260528.mbx

260528.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, May 28, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 106 Headlines ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Zappone Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping ADOBE SYSTEM INC: Adair Files Suit in N.D. California AMWAY CORP: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dalton Says ASP ISOTOPES: Court OK's Stipulation to Stay Securities Class Suit AUTHENTIC BRANDS: Sigglin Suit Removed to W.D. Washington AVANTI PIZZA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mashkulli Alleges AVNET INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Underwood Says AZZURRACLO LIMITED: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BARNHART CRANE: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach BOSTON CAPITAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Luciano Alleges CAPUTO BAKERY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Miranda Alleges CLUTTER INC: Davis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CONOPCO INC: Mills Sues Over Mislabeled Hypoallergenic Body Wash CONRAD HOUSE INC: Howard Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Turner Balks at Mislabeled Pasta Food Products CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Milewski Says EBS FOODS LLC: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ELEVEN LABS: Amer Sues Over Unlawfully Collected Voiceprints EMPLOYER'S OUTSOURCING: Ortiz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. EVENTLINK LLC: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Orozco Alleges FEEDERS SUPPLY: Monhollen TCPA Suit Transferred to W.D. Kentucky FLOCK GROUP: Dutcher Suit Transferred to N.D. California FLUTTER HABIT LLC: Figueroa Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. FOREWARN LLC: Elliott Suit Transferred to D. Colorado GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: Strickland Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HAWTHORN SENIOR LIVING: Miller Suit Removed to E.D. California HOLLYWOOD DELIVERY: Denzler Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. INSTRUCTURE INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Monville Says INSTRUCTURE INC: Fails to Safeguard Student Data, Doe Suit Says INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: McGinity Balks at Illegal Data Collection JEFF LANDRY: Garcia Suit Transferred to W.D. Louisiana JUDICIAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE: Bochra Files Suit in D. Columbia KIK INTERNATIONAL: Cox Suit Removed to C.D. California MAPLE COVERAGE: Stewart Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit Over Toxic Synthetic Fragrance MARYLAND: Fitch Sues Over DMB's Vendor‑run HRA MEDTRONIC INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, McGrew Alleges MERCOR.IO CORP: Misclassifies Company Workers, White Says MINT MOBILE: Kaidi Suit Removed to N.D. California NATURE'S TRUTH: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Crumwell Says NEW OCCASION: Powell Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website NIKE INC: Must Return Unlawful IEEPA Tariff Overcharges, Suit Says SUMMIT 4 GROUP: Hegeman Sues Over Unpaid Regular and Overtime Wages SUNRISE SENIOR: Faces Ortiz Suit Over Unfair Labor Practices SYNGENTA CROP: Herbicide Contains Toxic Paraquat, Moore Claims TELE-DIRECT COMMUNICATIONS: Underpays Company Workers, Sanchez Says THOMSON REUTERS: Discloses Social Security Numbers, Johnston Says TINAJERO AG INC: Montiel Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TONEMAN CONCRETE CORP: Rivera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. UNDER ARMOUR: Must Repay $90MM as Settlement Amount UNITED GROUND: Tene Wins Class Certification Bid UTILITY TREE SERVICE: Gonsales Suit Removed to S.D. California VF CORP: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Colorado Court WAGNER SPRAY TECH: Ali Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota WEST COAST JANITORIAL: De La Rosa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WORLDPAC INC: Ryce Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. [] Carolyn Riggs Joins FBT Gibbons' Product Litigation Practice ********* ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Zappone Sues Over Unlawful Wiretapping ----------------------------------------------------------- Danielle Zappone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO., Case No. CV-2026-004656 (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas, Del. Cty., May 11, 2026), is brought against Defendant for the wiretapping of electronic communications of visitors to Defendant's Website, https://www.abercrombie.com ("Website"), and all of the Website's subpages. The Defendant procures at least three third-party vendors ("Code Vendors") to embed snippets of JavaScript computer code (the "Code") on the Website, which then deploys on each Website visitor's internet browser for the purpose of intercepting and recording the Website visitor's electronic communications with the Website. The Code intercepts Website visitors' page views, URLs of web pages visited, browser information, IP address, demographic information, form submissions, products clicked on, and/or other electronic communications in real-time (collectively, "Website Communications"). The Defendant knowingly, willfully, and intentionally procured the interception of, and used, the electronic communications at issue without the knowledge or prior consent (or, in some cases, against their direct rejection of consent) of Plaintiff or the Class Members. Defendant did so for its own financial gain and in violation of Plaintiff's and the Class Members' substantive legal privacy rights under state wiretapping laws and common law The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a class of all Pennsylvania citizens whose Website Communications were intercepted through the use of the Code embedded on Defendant's Website. Plaintiff seeks all civil remedies provided under the causes of action including but not limited to compensatory, statutory, and/or punitive damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs, says the complaint. The Plaintiff visited www.abercrombie.com and certain of its subpages. The Defendant owns, manages, and operates the Website at www.abercrombie.com, including its subpages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. Anasuya E. Shekhar, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor Pittsburgh PA, 15222 Phone: 412.322.9243 Email: nickc@lcllp.com anasuya@lcllp.com ADOBE SYSTEM INC: Adair Files Suit in N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Adobe Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Jerry Mitchell Adair, Carla Danielson, Katherine J. Emrick, Preston Pham, Eva D. Recchia and all others similarly situated v. Adobe Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-11384-BRM-CI (N.D. Cal., May 6, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Adobe Inc. (formerly Adobe Systems Incorporated) -- https://www.adobe.com/ -- is a multinational computer software company headquartered in San Jose, California.[BN] The Petitioners are represented by: Chen Kasher, Esq. Jerome J. Schlichter SCHLICHTER BOGARD LLC 100 S. 4th Street, Ste. 1200 St. Louis, MO 63102 Phone: (773) 853-3062 Email: ckasher@uselaws.com jschlichter@uselaws.com - and - Jamie L. Dupree, Esq. FUTTERMAN DUPREE DODD CROLEY MAIER LLP 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 399-3840 Fax: (415) 399-3838 Email: jdupree@fddcm.com AMWAY CORP: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Dalton Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Amway Corp., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-02529 (D. Minn., May 7, 2026) arises because Defendant's Website www.amway.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 ("ADA") and its implementing regulations. The complaint relates that as a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, adds the complaint. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota; damages, and a damage multiplier pursuant to Minnesota Statute. Plaintiff Julie Dalton is legally blind and has been a resident of Minnesota. Defendant Amway Corp. is a Michigan Company offers direct sale merchandise and accessories for sale including nutrition supplements, beauty supplies, personal care products, home cleaning products, cookware and more.[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 ASP ISOTOPES: Court OK's Stipulation to Stay Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ ASP Isotopes 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 20, 2026, that on April 6, 2026, the court approved the stipulation agreeing to stay a securities class action which requires the parties to file a stipulation of settlement and for the plaintiffs to file a motion for preliminary approval of the stipulation of settlement within 60 days of the court's approval of the stipulation. A putative securities class action filed on December 4, 2024, by a purported stockholder of the company on behalf of purchasers of its securities between October 30, 2024 through November 26, 2024, against ASP Isotopes Inc. and certain of its executive officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned "Corredor v. ASP Isotopes Inc., et al.," Case No. 1:24-cv-09253. It alleges that the company, its chief executive officer, and chief financial officer made materially misleading or false statements or omissions regarding its business and asserts purported claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. On May 2, 2025, the court appointed Mark Leone as lead plaintiff and directed the Clerk of Court to amend the caption to substitute Leone for Alexander Corredor as plaintiff. On May 2, 2025, the court also appointed lead counsel and set deadlines for filing an amended consolidated class action complaint and briefing schedules for a motion to dismiss, if any, and class certification. On May 27, 2025, Leone and two additional named plaintiffs filed the amended class action complaint which asserts the same causes of action and seeks the same relief as the initial complaint and is based upon substantially similar factual allegations as the initial complaint. On June 27, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Also on June 27, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On December 4, 2025, the court denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss and granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On April 3, 2026, following a mediation in which the parties reached an agreement-in-principle to resolve all claims in the Securities Class Action, subject to the Court's approval, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation. Additionally, the company has been named as a nominal defendant in shareholder derivative actions that arise out of similar allegations as those made in the Securities Class Action. These derivative actions include claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and a claim for contribution pursuant to Section 21D thereof, captioned "Stewart v. Mann, et al.," Case No. 1:26-cv-1712 (S.D.N.Y.). This arose from substantially similar factual allegations relating to the company's disclosures and alleged misconduct underlying the abovementioned action. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, disgorgement of compensation, corporate governance reforms, fees, interest, and costs. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaints. ASP Isotopes Inc. is a specialty chemicals company focused on the development and production of isotopically enriched materials for use in nuclear medicine, energy, and industrial applications. The company aims to leverage advanced enrichment technologies to provide reliable isotope supply to global customers. AUTHENTIC BRANDS: Sigglin Suit Removed to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ariana Sigglin and Greta Shirdon, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. AUTHENTIC BRANDS GROUP and CATALYST BRANDS LLC, Case No. 26-2-11216-9 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of King, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on May 11, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01593. The Plaintiffs contend that Defendants violated the Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA), and the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA), by sending emails "with false and misleading subject lines to create the illusion of a good deal and impart a sense of urgency and induce fear in consumers that they might miss out on a good deal, spurring consumers to make purchases in a hurry and thereby increasing Defendants' revenue."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq. Blythe H. Chandler, Esq. Eden B. Nordby, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 1700 Westlake Avenue North, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98109 Email: jmurray@terrellmarshall.com bchandler@terrellmarshall.com enordby@terrellmarshall.com The Defendants are represented by: Taylor Washburn, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2800 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206.223.7000 Fax: 206.223.7107 Email: washburnt@ballardspahr.com - and - Meegan B. Brooks, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 71 Stevenson Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 424.204.4400 Email: brooksm@ballardspahr.com AVANTI PIZZA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mashkulli Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- EJUP MASHKULLI, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AVANTI PIZZA 1 INC, d/b/a Avanti's Pizzeria; AVANTI PIZZA 2 INC. d/b/a Avanti's Pizzeria; ARDJENT MASKULI; RIZVAN MASHKULLI; and EMIRA MASHKULI, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-02736-VMS (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Mashkulli was employed by the Defendants as a pizza man. Avanti Pizza 1 Inc. owned and operated an enterprise under the tradename "Avanti's Pizzeria" which is comprised of two pizzeria locations in Staten Island, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Brown, Esq. BROWN KWON & LAM LLP 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (212) 295-5828 Facsimile: (718) 795-1642 Email: wbrown@bkllawyers.com AVNET INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Underwood Says -------------------------------------------------------- Sanethia Underwood, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Avnet Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-03285-MTM (D. Ariz., May 8, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to prevent and stop cybercriminals from accessing employees' personally identifiable information ("PII"). The complaint relates that as a condition of employment with Avnet, Plaintiff provided Defendant with her PII, including her name, date of birth, contact information, Social Security number, and financial information. Defendant used that PII to facilitate its employment of Plaintiff, including payroll, and required Plaintiff to provide that PII to obtain employment and payment for that employment. Consequently, the infamous cybercriminal group, FulcrumSec identified the Defendant on its website as a breached entity on the dark web on May 1, 2026, where it announced that it had stolen over 1.1 TB of data. Despite its duties to safeguard PII, Defendant did not in fact follow industry standard practices in securing employees' PII, as evidenced by the Data Breach, the complaint asserts. The Defendant has not yet begun formal notification to class members, including Plaintiff, despite FulcrumSec taking responsibility for the breach and stating it would release all stolen information onto the dark web. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff suffered actual injury from the exposure of her PII which violates his rights to privacy. Plaintiff is now subject to the present and continuing risk of fraud, identity theft, and misuse resulting from her PII being placed in the hands of unauthorized third parties. This injury was worsened by Defendant's failure to inform Plaintiff about the Data Breach in a timely fashion, says the suit. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class, seeks compensatory damages for breach of implied contract, which includes the costs of future monitoring of their credit history for identity theft and fraud, plus prejudgment interest, and costs. Plaintiff Sanethia Underwood is a former employee and a Data Breach victim. Defendant Avnet Inc. is a distributor of electronic components headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carly M. Roman, 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: croman@straussborrelli.com AZZURRACLO LIMITED: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Azzurraclo Limited LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-02526-JWB-ECW (D. Minn., May 7, 2026) arises because Defendant's Website www.azzurraclo.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. The complaint relates that as a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, adds the complaint. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota; damages, and a damage multiplier pursuant to Minnesota Statute. Plaintiff Julie Dalton is legally blind and has been a resident of Minnesota. Defendant Azzurraclo Limited LLC is a Wyoming Company that offers women's luxury apparel and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, tops, bottoms, dresses, skirts, jumpsuits, coats, handbags, jewelry, accessories, and more.[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 BARNHART CRANE: 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 Barnhart 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 Barnhart data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Barnhart Security Incident: What Happened? Barnhart Crane & Rigging Company, Inc., operating from over 70 locations across North America, has reported a data breach impacting 22,822 individuals. A notice posted to Barnhart's website states that the company discovered a security incident that affected its network systems between April 23 and April 24, 2025. Upon discovery, Barnhart engaged third-party cybersecurity experts to investigate the scope of the breach and potential data exposure. On April 21, 2026, the investigation revealed that certain files with personal information might have been accessed or acquired without authorization. The data potentially compromised in the Barnhart Crane & Rigging data breach includes full names, Social Security numbers, driver's license or state ID numbers, passport numbers, financial account details, birthdates, health information, and insurance details. The company began notifying those potentially affected by the Barnhart data breach on May 21, 2026. What You Can Do After the Barnhart Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Barnhart 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 Barnhart 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] BOSTON CAPITAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Luciano Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- CANDACE LUCIANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOSTON CAPITAL FINANCE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-12112 (D. Mass., May 8, 2026) is a class action lawsuit against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information from criminal hackers, resulting in a devastating data breach. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Plaintiff and Class Members have likely 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 Boston Capital Finance, LLC is a real estate investment and advisory firm specializing in equity investments in affordable multifamily housing. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina Xenides, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 1005 Congress Avenue, Ste 925-C36 Austin, TX 78701 Tel: (512) 265-5622 Email: cxenides@sirillp.com - and - Tyler Bean, Esq. Kennedy M. Brian, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 101 Park Avenue Suite 1300, #16982799 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Email: tbean@sirillp.com kbrian@sirillp.com - and - Philip Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue S., STE 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 Email: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com CAPUTO BAKERY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Miranda Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- EMILIO MIRANDA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAPUTO BAKERY INC. (D/B/A CAPUTO BAKERY); JAMES CAPUTO; and JOHN CAPUTO, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-02768 (E.D.N.Y., May 8, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Miranda was employed by the Defendants as a baker. Caputo Bakery Inc. is a bakery located at 329 Court St., Brooklyn, NY 11231. [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 CLUTTER INC: Davis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clutter Inc., et al. The case is styled as Dominic Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Clutter Inc., Iron Mountain Incorporated, Case No. 26STCV14873 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 11, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Clutter -- https://www.clutter.com/ -- is a provider of on-demand storage and moving services used to help customers store their physical belongings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Treglio, Esq. POTTER HANDY, LLP 100 Pine Street Suite 1250 San Diego, CA 92111 Phone: (415) 534-1911 Fax: (888) 422-5191 Email: jimt@potterhandy.com CONOPCO INC: Mills Sues Over Mislabeled Hypoallergenic Body Wash ---------------------------------------------------------------- DEBRA MILLS; JESSE MONTANO; and EILEEN R. AVILES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CONOPCO, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-04286-SK (N.D. Cal., May 8, 2026) seeks redress against the Defendant's deceptive practices associated with the advertising, labeling, and sale of its Dove Sensitive Hypoallergenic Body Wash. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, the Defendant has falsely represented the true nature of its Products, and as a result of this false and misleading labeling, was able to sell these Products to hundreds of thousands of unsuspecting consumers throughout California and the United States. Conopco, Inc. provides personal care products. The Company offers perfumes, soaps, and shampoos, as well as food products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael D. Braun, Esq. KUZYK LAW, LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 800 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (213) 401-4100 Facsimile: (213) 401-0311 Email: mdb@kuzykclassactions.com CONRAD HOUSE INC: Howard Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Conrad House, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Montae Howard, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. Conrad House, Inc., DOES 1-100, Case No. CGC26636570 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., May 1, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints (Class Action Complaint)." Conrad House, Inc. -- https://conardhouse.org/ -- provide transformative, community-based resources to vulnerable adults in San Francisco.