260529.mbx

260529.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, May 29, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 107 Headlines ASHLEY GLOBAL: McZeal Suit Removed from State Court to W.D. Wash. BENELUX CORP: Appeals Class Cert. and Summary Judgment to 5th Cir. BRX INC: Court Approves $10K FLSA Overtime Settlement CAL-MAINE FOODS: C&L Files Suit Over Egg Price-Fixing Conspiracy CALIFORNIA: Greenfield Appeals Court Final Judgment to 9th Circuit CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Ontario Super. OKs Mutual Funds' Suit Settlement CAREONE HEALTH: Appeals Amended Judgment in Modise Suit to 2nd Cir. CLEAN HARBORS: O'Connell Suit Removed from State Ct. to E.D. Cal. COMMONWEALTH FEDERAL: Loses Arbitration Bid in "Johnson" DAPPER LABS: Teplitsky Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices DATAVANT GROUP: Breach Settlement Deadline for Exclusion Set Jul 20 DC ALPINE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Powell Alleges DELTA AIR: McAloney Suit Removed from State Court to E.D.N.Y. EMERGING VISION: Illegally Collects Web Visitors' Info, Cowan Says FRED MEYER: Stevens Suit Removed from State Ct. to W.D. Wash. GMRI INC: Appeals Arbitration Order in Benitez Suit to 9th Circuit GO MACRO: Testone Appeals Consumer Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Obert Labor Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. HCB FINANCIAL: M&A Investigates Merger with Independent Bank HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Portch Says HUNTINGTON HOSPITALITY: Fails to Protect Private Info, Ramos Says INNOVATIVE SCIENTIFIC: Douglas Sues Over Unprotected Private Info INSIGHT VENTURE: Lagosz and Cariri Sue Over Data Security Failure INSTRUCTURE INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Pitts Alleges INSTRUCTURE INC: Fails to Secure Private Info, Rios Alleges INSYNC STAFFING: Willis Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices KEURIG DR PEPPER: Lauten Suit Removed from State Ct. to N.D. Ill. LANGER JUICE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Estrella Suit Claims LOOK OPTIC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Soto Alleges LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Adams Alleges Labor Code Violations META PLATFORMS: Wins Interlocutory Review of Illinois BIPA Order METROPOLITAN PACIFIC: Forsey Sues Over Unrepaired Apartment Unit MURATA ELECTRONICS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Threats Alleges NEW JERSEY: C.P. Appeals Consent & Special Master Order to 3rd Cir. NVIDIA CORP: Rogers Files Suit Over Voiceprint Exploitation O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Nowlin Removed from State Ct. to N.D. Cal. PEPSICO INC: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Gatorade Drinks PFIZER INC: Unlawfully Tracks Users' Website Activity, Suit Says PUP ABOVE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Soto Alleges PURDUE PHARMA: Morales Appeals Case Consolidation Order to 2nd Cir. ROBLOX CORPORATION: Doe Files FLSA Suit in N.D. California ROBLOX CORPORATION: Profits from Child Labor, Suit Says SCHWARTZ VAYS LLC: Ramos Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida SIGNATURE LANDSCAPE: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Valdez FLSA Suit ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL: Logan Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation STELLAR HEALTH: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach STRATEGIES TO EMPOWER: Enriquez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. T-MOBILE USA INC: Kaidi Suit Removed to N.D. California TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Partially Resolves Metformin Suit for $5.55MM THOMPSON TEE: Battle Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind TOTAL SYSTEM: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Rodriguez Says UNITED STATES: Appeals Class Cert. Order in D.N.N. Suit to 4th Cir. UNITY WIRELES LLC: Singley Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California VETERANS GUARDIAN: Loses Bid to Escape Federal Agent Classification VIRGIN ISLANDS: Doe Appeals Court Judgment to 2nd Circuit WAGYU HOT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Thomas Suit Alleges WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Martinez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. WASHINGTON: Fails to Protect Constitutional Rights, Williams Says WESTERN ORTHOPAEDICS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Marco Says WHALECO INC: Chandi Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California WS SOLUTIONS INC: Rivera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Faces 409 New PI Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: CarParts.com Defends Product Liability Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enviri Has 17,000 Pending Personal Injury Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Still Defends PI Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Receives 712 New Exposure Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Accrues $44.2MM Liabilities as of March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Defends 118 Exposure Cases ********* ASHLEY GLOBAL: McZeal Suit Removed from State Court to W.D. Wash. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as ANTANESE MCZEAL and SYDNI HORNE, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. ASHLEY GLOBAL RETAIL LLC, a foreign limited liability company; ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, LLC a foreign limited liability company, ASHLEY DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, LTD., a sole proprietorship, ASHLEY DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; ASHLEY PACIFIC NORTHWEST, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 26-2-13732-3 SEA (Filed April 24, 2026) was removed from the Superior Court of Washington for King County to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington at Seattle on May 22, 2026. The Western District of Washington Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01775 to the proceedings. Specifically, the complaint seeks statutory damages of $5,000 for Plaintiffs and each putative class member, attorney's fees, pre and post-judgment interest, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief. The Plaintiffs are citizens of the State of Washington. All Defendants except Ashley Pacific Northwest, LLC and Ashley Distribution Services, Ltd. are registered in Washington as foreign limited liability companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy E. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. Hannah Hamley, Esq. EMERY REDDY, PC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 442-9106 Facsimile: (206) 441-9711 E-mail: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com hannah@emeryreddy.com The Defendants are represented by: Matthew J. Macario, Esq. Sieu K. Che, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 1700 7th Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-2308 E-mail: mmacario@fisherphillips.com sche@fisherphillips.com BENELUX CORP: Appeals Class Cert. and Summary Judgment to 5th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ BENELUX CORPORATION, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Maggie Montes, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Benelux Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00276, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. On July 11, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class. On Sept. 5, 2025, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants filed their respective motions for partial summary judgment. On Mar. 18, 2026, Judge Robert Pitman entered an Order granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class and motion for partial summary judgment. The Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment is denied. The appellate case is captioned as Montes v. Benelux, Case No. 26-50384, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on May 12, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees MAGGIE MONTES, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Ryan Odell Estes, Esq. KAPLAN LAW FIRM, PLLC 2901 Bee Cave Road Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 814-7348 Defendants-Appellants BENELUX CORPORATION, et al. are represented by: William King, Esq. MCDOWELL HETHERINGTON, LLP 1001 Fannin Street Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 221-3840 BRX INC: Court Approves $10K FLSA Overtime Settlement ----------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Lee Bayless, Plaintiff, v. BRX, Inc. and Federal Express Corporation, Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-00077-JHY-JCH (W.D. Va.), Judge Jasmine H. Yoon of the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Charlottesville Division, granted the parties' Joint Motion for Approval of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Settlement and Dismissal with Prejudice. On September 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed suit for unpaid regular and overtime wages, alleging that Defendants violated the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., the Virginia Overtime Wage Act, and the Virginia Wage Payment Act. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants were his employers or joint employers and that he was not compensated appropriately for time spent working for them because of their policies and practices. Defendants denied any wrongdoing, and Federal Express Corporation denied that it was a joint employer of Plaintiff. The case was stayed on August 29, 2025, pending a settlement conference with United States Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe. The parties exchanged extensive wage and hours records from BRX, Inc. and Hours of Service data from Federal Express Corporation and ultimately disputed which, if any, hours captured by the damages model constituted compensable working time. After the settlement conference, the parties reached a settlement agreement resolving all claims. Settlement of an FLSA claim must be supervised by the Secretary of Labor or approved by a federal district court. The court's analysis proceeded in three steps: (1) whether FLSA issues were in dispute, (2) whether the settlement was a fair and reasonable compromise, and (3) whether attorney's fees were reasonable. The court found a bona fide dispute because Plaintiff alleged that Defendants violated the FLSA by not paying overtime wages while Defendants denied liability at all times. On the fairness inquiry, the court weighed six factors and found all supported approval. Issues including establishing hours worked, whether Federal Express Corporation was a joint employer, and whether any alleged violations were willful would have made litigation complex, expensive, and protracted. The court found no evidence of fraud or collusion, as the parties negotiated through formal discovery and reached settlement through a conference with Judge Hoppe. Plaintiff faced significant hurdles to recovery. Defendants would have argued that Plaintiff was paid for all hours worked, that certain activities were not compensable, and that liquidated damages were unavailable. Accordingly, the court found Plaintiff's recovery of $10,000 for unpaid overtime to be reasonable and fair — more than $3,000 above Plaintiff's own calculation of unpaid overtime without liquidated damages. On attorney's fees, the court applied the lodestar method. Plaintiff's counsel's calculated lodestar fee was just under $30,000, but the settlement allocated $15,000 to attorney's fees. The court found the fee reasonable, noting it represented a significant discount from the lodestar figure and that Plaintiff considered the settlement a significant success. The court granted the joint motion for settlement approval and dismissed the case with prejudice, retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement terms upon the parties' filing of a joint notice confirming payment. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NhiMBo from PacerMonitor.com CAL-MAINE FOODS: C&L Files Suit Over Egg Price-Fixing Conspiracy ---------------------------------------------------------------- C&L, LLC; DEN-TEX CENTRAL, INC.; DEN-TEX CENTRAL II, INC., TOWIN 6840, LLC; TOWIN 6966, LLC; TOWIN 8583, LLC; and TOWIN 8872, LLC, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAL-MAINE FOODS, INC.; DAYBREAK FOODS, INC.; HILLANDALE FARMS OF PA, INC.; HILLANDALE-GETTYSBURG, LLC; ROSE ACRE FARMS, INC.; OPAL FOODS, LLC; VERSOVA HOLDINGS LLP; URNER BARRY PUBLICATIONS, INC. d/b/a EXPANA; EGG CLEARINGHOUSE, INC.; and UNITED EGG PRODUCERS d/b/a EGG FARMERS OF AMERICA, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00454 (W.D. Wis., May 13, 2026) is a class action challenging a multi-year conspiracy among the largest producers of conventional eggs to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize prices for shell eggs sold throughout the United States. The Urner Barry Company is a private company that has been making a market quotation for over 125 years. It collects information from many sources and establishes a market price. The Producer Defendants are all users of Urner Barry. According to the complaint, beginning no later than 2022, Defendants orchestrated a coordinated scheme to inflate and sustain the Urner Barry benchmark by simultaneously (1) restricting output of Conventional Eggs and (2) manipulating the information on which Urner Barry's daily assessments are based. Because nearly all large producers price their eggs through formula contracts tied directly to the Urner Barry benchmark, coordinated conduct affecting the benchmark results in immediate, automatic, and uniform price increases across the market. Plaintiffs' expert economist conducted multiple empirical analyses confirming that the magnitude and persistence of the price increases observed since 2022 cannot be explained by supply disruptions, input costs, or demand conditions, asserts the complaint. The timing and magnitude of price movements provide additional economic evidence of collusion. Prices began rising sharply in 2022 without corresponding changes in underlying market fundamentals and remained elevated for an extended period. Then, following public disclosure of an antitrust investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice in March 2025, prices fell abruptly and in parallel across the industry -- declining far more rapidly than historical price volatility would predict. Moreover, Plaintiffs' economist conducted an event-study analysis showing that this price decline was several multiples larger than expected under historic market conditions. Producer Defendants' financial results confirm the conspiracy's effects. Throughout the Class Period, Producer Defendants reported extraordinary, historically unprecedented profits and margins, far exceeding any increases in feed, energy, labor, or other production costs. These windfall profits persisted only because Defendants restrained output and jointly inflated the benchmark that sets the price for Conventional Eggs nationwide, alleges the complaint. The Plaintiffs and members of the Class purchased Conventional Eggs directly from one or more Producer Defendants at prices artificially increased by Defendants' unlawful agreement, says the suit. The Plaintiffs seek treble damages, injunctive relief, and all other appropriate remedies under federal antitrust