negative clinical trial results resulting from its partnership with GlaxoSmithKline to eventually commercialize tebipenem HBr. This also resulted in stockholder derivative actions filed in 2023 and 2024. Spero Therapeutics, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing novel therapies for multidrug-resistant bacterial infections including product candidates intended to address serious unmet medical needs in the infectious disease space. STATE FARM: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss California FAIR Plan Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Laurence Darmiento, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that a Los Angeles judge has denied a petition by State Farm and other insurers to dismiss two lawsuits accusing them of colluding to drive homeowners onto California's FAIR Plan. The lawsuits, which accuse the insurers of violating the state's antirust and unfair competition laws, were largely upheld in a decision Thursday, May 14, by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Samantha Jessner. The judge struck two less significant claims from the lawsuits filed last year, but allowed the case to proceed against more than a dozen major California insurers, led by State Farm General, the state's largest. "This is very good news for our people, our plaintiffs, because we're going to be able to go ahead now with our antitrust claims in both cases," said Bob Ruyak, an attorney representing the homeowners. Sevag Sarkissian, a State Farm spokesperson, said the ruling did not "address the accuracy of the allegations" and that the company looks "forward to presenting our case in court." The lawsuits allege the companies financially benefited when policyholders were dropped and moved onto the FAIR Plan, since they financially back the insurer that sells more expensive policies which offer less coverage. One lawsuit led by Todd and Kimberley Ferrier -- whose Pacific Palisades home burned down -- seeks to compensate 60 homeowners who experienced fire losses exacerbated by the FAIR Plan's limited coverage. The other case is a proposed class action that would compensate policyholders for the higher premiums they paid to the plan. The case has garnered the attention of the federal Department of Justice, which filed a brief this month disputing an argument made by the insurers to have the case thrown out. The insurers had alleged that they were shielded from antitrust liability under both California and federal law due to a certain legal doctrine. While the department took no position on the merits of the collusion allegations, it said it files such briefs "where doing so helps protect competition and consumers, including by encouraging the sound development of the antitrust laws." The decision by the department to insert itself in the case followed a March post by President Trump bashing State Farm on social media after a visit to Pacific Palisades by administration officials. The president called State Farm's treatment of January 2025 wildfire victims "absolutely horrible" and asked EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin for a list of insurers who "acted swiftly" and those that were "particularly bad." Also this month, the California Department of Insurance filed an administrative action against State Farm seeking possible suspension of the carrier's insurance license, alleging State Farm mishandled January 2025 wildfire claims. The company acknowledges some claims were mishandled but rejected claims it engaged in a "general practice of mishandling or intentionally underpaying wildfire claims." The company says the California's homeowners insurance market is the most "dysfunctional" in the country, with state regulators contributing to "delays and uncertainty that have contributed to fewer choices and higher costs for consumers." [GN] SUPER MICRO: Consolidated 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 Superior Court of California stayed a consolidated state Court derivative suit. On Nov. 20, 2024, a putative derivative lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, captioned Spatz v. Liang, et al on December 17, 2025. Two additional putative derivative lawsuits have been filed in the same court, captioned Clark v. Liang, et al. (filed Dec. 17, 2024) and Carter, et al. v. Liang, et al. (filed Dec. 20, 2024) (together with the Spatz Action, the State Court Derivative Litigation, and together with the Federal Derivative Litigation, the Derivative Litigation). The Company was also named as a nominal defendant in the Derivative Litigation. The State Court Derivative Litigation purports to allege claims for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, and insider trading arising out of similar allegations as the Federal Derivative Litigation. The plaintiffs in the Derivative Litigation seek unspecified money damages, in addition to punitive damages and other relief. The Court in the Spatz Action stayed all proceedings and consolidating the three State Court Derivative Litigation actions. 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 Covey Financial 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 Covey Financial Inc. 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, Covey Financial Inc., et al. v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., et al., filed on Oct. 18, 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 NCRS 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 Norfolk County 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, Norfolk County Retirement System v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., et al., filed on Oct. 4, 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. SWEET BASIL: Liu Seeks More to Time to File Reply Memo ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as WEN LIN LIU, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. SWEET BASIL FAIRFIELD LLC d/b/a Sweet Basil Sushi & Pan Asian Cuisine, CHUN YIU KWOK a/k/a Skye Kwok, VINCENT WENG, SHENGLIANG WENG, and MEI WENG a/k/a A Mei Weng, Case No. 3:24-cv-01436-JCH (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion to extend time to file reply memorandum in further support of the Plaintiff's motion for class action. The Plaintiff has reached out to the Defendants' counsel for a two-week extension to submit the Reply Memorandum of Law from May 11, 2026, to May 25, 2026, in person before the Inquest Hearing held on May 11, 2026, and the Defendants' counsel indicated that they did not oppose the request. The Plaintiff requires additional time to submit the Reply Memorandum of Law due to the following reason which constitutes good cause: I have come down with a cold since last Thursday, and while I have taken medicine to be on the job, I am working at a reduced capacity in an attempt to get better, which resulted in a bit of delay in meeting deadlines. Sweet is a Pan-Asian restaurant featuring a sushi bar plus sake, imported beers & cocktails. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1UWNvU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Blvd #110 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 The Defendants are represented by: Michael A. Pizzi, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL A. PIZZI, JR., P.A. 6625 Miami Lakes Drive, Suite 316 Miami Lakes, FL 33014 Telephone: (305) 986-2277 Facsimile: (305) 777-3802 E-mail: mpizzi@pizzilaw.com - and - David P. Reiner, II, Esq. REINER & REINER, P.A. Counsel for Defendant Skye Kwok 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 901 Miami, FL 33156-7815 Telephone: (305) 670-8282 Facsimile: (305) 670-8989 E-mail: dpr@reinerslaw.comeservice@reinerslaw.com - and - Audrey J. Lynn, Esq. ATKINSON LAW, LLC 122 Litchfield Rd., Ste. 2 Harwinton, CT 06791 Telephone: (203) 677-0782 E-mail: ajatkinson@atkinsonlawfirm.com SWITCHGEAR POWER: Bid for More Time to File Class Cert. Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA HANSEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SWITCHGEAR POWER SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01453-WCG (E.D. Wis.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for class certification and Court-authorized notice by 90 days to Aug. 13, 2026. The parties require additional time to review and analyze documents and data, resolve any outstanding written discovery issues, and begin taking any depositions necessary to support their respective positions with respect to the impending motion. On Sept. 2, 2025, the Plaintiff filed his collective and class action complaint, which asserted various causes of action against the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws ("WWPCL"). The Defendant manufactures custom switchgear and electrical power distribution equipment. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fpMXJb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ben J. Slatky, Esq. James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com bslatky@walcheskeluzi.