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bardia Aaron Akhavan, Esq. AKHAVAN & ASSOCIATES 15760 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 1720 Encino, CA 91436 Phone: 855-463-4733 Email: bardia@baalaw.com COSTCO WHOLESALE: Turner Balks at Mislabeled Pasta Food Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sydney Turner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-01013 (C.D. Cal., April 29, 2026) is a class action that seeks to hold Defendant Costco responsible for failing to truthfully and accurately label and market its frozen pasta food product, Kirkland Signature Five Cheese Tortelloni with Parmigiano Reggiano, in violation of the California consumer laws and various state consumer fraud laws. According to the complaint, the Defendant uniformly makes the representation on the front label of the Product that it contains "no preservatives" causing reasonable consumers such as Plaintiff to believe that the Product is free from artificial preservatives. But contrary to Defendant's misrepresentation, the ingredient list on the Product's back panel reveals the presence of manufactured citric acid, an ingredient that functions as a preservative and is produced through industrial fermentation and chemical processing. Like other reasonable consumers, the Plaintiff was deceived by Defendant's unlawful conduct and brings this action individually and on behalf of all similarly situated consumers to remedy Defendant's unlawful acts. Costco Wholesale Corporation is a Washington corporation that operates an international chain of membership warehouses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. Nathaniel H. Sari, Esq. GUCOVSCHI LAW FIRM, PLLC 165 Broadway, Fl. 23 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 E-mail: adrian@gucovschilaw.com nathaniel@gucovschilaw.com CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Milewski Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE MILEWSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03823 (S.D.N.Y., May 8, 2026) is a class action arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, cybercriminals were able to breach the 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 PII. In short, Defendant's failures placed the Class's PII in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. provides real estate services. The Company represents clients in buying, selling, financing, leasing, managing, and valuing assets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Linda H. Joseph, Esq. SCHRODER, JOSEPH & ASSOCS. LLP 394 Franklin Street, Second Floor Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 881-4900 Facsimile: (716) 881-4909 Email: ljoseph@sjalegal.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com EBS FOODS LLC: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against EBS Foods, LLC. The case is styled as Maria Hernandez, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EBS Foods, LLC, Case No. 26CUB01828 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., May 8, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Unlimited." EBS FOODS, LLC is a company located in United States of America,.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Moen, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2155 Campus Dr., Ste. 180 El Segundo, CA 90245-2656 Phone: 424-292-2350 Fax: 424-292-2355 Email: mmoen@haineslawgroup.com ELEVEN LABS: Amer Sues Over Unlawfully Collected Voiceprints ------------------------------------------------------------ Robin Amer, Carol Marin, Philip Rogers, Alison Flowers, Lindsey Dorcus, Yohance Lacour, and Victoria Nassif, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v ELEVEN LABS INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:26-cv-05437 (N.D. Ill., May 11, 2026), is brought under the Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), alleging that ElevenLabs unlawfully collected, retained, profited from, disseminated, and inadequately protected Plaintiffs' voiceprints, without notice, informed written consent, a written release, or any publicly available retention and destruction policy applicable to non-users. Before any private entity may collect a voiceprint, BIPA requires written notice of the specific purpose and duration of collection, together with a written release. ElevenLabs satisfied none of those requirements with respect to Plaintiffs. It collected Plaintiffs' voiceprints from third-party platforms without notice, extracted biometric signatures from recordings Plaintiffs had created for journalistic, literary, and artistic purposes, and embedded those signatures in commercial AI voice models. Plaintiffs have identified no public mechanism, policy, or process by which ElevenLabs deletes biometric data extracted from non-user training audio. ElevenLabs' noncompliance was not a misreading of the statute. ElevenLabs is fully capable of obtaining consent — it does so for celebrities. ElevenLabs' noncompliance was also not due to a lack of awareness. BIPA has been the law in Illinois since 2008. By the time ElevenLabs publicly released its beta platform in January 2023, BIPA had produced privacy settlements of approximately $650 million against Facebook, $100 million against Google, and $92 million against TikTok. ElevenLabs' noncompliance was, instead, a deliberate institutional decision. Compliance with BIPA would have required ElevenLabs to identify the source speakers whose recordings it ingested, provide written notice of the specific purpose and duration of collection, and obtain a written release from each speaker before ingestion. The Plaintiffs' injuries are concrete and particularized. ElevenLabs extracted Plaintiffs' voiceprints without notice or consent, depriving them of the right BIPA guarantees to make an informed decision about the collection and use of their biometric data. ElevenLabs retains those voiceprints in its commercial models and continues to profit from them. The voiceprints cannot be recovered or replaced. The technology built on those voiceprints now displaces Plaintiffs in the markets where they earn their living, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are seven Illinois residents whose recorded voices are among the most distinguished in their fields. ElevenLabs develops, trains, deploys, and commercially operates the foundational voice synthesis models at issue in this Complaint, together with the commercial voice products built on those models.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ross Kimbarovsky, Esq. Jon Loevy, Esq. Michael Kanovitz, Esq. Matthew Topic, Esq. Aaron Tucek, Esq. LOEVY & LOEVY 311 North Aberdeen, 3rd Floor Chicago, IL 60607 Phone: 312.243.5900 Fax: 312.243.5902 Email: ross@loevy.com jon@loevy.com mike@loevy.com matt@loevy.com aaron@loevy.com EMPLOYER'S OUTSOURCING: Ortiz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Employer's Outsourcing, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Jorge Ortiz, Jr., on behalf of others similarly situated v. Employer's Outsourcing, LLC, Rite Staff Inc., Romeo & Layla Warehousing, Inc., Case No. 26CUB01800 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., May 7, 2026). The case type is stated as "Civil Unlimited - Other Employment." Employer's Outsourcing, LLC (EO) -- https://www.employersoutsourcing.com/ -- is a Professional Employer Organization (PEO) based in Fresno, California, that provides human resource solutions across 30 U.S. states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Walter Haines, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP 8605 Santa Monica Blvd., #63354 West Hollywood, CA 90069-4109 Phone: 562-256-1047 Fax: 562-256-1006 Email: walter@uelglaw.com EVENTLINK LLC: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Orozco Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ PATRICK OROZCO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EVENTLINK LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:26-cv-3943 (S.D.N.Y., May 12, 2026) is a class action seeking to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages for Plaintiff and his similarly situated co-workers who traveled and worked at EventLink LLC's customers' events and who were paid on a day rate basis. Plaintiff Patrick Orozco was employed as a W2 Driver by Eventlink from approximately May 2022 through July 22, 2025. In order to offer its services, Eventlink employs hundreds of W2 employee drivers and logistics personnel it sends to its customers' events who are responsible for setting up events and driving motor vehicles for demonstrations. Day Rate Workers regularly work over 40 hours per week due to the nature of the work assigned. Despite Day Rate Workers working over 40 hours per week while on assignment, Eventlink only pays them on a day rate basis. Eventlink did not pay any overtime pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The complaint alleges that for the time Plaintiff worked in New York, Eventlink failed to provide him and other Day Rate Workers any wage notices required by the "New York Labor Law" ("NYLL"). Additionally, Eventlink failed to provide Plaintiff and Day Rate Workers with accurate wage statements, as Plaintiff's wage statements failed to properly list all compensable work time as they do not list any hours worked, nor do they contain any notation of overtime hours worked or paid. Plaintiff relied on his paystubs to ensure that Eventlink paid him the correct rate(s) for the correct hours he worked. Eventlink's incorrect wage statements allowed it to continue its unlawful wage and hour scheme without Plaintiff's and other Day Rate Workers' awareness that they were being underpaid, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and similarly situated current and former Day Rate Workers to remedy violations of the wage-and-hour provisions of the FLSA by Eventlink that have deprived Plaintiff and others similarly situated Day Rate Workers of their lawfully earned wages; to remedy violations of the NYLL and the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations; to remedy violations of the California Labor Code and applicable California Wage Orders; to remedy violations of the Indiana Minimum Wage Law of 1965 and Indiana Wage Payment Statute; and to remedy violations of the Nevada Labor Code. Defendant Eventlink LLC is an experiential marketing agency that handles marketing for a wide variety of Fortune 500 companies throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq. Armando A. Ortiz, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 FEEDERS SUPPLY: Monhollen TCPA Suit Transferred to W.D. Kentucky ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Mable Monhollen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Feeders Supply Company, LLC doing business as: Feeders Pet Supply, Case No. 1:26-cv-00258 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky on May 11, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00335-DJH to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Feeders Supply Company, LLC doing business as Feeders Pet Supply -- https://feederspetsupply.com/ -- offers pet grooming, nail trimming, supervised daycare, and positive dog training.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Berman, Esq. Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (865) 603-7365 Email: cberman@shamisgentile.com ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Kyle Patrick Konwinski, Esq. VARNUM RIDDERING SCHMIDT & HOWLETT LLP (GRAND RAPIDS) 333 Bridge St., NW P.O. Box 352 Grand Rapids, MI 49501-0352 Phone: (616) 336-6894 Email: kpkonwinski@varnumlaw.com - and - Matthew Robert Palmer-Ball, Esq. BRICKER GRAYDON WYATT LLP 400 West Market Street, Suite 2000 Louisville, KY 40202 Phone: (502) 562-7141 Fax: (502) 589-0309 Email: mpalmerball@bricker.com FLOCK GROUP: Dutcher Suit Transferred to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Lance Dutcher, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Flock Group Inc. doing business as: Flock Safety, Case No. 2:26-cv-03041 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on May 5, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-04100-LB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Flock Group Inc., doing business as Flock Safety -- https://www.flocksafety.com/ -- is an American manufacturer and operator of security hardware and software, particularly automated license plate recognition, video surveillance, and gunfire locator systems, and supporting software to integrate the data gathered by these technologies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR AND FISHER, P.A. 