law to restore competition to the U.S. market for Conventional Eggs. Plaintiffs are Denny's, Inc. franchisees who are among the most significant purchasers of Conventional Eggs in United States foodservice. Collectively, Plaintiffs operate Denny's, Inc. franchises in Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. Candice J. Enders, Esq. Zachary D. Caplan, Esq. Jeremy Gradwohl, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: mdellangelo@bergermontague.com cenders@bergermontague.com zcaplan@bergermontague.com jgradwohl@bergermontague.com - and - Jenna E. Rousseau, Esq. Anthony J. Steffek, Esq. RENNING, LEWIS & LACY, S.C. 205 Doty St., Suite 201 Green Bay, WI 54301 Jenna E. Rousseau: (920) 283-0708 Anthony J. Steffek: (920) 283-0714 E-mail: jrousseau@law-rll.com asteffek@law-rll.com CALIFORNIA: Greenfield Appeals Court Final Judgment to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ LEE GREENFIELD, et al. are taking an appeal from a court judgment in the lawsuit entitled Lee Greenfield, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Caitlyn Jenner, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-09768-SB-AYP, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The Plaintiffs bring this suit against the Defendants for alleged sale of unregistered securities. On Feb. 14, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed first amended complaint (FAC), which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Mar. 21, 2025. On May 9, 2025, Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss. All claims in the FAC are dismissed for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend is granted in part. On May 23, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed second amended complaint (SAC), which the Defendants moved to dismiss on June 20, 2025. On Apr. 16, 2026, Judge Blumenfeld entered an Order granting in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the SAC. On the same day, the Court entered final judgment in this case. It is ordered and adjudged that Lead Plaintiff Lee Greenfield's individual claims other than his claims for common-law fraud and quasi contract are dismissed on the merits with prejudice; the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over Greenfield's common-law fraud and quasi contract claims, which are dismissed without prejudice; and all claims of putative class members other than Greenfield are dismissed without prejudice. The appellate case is styled as Greenfield, et al. v. Jenner, et al., Case No. 26-3064, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 13, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on May 18, 2026; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on May 21, 2026; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on June 22, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on July 30, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on August 31, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants LEE GREENFIELD, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. Melanie Rae Monroe, Esq. Trevor Flynn, Esq. FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN PC 2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92110 Defendants-Appellees CAITLYN JENNER, et al. are represented by: Cheryl Stephanie Chang, Esq. BLANK ROME, LLP 2029 Century Park, E, 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Ontario Super. OKs Mutual Funds' Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo Finance reports that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved a class action settlement with Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and CIBC Trust Corporation for C$11 million to resolve the claims asserted on behalf of all persons, wherever they may reside or be domiciled, who held or hold, at any time on or prior to September 5, 2025, units of a CIBC mutual fund trust or a Renaissance mutual fund trust, other than through a discount broker ("Class"). This Settlement is not an admission of liability or wrongdoing by the Defendants. It is an efficient compromise between the parties of their disputed positions. Class Members who previously held, but no longer hold any, CIBC mutual fund units must submit a claim to receive compensation for their CIBC mutual fund holdings. To be eligible for compensation from the Settlement, these Class Members must submit a Claim Form to the Administrator at www.CIBCMutualFundsSettlement.com by November 18, 2026. Class Members who currently hold CIBC mutual fund units are not required to submit a claim for compensation. Instead, a portion of the Net Settlement Amount will be deposited directly into those mutual funds. Class Members who previously held or currently hold Renaissance mutual fund units are not required to submit a claim for compensation for their Renaissance mutual fund holdings. Instead, a portion of the Net Settlement Amount will be deposited directly into existing Renaissance mutual funds. Class Members who hold or held both CIBC and Renaissance mutual fund units may receive compensation for both of their holdings. For important information regarding the class action, to determine if you are a member of the Class, and to learn how to make a claim for compensation: View the long-form notice at: www.CIBCMutualFundsSettlement.com Contact the Administrator at: (888) 260-5258 or info@cibcmutualfundssettlement.com This Settlement is only for the benefit of persons who held units of a CIBC mutual fund trust or a Renaissance mutual fund trust other than through a discount broker. If you held units of a CIBC mutual fund or a Renaissance mutual fund through a discount broker, there is a separate settlement for you. Please visit www.siskinds.com/class-action/mutual-fund-trailing-commissions/ for more information about that settlement. [GN] CAREONE HEALTH: Appeals Amended Judgment in Modise Suit to 2nd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- ABEL N. OSAGIE is taking an appeal from a court judgment in the lawsuit entitled Motlalepula Modise, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CareOne Health Services, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-765, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs bring this suit against the Defendants for their failure to pay the Plaintiffs and the Class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. On Sept. 24, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for attorney fees, which Judge Sarala V. Nagala granted in part and denied in part on Apr. 8, 2025. The Court granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees and costs insofar as they seek a total award of $119,862.65 ($116,793.75 in attorney's fees and $3,068.90 in costs). The Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees insofar as it seeks a 30 percent upward adjustment in the lodestar. On April 9, 2025, the Clerk issued a Third Amended Judgment in accordance with the Apr. 8 Order. The appellate case is styled as Modise v. CareOne Health Services, LLC, Case No. 26-1279, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on May 8, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees MOTLALEPULA MODISE, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Nitor V. Egbarin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NITOR V. EGBARIN, LLC 100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 Defendant-Appellant ABEL N. OSAGIE appears pro se. CLEAN HARBORS: O'Connell Suit Removed from State Ct. to E.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN MICHAEL O'CONNELL, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CLEAN HARBORS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 20, Case No. (Filed April 16, 2026) was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Kern to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on May 22, 2026. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-03955-CDB to the proceeding. The complaint brings putative class claims for the following causes of action: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to permit rest breaks; failure to reimburse business expenses; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to pay all wages due upon separation of employment; and violation of the Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200. The Plaintiff defines, generally, the members of the class to be: "All California citizens currently or formerly employed by any or all Defendants as non-exempt employees in the State of California at any time between September 16, 2019, and the date of class certification," and the Waiting Time Subclass as: "All members of the Class who separated their employment with any or all Defendants at any time between September 16, 2020, and the date of class certification." Clean Harbors is on-site, providing premier environmental and industrial services.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Alexander M. Chemers, Esq. Austin J. Freeman, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 Facsimile: (213) 239-9045 E-mail: zander.chemers@ogletree.com austin.freeman@ogletree.com COMMONWEALTH FEDERAL: Loses Arbitration Bid in "Johnson" -------------------------------------------------------- Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky denied Commonwealth Federal Credit Union's motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings in the class action captioned Jared Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Commonwealth Federal Credit Union, Defendant, Civil No. 3:25-cv-00042-GFVT (E.D. Ky.), in a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated May 20, 2026. Plaintiff Jared Johnson first became a member of Commonwealth Federal Credit Union in 2016 and executed a Member Service Agreement that did not contain an arbitration provision. In 2020, Commonwealth amended its Member Service Agreement to include an arbitration clause with a class action waiver, covering claims and disputes arising out of or relating to accounts, transactions, and related services. Members were given the right to opt out within 30 days. In March 2021, Johnson executed a Conversion Card to enroll in Commonwealth's Round Up Checking Account program. The Conversion Card stated that the signatory received and agreed to the additional terms and conditions as stated in the Membership and Account Agreement, General Fee Schedule, and Rate Sheet, which were incorporated by reference. Johnson asserted that he did not receive any of these documents concurrent with the Conversion Card and had no knowledge of the 2020 Member Service Agreement or its arbitration provision. Johnson filed this class action on August 22, 2025, alleging that Commonwealth disclosed members' nonpublic personal information to third parties, including Google, LLC, in violation of state and federal law. Commonwealth moved to compel arbitration on October 28, 2025. The court applied the Federal Arbitration Act framework and the Sixth Circuit's three-step analysis, finding the dispute disposed by the first step: whether the parties agreed to arbitrate. Under Kentucky contract law, the court held that for incorporation by reference to be effective, the identity of the document to be incorporated must not be in doubt. The Conversion Card referenced the Membership and Account Agreement, a document that did not exist. Commonwealth conceded the reference was a misprint. The court distinguished the Kentucky Supreme Court's decision in University of Kentucky v. Regard, 670 S.W.3d 903 (Ky. 2023), explaining that circumstantial evidence may resolve ambiguity in the language of incorporation only after the identity of the document to be incorporated is settled. The misidentification left that identity squarely in doubt, rendering incorporation by reference legally ineffective. Commonwealth also sought reformation of the Conversion Card on the basis of mutual mistake, arguing that Johnson was aware of the 2020 Member Service Agreement and therefore must have understood that the Conversion Card referred to it. The court rejected the argument, finding that Commonwealth had not met the clear and convincing evidentiary standard required for reformation where the opposing party denies any mistake. Johnson submitted a sworn affidavit stating that he was not sure what the Membership and Account Agreement referred to and that he had never agreed to arbitration. The court found the evidence conflicting and refused to presume that Johnson understood the mislabeled title to refer to the Member Service Agreement. The court therefore denied the motion to compel arbitration and ordered the defendant to file a responsive pleading within 30 days of the entry of the order. A copy of the Court's decision dated May 20, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FEKr8f from PacerMonitor.com DAPPER LABS: Teplitsky Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN TEPLITSKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DAPPER LABS, INC.; and FLOW FOUNDATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-04066 (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2026) alleges violation of the New York Deceptive Acts and Practices Act, New York False Advertising Act, and California Unfair Competition Law. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, after an exploit in which an attacker minted fraudulent tokens and managed to siphon $3.9 million from the Flow network, the core team in charge of Flow acted in ways that were deeply inconsistent with the decentralized control it had long touted, first by unilaterally announcing a rollback of the blockchain and then – after facing intense backlash – pivoting to a revised plan that involved granting a privileged account administrative superpowers so that it could enter individual accounts in search of fraudulent tokens and destroy them. These actions revealed that, while Flow's network is decentralized in certain ways, it is ultimately governed not by math but by men. Its many claims that it is controlled by the community were misleading at best. Now that the public understands that purchasing Flow Tokens is, essentially, an investment in an ecosystem controlled by the core team at Dapper Labs and the related Flow Foundation (the "Core Team"), rather than in an actual trustless system like Bitcoin or Ethereum, the market for Flow Tokens has collapsed and hundreds of millions of dollars have evaporated, says the suit. Dapper Labs Inc. develops blockchain technology and digital collectibles. The Company provides security and account management for digital assets, operates the Flow blockchain platform, and creates blockchain-based games and collectibles. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Michael Cohen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 Email: philkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com mcohen@rosenlegal.com DATAVANT GROUP: Breach Settlement Deadline for Exclusion Set Jul 20 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Alder of The HIPAA Journal reports that a settlement has been agreed to resolve a class action lawsuit against Ciox Health, which does business as Datavant Group, an Arizona-based health IT company, over a May 2024 email-related data breach. Suspicious activity was identified within an employee's email account on May 9, 2024. The forensic investigation confirmed that an unauthorized individual had access to the account between May 8 and May 9, 2024. Access to the account was gained after an employee responded to a phishing email. The breach was reported to the HHS' Office for Civil Rights as affecting 320,702 individuals. Data potentially compromised in the incident included names, dates of birth, addresses, contact information, Social Security numbers, financial account information, driver's license numbers, passport numbers, and health information. A lawsuit was filed in response to the data breach -- Jackson v. Ciox Health, LLC d/b/a Datavant Group -- in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. The lawsuit alleged that the defendant failed to implement sufficient security measures to protect patients' sensitive information. The lawsuit alleged that the failure amounted to negligence and that the defendant had violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. As is common in class action data breach lawsuits, the parties explored the possibility of an early resolution to the lawsuit to avoid the costs and risks associated with continuing with the litigation. An appropriate settlement was agreed upon by all parties, and the settlement has received preliminary approval from the court. Datavant Group has agreed to pay $900,000 to resolve the lawsuit. The settlement fund will be used to pay attorneys' fees and expenses, service awards for the class representatives, settlement administration and notification costs, and benefits for the class members. While the OCR breach portal states that more than 320,000 individuals were affected, the class consists of 58,309 individuals. Class members may submit a claim for up to $5,000 as reimbursement for documented, unreimbursed losses incurred as a result of the data breach. Alternatively, a claim may be submitted for a one-time pro rata cash payment. The amount of each cash payment will depend on the number of valid claims received. In addition to one of those benefits, class members may also enroll in one year of expanded identity theft protection and fraud monitoring services. The deadline for objection and exclusion is July 20, 2026. Claims must be submitted by August 18, 2026, and the final fairness hearing has been scheduled for September 4, 2026. [GN] DC ALPINE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Powell Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA POWELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DC ALPINE PARTNERS, LLC, d/b/a SWEATBLOCK, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-03910-AT (S.D.N.Y., May 12, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to ensure that its ecommerce Website www.sweatblock.com is accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Defendant DC Alpine Partners LLC owns, operates, and controls the commercial Website www.sweatblock.com through which it markets, displays, and sells antiperspirant, deodorant, and sweat-management products to consumers throughout the United States, including residents of New York. On January 22, 2026, Plaintiff attempted to access the product page for DRIBOOST Clinical Antiperspirant Wipes, a product advertised as providing "days of dryness" and formulated for individuals with excessive sweating. During this visit, Plaintiff encountered multiple barriers that prevented her from independently evaluating the DRIBOOST product. The complaint alleges that the Defendant discriminates against the Plaintiff and others under the N.Y. Civ. Rights Law as Defendant's Website is a place of public accommodation that does not provide full and equal accommodation, advantages, facilities, and privileges to all persons and discriminates against disabled individuals who are sight impaired. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to revise its corporate policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that www.sweatblock.com becomes and remains accessible to blind and visually impaired users. Plaintiff Maria Powell is a resident of Bronx County and is permanently disabled due to legal blindness. She is a proficient user of screen-reading technology and keyboard navigation, which she relies on to access digital environments independently.[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: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com DELTA AIR: McAloney Suit Removed from State Court to E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW MCALONEY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Case No. 711263/2026 (Filed April 17, 2026) was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Queens, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on May 22, 2026. The Eastern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-03105 to the proceeding. In the Complaint, the Plaintiff purports to assert state-law causes of action against Delta for: failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay non-overtime wages; failure to timely pay wages; failure to provide required wage notices upon hiring; and failure to provide required wage statements. During his employment with Delta, the Plaintiff was assigned to the ACS Services and Operations business unit and worked at John F. Kennedy International Airport. Based on a review of Delta's personnel data, during the six years preceding the filing of Plaintiff's Complaint, Delta employed approximately 3,758 hourly ACS Services and Operations employees at JFK. Delta Air Lines, a leader in domestic and international travel, offers plane tickets and vacation packages to over 300 destinations in 60 countries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sabine Jean, Esq. Joanna Ghosh, Esq. Miri Trauner, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, P.C. 217 Broadway, Suite 511 New York, NY 10007 The Defendant is represented by: Brendan T. Killeen, Esq. Abigail V. Greene, Esq. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178 Telephone: (212) 309-6000 Facsimile: (212) 309-6001 E-mail: brendan.killeen@morganlewis.com abigail.greene@morganlewis.com EMERGING VISION: Illegally Collects Web Visitors' Info, Cowan Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ HERMAN COWAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EMERGING VISION, INC., a New York Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26CV185467 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., April 30, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating Section 2511 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and Section 631 of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. When users visit Defendant's website, https://www.siteforsoreeyes.com Defendant causes numerous trackers and cookies developed and operated by Meta, Google, Microsoft, Hotjar Ltd. and AdRoll to be installed on website visitors' internet browsers. The Defendant then uses these trackers to collect website visitors' identifying information, as well as dozens of other data points that reveal the users' behavior and activity on the website, subjecting the user to unwanted and intrusive communications by would-be advertisers trying to sell the same or similar product to the user over and over and over again. Accordingly, the Plaintiff maintains that Defendant's conduct constitutes unlawful wiretapping under ECPA and CIPA. Headquartered in Garden City, NY, Emerging Vision, Inc. owns and operates the website which serves as online storefront for its glasses and contact lenses, and also provides information regarding eye care and eye wear. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark D. Potter, Esq. James M. Treglio, Esq. Isabel Rose Masanque, Esq. Naomi Butler, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP 100 Pine St., Ste 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 534-1911 Facsimile: (888) 422-5191 FRED MEYER: Stevens Suit Removed from State Ct. to W.D. Wash. ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as ASHLEY STEVENS, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. FRED MEYER STORES, INC., an Ohio corporation; THE KROGER CO., an Ohio corporation; and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, Case No. 26-200901-18 (Filed April 2, 2026) was removed from the Superior Court of Washington for Kitsap County to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Tacoma, on May 22, 2026. The Western District of Washington Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05530 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges these violations on a class-wide basis in thirteen causes of action against Defendants: failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide rest periods in violation, failure to provide meal periods, willful refusal to pay wages, failure to accrue, failure to pay wages, and due at established pay periods, pursuant to the Washington State labor laws. Fred Meyer denies any liability in this case, both as to Plaintiff's individual claims and as to the claims she seeks to pursue on behalf of a putative class and putative subclass.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Melissa Mordy, Esq. 929 108th Avenue NE, Suite 1500 Bellevue, WA 98004-4786 Telephone: (425) 646-6100 Facsimile: (425) 646-6199 E-mail: MissyMordy@ dwt.com - and - Tritia M. Murata, Esq. Nancy R. Thomas, Esq. 350 South Grand Avenue, 27th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 633-6800 Facsimile: (213) 633-6899 E-mail: TritiaMurata@dwt.com NancyThomas@dwt.com GMRI INC: Appeals Arbitration Order in Benitez Suit to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ GMRI, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Rafael Ramos Benitez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GMRI, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02031-L-JLB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit, which was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, is brought against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code. On Dec. 28, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration, which M. James Lorenz denied on Apr. 8, 2026. The appellate case is styled as Benitez v. GMRI, Inc., et al., Case No. 26-3008, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 12, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on May 18, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on June 22, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on July 21, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee RAFAEL RAMOS BENITEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: Thomas Stephen Campbell, Esq. RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, APC 22760 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 200 Torrance, CA 90505 Defendant-Appellant GMRI, INC. is represented by: Julie Dunne, Esq. Stanley Joseph Panikowski, III, Esq. DLA PIPER, LLP (US) 4365 Executive Drive, Suite 1100 San Diego, CA 92121 - and - Stephen Luther Taeusch, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP 4 Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 GO MACRO: Testone Appeals Consumer Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- LEAH TESTONE is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her lawsuit entitled Leah Testone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Go Macro, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01743-RSH-GC, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. On July 8, 2025, the Plaintiff filed this putative class action against the Defendant, alleging that the Defendant's labeling of its snack bars as healthy is false and misleading in light of the added sugar contained in the bars. On Dec. 30, 2025, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss on Jan. 13, 2026. On Apr. 8, 2026, Judge Robert S. Huie entered an Order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court finds that the Plaintiff's claims are deficient because they rest on a theory of deception that is undermined by the facts as the Plaintiff herself has alleged them, including the nature and location of the alleged misrepresentations in relation to the disclosures regarding added sugars. The Plaintiff has not given an indication of how leave to amend would address the Defendant's arguments, and the Court concludes that leave to amend here would be futile here because the packaging is not deceptive. The appellate case is styled as Testone v. Go Macro, LLC, Case No. 26-3017, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 12, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on May 18, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on June 22, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on July 21, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant LEAH TESTONE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. Melanie Rae Monroe, Esq. Trevor Flynn, Esq. FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN PC 2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92110 Defendant-Appellee GO MACRO, LLC is represented by: Anthony Hopp, Esq. STEPTOE LLP 227 West Monroe Street, Suite 4700 Chicago, IL 60606 - and - Carol R. Brophy, Esq. STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP Steuart Tower 1 Market Plaza, Suite 1070 San Francisco, CA 94105 - and - Melanie Atswei Ayerh, Esq. STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP 633 W. 5th Street, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Obert Labor Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES OBERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, a Nebraska corporation; GEICO INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC, a Maryland limited liability company, Case No. 26-2-13380-8 KNT (Filed April 22, 2026) was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on May 22, 2026. The Western District of Washington Court Clerk assigned Case no. 2:26-cv-01770 to the proceeding. Plaintiff Obert alleges he "is a resident of Washington" and that Defendants "hired Plaintiff as an hourly-paid or non-exempt employee during the relevant time period." However, according to the Complaint, there are at least 100 proposed class members because Obert seeks to pursue claims on a class basis on behalf of "all hourly-paid or non-exempt employees of Defendants in the State of Washington at any time during the period from three years preceding the filing of this Complaint to final disposition of this action." GEICO employed more than 600 individuals as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees in Washington at some point during the period between April 22, 2023, and May 22, 2026, the suit says.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. Dean Pettita, Esq. Justice Law Corporation 1215 4th Avenue, Suite 1630 Seattle, Washington 98101 Telephone: (360) 207-0000 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com statavos@justicelawcorp.com dpetitta@justicelawcorp.com The Defendant is represented by: Nicholas Gillard-Byers, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4700 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 946-4910 Facsimile: (206) 946-4901 E-mail: ngillard-byers@seyfarth.com HCB FINANCIAL: M&A Investigates Merger with Independent Bank ------------------------------------------------------------ Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2025 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and are investigating. -- HCB Financial Corp. (OTCPK: HCBN) related to its merger with Independent Bank Corporation. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, HCB shareholders are expected to receive 1.5900 shares of Independent common stock and $17.51 for each share of HCB common stock. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for June 17, 2026. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/hcb-financial-corp/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Northfield Bancorp, Inc. (NASDAQ: NFBK) related to its merger with Columbia Financial, Inc. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for June 25, 2026. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/northfield-bancorp-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Columbia Financial, Inc. (NASDAQ: CLBK) related to its merger with Northfield Bancorp, Inc. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for June 25, 2026. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/columbia-financial-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- TruBridge, Inc. (NASDAQ: TBRG) related to its sale to Inventurus Knowledge Solutions, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, TruBridge shareholders are expected to receive $26.25 per share in cash. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/trubridge-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Portch Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ZACHERIAH PORTCH, on behalf of himself and the Collective, Plaintiff vs. HEALTHCARE SERVICES GROUP, INC., and HCSG WEST, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-03234 (E.D. Pa., May 12, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for failing to accurately record all hours worked and failing to properly pay for all hours worked, including overtime compensation, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint relates that the Defendants pay Plaintiff and Collective Members on an hourly rate basis. Plaintiff was classified as a non-exempt employee and was paid a rate of approximately $21.00 per hour. Although the Plaintiff's shifts varied in length, his typical schedule consisted of three morning shifts at eight hours each, three evening shifts at four hours each, and one standard eight hour day. Plaintiff usually worked approximately eight hours or more per shift for approximately five days per week. The complaint further notes that Defendants routinely require Plaintiff and Collective Members to perform work off-the-clock and without compensation. During Plaintiff and Collective Members' off-duty meal periods, employees were effectively on-call and would have to respond to care center residents' needs and/or attend to management's requests. This results in Plaintiff and Collective Members working for the benefit of Defendants while off-the-clock during their meal breaks. In addition, Defendants require, suffer, and/or permit Plaintiff and Collective members to attend to phone calls and text messages with management on their days off or after the conclusion of their scheduled shifts. This time spent communicating with management is unpaid. Ultimately, Defendants do not compensate Plaintiff and Collective Members for this time worked by employees for Defendants' benefit, says the suit. Against this backdrop, the Plaintiff seeks full compensation on behalf of himself and the Collective Members for all unpaid wages, including unpaid overtime. Plaintiff also seeks reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the FLSA, damages in an amount that exceeds $75,000.00, as well as other relief. Plaintiff Zach Portch was employed by the Defendants as a Food Service Worker/Chef from approximately June 2025 to October 15, 2025. Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in Palisade, Colorado at the Canyon View Care Center. Defendant Healthcare Services Group, Inc. is an experienced leader in managing housekeeping, laundry, dining, and nutritional services within the healthcare industry. Defendant HCSG West, LLC is a subsidiary under its parent company, Healthcare Services Group.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: 412-322-9243 Facsimile: 412-231-0246 E-mail: jamisen@lcllp.com - and - Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. Ori Edelstein, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KIM LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com rmorelli@schneiderwallace.com HUNTINGTON HOSPITALITY: Fails to Protect Private Info, Ramos Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROSA RAMOS, YOLANDE SAKEPA, and DAMON RICHARDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HUNTINGTON HOSPITALITY FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. CACE-26-007937 (Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Fla., May 12, 2026) is a class action to hold Defendant responsible for its grossly negligent failure to use statutorily required or reasonable industry cybersecurity measures to protect Class Members' private information. The complaint relates that as part of its business, and in order to gain profits, Defendant obtained and stored the Private Information of Plaintiffs and Class members. By taking possession and control of Plaintiffs and Class Members' Private Information, Defendant assumed a duty to securely store and protect it. However, the Defendant breached this duty and betrayed the trust of Plaintiffs and Class Members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their Private Information, thus enabling cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, release, steal, misuse, and/or view it. On December 12, 2024, Defendant learned that personal information of certain individuals was accessed by an unauthorized user. Once the incident was discovered, Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the breach. On July 31, 2025, Defendant began issuing notice letters to individuals impacted. Due to Defendant's negligence and failures, cyber criminals obtained and now possess everything they need to commit personal identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives of thousands of individuals, for decades to come, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of the Class and seeks actual damages and restitution. Plaintiffs also seek declaratory and injunctive relief, including significant improvements to Defendant's data security systems and protocols, future annual audits, Defendant-funded long-term credit monitoring services, and other remedies as the Court sees necessary and proper. Plaintiffs Yolande Sakepa and Plaintiff Damon Richards are victims of the Data Breach. Defendant Huntington Hospitality Financial Corporation is composed of hospitality experts, focused exclusively on hotel accounting and financial services for select and full-service hotels with rooms, banquet facilities, restaurant, bar, gift shop and other ancillary profit centers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com INNOVATIVE SCIENTIFIC: Douglas Sues Over Unprotected Private Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- MYIESSIA DOUGLAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INNOVATIVE SCIENTIFIC SOLUTIONS, LLC d/b/a LUXOR SCIENTIFIC, Defendant, Case No. 6:26-cv-01815-TMC (D.S.C., April 30, 2026) seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused Plaintiff and similarly situated persons in the preventable data breach of Defendant’s inadequately protected computer network. On September 6, 2025, the Defendant detected suspicious activity on its computer network, indicating a data breach. The personal information accessed by cybercriminals involved a wide variety of personally identifiable information and protected health information, including names, Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers, financial account information, credit and debit card information, medical information, and health insurance information. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks actual damages and restitution, and asserts claims for negligence, unjust enrichment, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, and for declaratory/injunctive relief. Innovative Scientific Solutions, LLC is a clinical and research laboratory based in Greenville, SC. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Neil P. Williams, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 1901 Main Street 18th Floor #3037 Columbia, SC 29201 Telephone: (929) 474-6448 E-mail: nwilliams@sirillp.com - and - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 E-mail: abm@murphylegalfirm.com INSIGHT VENTURE: Lagosz and Cariri Sue Over Data Security Failure ----------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM LAGOSZ and NICOLE CARIRI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. INSIGHT VENTURE MANAGEMENT, LLC d/b/a NSIGHT PARTNERS, Defendant, Case No. 155571/2026 (N.Y., April 30, 2026) seeks monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief from Defendant Insight Venture, arising from its failure to safeguard certain personally identifying information and protected health information of 12,657 of its current and former employees. The Defendant's failure resulted in its network systems being accessed without authorization on or around October 25, 2024. Its internal investigation revealed that cybercriminals had unauthorized access to Defendant's systems for nearly three months before the intrusion was detected on January 16, 2025. On or around September 2, 2025--more than seven months after the data breach first occurred--Defendant finally began notifying Class Members about the data breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings five causes of action: negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment. Headquartered in New York, NY, Insight Venture Management, LLC is a global software investor, which partners technology, software, and Internet startup and ScaleUp companies. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Linda H. Joseph, Esq. SCHRÖDER, JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES, LLP 394 Franklin Street, 2nd Floor Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 861-1398 Facsimile: (716) 881-4909 E-mail: ljoseph@sjalegal.com - and - Cassandra P. Miller, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: cmiller@straussborrelli.com INSTRUCTURE INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Pitts Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- JAQUEL PITTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSTRUCTURE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-02977-WQH-DDL (S.D. Cal., May 12, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard, personally identifiable information ("PII"), stored within its information network. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff's information was stored with Defendant as a result of his dealings with Defendant while attending several educational institutions. On April 30, 2026, unauthorized third-party cybercriminals gained access to PII as hosted with Defendant, with the intent of engaging in the misuse of the PII, including marketing and selling PII. The Plaintiff's information was among the data accessed by the unauthorized third-party. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff was injured in the form of lost time dealing with the consequences of the Data Breach, which included and continues to include, among others, time spent verifying the legitimacy and impact of the Data Breach and time spent seeking legal counsel regarding his options for remedying and/or mitigating the effects of the Data Breach. The Plaintiff was also injured by the material risk to future harm due to the Data Breach. This risk is imminent and substantial because Plaintiff's data has been exposed in the breach, the data involved presents a risk of identity theft or fraud and it is likely, given Defendant's clientele, that some of his information that has been exposed has already been misused. The Plaintiff and Class Members seek an Order of the Court requiring Defendant to refund, disgorge and pay as restitution any profits, benefits and other compensation obtained by Defendant from its wrongful conduct and/or the establishment of a constructive trust from which Plaintiff and Class Members may seek restitution. Defendant INSTRUCTURE INC. is a cloud-based education technology company best known for its Canvas learning management system, which schools and universities use to manage coursework, assignments, grading, and communication.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515 Los Angeles, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 393-0070 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com INSTRUCTURE INC: Fails to Secure Private Info, Rios Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- DANIELLA RIOS and BELLA DONNA TORDECILLAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. INSTRUCTURE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00414 (D. Utah, May 12, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The complaint relates that the Plaintiffs and Class Members directly or indirectly provided their Private Information to Defendant in connection with the services Defendant provides. However, the ransom group, ShinyHunters, claims that it gained access to Defendant's network and acquired 280 million student and staff records tied to 8,809 schools, universities, and education platforms using its Canvas learning management system. The ShinyHunters gang later told BleepingComputer that the stolen data included user records, private messages, enrollment data, and other information allegedly gathered through Canvas data export features and APIs. The complaint further notes that the Defendant delayed in reporting the Data Breach to students and schools. The hackers have been advertising the breach and attempting to extract a ransom payment from Instructure since May 1, 2026. But Instructure marked the Data Breach as resolved as of Wednesday, May 6, 2026, with Instructure's chief information security officer writing that Canvas is fully operational, and that it is not seeing any ongoing unauthorized activity. However, on Thursday May 7, 2026, it became clear Instructure had not resolved the vulnerability and the ransom group ShinyHunters launched a second wave of attacks and defacement of the login page with the above ransom message. The Canvas downtime caused chaos at schools, including those in the midst of finals and end-of-year assignments, adds the complaint. Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered injury and therefore, seek damages in an amount to be proven at trial. In addition to monetary relief, Plaintiffs and Class Members also seek injunctive relief requiring Defendant to, inter alia, strengthen their data security systems and monitoring procedures, conduct periodic audits of those systems, and provide lifetime credit monitoring and identity theft insurance to Plaintiffs and Class Members. Defendant Instructure, Inc. is a Utah-based education technology company that provides services to thousands of schools and millions of students across the country.