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael A. Kiener, Esq. Paul W. Zimmer, Esq. ZIMMER & RENS, LLC 15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Ste. 204 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (414) 296-6225 E-mail: paul.zimmer@zrlawyers.com michael.kiener@zrlawyers.com TAPESTRY INC: Wins Summary Judgment v. Merrell ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Richard Paul Merrell, v. Tapestry, Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-02510-RGK-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Klausner entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant. Since summary judgment is granted, the Plaintiff's motion to exclude and motion for class certification are denied as moot. The Defendant shall file proposed final judgment within seven (7) days of the issuance of this order. Because all barriers have been remedied and since the harm is not reasonably likely to recur, the Defendant's Americans with Disabilities Acts (ADA) claims is moot. Because the Plaintiff makes no allegations of intentional discrimination in his SAC, his Unruh Claim relies entirely on his ADA claim. As the ADA claim is moot, the Court determines that the Unruh claim is now moot as well. Accordingly, since the Plaintiff's ADA and Unruh claims are moot, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of the Defendant. The Defendant is a New York-based luxury fashion holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 12, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tuSOFA at no extra charge.[CC] TEA HORSE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Lopez Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TEA HORSE ROAD, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03734 (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant failed to ensure that its website is compatible with computer screen reader programs, depriving blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services. Accordingly, Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. Based in Altadena, CA, Tea Horse Road, LLC operates the Seven Teas online retail store, as well as the Seven Teas interactive website, www.seventeas.com, which offers beverages for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. 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 TIGER BROKERS: ClassAction.org Investigates Possible Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Tiger Brokers 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 Tiger Brokers data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Tiger Brokers Security Incident: What Happened? US Tiger Securities Inc., a fintech brokerage that does business as Tiger Brokers, has disclosed a data breach potentially affecting personal information. A sample notification letter states that on July 10, 2025, the firm identified a cybersecurity breach in its virtual back-office environment, which supports both US Tiger Securities and affiliated company TradeUP. An investigation into the US Tiger Securities data breach revealed that between July 8 and 9, 2025, an unauthorized third party encrypted certain files and copied data. After a review, completed on April 17, 2026, US Tiger Securities began notifying affected individuals. A report submitted to the Texas Attorney General's Office confirmed that names, addresses, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, government-issued ID numbers, medical information, and health insurance information were potentially compromised in the Tiger Brokers data breach. What You Can Do After the Tiger Brokers Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Tiger Brokers 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 Tiger Brokers 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] TOWN OF GILBERT: Court Tosses Armitage Complaint w/o Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jeremy Armitage, et al., v. Town of Gilbert, Case No. 2:25-cv-02935-SPL (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Logan entered an order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended complaint. The Court further entered an order that: -- Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend. -- The Plaintiffs are granted leave to file second amended complaint in accordance with this Order no later than May 21, 2026. -- If the Plaintiffs elect not to file an amended complaint by May 21, 2026, the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment dismissing this action without further order of this Court The Plaintiffs' claims are based on the overarching allegation that they should not be exempted as employees in fire protection activities when they are working on the ambulance service, and therefore, they are entitled to overtime pay. However, the Plaintiffs do not allege sufficient facts to state a claim for overtime payments because they do not allege that they worked in excess of 40 hours in any given workweek. The Plaintiffs initiated this action on Aug. 14, 2025. On Nov. 5, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs are current or former employees of the Gilbert Fire Department who allege that they were improperly denied overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FSLA"). Gilbert is a town in Maricopa County, Arizona, United States. A copy of the Court's order dated May 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ILrlX1 at no extra charge.[CC] TOYOTA MOTOR: Cornejo Seeks Refund of Unlawful IEEPA Tariffs ------------------------------------------------------------ ANANIAS CORNEJO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-04729 (C.D. Cal., May 1, 2026) seeks to halt and remedy Defendant’s retention of windfall proceeds tied to tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economy Powers Act (IEEPA), which Defendant passed onto consumers in the form of increased pricing and which Defendant now seeks to recover from the federal government through court-ordered refunds. Allegedly, the Defendant, have pursued tariff-related refunds in the Court of International Trade, despite having already recouped such costs from their customers via elevated prices. Because U.S. customers are paying an estimated two-thirds of tariff-related costs, companies, including Defendant, stand to obtain an improper double recovery, absent restitution to their customers. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks to prevent Defendant Toyota from double recovery. The Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Defendant to disgorge and return to Plaintiff and the Classes all IEEPA-related costs embedded in elevated consumer prices with interest. Headquartered in Plano, TX, Toyota Motor North America, Inc. is the operating subsidiary of Toyota Motor Company, a Japanese company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Theodore W. Maya, Esq. Alyssa Brown, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Ave., Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com abrown@ahdootwolfson.com TPH PARALEGAL: Class Cert Bid Filing Due March 1, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wilson v. TPH Paralegal Professional Corporation, Case No. 6:25-cv-01703 (D. Or., Filed Sept. 23, 2025), the Hon. Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai entered an order adopting the deadlines in the parties' Joint Rule 26(f) Report and Discovery Plan. -- Initial Disclosure are due by May 22, 2026 -- Deadline to amend pleadings and add parties is July 2, 2026 -- Exchange of Expert Witness Disclosures must be completed by Nov. 2, 2026 -- Exchange of Rebuttal Expert Witness Disclosures must be completed by Dec. 7, 2026 -- Discovery is to be completed by Jan. 11, 2027 -- Dispositive Motions and Class Certification Motion are due by March 1, 2027 The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Defendant is a law firm based in Markham, Canada.[CC] TRIBUNE PUBLISHING: Hanson Sues Over Use of Third-Party Trackers ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL HANSON, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons v. TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 5:26-cv-02571 (C.D. Cal., May 13, 2026) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all California residents who have accessed and used Defendant's website, www.chicagotribune.com. According to the complaint, the website that Defendant provides for public access and use. During his use of the Website, 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 and sensitive page views. 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. Furthermore, the Defendant surreptitiously embeds and operates third-party tracking technologies on the Website that intercept the contents of users' electronic communications, including the page URLs reflecting what users are browsing, in real time and without notice or consent. The Defendant intentionally deploys these technologies to accomplish its commercial objectives, including identity resolution, cross-session behavioral profiling, audience segmentation, and the monetization of users’ browsing activity through targeted advertising and real-time bidding. The Defendant deploys these interception technologies in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the Federal Wiretap Act, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff was in California when he visited the Website, which occurred during the class period including but not limited to on May 2, 2026. Tribune Publishing Company operates as a diversified media and marketing-solutions company.