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Phone: (914) 874-0710 Fax: (914) 206-3656 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Julia Kathryn Venditti, Esq. BURSOR AND FISHER, P.A. 1990 N California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596-3745 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Fax: (925) 407-2700 Email: jvenditti@bursor.com The Defendants are represented by: Douglas Andrew Winthrop, Esq. Nina J. Leviten, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 14th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 471-3100 Email: douglas.winthrop@aporter.com Nina.Leviten@arnoldporter.com - and - Eskandar Alex Beroukhim, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 243-4000 Fax: (213) 243-4199 Email: Alex.Beroukhim@arnoldporter.com FLUTTER HABIT LLC: Figueroa Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Flutter Habit, LLC. The case is styled as Kimberly Figueroa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Flutter Habit, LLC, Case No. CACE26007785 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., May 10, 2026). Flutter Habit, LLC -- https://flutterhabit.com/ -- provides online cosmetic products and offers at-home DIY lash extensions designed for application under natural lashes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Phone: (202) 709-5744 Fax: (866) 893-0416 Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com FOREWARN LLC: Elliott Suit Transferred to D. Colorado ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Maxwell Elliott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Forewarn LLC, Red Violet, Inc., Case No. 9:26-cv-80404 was transferred the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on May 11, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-02011-NRN to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability. FOREWARN -- https://www.forewarn.com/ -- is an app-based solution that provides instant knowledge, prior to face-to-face engagements, to help professionals better understand and address risk.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric J. Mausner, Esq. MAUSNER GROUP INJURY LAWYERS, PLLC 25 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 808 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 344-4878 Fax: (305) 800-8677 Email: eric@mginjuryfirm.com eservice@mginjuryfirm.com - and - Adam C. York, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 1016 West Jackson Blvd. Ste. 197 Chicago, Illinois 60607 Phone: (866) 276-7637 Fax: (310) 510-6429 Email: adam@crosnerlegal.com GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: Strickland Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Goodwill Industries of South Central California, et al. The case is styled as Andrea Strickland, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Goodwill Industries of South Central California, Goodwill Industries, Goodwill, Case No. 26CUB01729 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., May 4, 2026). The case type is stated as "Civil Unlimited - Other Employment." Goodwill Industries of South Central California -- https://thegoodwill.org/ -- provides work opportunities and skills development to people with barriers to employment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Shkodnik, Esq. Mason Doidge, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 880 E. Broadway Glendale, CA 91205-1218 Phone: 818-962-6465 Fax: 818-962-6469 Email: r.shkodnik@d.law m.doidge@d.law HAWTHORN SENIOR LIVING: Miller Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Richard Miller, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. HAWTHORN SENIOR LIVING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 26CV0626 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of El Dorado, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on May 11, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01779-JDP. The Complaint alleges causes of action for Unpaid Overtime, Unpaid Meal Premiums, Unpaid Rest Premiums, Unpaid Minimum Wages, Final Wages Not Timely Paid, Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment, Non-Compliant Wage Statements, Failure To Keep Requisite Payroll Records, Unreimbursed Business Expenses, and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Justin T. Curley, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 Email: jcurley@seyfarth.com - and - Jeffrey A. Nordlander, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2300 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 448-0159 Facsimile: (916) 558-4839 Email: jnordlander@seyfarth.com HOLLYWOOD DELIVERY: Denzler Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hollywood Delivery Service, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Timothy Denzler, an individual, for himself and those similarly situated v. Hollywood Delivery Service, Inc., Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2613584 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Bernardino Cty., May 4, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Unlimited." Hollywood Delivery Service, Inc. -- https://www.shiphds.com/ -- is a shipping service in Rialto, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: KARAKALOS LAW, APC - and - PALAY HEFELFINGER, APC INSTRUCTURE INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Monville Says ------------------------------------------------------------ KEATON MONVILLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSTRUCTURE INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00393-CMR (D. Utah, May 8, 2026) is a class action lawsuit individually and on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information who were impacted in a data breach. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' Private Information secure. The Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the private information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. The Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the private information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices, says the suit. Instructure Inc. is an educational technology company that provides the Canvas learning management system used by schools, universities, and organizations worldwide to manage courses, assignments, and communications. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason R. Hull, Esq. MARSHALL OLSON & HULL, PC Ten Exchange Place, Suite 350 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 456-7655 Email: jhull@hohtrial.com - 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 Email: mreich@zlk.com tlitke@zlk.com mmeyer@zlk.com INSTRUCTURE INC: Fails to Safeguard Student Data, Doe Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSTRUCTURE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:26-cv-00295 (W.D. Tex., May 8, 2026) arises from a cybersecurity incident, data breach, and service outage involving Canvas, the learning management system operated by Defendant Instructure, Inc. Canvas LMS is an open-source Learning Management System that serves as a central hub for online, hybrid, and in-person classrooms. Defendant Instructure, Inc. develops, operates, hosts, maintains, and sells Canvas LMS to educational institutions throughout the United States, including institutions in Texas. The complaint relates that on April 29, 2026, Instructure detected unauthorized activity in Canvas. Instructure has since acknowledged that the data taken included names, email addresses, student ID numbers, and messages among Canvas users. Instructure further disclosed that on May 7, 2026, the unauthorized actor made changes to pages that appeared when some students and teachers were logged in through Canvas. Instructure states that the activity was carried out by exploiting an issue related to its Free-For-Teacher accounts. Instructure's own remediation statements confirm the seriousness of the compromise: Instructure states that it revoked privileged credentials and access tokens, deployed platform-wide protections, rotated certain internal keys, restricted token-creation pathways, added monitoring, and began hardening administrative access, token management, permissions, monitoring, and related workflows. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was studying in the library for a statistics exam when Canvas became unavailable. Because Canvas was down, she could not access needed study materials and ultimately had to return home without them. Plaintiff had a Human Development final exam scheduled for May 8, 2026. Plaintiff had planned her finals, move-out, and return to Houston around the original exam schedule. The Instructure-caused Canvas outage disrupted those plans. Plaintiff also spent time changing passwords because her Canvas-related credentials or password practices overlapped with other accounts, and because Instructure acknowledged that unauthorized actors changed pages shown to some logged-in Canvas users. The Plaintiff brings this action because Instructure failed to safeguard student data, failed to prevent unauthorized access to and manipulation of Canvas systems, failed to maintain the availability and integrity of critical education infrastructure, and failed to provide timely, adequate, and transparent notice and remediation. Plaintiff seeks damages, restitution, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief requiring Instructure to remediate its security failures, protect exposed student data and Canvas messages, preserve evidence, provide adequate notice, and compensate students whose privacy, academic activities, finals, credentials, and educational records were affected. Plaintiff Jane Doe is a Baylor University student and nursing major. She relied on Canvas for course materials, final-exam preparation, academic communications, assignments, and exams.