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brady L. Rasmussen, Esq. PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER 201 South Main Street, Suite 1800 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: 801-532-1234 Facsimile: 801-536-6111 E-mail: ecf@parsonsbehle.com brasmussen@parsonsbehle.com - and - Norman E. Siegel, Esq. Barrett J. Vahle, Esq. Andi M. Hammack, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com vahle@stuevesiegel.com hammack@stuevesiegel.com INSYNC STAFFING: Willis Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices ---------------------------------------------------------- NICKESHIA WILLIS, an individual, on behalf of herself, all aggrieved employees, and the State of California as a Private Attorneys General, Plaintiff v. INSYNC STAFFING, INC., a Delaware corporation, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a California Nonprofit Corporation, DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV13911 (Cal. Super., April 30, 2026) alleges violations of the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff was hired by InSync for placement at USC as a Guest Service Ambassador and worked in that role from on or about January 1, 2025 to on or about April 1, 2025, earning approximately $20.00 per hour at the time of separation. Allegedly, the Defendants have had a consistent policy and/or practice of: (1) failing to permit compliant meal periods; (2) failing to provide rest breaks; (3) failing to provide suitable resting facilities; (4) failing to provide suitable seating; (5) failing to pay wages due upon termination; (6) failing to reimburse for required business expenses; and (7) failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements. InSync is a staffing agency doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. The company serves as a labor contractor of the University of Southern California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nazo Koulloukian, Esq. KOUL LAW FIRM, APC 217 South Kenwood Street Glendale, CA 91205 Telephone: (213) 325-3032 Facsimile: (818) 561-3938 E-mail: nazo@koullaw.com KEURIG DR PEPPER: Lauten Suit Removed from State Ct. to N.D. Ill. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICIA LAUTEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KEURIG DR PEPPER INC., Case No. 2026LA000509 (Filed April 17, 2026), was removed from the 18th Judicial Circuit Court in DuPage County, Illinois to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on May 22, 2026. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-06087 to the proceeding. During the Class Period Defendant collected unlawful IEEPA tariffs from the Plaintiff and other consumers of its Products by passing on its tariff obligations pursuant. The Plaintiff purchased Bai Iced Tea, Narino Peach drink products manufactured by Defendant for $19.99 for a twelve pack of the Bai products. 19. On May 13, 2025, Plaintiff purchased the Bai products again for $24.98 for a twelve pack of the Bai products. This dramatic increase in price coincides with the period shortly after the unlawful IEEPA Tariffs were imposed. The Plaintiff's putative class consists of the following: "All persons within the United States who were charged for unlawful IEEPA Tariffs by Defendant within three years prior to the filing of the original Complaint through the date of class certification." The Defendant manufactures, advertises, markets, sells, and distributes consumer products throughout the United States. The Defendant produces popular consumer beverage brands including Bai Iced Tea, Snapple, Dr. Pepper, 7up, Crush, Sunkist, IBC Root Beer, and many others.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andres Correa, Esq. Christopher J. Patton, Esq. Kristopher M. Ruiz, Esq. LYNN PINKER HURST & SCHWEGMANN, LLP 2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2700 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 981-3800 Facsimile: (214) 981-3839 E-mail: acorrea@lynnllp.com cpatton@lynnllp.com kruiz@lynnllp.com - and - Brian P. O'Meara, Esq. FORDE & O'MEARA LLP 191 North Wacker Drive, 31st Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 641-1441 E-mail: bomeara@fordellp.com LANGER JUICE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Estrella Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- OSVALDO MARTINEZ ESTRELLA, on behalf of himself and current and former aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. LANGER JUICE COMPANY, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV13910 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 30, 2026) seeks civil penalties associated with Defendants' violations of the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in an hourly position at Defendants' location in Los Angeles County from in or around July 7, 2024, until on or about September 12, 2025. In this class action, Plaintiff now maintains that the Defendants' failed to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum wage and all overtime hours worked at the overtime rate of pay; failed to authorize or permit all legally required and/or compliant meal periods or pay meal period premium wages; and failed to authorize or permit all legally required and/or compliant rest periods or pay rest period premium wages. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory penalties for Defendants' failure to timely produce requested employment records; indemnification for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by employees in direct consequence of discharging their duties; statutory penalties for failure to timely pay earned wages during employment; statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements; and statutory waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment. Headquartered in City of Industry, California, Langer Juice Company, Inc. operates as a food & beverages company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Alexander J. Curry, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com vgranberry@lelawfirm.com jklein@lelawfirm.com acurry@lelawfirm.com LOOK OPTIC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Soto Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- FRANCISCO SOTO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. LOOK OPTIC, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-04309 (S.D.N.Y., May 22, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, arising from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its ecommerce website, www.LookOptic.com, in a manner that is accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Mr. Soto is a resident of New York County and is permanently disabled due to advanced Wet Age-Related Macular Degeneration, a degenerative retinal disease that has caused severe and irreversible central vision loss. As a legally blind individual, Mr. Soto relies exclusively on screen-reading software and keyboard navigation to access digital content independently. Because he cannot visually interpret website content, he depends on websites to provide proper semantic structure, meaningful alternative text, labeled interactive elements, and screen-reader compatible navigation. On February 10, 2026, February 11, 2026, March 9, 2026, and April 21, 2026, the Plaintiff attempted to access Defendant's Website using screen-reader technology to research and purchase the Muse Tints and Cosmo Sun sunglasses. He attempted to review lens types, tint options, frame shapes, and product descriptions before completing a purchase, the suit says. Despite multiple attempts across these four dates, the Plaintiff was unable to independently complete his objectives due to pervasive access barriers, the suit adds. The Defendant's Website, www.lookoptic.com, is a service of a place of public accommodation and a digital gateway through which Defendant offers goods, services, privileges, and advantages to the general public.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 E-mail: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Adams Alleges Labor Code Violations --------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY ADAMS, in a Representative capacity, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA, INC., an Ohio Corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2026CUOE065551 (Cal. Super., Ventura Cty., April 30, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from approximately November 18, 2024 through October 15, 2025. Throughout their employment, the Plaintiff and all other aggrieved employees were and are denied full and accurate compensation, including overtime compensation, in violation of Labor Code sections 510 and 1194. Among others, the Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees were and are denied meal and rest periods, meal and rest period payments, and accurate itemized wage statements. Luxottica of America, Inc. designs, manufactures, and distributes eyewear. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric K. Yaeckel, Esq. Cody D. Archer, Esq. SULLIVAN & Y AECKEL LAW GROUP, APC 2330 Third Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 702-6760 Facsimile: (619) 702-6761 E-mail: yaeckel@su1livanlawgroupapc.com cody@sullivanlawgroupapc.com META PLATFORMS: Wins Interlocutory Review of Illinois BIPA Order ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Rebecca Hartman, Joseph Turner, R.H., a Minor, by and through her Guardian and Next of Friend Rebecca Hartman, and E.T., a Minor, by and through his Guardian and Next of Friend Joseph Turner, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-CV-02995-NJR (S.D. Ill.), Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted Defendant's motion to certify the Choice of Law Order for interlocutory appellate review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b). Defendant is a social media company that allows users to communicate through its Facebook Messenger and Messenger Kids applications. The applications allow users to superimpose filters and effects on their face when communicating with others. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant collected and stored their biometric identifiers and biometric information when they used the Messenger Applications without their knowledge and consent, in violation of the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq. (BIPA). Defendant argued throughout the case that a choice of law provision in its Terms of Service bars Plaintiff's BIPA claims. This provision selected California law to govern their relationship with Defendant. On February 20, 2026, the Court denied Defendant's motion for summary judgment based on choice of law, finding the provision unenforceable because it was against a fundamental public policy of Illinois and Illinois has a materially greater interest in this litigation than California. Defendant then moved to certify that order for interlocutory appellate review. To certify under Section 1292(b), four criteria must be met: the order must present a question of law, that question must be controlling, it must be contestable, and its resolution must promise to speed up the litigation. On the first factor, the Court found that the articulation and interpretation of Illinois's choice of law rules is a question of law. It identified a conflict between Stromberg Metal Works, Inc. v. Press Mech., Inc., 77 F.3d 928 (7th Cir. 1996), which held that courts should enforce a choice of law clause without further inquiry if the disputed issue could be resolved by contract, and Smurfit Newsprint Corp. v. Se. Paper Mfg., 368 F.3d 944 (7th Cir. 2004), which requires consideration of Illinois's public policy and interest before enforcing such a provision. On the second factor, the Court found the question controlling because the application of Stromberg may lead to the enforcement of the California choice of law provision, which would likely end the case. On the third factor, the Court found the question contestable given the analytical conflict it could not reconcile between the two precedents. On the fourth factor, the Court found that a reversal by the Seventh Circuit would expedite the ultimate termination of the case, satisfying the final criterion. Accordingly, the Court certified the following question to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: Whether, under the choice of law rules of Illinois, courts must consider Illinois's public policy and its interest in the case before enforcing a choice of law provision calling for the application of a foreign state's law. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LyXJZ6 from PacerMonitor.com METROPOLITAN PACIFIC: Forsey Sues Over Unrepaired Apartment Unit ---------------------------------------------------------------- SAMANTHA FORSEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. METROPOLITAN PACIFIC PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., a California corporation; JOHN WARFEL, an individual; ELENE B. BROWN, as Trustee of the Bouhoutsos Brown Trust and as Trustee of the Dimitri B. Brown Trust; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26STCV13926 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 30, 2026) arises from the Defendants' ownership, leasing, management, and operation of a multi-unit residential apartment complex in Santa Monica, CA. At the inception of the tenancy, the Defendants represented that the unit was habitable, safe, and fit for residential occupancy. The Plaintiff relied on these representations in entering the lease and taking possession of the unit. Shortly after moving into the unit, the Plaintiff began to observe excessive moisture accumulation, humidity, and visible mold growth affecting personal property and interior surfaces within the apartment. Despite receiving timely notice of mold and moisture conditions within the unit, the Defendants failed to promptly and adequately investigate, repair, or remediate the conditions. Based in California, Metropolitan Pacific Property Management, Inc. operates as a full-service property management company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan Harris, Esq. David Garrett, Esq. HARRIS & RUBLE 655 North Central Avenue 17th Floor Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (323) 962-3777 Facsimile: (323) 962-3004 MURATA ELECTRONICS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Threats Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- ARTHUR THREATS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MURATA ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02754-VMC (N.D. Ga., May 15, 2026) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII" or "Private Information) and that was impacted in a cyber incident (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant owed the 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. 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. Defendant, despite having the financial wherewithal and personnel necessary to prevent the Data Breach, nevertheless failed to use reasonable security procedures and practice appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information it maintained for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, says the suit. Murata Electronics North America, Inc. manufactures electrical components. The Company offers capacitors, noise suppression, filters, inductors, resistors. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street, NW Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (771) 772-3086 Email: cturner@milberg.com - and - Ken Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 65 Overhill Rd Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: grunfeld@kolawyers.com NEW JERSEY: C.P. Appeals Consent & Special Master Order to 3rd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- C. P., individually and on behalf of F.P., a minor child, et al. are taking an appeal from court orders in the lawsuit entitled C. P., individually and on behalf of F.P., a minor child, et al., Plaintiffs, v. New Jersey Department of Education, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-12807, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for violation of Civil Rights of Handicapped Child. On Mar. 13, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend consent order and settlement agreement and request appointment of special master and certificate of service. On May 5, 2026, Judge Edward S. Kiel entered Orders granting the Plaintiffs' motion to amend consent order and settlement agreement and the motion to appoint special master. The appellate case is captioned as C. P., et al. v. New Jersey Department of Education, et al., Case No. 26-2157, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on May 14, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants C. P., individually and on behalf of F.P., a minor child, et al. are represented by: Elizabeth A. Athos, Esq. Jessica Levin, Esq. EDUCATION LAW CENTER 60 Park Place, Suite 300 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 624-1815 - and - Denise L. Dwyer, Esq. 5 Duxbury Court Princeton Junction, NJ 08550 Telephone: (609) 632-0475 - and - David R. Giles, Esq. 34 Rynda Road South Orange, NJ 07079 Telephone: (973) 763-1500 - and - Catherine M. Reisman, Esq. REISMAN GRAN ZUBA 923 Haddonfield Road, Suite 300 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Telephone: (856) 354-0071 - and - Krista H. Rue, Esq. JOHN RUE & ASSOCIATES 100 Overlook Center Second Floor, Suite 9211 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (862) 283-3155 - and - Donald A. Soutar, Esq. COYLE LAW GROUP 201 Littleton Road, Suite 210 Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Telephone: (973) 370-3218 - and - Jeffrey I. Wasserman, Esq. HERRICK FEINSTEIN One Gateway Center, 9th Floor Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 486-4801 Defendants-Appellees NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al. are represented by: Erin I. Herlihy, Esq. David L. Kalisky, Esq. Matthew J. Lynch, Esq. Phoenix N. Meyers, Esq. Kerry Soranno, Esq. OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY 25 Market Street Hughes Justice Complex Trenton, NJ 08625 Telephone: (609) 376-3100 (609) 376-2576 (609) 815-2985 NVIDIA CORP: Rogers Files Suit Over Voiceprint Exploitation ----------------------------------------------------------- PHILIP ROGERS, CAROL MARIN, ALISON FLOWERS, ROBIN AMER, LINDSEY DORCUS, YOHANCE LACOUR, and VICTORIA NASSIF, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NVIDIA CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05478 (N.D. Ill., May 12, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its collection, retention, commercial exploitation, and dissemination of Plaintiffs' voiceprints without notice or consent. The complaint relates that the technology NVIDIA built using Plaintiffs' voices now competes with Plaintiffs in the markets where they earn their living. NVIDIA markets Magpie TTS Flow as "ideal for studio dubbing and podcast narration" -- directly displacing the audiobook narration Plaintiffs Dorcus and Nassif provide and the long-form investigative audio journalism Plaintiffs Lacour, Flowers, and Amer have spent their careers developing. Magpie TTS Zeroshot can replicate a target speaker's voice from a five-second audio sample. Each of these products is offered to enterprise customers at a fraction of the cost of human narration. Each was built using the vocal characteristics of the human performers it now displaces the vocal characteristics of every Plaintiff in this case. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs' injuries are concrete and particularized. NVIDIA extracted Plaintiffs' voiceprints without notice or consent, depriving them of the right the Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") guarantees to make an informed decision about the collection and use of their biometric data. Moerover, NVIDIA retains those voiceprints in its commercial models and continues to profit from them. NVIDIA has further disseminated those voiceprints, encoded in model parameters, through its open-weight model releases on Hugging Face. 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 suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring this action under BIPA, alleging that NVIDIA unlawfully collected, retained, commercialized, and disseminated their voiceprints, failed to protect them from disclosure, and did so without notice, informed written consent, a written release, or any publicly available retention and destruction policy applicable to non-users. Plaintiffs also assert that NVIDIA's commercial use of their voices and identities to build and sell AI products that mimic them violates the Illinois Right of Publicity Act ("IRPA"). Plaintiffs further assert claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("IUDTPA"), and the common law of unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs seek (i) statutory damages for violations of BIPA's notice, consent, retention, profiting, dissemination, and protection requirements; (ii) actual damages and disgorgement of profits NVIDIA has earned from the commercial exploitation of Plaintiffs' biometric data; (iii) injunctive relief requiring NVIDIA to (a) cease collecting biometric identifiers from voice recordings produced or recorded in Illinois without BIPA-compliant consent, (b) identify the sources of the voice training data used to build its foundational voice synthesis models, (c) destroy all voiceprints and biometric information unlawfully obtained from Plaintiffs and the class, and (d) destroy or retrain, without the unlawfully obtained data, the foundational voice models and downstream commercial products that contain that data; and (iv) reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. Plaintiffs are seven Illinois residents whose recorded voices are among the most distinguished in their fields. None of them was told that their voice was being used to train NVIDIA's commercial voice AI. None of them was asked. None of them consented. Defendant Nvidia Corporation is an American technology company headquartered in Santa Clara, California. It is the world's largest publicly traded technology company by market capitalization, and is the dominant supplier of the graphics processing units, AI accelerators, and AI computing platforms that power large-scale machine learning, including the training and deployment of generative AI 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 Telephone: 312-243-5900 Facsimile: 312-243-5902 E-mail: ross@loevy.com jon@loevy.com mike@loevy.com matt@loevy.com aaron@loevy.com O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Nowlin Removed from State Ct. to N.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN NOWLIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE STORES, INC., a Missouri Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 26CV03546 (Filed, April 1, 2026) was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Mendocino, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on May 22, 2026. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-04873 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings the action on behalf of himself and a putative class of other individuals. The Class Complaint asserts claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, California Penal Code, California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, California Penal Code, and California Unfair Competition Law, California Business & Professions Code. The Plaintiff also alleges an Invasion of Privacy claim pursuant to Article 1, Section 1 of the California Constitution. The Plaintiff's claims relate to the alleged use of various website technologies on O'Reilly’s public-facing website, including Google Ads and DoubleClick and Meta Pixel. O'Reilly is a retailer of automotive products and related services. It operates a publicly accessible website at https://oreillyauto.com, where web users can, among other things, browse the website and search for various O'Reilly products and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark D. Potter, Esq. James M. Treglio, Esq. Isabel Rose Masanque, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP 100 Pine St., Ste 1250 San Francisco, CA 9411 E-mail: classactions@potterhandy.com The Defendants are represented by: Jad Sheikali, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 111 S. Wacker Drive, Ste. 4700 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 704-7700 Facsimile: (312) 558-1195 E-mail: jsheikali@shb.com - and - Brandon S. Gilligan, Esq. 5 Park Plaza, Ste. 1600 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 475-1500 Facsimile: (949) 475-0016 E-mail: bgilligan@shb.com PEPSICO INC: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Gatorade Drinks --------------------------------------------------------------- Nina Pullano, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that for decades, ads have touted Gatorade's hydration superpowers, claiming "nothing cuts through thirst" like the famous "thirst quencher" sports drink. A group of disgruntled Gatorade purchasers now say the company's claims have gone too far. The plaintiffs challenge new labeling that declares the drink "hydrates better than water," calling the claim "is and has been proven false" in a federal class action filed May 21, Thursday, against Gatorade parent PepsiCo. The lawsuit also challenges labels stating the drinks contain no "artificial flavors, sweeteners, or added colors," arguing the products likely contain synthetic citric acid, a preservative and flavoring agent. "Defendant's representations to the contrary about hydration and natural flavoring are made in order to induce health conscious consumers, like plaintiffs, to purchase these products. However, defendant markets its products in a way which is systematically misleading and false," the plaintiffs say in their 31-page lawsuit. Though filed in the Southern District of New York, where PepsiCo is headquartered, the plaintiffs are from Illinois, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and California. They accuse the company of "health-washing" its products to persuade consumers to pay higher prices. "Here, defendant uses false advertising and deceptive conduct which promises health-related benefits," the plaintiffs say. Attorneys from the Queens-based firm Yagman PLLC represent the plaintiffs. Gatorade vs science The claim that Gatorade hydrates better than water isn't limited to labels. In an April promotion, PepsiCo plainly stated that some Gatorade products "hydrate better, faster or longer than water." Whether the claim is scientifically accurate may ultimately be decided through litigation. Sports drinks contain sugar, carbohydrates and sodium that replenish electrolytes -- essential minerals lost through sweat. Health experts say Gatorade can help after intense exercise, but too much can be counterproductive, leading to fluid imbalance and weight gain. Given that experts say both have their place, whether a sports drink can hydrate "better" than water may ultimately be up to a judge or jury. Sports drink companies may be well positioned to make that argument, but the claims over Gatorade's use of citric acid are not new. A wave of lawsuits has targeted products marketed as "all natural" or free of artificial ingredients, despite containing citric acid. While citric acid is an organic compound found in fruit, about 99% of modern production comes from a synthetic process involving mold. Aspergillus niger, the black mold at issue, can cause inflammation and allergic reactions. The National Institutes of Health classifies it as an "irritant." Yet the chemical is widely used in food as a preservative and flavoring agent and, according to a 2025 study, is the world's most consumed organic acid across numerous industries. Some research has suggested widespread use of synthetic citric acid may trigger "allergic inflammatory cascades" and contribute to inflammation associated with conditions including asthma, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, autistic spectrum disorder and fibromyalgia. At issue in this and similar lawsuits -- involving Goldfish crackers, Capri Suns, Greek yogurt and hummus, to name a few -- is whether the presence of industrial citric acid makes it unlawfully misleading to call a product free of artificial ingredients. A judge in California recently kept alive claims against Cape Cod potato chips that contain citric acid but are labeled as being without artificial colors, flavors or preservatives. The case had not yet been assigned to a judge in the Southern District of New York. PepsiCo did not return a request for comment. [GN] PFIZER INC: Unlawfully Tracks Users' Website Activity, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Paul Nakamura filed a class action lawsuit against Pfizer Inc. Why: Nakamura claims Pfizer unlawfully tracked and shared users' website activity with third parties even after users declined cookies and tracking tools. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in New York federal court. Pfizer faces a new class action lawsuit alleging it secretly tracked users' activity on its website and shared their information with third-party advertising and analytics companies despite promising users they could opt out of tracking technologies. Plaintiff Paul Nakamura claims Pfizer's website used cookies and other tracking tools to collect and transmit users' browsing activity, device identifiers, search activity and other personal information to companies, including Google. According to the complaint, Pfizer's website displayed a privacy banner and cookie preference settings that represented users could reject nonessential tracking by selecting "Decline All" or disabling optional analytics and marketing cookies. However, the class action lawsuit alleges the website began deploying tracking tools immediately when users visited the site, before they could interact with the privacy banner or manage cookie settings. The complaint further claims Pfizer continued transmitting users' information to third-party tracking companies even after users expressly rejected tracking and nonrequired cookies. Pfizer allegedly shared browsing activity with Google tracking tools Nakamura says Pfizer integrated tracking technologies associated with Google Ads and Google DoubleClick into its website to monitor user activity and support advertising and analytics efforts. The class action lawsuit alleges the tracking tools intercepted information, including pages users viewed, links clicked, browsing activity, device and browser information, approximate geolocation data and other identifiers that allegedly allowed users to be tracked across sessions and websites. Nakamura, a California resident, says he visited Pfizer's website in July 2025 to research information about COVID-19 vaccines and selected the "Decline All" option in Pfizer's privacy banner because he routinely rejects tracking technologies. Despite opting out, the class action lawsuit claims Pfizer still deployed tracking tools that intercepted and transmitted his browsing activity and related metadata to third parties. The complaint accuses Pfizer of violating the federal Wiretap Act, California privacy laws, California consumer protection statutes and common law privacy protections. Nakamura seeks to represent a nationwide class of users who visited Pfizer's website, interacted with the privacy banner or cookie settings and did not affirmatively accept