[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 UFP TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Glade Says ----------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM GLADE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. UFP TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-12178 (D. Mass., May 13, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information (PII) about its current and former employees. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. Accordingly, the Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems -- thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to its current and former employees' PII. Plaintiff William Glade is a natural person and a citizen of Texas. He is domiciled in Texas (where he intends to remain). The Defendant is a global firm focused on "design, development, engineering, and manufacturing for medical devices and sterile packaging, as well as other highly engineered custom products."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina Xenides, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Tanner R. Hilton, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 1005 Congress Avenue, Suite 925-C36 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 265-5622 E-mail: cxenides@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com thilton@sirillp.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com UNITED STATES: Dermaceutical Laboratories Sues Over Unlawful Duties ------------------------------------------------------------------- DERMACEUTICAL LABORATORIES LLC, Plaintiff v. U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; RODNEY S. SCOTT, in his official capacity as Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection; and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-02914-N/A (Ct. Intl. Trade, May 1, 2026) is a class action seeking to address Defendants' collection of unlawful duties imposed pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Beginning in February of 2025, through a series of executive orders, President Trump invoked IEEPA as authority to impose new and substantial tariffs. On goods imported from nearly every foreign country, including countries from which Plaintiff sources its imports. Plaintiff is responsible for paying these tariffs on its imported goods. On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States held that IEEPA does not authorize these tariffs. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks (i) a declaration that the IEEPA duties and the executive orders underlying the IEEPA duties are unlawful; (ii) an injunction preventing Defendants from collecting IEEPA duties on Plaintiff's entries; and (iii) a full refund from Defendants of all IEEPA duties paid by Plaintiff to the United States as a result of the executive orders challenged in this lawsuit, regardless of the liquidation status of those entries on which the IEEPA duties were paid. Headquartered in Washington, U.S. Customs and Border Protection is the Department of Homeland Security's component agency responsible for border security and collecting tariffs or duties and taxes on goods imported into the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Deanna Tanner Okun, Esq. Lydia C. Pardini, Esq. Dominic L. Bianchi, Esq. Jane C. Dempsey, Esq. Alissa M. Chase, Esq. Joonho Hwang, Esq. POLSINELLI PC 1401 I ("Eye") Street NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 626-8329 E-mail: dtokun@polsinelli.com UNITED STATES: Sued Over IRS's Guidance on Withholding Tax ---------------------------------------------------------- Sheryll Ann Dillon d/b/a iTax Self Help Financial Lie, on behalf of its clients, joining a nationwide class of similarly situated taxpayers, Plaintiff v. Internal Revenue Service, Commissioner of the IRS, U.S. Government, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01206-ADA (D. Tex., May 6, 2026) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff as a prose organization in a representative capacity on behalf of its clients and a substantial nationwide class of W-2 taxpayers due to 2021 actions taken by the Internal Revenue Service issuing unlawful guidance to employers directing them to disregard the statutory withholding requirements (W-4) that withholdings have always been based on. According to the complaint, since 2021, the Plaintiff has documented an ongoing and consistent pattern of insufficient withholdings by employers. The result has been a sustained wave of taxpayer non-compliance, unacknowledged by the agency, and escalating penalties assessed against citizens who continue unaware that their withholdings are deficient or that corrective action is required. IRS statistics reflect the scope of the injury: underpayment-penalty collections of approximately $1.8 billion in 2022, $7 billion in 2023, and $4.82 billion in 2024. iTax itself has not sustained injury; instead, it serves as the organizing voice for these taxpayers, seeking federal judicial oversight and justice under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Declaratory Judgment Act, and the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Plaintiff's business, ITAX Self 1-Ielp Tax Co, is a tax prep and education business grounded in empowering taxpayers with self-help tax prep, support and financial education, providing privacy and transparency about their tax obligations year after year. Internal Revenue Service is a bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury responsible for administering the internal revenue laws.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT: Reply in Support of Class Cert Due July 17 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYLER BAKER, individually and on behalf of The University of Vermont Medical Center 403(b) Plan, v. THE UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00087-gwc (D. Vt.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Local Rule 26(a)(7) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, to extend certain, limited deadlines in the April 9, 2026 Stipulated Discovery Schedule/Order. The Parties seek a modest extension of approximately one week (7 days) in the remaining deadlines related to the Plaintiff's motion to certify class to afford the Defendant's counsel additional time to prepare its opposition, with a commensurate one-week extension for the Plaintiff's reply. The Parties agree to the proposed revised deadlines provided below: The Defendant's opposition to motion for class certification: May 18, 2026 The Plaintiff's reply in support of motion for class certification: July 17, 2026 The Defendant is a five-campus academic medical facility under the corporate umbrella of the University of Vermont Health Network that is anchored by a 562-bed hospital in Burlington, Vermont. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=heLBph at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell Bar, Esq. BARR LAW GROUP 125 Mountain Road Stowe, VT 05672 Telephone: (802) 253-6272 E-mail: russ@barrlaw.com - and - Eric Lechtzin, Esq. Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State St., Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com medelson@edelson-law.com - and - Michael C. McKay, Esq. McKAY LAW, LLC 5635 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 170 Scottsdale, AZ 85258 Telephone: (480) 681-7000 E-mail: mmckay@mckaylaw.us The Defendant is represented by: Tristram J. Coffin, Esq. DOWNS RACHLIN MARTIN PLLC 199 Main Street Burlington, VT 05402-0190 Telephone: (802)-863-2375 E-mail: tcoffin@drm.com tdoherty@drm.com - and - Ian C. Taylor, Esq. Jennifer K. Squillario, Esq. Charles M. Dyke, Esq. Matthew W. Costello, Esq. Peter F. Wilms, Esq. NIXON PEABODY LLP 799 9th St. NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20001-5327 Telephone: (202) 585-8077 Facsimile: (833) 755-2952 E-mail: itaylor@nixonpeabody.com jsquillario@nixonpeabody.com cdyke@nixonpeabody.com mcostello@nixonpeabody.com pwilms@nixonpeabody.com VERU INC: Faces Consolidated Derivative Suit, Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Veru 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 13, 2026, that it facing an amended class action suit and a consolidated derivative action over its disclosures its COVID drug. On December 5, 2022, a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, captioned "Ewing v. Veru Inc., et al.," against the company, its Chairman, CEO and President, Mitchell Steiner, and its CFO, Michele Greco. The First Amended Class Action Complaint was filed on September 15, 2023 by purported stockholders Dr. Myo Thant and Karen Brounstein, and alleges that certain public