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Andrew Hall, Esq. HALL ATTORNEYS, P.C. P.O. Box 1370 Edna, TX 77957 Telephone: +1 713 428 8967 E-mail: nhall@hallattorneys.com INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: McGinity Balks at Illegal Data Collection ------------------------------------------------------------------ SEAN MCGINITY, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP, PLC and INTER-CONTINENTAL HOTELS CORPORATION, d/b/a HOLIDAY INN, Defendants, Case No. CGC-26-63646 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., April 29, 2026) is a putative class action against the Defendants for violations of Plaintiff's and other Class Members' right to privacy and protection of personally identifiable information under Civil Code Sec. 1798 and other relevant consumer protection statutes. According to the complaint, the Defendants have utilized and/or operated, without authorization or notice, the Automated License Plate Reader or Automated License Plate Recognition systems that captured the license plate information, location, date, and time that Plaintiff and Class Members entered and exited some Holiday Inn's parking facilities. The information collected by the ALPR systems constitutes PII and therefore is entitled to specific protections under the laws of California. The Plaintiff was unaware that Defendants' parking facilities contained ALPR systems or that parking in Defendants' parking facilities would result in the collection and storage of Plaintiff's PII or posed any risk of unauthorized disclosure of his PII, says the suit. The Plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated for: (i) unauthorized access and use of ALPR information, (ii) failures to implement code compliant privacy policies and maintain a record of ALPR data and access to it, and (iii) negligence. The Defendants own and/or operate more than 500 hotels across the United States, with approximately 30 locations in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. Julia K. Venditti, 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 jvenditti@bursor.com JEFF LANDRY: Garcia Suit Transferred to W.D. Louisiana ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Lindsay Garcia, qualified voter & candidate in Democratic Party for 5th Congressional District; Eugene Collins, qualified voter; on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Jeff Landry, in his official capacity as Governor of State of Louisiana; Elizabeth B. Murrill, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Louisiana; Nancy Landry, in her official capacity as Secretary of State of Louisiana; Case No. 3:26-cv-00471 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana on May 11, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-01528-DCJ-KDM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Voting Civil Rights. Jeffrey Martin Landry is an American politician and attorney serving since 2024 as the 57th governor of Louisiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamar Lanier Ennis, Esq. ENNIS LAW FIRM 412 N. 4th St., Ste. Baton Rouge, LA 70801 Phone: (225) 400-6600 Fax: (225) 308-2053 Email: jlanier@ennislawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Carey T Jones, Esq. LA ATTY GENERAL'S OFFICE (BR) 1885 N Third St Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Phone: (225) 326-6017 Fax: (225) 326-6096 Email: jonescar@ag.louisiana.gov JUDICIAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE: Bochra Files Suit in D. Columbia --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Judicial Conference Committee, et al. The case is styled as Mark Bochra, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JUDICIAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE, and their members, in both their official and individual capacity overseeing Judicial Misconduct Proceedings of all Circuit Courts of U.S.A.; CHIEF JUDGE DAVID JEREMIAH BARRON; JUDGE WILLIAM E. SMITH; CHIEF JUDGE DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON; CHIEF JUDGE MARGO K. BRODIE; CHIEF JUDGE MICHAEL A. CHAGARES; CHIEF JUDGE MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG; CHIEF JUDGE ALBERT DIAZ; JUDGE JOHN BAILEY; CHIEF JUDGE JENNIFER WALKER ELROD, et al; Case No. 1:26-cv-01570-UNA (D.D.C., May 6, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision. The Judicial Conference of the United States, formerly known as the Conference of Senior Circuit Judges, was created by the United States Congress in 1922.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. KIK INTERNATIONAL: Cox Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Charles Cox, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. KIK INTERNATIONAL LLC, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV09049 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on May 11, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-05056. The Complaint contains nine causes of action, alleging: Minimum Wages; Unpaid Overtime; Meal Break Violations; Rest Break Violations; Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment; Wage Statement Violations; Untimely Final Wages; Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses; all in Violation of Cal. Labor Codes and Violation of Cal. Business & Professions Code Section 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Elizabeth Staggs Wilson, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213.443.4300 Facsimile: 800.715.1330 Email: estaggs-wilson@littler.com - and - Rachael Lavi, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 Phone: 310.553.0308 Facsimile: 800.715.1330 Email: rlavi@littler.com - and - James Payer, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 7777 Bonhomme Ave., Suite 1220 Clayton, Missouri 63105 Phone: 314.659.2000 Facsimile: 314.659.2099 Email: jpayer@littler.com MAPLE COVERAGE: Stewart Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maple Coverage LLC. The case is styled as Tatum Stewart, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Maple Coverage LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-05202-PD (C.D. Cal., May 7, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Maple Coverage LLC -- https://welcome.maplecoverage.com/ -- operates as an insurance company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Faythe Elizabeth Gutierrez, Esq. PLG DAMAGE ATTORNEYS, PLLC 2750 SW 145th Avenue, Suite 509 Miramar, FL 33027 Phone: (305) 506-4746 Email: service@plgdamage.com MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit Over Toxic Synthetic Fragrance ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER KOVACS; JESSICA STARR; JOELAH ARIEL; WENDY BEVERIDGE; and NATHAN HIBBERD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC.; KHP CAPITAL PARTNERS, L.P.; SAGE HOSPITALITY GROUP LLC; TOYIA BROWN; SHANER HOTEL HOLDINGS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; HOST HOTELS & RESORTS INC.; HOST HOTELS & RESORTS, L.P.; WATERMARK CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC; and MICHAEL G. MEDZIGIAN, Defendants, Case 3:26-cv-04264 (N.D. Cal., May 8, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, despite actual or constructive knowledge of the toxic properties of Synthetic fragranced consumer products, the Defendant flooded its common and private areas with said products, thereby showering unsuspecting customers, employees, guests and/or patrons with substances known to cause respiratory problems, headaches, skin irritation, and adverse gastrointestinal, cardiovascular and cognitive reactions. Marriott International, Inc. was founded in 0000. The company's line of business includes operating public hotels and motels. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott Edward Cole, Esq. Laura G. Van Note, Esq. Mark T. Freeman, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 Facsimile: (510) 891-7030 Email: sec@colevannote.com lvn@colevannote.com mtf@colevannote.com MARYLAND: Fitch Sues Over DMB's Vendor‑run HRA ------------------------------------------------ KENNETH FITCH, and all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YAAKOV WEISSMANN, Secretary of Maryland Department of Budget and Management, In his official capacity, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01831-RDB (D. Md., May 8, 2026) is a class action challenging the Maryland Department of Budget and Management's ("DBM") replacement of the mandatory statutory prescription‑drug benefits framework enacted by the General Assembly with a vendor‑run Health Reimbursement Arrangement ("HRA") and a vendor‑enrollment requirement that the statute does not authorize. The complaint relates that DBM requires retirees to "enroll with Via Benefits" as the mandatory gateway to prescription‑drug assistance, even though DBM's own contract is not with "Via Benefits" at all, but with a different legal entity -- Extend Health, LLC -- whose name appears nowhere in the enrollment requirement DBM imposes. The complaint alleges that DBM's actions exceed its statutory authority and substitutes a non-statutory system for the one the legislature enacted. Moreover, DBM's actions violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Maryland Declaration of Rights, and fundamental ultra vires principles that prohibit executive officials from imposing conditions or replacing statutory programs the legislature did not authorize. DBM's vendor-enrollment requirement also creates an unauthorized subclassification within the closed statutory class the General Assembly established. By conditioning statutory benefits on enrollment with a private vendor, DBM divides identically situated retirees into favored and disfavored groups, resulting in unequal treatment within a single statutory class, adds the complaint. Plaintiff Kenneth Fitch is a Medicare‑eligible State retiree who meets all statutory criteria for participation in the prescription drug reimbursement programs. He seeks prospective declaratory and injunctive relief to halt ongoing violations of federal law. Defendant Yaakov Weissmann is Secretary of DBM and is being sued in his official capacity and is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the retiree prescription drug benefit program at issue.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Deborah A. Holloway Hill, Esq. P.O. Box 43207 Nottingham, MD 21236 Office: 410-428-7278 E-mail: dhill@dahhlaw.com MEDTRONIC INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, McGrew Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- JEROME McGREW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDTRONIC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-02558 (D. Minn., May 8, 2026) seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for the injuries it inflicted on Plaintiff and over 9 million others due to the Defendant's egregiously inadequate data security, which resulted in the private information of Plaintiff and those similarly situated to be exposed to unauthorized third parties. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing to implement reasonable measures to safeguard Private Information and by failing to take necessary steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of that information. Medtronic's woefully inadequate data security measures made the Data Breach a foreseeable, and even likely, consequence of its negligence, says the Plaintiff. Medtronic, Inc. proivdes medical devices. The Company offers surgical devices, medical instruments, apparatus, respiratory monitoring systems, medical supplies, and other equipments. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. Ryan T. Gott, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 328 Barry Avenue South, Suite 200 Wayzata, MN 55391 Telephone: (612) 389-0600 Email: mweiner@pwfirm.com rgott@pwfirm.com - and - Ryan J. McGee, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 275-5272 Facsimile: (813) 222-4736 Email: rmcgee@forthepeople.com MERCOR.IO CORP: Misclassifies Company Workers, White Says --------------------------------------------------------- HEIDI L. WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERCOR.IO CORPORATION (d/b/a MERCOR), Defendant, Case No. 6:26-cv-00201-H (N.D. Tex., May 8, 2026) arises from Mercor's systematic misclassification of its workforce as independent contractors. The complaint relates that Mercor is an "AI talent platform" and an "AI-powered recruiting and talent platform." Its revenue comes principally from supplying the labor of its contractor workforce to corporate clients. Mercor treats its workers as independent contractors even though Mercor's day-to-day conduct and public statements reflect an employment relationship under any of the legal tests that govern this question. Mercor's Chief Executive Officer has publicly described the workers as "hires" and described Mercor as "managing these workforces of tens of thousands of people." And Mercor's public-facing support documentation acknowledges that Mercor engages in classic employer behavior. Mercor dictates hours and weekly availability. Mercor monitors the workers' screens minute by minute through a mandatory surveillance application called "Insightful." Mercor sets pay rates without negotiation. It trains and supervises its workers through layered quality-control review. Mercor also states that it "performance-offboards" contractors who fall short of project expectations. In other words, they fire them, adds the complaint. Mercor's misclassification is not inadvertent -- it is even advertised as a benefit. Mercor's website expressly tells its clients that engaging Mercor relieves them of "worker misclassification risk." This shows both Mercor's awareness of the misclassification issue and Mercor's decision to assume that risk on behalf of its clients, the complaint asserts. The Plaintiff, who has been paid both on an hourly basis (with hours tracked through Mercor-required Insightful software) and on a per-task basis at rates Mercor unilaterally fixed, therefore, seeks clarification of her service credit, elective-deferral eligibility, and future rights as a continuing common-law employee. Plaintiff seeks equitable relief under Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") only to the extent discovery shows fiduciary breach, fraud, mistake, inequitable conduct, a plan document/SPD mismatch, or fiduciary misrepresentation concerning eligibility. Plaintiff Heidi L. White has worked for Mercor as a purported independent contractor since about October 6, 2025. In that capacity she has performed subject-matter-expert evaluation work and peer-review work for Mercor's clients across multiple Mercor project assignments. Defendant Mercor is an American artificial intelligence hiring startup that provides experts to train AI models and chatbots.