tracking tools during the applicable limitations period. Meanwhile, Southern Illinois Healthcare recently agreed to a class action settlement resolving claims it violated privacy laws by using tracking pixels on its website. The plaintiff is represented by Mark S. Reich and Mark Jensen of Levi & Korsinsky LLP. The Pfizer class action lawsuit is Nakamura v. Pfizer Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-03914, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN] PUP ABOVE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Soto Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- FRANCISCO SOTO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. A PUP ABOVE, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-04305 (S.D.N.Y., May 22, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, arising from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its ecommerce website, www.apupabove.com, in a manner that is accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Mr. Soto is a resident of New York County and is permanently disabled due to advanced Wet Age-Related Macular Degeneration (Wet AMD), a degenerative retinal disease that has caused severe and irreversible central vision loss. As a legally blind individual, Mr. Soto relies exclusively on screen-reading software and keyboard navigation to access digital content independently. Because he cannot visually interpret website content, he depends on websites to provide proper semantic structure, meaningful alternative text, labeled interactive elements, and screen-reader compatible navigation. On February 18, 2026, March 17, 2026, and April 22, 2026, Plaintiff attempted to access Defendant's Website using screen reader technology to research and purchase the Chicken Free High Protein dog food, the Healthy Sous vide Human Grade Dog Food Sampler Pack, and the Texas Beef Stew (3 lb) dog food. Despite multiple attempts across these three dates, Plaintiff was unable to independently complete his objectives due to pervasive access barriers. The Defendant is a food and beverage company that offers meat-based, sous-vide-cooked food for adult and senior dogs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 E-mail: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com PURDUE PHARMA: Morales Appeals Case Consolidation Order to 2nd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA MORALES is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendant's motion to consolidate cases in the lawsuit entitled Amanda Morales, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Purdue Pharma L.P., Defendant, Case No. 7:25-cv-10158, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On Mar. 24, 2026, the Defendant filed a motion to consolidate cases, which Judge Nelson Stephen Roman granted on Apr. 16, 2026. The Court agrees that consolidation is warranted because the Appeals arise from the same Confirmation Order, are based on a single factual record, and present overlapping questions of law and fact, such that consolidation would promote judicial efficiency, avoid duplicative briefing, and result in no prejudice to any party. The appellate case is captioned as Amanda Morales v. Purdue Pharma L.P., Case No. 26-1330, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on May 13, 2026. [BN] ROBLOX CORPORATION: Doe Files FLSA Suit in N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Roblox Corporation. The case is styled as John B.D. Doe, a minor, by and through his guardian and next friend, Jane Doe T.F., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Roblox Corporation, Case No. 3:26-cv-04404 (N.D. Cal., May 12, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Roblox Corporation -- https://www.roblox.com/ -- is an American video game developer based in San Mateo, California.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. ROBLOX CORPORATION: Profits from Child Labor, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------- JOHN DOE B.D., a minor, by and through his GUARDIAN and NEXT FRIEND, JANE DOE T.F., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-04405 (N.D. Cal., May 12, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law (FAL), and the California Labor Code. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff registered for a Roblox account without this parents' involvement when he was 8 years old. He did so without meaningful age verification, and Roblox permitted him to do so without providing any form of verifiable parental consent. He has been an active user of the Roblox platform continuously since that date. From 2024 to 2026, when Plaintiff was age 11 to 13, he performed substantial labor on the Roblox platform. His work included game design, development, and testing, including advanced Lua scripting, for one or more adult-led DevEx development teams, whose projects were hosted on Roblox and which generated revenue for Roblox. Plaintiff averaged more than 40 hours of labor per week for the adult-led teams over this period, far exceeding the hour limitations applicable to minors under both federal and California law, yet received no monetary compensation whatsoever. Plaintiff's effective hourly compensation was zero dollars, far below the federal minimum wage of $7.25/hour and the California minimum wage of $16.50/hour, to which Plaintiff was entitled under the "economic realities" test or any other applicable test, the application of which confirms that he worked as Roblox's employee. The complaint alleges that Roblox deliberately built a multi-billion-dollar empire on the unpaid and underpaid labor of children. This action -- based on Roblox's own conduct as platform developer and employer, not third-party content -- asserts claims under five liability theories: (1) FLSA and California child-labor violations; (2) FLSA minimum-wage and overtime violations; (3) California Labor Code prohibition on payment of wages in non-transferable company "scrip"; (4) California UCL and FAL violations; and (5) negligent platform design, unjust enrichment, and constructive trust over perpetual intellectual property licenses Roblox extracted from child creators without lawful compensation, says the suit. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all minors who were recruited, induced, permitted, or caused to perform labor for Roblox or for other DevEx developers on the Roblox platform. They seek recovery not only for unpaid and underpaid wages, but also for the negligent and exploitative design that foreseeably caused these harms. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement of Roblox's unjust profits, imposition of a constructive trust over intellectual property rights obtained through child labor, declaratory and injunctive relief requiring Roblox to implement child labor protections, and attorneys' fees and costs. Minor Plaintiff John Doe B.D. is a 13-year-old minor who resides in Fayette County, Georgia with his mother, guardian, and next friend Jane Doe T.F. Defendant Roblox Corporation owns, operates, develops, markets, and profits from the online gaming and social platform known as "Roblox," including its mobile, desktop, and web-based applications, account-creation systems, communications features, recommendation tools, virtual-currency economy, and safety and moderation systems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mazin A. Sbaiti, Esq. SBAITI & COMPANY PLLC Dallas Arts Tower 3102 Maple Avenue, Suite 400 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: 214-214-3400 E-mail: mas@sbaitilaw.com - and - Christopher L. Ayers, Esq. Christopher J. Geddis, Esq. SBAITI & COMPANY NJ LLC 100 Mulberry St. 3 Gateway Center, Suite 1102 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: 973-954-2000 E-mail: chris.ayers@sbaitilaw.com chris.geddis@sbaitilaw.com - and - Sara D. Beller, Esq. Matthew A. Dolman, Esq. R. Stanley Gipe, Esq. DOLMAN LAW GROUP 800 N. Belcher Rd. Clearwater, FL 33765 Telephone: (727) 451-6900 Facsimile: (727) 451-6907 E-mail: sara.beller@dolmanlaw.com matt@dolmanlaw.com stan.gipe@dolmanlaw.com - and - Aaron Freedman, Esq. Robert J. Quigley, Esq. James Bilsborrow, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG PC 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212-558-5500 E-mail: afreedman@weitzlux.com jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com rquigley@weitzlux.com SCHWARTZ VAYS LLC: Ramos Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Schwartz Vays, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Ernest Ramos, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Accounts Receivable Resources, Inc. d/b/a AR Resources, Inc., Case No. 9:26-cv-80548-EA (S.D. Fla., May 12, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Accounts Receivable Resources, Inc. doing business as AR Resources, Inc. -- https://arresourcesinc.com/ -- is a full-service accounts receivable management and debt collection agency based in Blue Bell, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas John Patti, III, Esq. PATTI ZABALETA LAW GROUP 3325 Northwest 55th Street Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 Phone: (561) 542-8550 Email: Tom@pzlg.legal - and - Talal Rashid, Esq. PATTI ZABALETA LAW GROUP 110 SE 6th St, Fl 17 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (305) 332-6201 Email: talal@pzlg.legal SIGNATURE LANDSCAPE: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Valdez FLSA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ SIGNATURE LANDSCAPE, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Rogelio Garcia Valdez et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Signature Landscape, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-2276-TC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Kansas Wage Payment Act, and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law by failing to pay the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees time and one-half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked during a workweek. On May 20, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class. On the same day, the Defendants filed a motion to decertify the conditional certification of the FLSA collective. On Apr. 28, 2026, Judge Toby Crouse entered an Order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class and denying the Defendants' motion to decertify. The appellate case is styled as Rogelio Garcia Valdez et al. v. Signature Landscape, LLC, Case No. 26-600, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on May 12, 2026. [BN] Defendant-Petitioner SIGNATURE LANDSCAPE, LLC is represented by: Michael L. Blumenthal, Esq. Daniel O. Ramon, Esq. SEYFERTH BLUMENTHAL & HARRIS LLC 4801 Main Street, Suite 310 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 756-0700 Email: mike@sbhlaw.com danny@sbhlaw.com - and - Brett C. Bartlett, Esq. Lennon B. Haas, Esq. Hillary Massey, Esq. Alexander W. Simon, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 1075 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 2500 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 885-1500 Email: bbartlett@seyfarth.com lhaas@seyfarth.com hmassey@seyfarth.com asimon@seyfarth.com ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL: Logan Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------------- Latifah Logan, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL HEALTH CENTER, D/B/A AS ST. JOSEPH'S HEALTH SYSTEM, Case No. 5:26-cv-01045-FJS-CBF (N.D.N.Y., May 12, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid compensation and overtime compensation, as well as liquidated damages, penalties, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, declaratory and injunctive relief, and any other appropriate relief, under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York labor laws (hereinafter "NYLL"), including but not limited to, New York's Wage Theft Prevention Act, and/or all applicable New York State wage and hour laws. Although Defendant suffered and permitted Plaintiff and the members of the FLSA Collective and the State Law Class to work more than 40 hours per workweek, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and the members of the FLSA Collective and the State Law Class overtime at a rate of one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The Defendant's time rounding and/or editing policy, and time manipulation practices in conformity with this policy, are not neutral, facially or otherwise. Defendant rounded, edited, and/or otherwise manipulated Plaintiff's, the FLSA Collective's, and State Law Class's work starting and ending times despite utilizing a timekeeping system that tracks exactly when they "punched" or clocked in/out and started/ended working each day. During overtime weeks, and despite knowing of their performance of work during workweeks when Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective worked more than 40 hours, Defendant did not pay them for such overtime which was required to be paid at "one and one-half times" their "regular rates" of pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was initially hired by Defendant in December 2024 as a Patient Care Technician. St. Joseph's Health is, and holds itself as, is "a regional non-profit health care system located in Syracuse, New York."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Jessica Rado, Esq. KLAFTER LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Phone: (914) 934-9200 Email: seth@klafterlesser.com jessica.rado@klafterlesser.com - and - Michael A. Galpern, Esq. Amy C. Winters, Esq. JAVERBAUM WURGAFT HICKS KAHN WIKSTROM & SININS Laurel Oak Corporate Center 1000 Haddonfield-Berlin Road - Suite 203 Voorhees, NJ 08043 Phone: (856) 596-4100 Email: mgalpern@lawjw.com awinters@lawjw.com - and - Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan Winters, Esq. Kevin M. McDermott, III, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC 11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 308 Strongsville, OH 44136 Phone: (216) 912-2221 Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com STELLAR HEALTH: 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 possible Stellar Health Group data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including current or former residents of Stellar Health Group care facilities. Potential Stellar Health Group Security Incident: What Happened? Salter HealthCare, operating as Stellar Health Group, has reportedly experienced a data breach. A May 17, 2026 post on Ransomware.Live indicates that threat actor Qilin is responsible for a cyberattack estimated to have occurred on the same day as the post. The extent and nature of the information compromised in the Stellar Health Group data breach remain unclear, and the company has not yet confirmed the breach. Stellar Health Group manages seven long- and short-term care facilities across Massachusetts and Vermont. What You Can Do After the Possible Stellar Health Group Cyberattack If your information was exposed in the reported Stellar Health Group 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 Stellar Health Group 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] STRATEGIES TO EMPOWER: Enriquez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Strategies To Empower People, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Robert Enriquez, III, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Strategies To Empower People, Inc., Does 1-100, Case No. 26CV011490 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 12, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Strategies to Empower People -- https://stepagency.com/ -- is an innovative pioneer in support services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.