statements about "sabizabulin" as a treatment for COVID-19 between March 1, 2021 and March 2, 2023 violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks monetary damages. In addition, on July 7, 2023, Anthony Maglia, a purported stockholder, filed a derivative action in the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County, Florida, against the company as a nominal defendant and certain of its officers and directors. It asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment primarily in connection with the issues and claims asserted in the Ewing Lawsuit, and seeks to direct the company to improve its corporate governance and internal procedures, as well as to recover monetary damages, injunctive relief, restitution, and an award of reasonable fees and expenses. On September 1, 2023, Anthony Franchi, a purported stockholder, filed a derivative action in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, against the company as a nominal defendant and certain of its officers and directors. It asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment primarily in connection with the issues and claims asserted in the Ewing Lawsuit, seeks to direct the company to improve its corporate governance and internal procedures and to obtain monetary damages, restitution, and an award of reasonable fees and expenses. On September 28, 2023, Philip Renbarger, a purported stockholder, filed a derivative action in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, against the company as a nominal defendant and certain of its officers and directors. It asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment primarily in connection with the issues and claims asserted in the aforementioned lawsuit, seeks to direct the company to improve its corporate governance and internal procedures and to obtain monetary damages and an award of reasonable fees and expenses, and on November 8, 2023. This was consolidated with the Franchi Lawsuit. Veru Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing novel medicines for the treatment of infectious diseases and cancers. The company also has a commercial franchise in sexual health and urology. VIRGINIA WHITE: Must File Second Amended Verified Counterclaim -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RESIDENTIAL WARRANTY COMPANY LLC (RWC), v. VIRGINIA WHITE, Individually, and in her capacity as Power of Attorney for Warren Simmons, Case No. 1:25-cv-00302-KD-B (S.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge DuBose entered an order granting RWC's motion to strike and motion for more definite statement. The Defendant White is ordered to file, on or before May 22, 2026, a second amended verified answer and counterclaim which complies with this Order. RWC shall on or before June 5, 2026, file an answer or otherwise respond to the Counterclaim. The first amended verified answer appears to be a cut and paste from the demand for arbitration and does not respond to the Complaint. There is no section labeled "Answer". White added paragraph numbers (which RWC pointed out as absent in the original Complaint) but there are no numbered paragraphs which correspond to the Complaint. Nor is there a short and plain statement of a defense, denial, admission, or a statement of insufficient information to deny or admit. Also, the Counterclaim is not plead in a coherent manner. There is no section captioned "Counterclaim" and there are no "Counts" against RWC, except a few sentences that possibly could be construed as a statement of a claim or count. White filed a claim alleging construction defects. RWC determined there were no "Major Structural Defects" and denied the claim. As a result, White's claim fell within the definition of an "Unresolved Warranty Issue". A copy of the Court's order dated May 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=u8K8uW at no extra charge.[CC] WALMART INC: Class Cert Filing in McEnheimer Extended to Dec. 4 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MCENHEIMER v. WALMART, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00046 (W.D. Pa., Filed Jan. 7, 2022), the Hon. Judge W. Scott Hardy entered an order granting consent motion for 120-day extension of case management deadlines: -- Phase II discovery shall now be completed by Oct. 20, 2026 -- The telephonic Status Conference set for June 29, 2026, is now set for Nov. 2, 2026, at 11:30 AM -- The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification shall now be filed on or before Dec. 4, 2026 -- Defendant's Opposition shall now be filed on or before Jan. 29, 2027 -- Plaintiffs' Reply, if any, shall now be filed on or before March 18, 2027 The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores.[CC] WARNER BROS: Faces Frost Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. d/b/a HGTV, Case No. 0:26-cv-02606 (D. Minn., May 13, 2026) alleges that the Defendant's website, www.hgtv.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 WAYNE BANK: Continues to Defend Data Breach Suit ------------------------------------------------ Norwood Financial 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 8, 2026, that its subsidiary Wayne Bank is currently facing data breach suits which arises out of a widely reported data security incident involving "MOVEit," a file sharing software used globally by government agencies, enterprise corporations, and financial institutions. The vulnerability discovered in MOVEit, however, did not involve any of Wayne Bank's internal systems and did not impact the bank's ability to service its customers. A complaint entitled "Ian Werkmeister vs. Wayne Bank, which had been filed on February 12, 2024 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania seeking class action status and sought monetary recovery and other relief on behalf of themselves and one or more putative classes of other individuals similarly situated. In addition, the MOVEit cases have since been transferred and consolidated in the District of Massachusetts under "In re MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach Litigation." On July 23, 2024, on behalf of all of the defendants in this case, an omnibus motion to dismiss the cases for lack of Article III standing pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was filed with the Court. A hearing on this motion was held on October 9, 2024 and on December 12, 2024, Judge Burroughs denied the defendants Rule 12(b)(1) motion in large part. Said court has ordered that a bellwether process be used to test claims and defenses. Because Wayne Bank is not a bellwether defendant, its obligations will be much lessened but will include, among other things, modest discovery. Norwood Financial Corp is a bank holding company whose principal subsidiary, Wayne Bank, provides a range of retail and commercial banking services to individuals and businesses. The Company operates through a network of branches serving northeastern Pennsylvania, the Southern Tier of New York and surrounding markets. WEBSTER FINANCIAL: M&A Probes Proposed Sale to Banco Santander -------------------------------------------------------------- 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: -- Webster Financial Corporation (NYSE: WBS) related to its sale to Banco Santander, S.A. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Webster shareholders are expected to receive $48.75 in cash and 2.0548 Santander American Depository Shares for each Webster common share. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/webster-financial-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: CCO) related to its sale to Mubadala Capital, in partnership with TWG Global. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Clear Channel shareholders are expected to receive $2.43 per share in cash. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/clear-channel-outdoor-holdings-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- European Wax Center, Inc. (NASDAQ: EWCZ) related to its sale to General Atlantic. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, European Wax shareholders are expected to receive $5.80 per share in cash. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/european-wax-center-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Transocean Ltd. (NYSE: RIG) related to its merger with Valaris Limited. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, Transocean shareholders will own approximately 53% of the combined company. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/transocean-ltd-2/. 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] WERNER ENTERPRISES: Class Cert Bid Filing in Hike Due June 14 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC HIKE, v. WERNER ENTERPRISES INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-03662-DAD-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Drozd entered a scheduling order: -- All fact discovery shall be completed no later than Feb. 8, 2027. -- All expert discovery shall be completed no later than May 10, 2027. -- Any motion for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 shall be filed by no later than June 14, 2027. Any opposition to that motion shall be filed by no later than July 14, 2027. Any reply to that opposition shall be filed by no later than Aug. 13, 2027. The Defendant is an American transportation and logistics company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bLLSVZ at no extra charge.