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew B. Stephens, Esq. Heather G. Hacker, Esq. HACKER STEPHENS LLP 108 Wild Basin Rd. South, Suite 250 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 399-3022 E-mail: andrew@hackerstephens.com heather@hackerstephens.com MINT MOBILE: Kaidi Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Spencer Kaidi, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MINT MOBILE, LLC, and DOES 1-10, Inclusive, Case No. 26CV000737 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Napa, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on May 11, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-04327. As alleged in the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that he and other nationwide and California individuals were subjected to unlawful tracking after visiting Mint Mobile's website at https://www.mintmobile.com. The Plaintiff alleges that Mint Mobile's website installed various electronic trackers and web browser cookies to his and others' web browsers and subsequently captured information about their online activity. The Plaintiff brings a putative class action alleging claims for violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, California Constitution, and California Unfair Competition Law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: James H. Moon, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 27th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 633-6800 Facsimile: (213) 633-6899 Email: jamesmoon@dwt.com - and - Justin Oliver C. Lin, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 50 California Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 276-6500 Email: justinlin@dwt.com NATURE'S TRUTH: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Crumwell Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ DENISE CRUMWELL, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. NATURE'S TRUTH LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-3775 (S.D.N.Y., May 7, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.naturestruth.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on January 30, 2026, in an attempt to purchase Essential Oils from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and visually-impaired consumers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the goods, and services Defendant offers to the public on its Website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff DENISE CRUMWELL is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant, NATURE'S TRUTH LLC, operates the Nature's Truth online retail store, as well as the Nature's Truth interactive Website which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's: vitamins and supplements, as well as other types of goods, pricing, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and internet pricing specials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 NEW OCCASION: Powell Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA POWELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW OCCASION BRANDS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03947 (S.D.N.Y., May 12, 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 ecommerce Websites, PromGirl.com and SimplyDresses.com are accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. The complaint relates that on March 1, 2026, Plaintiff navigated to the PromGirl "Graduation Dresses" collection page to review dresses appropriate for her niece's ceremony and the family celebration afterward. Plaintiff attempted to examine specific items including the Short Ivory Graduation Dress with Lace, the Puff-Sleeve Short Ivory Grad Dress, and the Cream White Floral Cottagecore Midi Dress, intending to compare styles, colors, sizes, and pricing. Plaintiff sought to review product names, descriptions, prices, available color options, and sizing information. She also attempted to use the filter controls to narrow the selection by style, length, and color. However, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its websites in a manner that is fully accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. A WAVE Web Accessibility Evaluation Tool report for PromGirl identified 54 Errors, including 48 empty buttons, missing alternative text, missing form labels, very low contrast, and ARIA structural failures. As such, Defendant discriminates and will continue in the future to discriminate against Plaintiff and other members of the proposed class and subclass based on disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the products, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of the Websites, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to revise its corporate policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that PromGirl.com and SimplyDresses.com become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired users. Plaintiff Maria Powell is a resident of Bronx County and is permanently disabled due to legal blindness. Defendant New Occasion Brands, LLC, is the operator of PromGirl.com and SimplyDresses.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 E-mail: rschnnfeld@employeejustice.com NIKE INC: Must Return Unlawful IEEPA Tariff Overcharges, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ DIANN CALDWELL, PHILLIP TAYLOR, RACHEL BAILEY, ROMAN MERINO, TYRANIKA JOHNSON, GREGORY HOFFERT, and ELZEY LINDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. NIKE, INC., an Oregon corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00923-IM (D. Or., May 8, 2026) arises from Nike's retention of windfall profits generated by unlawful tariffs imposed by the federal government under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act ("IEEPA"). The complaint relates that beginning in February 2025, the federal government imposed sweeping tariffs on imports from numerous countries under purported authority of the IEEPA. Those tariffs dramatically increased the cost of imported consumer goods sold in the United States. Major U.S. importers, including Nike, responded by increasing prices on consumer goods to offset the cost of these tariffs. On June 1, 2025, Nike implemented price increases on certain footwear and clothing. As a result, American consumers paid higher retail prices for consumer goods reflecting the economic burden of those tariffs. On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the IEEPA-based tariffs were unlawful. As a consequence of that decision, importers who paid those tariffs, including Nike, became entitled to refunds of the duties they previously paid to U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("CBP"). Nike therefore collected the tariff costs from consumers through elevated pricing, while seeking refunds of the same tariff payments from the federal government. Nike stands to recover the same tariff payments twice, once from consumers through higher prices and again from the federal government through tariff refunds, including interest paid by the government on those funds. Nike has made no legally binding commitment to return tariff-related overcharges to the consumers who actually paid them, the suit contends. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of millions of consumers who purchased goods from Nike during the tariff period and who paid inflated prices reflecting Nike's pass-through of unlawful tariffs. Plaintiffs seek restitution of those tariff overcharges, together with appropriate declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. Plaintiffs purchased goods from Nike that were imported from countries subject to the IEEPA tariffs. Defendant Nike, Inc. develops, designs, manufactures, and sells athletic footwear and apparel.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kaleigh N. Boyd, Esq. MCNAUL EBEL PLLC 600 University Street, Suite 2700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 467-1816 E-mail: kboyd@mcnaul.com - and - M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Timothy Emery, Esq. Brook Garberding, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. Brandon P. Jack, Esq. EMERY REDDY, PC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: 916-823-6955 E-mail: anderson@emeryreddy.com emeryt@emeryreddy.com brook@emeryreddy.com gregory@emeryreddy.com brandon@emeryreddy.com - and - Jason T. Dennett, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 1700 7th Ave, Suite 2100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (516) 515-9124 E-mail: jdennett@milberg.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: 866-252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Terence R. Coates, Esq. Dylan J. Gould, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 E. Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com dgould@msdlegal.com - and - Zachary Arbitman, Esq. Nicole A. Maruzzi, Esq. FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER TANNER WEINSTOCK & DODIG, LLP 1845 Walnut Street, 21st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 567-8300 E-mail: zarbitman@feldmanshepherd.com nmaruzzi@feldmanshepherd.com SUMMIT 4 GROUP: Hegeman Sues Over Unpaid Regular and Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Hegeman, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SUMMIT 4 GROUP LLC, d/b/a LIGHTBRIDGE ACADEMY OF DOYLESTOWN, Case No. 2:26-cv-02905 (E.D. Pa., May 1, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"), and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law ("WPCL") for unpaid regular wages and overtime wages owed. The Defendant maintained a common wage practice known to employees as an "overtime freeze." When hourly employees worked more hours than Defendant wanted to pay, Defendant changed, reduced, capped, or otherwise manipulated time records so employees would not be paid for all hours worked, including overtime hours. The Defendant's managers and decisionmakers knew of this practice. Multiple employees complained to management that time cards were being changed and that employees were not being paid for all time worked. Management did not correct the practice. As a result, Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were not paid all regular wages and overtime wages owed under the FLSA, the PMWA, and the WPCL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt childcare employee at Lightbridge Academy of Doylestown. The Defendant is a mufti-unit childcare franchisee group that owns, operates, manages, or controls Lightbridge Academy childcare locations in Pennsylvania, including Doylestown, Fort Washington, Glenside, and Wyomissing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Manes, Esq. MANES & NARAHARI, LLC One Oxford Centre 301 Grant st, Suite 270 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: (412) 626-5570 Fax: (412) 65(P4845 Email: cimamanesnarahari.com SUNRISE SENIOR: Faces Ortiz Suit Over Unfair Labor Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ VERONICA ORTIZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING MANAGEMENT, INC., a Virginia corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV13683 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 29, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The suit is brought by the Plaintiff due to unfair business practices stemming from Defendants' failure to pay for all hours worked (minimum, straight time, and overtime wages), failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to timely pay final wages, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, and failure to indemnify employees for expenditures. Plaintiff Ortiz is a resident of Los Angeles, California who worked for Defendants in Los Angeles County as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee from approximately November 2021 to approximately September 2024. Sunrise Senior Living Management provides senior living services within the State of California, including Los Angeles County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John G. Yslas, Esq. Eugene Zinovyev, Esq. John Brown, Esq. Gabriella Sole, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 660 S. Figueroa St., Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: john.yslas@wilshirelawfirm.com eugene.zinovyev@wilshirelawfirm.com john.brown@wilshirelawfirm.com gabriella.sole@wilshirelawfirm.com SYNGENTA CROP: Herbicide Contains Toxic Paraquat, Moore Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- RAY MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC; CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Defendants, Case no. N26C-05-090-PQT (Del. Sup., May 8, 2026) is an action seeking compensation for injuries and damages caused by the exposure of the Plaintiff from Defendants' herbicide products containing paraquat. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants' herbicide products are defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with their use. As a result of the Plaintiff's many years of regular, frequent, and prolonged exposure to the Defendant's Paraquat products, Plaintiff contracted Parkinson's disease, says the suit. Syngenta Crop Protection LLC produces fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, and seed care treatments, as well as farm management, seeds, and research and development services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark A. DiCello, Esq. Mark M. Abramowitz, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 485 Lexington Ave, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (440) 953-8888 Email: madicello@dicellolevitt.com mabramowitz@dicellolevitt.com - and - Mary S. Thomas, Esq. THOMAS LAW LLC 1521 Concord Pike, Suite 301 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 647-1203 Email: mthomas@marythomaslaw.com TELE-DIRECT COMMUNICATIONS: Underpays Company Workers, Sanchez Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TELE-DIRECT COMMUNICATIONS INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01758-TLN-SCR (E.D. Cal., May 8, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and common law. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and the putative collective members consist of current and former customer service representatives, or similar positions ("CSRs"), who were compensated on an hourly basis. Throughout the relevant period, Defendant maintained a corporate policy and practice of failing to compensate its CSRs for all pre-shift off-the-clock work and failed incorporate attendance bonuses into the overtime rate of pay. Regardless of the specific job title, all CSRs: (1) were paid on an hourly basis; (2) were classified as non-exempt employees; (3) used the same timekeeping system(s); (4) used many (if not all) of the same computer programs; (5) were subject to the same relevant timekeeping and attendance policies; and (6) had the primary job duty of providing customer support. Moerover, Defendant required its CSRs to begin work prior to their scheduled shifts and perform a number of off-the-clock tasks that were integral and indispensable to their jobs, including booting up computers and logging into numerous software programs. The CSRs routinely worked 40 hours or more per week before accounting for their off-the-clock work. When the off-the-clock work is included, the CSRs, even those CSRs who were scheduled and paid for only 40 hours per week, worked over 40 hours per week without the required overtime premium for all time worked over 40 hours. The Defendant, through its managers, had actual and constructive knowledge that its CSRs were completing this off-the-clock work without compensation. Nevertheless, Defendant suffered or permitted, and in fact trained and required, its CSRs to complete this unpaid work. Defendant also failed to include attendance bonus payments and other non-discretionary remuneration into Plaintiff and t =he other CSRs' overtime rates of pay. Defendant's practice of failing to compensate its CSRs for all hours worked and at the correct rate of pay violated the CSRs' rights under the FLSA, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks compensation for all off-the-clock work performed for Defendant, an equal amount for liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff Maria Sanchez worked for Defendant as a full-time remote CSR from approximately 2023 until January 2026. From approximately January to February 2026, Plaintiff worked for Defendant part-time. Defendant Tele-Direct Communications, Inc. is a 24/7 U.S. based contact center providing inbound and outbound call center solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 1801 Century Park East, Suite 860 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com THOMSON REUTERS: Discloses Social Security Numbers, Johnston Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANASTASIA JOHNSTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THOMSON REUTERS AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-11432-BRM-CI (E.D. Mich., April 30, 2026) is a class action complaint brought by the Plaintiff against Thomson Reuters for its intentional and unlawful disclosure of five sequential digits of Michigan residents' social security numbers (SSNs) in violation of the Michigan's Social Security Number Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the Act provides that "a person shall not intentionally . . . publicly display all or more than 4 sequential digits of the social security number" of an individual. Despite this abundantly clear proscription, Defendant Thomson Reuters publically displays five sequential digits of individuals' SSNs through its Thomson Reuters CLEAR and Westlaw PeopleMap platforms. As a result of Defendant's knowing and unlawful public display of five sequential digits of their SSNs, Plaintiff and the members of the Class have suffered invasions of their statutorily protected right to privacy, asserts the complaint. Thomson Reuters America Corporation is a provider of online "people search" (also known as "people finder") services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq. Gregory A. Mitchell, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 W. University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com dal@millerlawpc.com gam@millerlawpc.com - and - Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. Matthew A. Girardi, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 50 Main St. Ste. 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 874-0708 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com mgirardi@bursor.com TINAJERO AG INC: Montiel Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tinajero AG, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Marcos Montiel, on behalf of others similarly situated v. Tinajero AG, Inc., Delano Farms, LLC, Case No. 26CUB01805 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., May 8, 2026). The case type is stated as "Civil Unlimited." Tinajero AG, Inc. is a farm labor contractor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com TONEMAN CONCRETE CORP: Rivera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Toneman Concrete Corp. The case is styled as Ramon A. Melendez Rivera, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Toneman Concrete Corp., Case No. 26STCV15009 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 11, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Toneman Concrete Corporation -- https://www.tonemanconcrete.com/ -- is a construction company that provides grading, slabs, flatwork, structural walls & other concrete services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Lavi, Esq. E&L, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., 2nd Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: 213-213-0000 Fax: 213-213-0025 Email: dlavi@ebralavi.com UNDER ARMOUR: Must Repay $90MM as Settlement Amount --------------------------------------------------- Under Armour, Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 19, 2026, that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ordered the Company to repay $90 million of insurance proceeds previously funded by the insurance carriers for the settlement amount and defense costs from a Consolidated Securities Action. In connection with previously disclosed and now concluded matters, including a consolidated securities class action referred to as the Consolidated Securities Action, the Company had provided notice of claims under multiple director and officer liability insurance policy periods. The Company's director and officer insurance carriers from each policy period funded a portion of the payment in connection with the previously disclosed settlement of the Consolidated Securities Action. However, the Company remains in litigation with certain of its insurance carriers regarding coverage with respect to one of these policy periods. On January 20, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a decision requiring the Company to repay $90 million of insurance proceeds previously funded by the insurance carriers for the settlement amount and defense costs from the Consolidated Securities Action. The Company filed a petition for rehearing, which was denied. The case has been remanded to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland for further proceedings, including ruling on the insurance carriers' claim for prejudgment interest on the $90 million of insurance proceeds. During Fiscal 2026, the Company recorded an accrual of $98.5 million in respect of these legal proceeding contingencies within accrued expenses on the Consolidated Balance Sheets, of which $90 million was paid during the same period. Briefing on the issue of prejudgment interest commenced on May 8, 2026 and is scheduled to conclude on May 27, 2026. The timing of resolution is unknown and the amount of loss ultimately incurred may be different than the amount accrued. In addition, other segment expenses within Corporate Other include $261.0 million of litigation expense, net of insurance proceeds, related to the settlement of the Class Action Securities litigation, as referenced in Note 10 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in Part II, Item 8 of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for Fiscal 2025. Under Armour, Inc. is a performance apparel, footwear, and accessories company that designs, markets, and distributes products for athletes and active consumers worldwide. The company sells its products through wholesale channels, brand and factory house stores, and direct-to-consumer digital platforms. UNITED GROUND: Tene Wins Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as EVENS TENE, OSHARAE J. STEADHAM, and KARTIKA H. CARRION, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNITED GROUND EXPRESS, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-01078-DDD-SBP (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Prose entered a judgment as follows: (1) That the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for class certification be granted; (2) That Chief United States District Judge Daniel D. Domenico preliminarily certify a class defined as follows: "All non-managerial, hourly workers whom the Defendant employed exclusively at the Denver International Airport that worked more than 40 hours within a workweek and/or 12 hours within a day and were not paid at an overtime rate of one and onehalf (1.5x) for time worked as a result of a shift trade at any time between Feb. 23, 2021 and Dec. 31, 2023"; (3) That the Plaintiffs Evens Tene, Osharae J. Steadham, and Kartika H. Carrion be appointed as Class Representatives; and (4) That Andrew H. Turner of Milstein Turner, PLLC, be appointed as class counsel. The Defendant provides ground support operations and flight services. A copy of the Court's report and recommendation dated May 13, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SWt3lW at no extra charge.