[CC] WHOLE FOODS: Silberstein Seeks Extension of Class Cert Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YAACOV SILBERSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP, INC, and JOHN DOES 1-50, Case No. 2:24-cv-04229-JMA-LGD (E.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order that: -- The Plaintiff shall complete the first step in class certification motion practice by Aug. 14, 2026. Given that WFM Group's motion to dismiss remains pending, the Parties have stipulated to extend the deadline for Plaintiff to initiate class certification motion practice to Aug. 14, 2026. Whole Foods is an American multinational supermarket chain. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 11, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LQ6Krs at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Jacobs, Esq. THE JACOBS LAW FIRM, PC 5743 Corsa Avenue, Suite 208 Westlake Village, CA 91362 Telephone: (805) 601-7504 E-mail: matt@jacobslawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: J.T. Wells Blaxter, Esq. Brian R. Blackman, Esq. BLAXTER | BLACKMAN LLP 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 1110 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 500-7700 E-mail: wblaxter@blaxterlaw.com bblackman@blaxterlaw.com WONDERFUL COMPANY: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Hernandez Due July 15 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hernandez v. The Wonderful Company LLC et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01242-ER (S.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their stipulation to continue and modify all deadlines in accordance with the following proposed dates and deadlines: -- The Plaintiffs shall complete pre-certification non-expert depositions and written discovery by June 15, 2026. -- Motion for class certification shall be filed by July 15, 2026. -- The Defendants shall complete pre-certification non-expert depositions and written discovery by Sept, 1, 2026. -- The Defendant's opposition to the motion for class certification shall be filed by Oct. 1, 2026. -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support of the motion for class certification shall be filed by Nov. 13, 2026. -- All certification-related non-expert discovery shall be completed by Sept. 1, 2026. The parties believe that a modification of the current schedule is necessary to accommodate settlement discussions and to further streamline the discovery process. The Wonderful Company grows, harvests, and markets fruits. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 8, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uzhSb1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Parties are represented by: Nick Suciu III, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU DEMAY 6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (616) 678-2180 E-mail: Nsuciu@brysonpllc.com WONDERLABS INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Thorne Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- BRAULIO THORNE, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WONDERLABS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03607 (S.D.N.Y., May 1, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant failed make its website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, depriving blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Wonderlabs, Inc. operates the SwitchBot online retail store, as well as the SwitchBot interactive website, https://us.switch-bot.com. [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 Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Co. Has 850 Pending PI Suits at March 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (EID) assigned its asbestos docket to The Chemours Company, at both March 31, 2026 and December 31 2025, there were approximately 850 lawsuits pending against EID alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos, respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "These cases are pending in state and federal court in numerous jurisdictions in the U.S. and are individually set for trial. A small number of cases are pending outside of the U.S. Most of the actions were brought by contractors who worked at sites between the 1950s and the 1990s. A small number of cases involve similar allegations by EID employees or household members of contractors or EID employees. Finally, certain lawsuits allege personal injury as a result of exposure to EID products. "With limited exception, the Company previously rejected EID's demand for indemnity and defense of asbestos and product liability matters arising from an EID subsidiary, Sporting Goods Properties, Inc., ("SGPI"). EID brought an arbitration proceeding on this issue and in November 2024, the Company and EID reached an agreement in principle and adjourned the arbitration. The Company finalized the settlement agreement in March 2025. Per the terms of the agreement in principle, the Company assumed the current SGPI asbestos cases as well as all future SGPI asbestos and asbestos related product liability claims. The agreement also includes that the Company is entitled to insurance recoveries where applicable under certain existing insurance policies as well as potential cost sharing between the parties for certain cases. "At March 31, 2026 and December 31 2025, Chemour had product liability claims, include estimated losses for current claims as well as an estimate of losses for future claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/4zturt3h ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Defends Exposure Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------------- Suits have been brought in New York State and federal courts against Consolidated Edison, Inc., and many other defendants, wherein a large number of plaintiffs sought significant compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly caused by or relating to exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing materials at various premises of the Utilities, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The suits that have been resolved, that are many, have been resolved without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts that were not, in the aggregate, material to them. The amounts specified in all the remaining thousands of suits total billions of dollars; however, the Utilities believe that these amounts are greatly exaggerated, based on the disposition of previous claims. At March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025, Con Edison and CECONY have accrued their estimated aggregate undiscounted potential liabilities for these suits and additional suits that may be brought through 2040 as shown in the following table. These estimates were based upon a combination of modeling, historical data analysis and risk factor assessment. Courts have modified, and may continue to modify, standards for determining liability and the reasonableness of awards in asbestos suits. As a result, the Companies currently believe that there is a reasonable possibility of an exposure to loss in excess of the liability accrued for the suits. The Companies are unable to estimate the amount or range of such loss. In addition, certain current and former employees have claimed or are claiming workers' compensation benefits based on alleged disability from exposure to asbestos. CECONY is permitted to defer as regulatory assets (for subsequent recovery through rates) costs incurred for its asbestos lawsuits and workers' compensation claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GMmoZN ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coty Inc. Defends Product liability Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------- Coty Inc. has been named as a defendant in numerous civil actions alleging that certain cosmetic talcum powder products sold by the Company were contaminated with asbestos leading to bodily injury, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Coty states, "Most of these actions involve a number of co-defendants and, to date, many such actions have been resolved by dismissal, settlement or other resolution acceptable to the Company. While the Company and its legal counsel intend to continue to defend these cases vigorously as well as exploring various means of resolving claims before trial, there can be no assurances regarding the ultimate resolution of these matters, individually or collectively. In each of the previous fiscal years the value of settlements, both individually and in the aggregate, has not been material; however, due to the rising number of filed and pending cases against the Company, as well as the evolving litigation landscape, inclusive of significant judgments and settlements by third party companies, settlement values and other costs associated with these cases have increased substantially and are expected to increase in the future. In addition, the Company has experienced higher recent settlement demands and volumes driven in part by the maturation of cases that have been previously filed and are now reaching the trial stage as well as the general nature of litigation in this area which sometimes involves expedited trial dates." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycxsn2xr ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Defends Exposure Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------- Curtiss-Wright Corporation has been named in a number of lawsuits that allege injury from exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. To date, the Corporation has not been found liable for or paid any material sum of money in settlement in any asbestos-related case. The Corporation believes its minimal use of asbestos in its past operations as well as its acquired businesses’ operations and the relatively non-friable condition of asbestos in its historical products makes it unlikely that it will face material liability in any asbestos litigation, whether individually or in the aggregate. The Corporation maintains insurance coverage and indemnification agreements for these potential liabilities and believes adequate coverage exists to cover any unanticipated asbestos liability. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bHP21i ASBESTOS UPDATE: DNOW Inc. Defends 446 PI Lawsuits at March 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- DNOW Inc. is one of many defendants in lawsuits that plaintiffs have brought seeking damages for personal injuries that exposure to asbestos allegedly caused, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Plaintiffs and their family members have brought these lawsuits against a large volume of defendant entities as a result of the various defendants' manufacture, distribution, supply or other involvement with asbestos, asbestos-containing products or equipment or activities that allegedly caused plaintiffs to be exposed to asbestos. "These plaintiffs typically assert exposure to asbestos as a consequence of third-party manufactured products that the Company's subsidiary, MRC Global (US) Inc., purportedly distributed. As of March 31, 2026, the Company is a named defendant in approximately 446 lawsuits involving approximately 500 claims. No asbestos lawsuit has resulted in a judgment against the Company to date, with the majority being settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved. Applicable third-party insurance has substantially covered these claims, and insurance should continue to cover a substantial majority of existing and anticipated future claims. Accordingly, the Company has recorded a liability for its estimate of the most likely settlement of asserted claims and a related receivable from insurers for its estimated recovery, to the extent the Company believes that the amounts of recovery are probable." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jmO1DE ASBESTOS UPDATE: Domtar Corp. Defends Exposure Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------- Domtar Corporation is involved in a number of asbestos-related lawsuits filed primarily in U.S. state courts, including certain cases involving multiple defendants, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "These lawsuits principally allege direct or indirect personal injury or death resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing premises. While the Company disputes the plaintiffs' allegations and intends to vigorously defend these claims, the ultimate resolution of these matters cannot be determined at this time. These lawsuits frequently involve claims for unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and the Company is unable to reasonably estimate a range of possible losses, which may not be covered in whole or in part by its insurance coverage. However, unfavorable rulings, judgments or settlement terms could materially impact the Consolidated Financial Statements. Hearings for certain of these matters are scheduled to occur in the next twelve months." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QQze0g ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Has $386MM Reserves March 31 --------------------------------------------------------- Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous claims for indemnification and medical cost reimbursement related to asbestos exposure, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "These claims relate to damages for bodily injuries alleged to have arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with construction and maintenance activities conducted on its electric generation plants prior to 1985. "Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized asbestos-related reserves of $386 million at March 31, 2026, and $395 million at December 31, 2025. These reserves are classified in Other within Other Noncurrent Liabilities and Other within Current Liabilities on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. These reserves are based on Duke Energy Carolinas' best estimate for current and future asbestos claims through 2045 and are recorded on an undiscounted basis. In light of the uncertainties inherent in a longer-term forecast, management does not believe they can reasonably estimate the indemnity and medical costs that might be incurred after 2045 related to such potential claims. It is possible Duke Energy Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities in excess of the recorded reserves. "The reserve for credit losses for insurance receivables for the asbestos-related injuries and damages is $9 million as of March 31, 2026, and December 31, 2025, for both Duke Energy and Duke Energy Carolinas. The insurance receivable is evaluated based on the risk of default and the historical losses, current conditions and expected conditions around collectability. Management evaluates the risk of default annually based on payment history, credit rating and changes in the risk of default from credit agencies." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/4w8rmy3m ASBESTOS UPDATE: ESAB Corp. Reports 15,712 Unresolved Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ ESAB Corporation has reported 15,712 unresolved claims for three months ended April 3, 2026, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. ESAB Corp. states, "Certain subsidiaries of the Company are the legal obligor, or owner, for certain asbestos obligations including long-term asbestos insurance assets, long-term asbestos insurance receivables, accrued asbestos liabilities, long-term asbestos liabilities, asbestos indemnity expenses, asbestos-related defense costs and asbestos insurance recoveries related to the asbestos obligations of the Company's legacy industrial businesses. As a result, the Company holds certain asbestos-related contingencies and insurance coverages. "These subsidiaries are each one of many defendants in a large number of lawsuits that claim personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos from products manufactured or used with components that are alleged to have contained asbestos. Such components were acquired from third-party suppliers, and were not manufactured by any of the Company's subsidiaries, nor were the subsidiaries producers or direct suppliers of asbestos. The manufactured products that are alleged to have contained or used asbestos generally were provided to meet the specifications of the subsidiaries' customers, including the United States Navy. The subsidiaries settle asbestos claims for amounts the Company considers reasonable given the facts and circumstances of each claim. "The Company has projected each subsidiary's future asbestos-related liability costs with regard to pending and future unasserted claims based upon the Nicholson methodology. The Nicholson methodology is a standard approach used by experts and has been accepted by numerous courts. It is ESAB's policy to record a liability for asbestos-related liability costs for the longest period of time that ESAB management can reasonably estimate. "The Company believes that it can reasonably estimate the asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims that will be resolved in the next 15 years and has recorded that liability at its best estimate. While it is reasonably possible that the subsidiaries will incur costs after this period, the Company does not believe the reasonably possible loss or a range of reasonably possible losses is estimable at the current time. Accordingly, no accrual has been recorded for any costs that may be paid after the next 15 years. Defense costs associated with asbestos-related liabilities as well as costs incurred related to efforts to recover insurance from the subsidiaries' insurers are expensed as incurred." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=juhCBA ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Group Has $165MM Reserves at March 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- Everest Group, Ltd., with respect to asbestos only, at March 31, 2026, had net asbestos loss reserves of $165 million, or 87.9%, of total net A&E reserves, all of which was for assumed business, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "At March 31, 2026, we had gross asbestos loss reserves of $181 million, or 88.9% of total gross A&E reserves, all of which was for assumed business. "Ultimate loss projections for A&E liabilities cannot be accomplished using standard actuarial techniques. We believe that our A&E reserves represent management’s best estimate of the ultimate liability; however, there can be no assurance that ultimate loss payments will not exceed such reserves, perhaps by a significant amount." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/2n5jpcnj ASBESTOS UPDATE: FG Nexus Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------- One of the FG Nexus Inc.'s subsidiaries is named as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "A majority of the cases involve product liability claims based principally on allegations of past distribution of commercial lighting products containing wiring that may have contained asbestos. Each case names dozens of corporate defendants in addition to FG Nexus. In our experience, a large percentage of these types of claims have never been substantiated and have been dismissed by the courts. FG Nexus has not suffered any adverse verdict in a trial court proceeding related to asbestos claims and intends to continue to defend these lawsuits." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=atYDov ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire & Rubber Reports 30,550 PI Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company recognizes 30,550 pending claims for three months ended March 31, 2026, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "We are a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging various asbestos-related personal injuries purported to result from alleged exposure to asbestos in certain products manufactured by us or present in certain of our facilities. Typically, these lawsuits have been brought against multiple defendants in state and federal courts. To date, we have disposed of approximately 167,100 claims by defending, obtaining the dismissal thereof, or entering into a settlement. The sum of our accrued asbestos-related liability and gross payments to date, including legal costs, by us and our insurers totaled $601 million through March 31, 2026 and $597 million through December 31, 2025." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=upBqVJ ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Still Faces Exposure Cases -------------------------------------------------------------- Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. (HII), and its predecessors-in-interest are defendants in a longstanding series of cases that have been and continue to be filed in various jurisdictions around the country, wherein former and current employees and various third parties allege exposure to asbestos containing materials while on or associated with HII premises or while working on vessels constructed or repaired by HII, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In some instances, partial or full insurance coverage is available for the Company's liabilities. The costs to resolve cases during the three months ended March 31, 2026 and 2025, were not material individually or in the aggregate. The Company's estimate of asbestos-related liabilities is subject to uncertainty because such liabilities are influenced by many variables that are inherently difficult to predict. Although the Company believes the ultimate resolution of current cases will not have a material effect on its condensed consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows, it cannot predict what new or revised claims or litigation might be asserted or what information might come to light and can, therefore, give no assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of asbestos related litigation. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/2b3f77md ASBESTOS UPDATE: Int'l. Paper Has $110MM Liability as of March 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- International Paper Company has been named as a defendant in various asbestos-related personal injury litigation, in both U.S. state and federal court, primarily in relation to the prior operations of certain companies previously acquired by the Company, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. International Paper states, "The Company's total recorded liability with respect to these pending and future asbestos-related claims was $110 million and $103 million net of insurance recoveries as of March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025, respectively. While it is reasonably possible that the Company may incur losses in excess of its recorded liability with respect to these asbestos-related matters, we are unable to estimate any loss or range of loss in excess of such liability, and do not believe additional material losses are probable." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TrvCX9 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson Controls International plc and certain of its subsidiaries, along with numerous other third parties, are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos containing materials, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "These cases have typically involved product liability claims based primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial products that either contained asbestos or were used with asbestos containing components. "The amounts recorded for asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on the Company's strategies for resolving its asbestos claims, currently available information, and a number of estimates and assumptions. Key variables and assumptions include the number and type of new claims that are filed each year, the average cost of resolution of claims, the identity of defendants, the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers, amount of insurance, and the solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers. Other factors that may affect the Company's liability and cash payments for asbestos-related matters include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms of state or federal tort legislation and the applicability of insurance policies among subsidiaries. As a result, actual liabilities or insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than those recorded if assumptions used in the Company's calculations vary significantly from actual results." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bYJ5lS ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Receives 2,782 Claims in 2025 ------------------------------------------------------ MetLife, Inc., is and has been a defendant in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "As reported in the 2025 Annual Report, MLIC received approximately 2,782 asbestos-related claims in 2025. For the three months ended March 31, 2026 and 2025, MLIC received approximately 712 and 602 new asbestos-related claims, respectively. The number of asbestos cases that may be brought, the aggregate amount of any liability that MLIC may incur, and the total amount paid in settlements in any given year are uncertain and may vary significantly from year to year. "The ability of MLIC to estimate its ultimate asbestos exposure is subject to considerable uncertainty, and the conditions impacting its liability can be dynamic and subject to change. The availability of reliable data is limited and it is difficult to predict the numerous variables that can affect liability estimates, including the number of future claims, the cost to resolve claims, the disease mix and severity of disease in pending and future claims, the willingness of courts to allow plaintiffs to pursue claims against MLIC when exposure to asbestos took place after the dangers of asbestos exposure were well known, and the impact of any possible future adverse verdicts and their amounts. "The ability to make estimates regarding ultimate asbestos exposure declines significantly as the estimates relate to years further in the future. In the Company's judgment, there is a future point after which losses cease to be probable and reasonably estimable. It is reasonably possible that the Company's total exposure to asbestos claims may be materially greater than the asbestos liability currently accrued and that future charges to income may be necessary, but management does not believe any such charges are likely to have a material effect on the Company's financial position." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aarDqH ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Co-Defends 118 Exposure Cases ----------------------------------------------------------------- Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. is a co-defendant in 118 cases asserting claims on behalf of 162 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases. We intend to vigorously defend these cases and believe we will continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases. "While it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation, and although our results of operations and cash flows for a particular period could be adversely affected by asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, liquidity or results of operations." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DGgBzI ASBESTOS UPDATE: Perrigo Co. Faces Product Liability Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------- Perrigo Company plc has been named, together with other manufacturers, in product liability lawsuits in a variety of state courts alleging that the use of body powder products containing talcum powder causes mesothelioma and lung cancer due to alleged asbestos contamination of the raw material talc, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The majority of these cases involve legacy talcum powder products that have not been manufactured by the Company since 1999. As of the date of these financial statements, the Company has been named in approximately 300 individual lawsuits seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Nationwide the number of new cases against manufacturers and retailers of talc-containing products alleging injury related to asbestos-contaminated talc continues to grow. The Company has several defenses and continues to both vigorously defend these lawsuits and explore various means of expeditiously resolving these claims before trial, including through settlement of certain plaintiffs' claims. Trials for these lawsuits are currently scheduled throughout 2026 and 2027. There are currently over 40 trials set for these cases. The Company continues to evaluate these cases and vigorously defend itself against such claims while exploring resolution of certain of the claims, including through dismissals and settlement. Some of the Company's retailer customers are seeking indemnity from the Company for a portion of their defense costs and liability relating to these cases." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iuZmxk ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pfizer Inc. Defends Exposure Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------ Numerous lawsuits against Pfizer Inc. and certain of its previously owned subsidiaries are pending in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged personal injury from exposure to products allegedly containing asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials sold by Pfizer and certain of its previously owned subsidiaries, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In addition, between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert owned American Optical Corporation (American Optical), which manufactured and sold respiratory protective devices and asbestos safety clothing. In connection with the sale of American Optical in 1982, Warner-Lambert agreed to indemnify the purchaser for certain liabilities, including certain asbestos-related and other claims. Warner-Lambert was acquired by Pfizer in 2000 and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer. Warner-Lambert is actively engaged in the defense of, and will continue to explore various means of resolving, these claims. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gSKnwL ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Defends PI Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------- Rockwell Automation, Inc. (including its subsidiaries) have been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components of its products many years ago, including products from divested businesses for which they have agreed to defend and indemnify claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Currently there are lawsuits that name us as defendants, together with hundreds of other companies. But in all cases, for those claimants who do show that they worked with our products or products of divested businesses for which we are responsible, we nevertheless believe we have meritorious defenses, in substantial part due to the integrity of the products, the encapsulated nature of any asbestos-containing components, and the lack of any impairing medical condition caused by our products. We defend those cases vigorously. However, certain of our agreements relating to divested businesses do not provide us the ability to directly control management of those asbestos claims, and our ongoing reimbursement of outside counsel and other expenses relating to defense of such claims represent the vast majority of our annual asbestos net litigation spend. Historically, we have been dismissed from the vast majority of asbestos claims with no payment to claimants. "Additionally, we have maintained insurance coverage that includes indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured retentions, for many of these asbestos claims. We believe these arrangements will provide substantial coverage for future defense and indemnity costs for these claims for many years into the future. The uncertainties of claim litigation make it difficult to predict accurately the ultimate outcome. That uncertainty is increased by the possibility of adverse rulings or new legislation affecting claim litigation or the settlement process. Subject to these uncertainties and based on our experience defending these claims, we do not believe these lawsuits will have a material effect on our business, financial condition, or results of operations." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/3c3k9wt6 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scotts Miracle-Gro Defends Exposure Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------- The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company has been named as a defendant in a number of cases alleging injuries that the lawsuits claim resulted from exposure to asbestos-containing products, apparently based on the its historic use of vermiculite in certain of its products, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "In many of these cases, the complaints are not specific about the plaintiffs' contacts with the Company or its products. The cases vary, but complaints in these cases generally seek unspecified monetary damages (actual, compensatory, consequential and punitive) from multiple defendants. The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit and is vigorously defending against them. The Company has not recorded any accruals in its condensed consolidated financial statements as the likelihood of a loss from these cases is not probable at this time. The Company does not believe a reasonably possible loss would be material to the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. In addition, the Company does not believe the ultimate resolution of these cases will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. There can be no assurance that future developments related to pending claims or claims filed in the future, whether as a result of adverse outcomes or as a result of significant defense costs, will not have a material effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rteeE5 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Defends 497 Lawsuits as of March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- One of Transocean Ltd.'s subsidiaries was named as a defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits arising out of the subsidiary's manufacture and sale of heat exchangers, and involvement in the construction and refurbishment of major industrial complexes, alleging bodily injury or personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "As of March 31, 2026, the subsidiary was a defendant in approximately 497 lawsuits with a corresponding number of plaintiffs. For many of these lawsuits, we have not been provided sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine whether all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or the nature of their alleged injuries. The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold in 1989. We have a coverage-in-place agreement with certain insurers and additional funding from settlement agreements with other insurers. Overall, we believe the subsidiary has sufficient resources to respond to both the current lawsuits as well as future lawsuits of a similar nature. While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the outcome of these matters, we do not expect the ultimate liability, if any, resulting from these claims to have a material adverse effect on our condensed consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://tinyurl.com/3w5du8nv ********* 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 ***