[CC] UTILITY TREE SERVICE: Gonsales Suit Removed to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ramon Gonsales, individually, and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act v. UTILITY TREE SERVICE, LLC, a Pennsylvania limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 26CU017215C was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, in and for the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for Southern District of California on May 11, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-02973-WQH-BJW. The Plaintiff's entire the California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") claim is preempted under Section 301 because each piece of his PAGA claim is preempted. The PAGA cause of action is made up of several claims: unpaid wages, missed meal and rest periods, failure to pay timely wages during employment and at termination, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to maintain accurate records, and failure to reimburse business expenses. The Plaintiff's claims for overtime and timely payment of wages (Labor Code Section 204) claims, are preempted under Section 301 because such claims are necessarily contractual claims under the collective bargaining agreement ("CBA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Shiva S. Davoudian, Esq. Grace L. Waddell, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 Phone: 310.553.0308 Facsimile: 800.715.1330 Email: sdavoudian@littler.com gwaddell@littler.com VF CORP: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Colorado Court ------------------------------------------------------------- V F Corp disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending March 28, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 20, 2026, that putative securities class action complaints were filed on September 12, 2025 and November 6, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against VF and certain of its current and former directors and officers. The court consolidated these complaints into a single action. An amended complaint was filed on February 23, 2026, again naming VF and certain of its current and former directors and officers as defendants. The amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, purportedly on behalf of a putative class of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired VF securities between September 28, 2022 and May 20, 2025, inclusive. It alleges that certain statements made by VF and certain of its officers and directors were false or misleading and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of the putative class. VF filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on April 24, 2026. VF Corp is a global apparel and footwear company whose portfolio includes lifestyle and outdoor brands sold through wholesale, retail and digital channels worldwide. The company designs, sources, markets and distributes a broad range of branded products to consumers in the Americas, Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. WAGNER SPRAY TECH: Ali Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Asjad Ali, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wagner Spray Tech Corporation, Case No. 1:26-cv-03654 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on May 11, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-02568-KMM-JFD to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Fraud. Wagner Spray Tech -- https://www.wagnerspraytech.com/ -- is a leading provider of innovative and high-quality painting solutions.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael F. Cockson, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 90 S. 7th St., Ste. 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 766-8425 Fax: (612) 766-1600 Email: michael.cockson@faegredrinker.com WEST COAST JANITORIAL: De La Rosa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against West Coast Janitorial Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jennifer De La Rosa Morales, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. West Coast Janitorial Services, Inc., Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2613876 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Bernardino Cty., May 6, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Unlimited." West Coast Janitorial Services, Inc. -- https://www.westcoastjanitorialserviceusa.com/ -- provide professional cleaning services throughout Cobb County and some metro Atlanta areas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: MOON LAW GROUP, PC WORLDPAC INC: Ryce Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Worldpac Inc., et al. The case is styled as Swayzene Ryce, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Worldpac Inc., Advance Auto Parts, Case No. 26STCV14210 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 1, 2026). The case type is stated as "Wrongful Termination (General Jurisdiction)." Worldpac, Inc. -- https://www.worldpac.com/ -- operates as an automotive parts wholesaler and distributor company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lilit Demirtchian, Esq. D.LAW 250 N. Madison Avenue, 2nd Floor Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone: 818-230-7392 Email: l.demirtchian@d.law - and - Virginia Ksadzhikyan, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N Brand Blvd., Ste. 840 Glendale, CA 91203-2920 Phone: 818-962-6465 Fax: 818-962-6469 Email: virginia@d.law [] Carolyn Riggs Joins FBT Gibbons' Product Litigation Practice --------------------------------------------------------------- FBT Gibbons continues to advance its Product Tort & Insurance Litigation practice group with the addition of Carolyn Riggs as a partner in the firm's Indianapolis office. Ms. Riggs' arrival strengthens the firm's bench in complex product litigation, particularly matters involving coordinated proceedings, national exposure, and significant risk. Ms. Riggs joins FBT Gibbons from Ice Miller and brings extensive experience defending corporate and insurance clients in high‑exposure product and catastrophic injury litigation, including multidistrict litigation (MDL) and coordinated state proceedings. Her work frequently centers on disputes shaped by scientific evidence, regulatory frameworks, and the realities of product design, use, and manufacturing. "Carolyn is exactly the kind of partner we want helping shape the next phase of our Indianapolis office, and we're delighted to welcome her to the firm," said Carrie G. Doehrmann, partner in charge of FBT Gibbons' Indianapolis office. "She brings hands‑on experience in complex product matters that demand early mastery of technical records and disciplined coordination across proceedings. She will be a tremendous addition to our team, strengthening our bench locally while supporting the office's growing role in national product and insurance litigation, where clients increasingly look to Indianapolis as a hub for strategic leadership." Ms. Riggs is known for immersing herself in the factual and technical record of a case, working closely with engineers, scientists, and expert witnesses to assess exposure and develop defensible positions early. She regularly advises clients on discovery and case positioning with an eye toward efficiency, leverage, and trial readiness. "Carolyn has handled the kind of product cases our clients increasingly face -- matters involving regulated products, evolving science, and significant exposure," said Jeremiah Byrne, co‑leader of FBT Gibbons' Product, Tort & Insurance Litigation practice. "She understands how to bring discipline and focus to complex litigation by aligning expert development, discovery, and client objectives from the outset. That capability makes her a tremendous addition to our national platform and enhances how we support clients across key industries, including those served by our Life Sciences and Manufacturing industry teams." Ms. Riggs has served as defense trial counsel in multiple jury trials, including matters involving wrongful death, alleged foodborne illness, and commercial vehicle collisions. She has also achieved appellate success, including securing reversal of a denial of summary judgment in a wrongful death case, and has resolved complex disputes pre‑suit, including matters arising from operational failures and cybersecurity‑related incidents. "Carolyn's experience is particularly valuable for clients operating in highly regulated product environments," added Kim M. Catullo, co‑leader of the firm's Product, Tort & Insurance Litigation practice. "She brings the judgment and technical fluency that sophisticated manufacturers and life sciences companies expect from counsel when the stakes are high and the record is complex." "The matters I handle rarely exist in isolation -- they involve products, regulators, insurers, and business leadership all at once," Ms. Riggs said. "FBT Gibbons has the depth and coordination needed to manage that complexity, and the firm's collaborative approach made this a strong fit for my practice." Ms. Riggs is admitted to practice in Indiana, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, as well as multiple federal district courts. She is an active member of the International Association of Defense Counsel (IADC), where she serves in leadership roles within product liability and toxic tort committees, and she is a frequent speaker on developments affecting complex product and catastrophic injury litigation. She is also a graduate of the Richard E. Lugar Excellence in Public Service Series. About FBT Gibbons FBT Gibbons LLP -- http://www.FBTGibbons.com-- is a national law firm focused on serving companies operating and investing in the middle market. With nearly 800 lawyers across 26 offices, the firm is positioned to support clients ranging from large multinationals to mid-sized businesses and growth-oriented startups across the United States. FBT Gibbons provides legal counsel enriched with valuable business and market context, particularly in corporate, litigation, and regulatory matters within the energy, finance, life sciences, and manufacturing sectors. The firm is committed to delivering excellent service to its clients, colleagues, and the communities in which it operates. ********* 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 ***