[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 T-MOBILE USA INC: Kaidi Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Spencer Kaidi, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. T-MOBILE USA, INC., and DOES 1-10, Inclusive, Case No. 26CV000730 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 13, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-04412. As alleged in the Complaint, Mr. Kaidi alleges that he and other nationwide and California individuals were subjected to unlawful tracking after visiting T-Mobile's website at https://www.metrobyt-mobile.com. He alleges that T-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. He 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 TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Partially Resolves Metformin Suit for $5.55MM ------------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Teva, Granules and Heritage have reached class action settlements to partially resolve multidistrict litigation (MDL) that alleged the pharmaceutical companies falsely advertised generic metformin-containing drugs as the same as or equivalent to Glucophage and/or Glucophage XR, when the diabetes meds were in fact contaminated with N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA). The Metformin class action settlements with Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Actavis Pharma, Inc., and Actavis LLC (collectively "Teva") and Granules USA, Inc., Granules Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Heritage Pharmaceuticals, doing business as Avet Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively "Granules and Heritage"), received preliminary approval from the court on May 4, 2026. The $3 million Teva MDL settlement covers all individuals or entities in the United States and its territories and possessions who paid any amount of money for a metformin-containing drug intended for personal/household use that was manufactured, distributed or sold by Teva from July 20, 2015 through June 2, 2020. The $2.55 million Granules and Heritage MDL settlement covers all individuals and entities in the United States and its territories and possessions who paid any amount of money for a metformin-containing drug intended for personal/household use that was manufactured, distributed or sold by Granules or Heritage from July 20, 2015 through June 2, 2020. The court-approved website for the Metformin settlements, which includes information about both deals, can be found at InReMetforminSettlement.com. Class members who submit a timely, valid claim form can receive a pro rata cash payment from the Metformin settlement fund. The final amount of this payout will depend on the number of generic metformin-containing drugs a class member purchased, how much they paid, and the total number of valid claims submitted. To submit a Metformin NDMA settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and select whether they are submitting a claim as an individual consumer or a third-party payor. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form from the same page to print, complete, and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Teva or Granules and Heritage settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked no later than July 10, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant the settlements final approval following a hearing on August 12, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Metformin class action lawsuit remains ongoing against the remaining defendants and alleges that a laundry list of pharmaceutical companies falsely advertised their generic drugs containing metformin as the same as or equivalent to Glucophage and/or Glucophage XR, brand-name prescription medications used to treat type 2 diabetes. However, the class action lawsuits, which were eventually consolidated into an MDL, alleged that the drugs were contaminated with the carcinogen NDMA and did not comply with metformin standards set by the Food and Drug Administration. The case alleged that consumers and businesses ultimately paid more for the drugs than they would have absent the defendants' allegedly false advertising. [GN] THOMPSON TEE: Battle Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE BATTLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THOMPSON TEE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05651 (N.D. Ill., May 15, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://thompsontee.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Thompson Tee, Inc. manufactures patented sweat-proof undershirts utilizing "Hydro-Shield" technology to block underarm sweat. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com TOTAL SYSTEM: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Rodriguez Says -------------------------------------------------------------- MARGARET RODRIGUEZ and MOSSIE WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TOTAL SYSTEM SERVICES LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00809-CDL (M.D. Ga., May 12, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information that TSYS's customers entrusted to it, including, without limitation, individuals' names, addresses, and financial account information (collectively, "personally identifiable information" or "PII"). The complaint relates that in the ordinary course of business and as a condition of service, TSYS requires its customers to provide it with a significant volume of sensitive personal, financial, and private information. On May 2, 2026, TSYS experienced a data breach, during which cybercriminals accessed or acquired the PII (the "Data Breach"). The complaint alleges that the PII was compromised due to TSYS's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its failure to protect Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII. In addition to TSYS's failure to prevent the Data Breach, TSYS has not disclosed any details regarding the Data Breach to Plaintiffs and Class Members. TSYS has also purposefully withheld the specific vulnerabilities and root causes of the Data Breach and has not disclosed that information to Plaintiffs and Class Members. As a result of this delayed response, Plaintiffs and Class Members had no idea their PII had been compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. TSYS's conduct amounts to negligence and violates federal and state statutes, says the suit. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all persons whose PII was compromised as a result of TSYS's failure to: (i) adequately protect Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII; (ii) warn Plaintiffs and Class Members of TSYS's inadequate information security practices; and (iii) effectively secure hardware containing protected PII using reasonable and effective security procedures. Defendant Total System Services LLC is a financial technology company based in Columbus, Georgia that provides payment processing services, merchant services and related payment services. It is the largest third-party payment processor for card-issuing banks in North America.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel H. Wirth, Esq. ALONSO & WIRTH 1708 Peachtree Street, NW, Suite 303 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (678) 928-4472 E-mail: dwirth@alonsowirth.com - and - Bart D. Cohen, Esq. Panida Anderson, Esq. BAILEY GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 E-mail: bcohen@baileyglasser.com panderson@baileyglasser.com UNITED STATES: Appeals Class Cert. Order in D.N.N. Suit to 4th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- VERNON LIGGINS, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled D.N.N., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Vernon Liggins, in his official capacity as Field Office Director of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Enforcement and Removal Operations Baltimore Field Office, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01613-JRR, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The Plaintiffs initiated this action on May 9, 2025, with the filing of a class action complaint for declaratory relief, complaint for injunctive relief, and petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Plaintiffs assert violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the Immigration and Nationality Act. On Dec. 23, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class and issue preliminary injunction, which Judge Julie Rebecca Rubin granted on Mar. 6, 2026. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs meet their burden to show a clear likelihood of success in proving that the deprivation of hygienic, sanitary, and safe conditions is sufficiently serious. Second, and related, the Plaintiffs provide compelling evidence of the Defendants' failure to ensure individuals have access to their medication. Finally, the Plaintiffs provide robust evidence to support their contention that the Defendants' response (or lack thereof) to individuals' medical needs is such that it "is sure or very likely to cause serious illness." The appellate case is captioned as D.N.N. v. Vernon Liggins, Case No. 26-6580, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on May 8, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees D.N.N., et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Amelia Christine Dagen, Esq. Ian Austin Rose, Esq. AMICA CENTER FOR IMMIGRANT RIGHTS 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (714) 396-5954 (202) 788-2509 - and - Jared Levine, Esq. Luke Taeschler, Esq. CROWELL & MORING LLP 2 Manhattan West 375 9th Avenue New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 223-4134 (212) 803-4025 - and - Sirine Shebaya, Esq. NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT 1763 Columbia Road NW, Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 656-4788 Defendants-Appellants VERNON LIGGINS, in his official capacity as Field Office Director of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Enforcement and Removal Operations Baltimore Field Office, et al. are represented by: Thomas Frank Corcoran, Esq. OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY 36 South Charles Street Baltimore, MD 21201 - and - Brendan Thomas Moore, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE P.O. Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Telephone: (202) 598-8173 UNITY WIRELES LLC: Singley Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unity Wireles LLC, et al. The case is styled as Jodisue Singley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Unity Wireles LLC, Unity Wireless, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-02972-AJB-DEB (S.D. Cal., May 12, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Unity Wireless -- https://unitywireless.com/ -- is a world-class provider of wireless coverage enhancement solutions for cellular operators and custom subsystems for network infrastructure manufacturers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Faythe Gutierrez, Esq. PLG DAMAGE ATTORNEYS, PLLC 2750 SW 145th Avenue, Suite #509 Miramar, FL 33027 Phone: (305) 506-4746 Email: fgutierrez@plgdamage.com VETERANS GUARDIAN: Loses Bid to Escape Federal Agent Classification ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Jennifer Ford, Eric Beard, and Brian Otters, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Veterans Guardian VA Claim Consulting, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 1:23-CV-756 (M.D.N.C.), Judge Catherine C. Eagles of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denied in part the Defendant's motion for summary judgment in this class action. The Plaintiffs, military veterans bringing claims individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, alleged that Veterans Guardian VA Claim Consulting, LLC (Guardian) violated federal law by offering VA disability claim services without VA accreditation and charging illegal fees in violation of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the North Carolina Debt Collection Act. Federal law provides that no individual may act as an agent or attorney in the preparation, presentation, or prosecution of any claim under laws administered by the Secretary unless recognized for such purposes by the Secretary. Federal law also prohibits agents from charging or collecting a fee in connection with filing an initial disability claim. It was undisputed that Guardian was not accredited by the VA, that it prepared claim forms on behalf of veterans, that it presented disability claims for decision by the VA, and that it charged fees for doing so. The Court found that Guardian's activities constituted the preparation and presentation of VA disability claims. Guardian gathered information, identified the types of benefits for which a client may be eligible, drafted documents, filled out VA forms, emailed assembled claim packets to clients for review, printed the forms, and mailed them to clients with stamped envelopes pre-addressed to the VA. Guardian did not include its name anywhere in the claim packet and instructed veterans to similarly exclude that fact. The Court rejected Guardian's contention that it provided only consulting services, noting that the label an entity attaches to its services is not controlling -- the reality of the work done is what matters. Guardian argued that the canon of constitutional avoidance required a narrower interpretation of the term agent, raising a potential First Amendment challenge. The Court rejected this argument, finding that Section 5901(a) was not ambiguous and that ordinary textual analysis did not give rise to more than one construction. The statute governs conduct -- preparing claims, presenting those claims in required forms, and charging fees -- and the First Amendment does not prevent restrictions directed at commerce or conduct from imposing incidental burdens on speech. The Court also rejected Guardian's argument that because clients made the final decision on whether to file, Guardian therefore did not prepare or present the claim or act as an agent. Accordingly, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in part and deemed it established that Guardian acts as an unaccredited agent on behalf of class members in preparing and presenting initial and non-initial claims to the Veterans Administration, in violation of federal law. Guardian's motion for summary judgment was denied to the extent it contended it was not an agent. The Court reserved ruling on the remaining issues presented in the summary judgment motions. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rR5NnF from PacerMonitor.com Counsel for Defendant Veterans Guardian VA Claim Consulting, LLC: Whitney R. Pakalka, Esq., Dustin Timothy Greene, Esq., and Elizabeth L. Winters, Esq. of KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON, LLP; Caroline Lewis Wolverton, Esq. and Anthony T. Pierce, Esq. of AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP. Counsel for Plaintiffs Pamela G. Levinson, Esq., Janet R. Varnell, Esq., and Brian Warwick, Esq. of VARNELL AND WARWICK PA; Jeffrey Laurence Osterwise, Esq. and Shanon Jude Carson, Esq. of BERGER MONTAGUE PC. VIRGIN ISLANDS: Doe Appeals Court Judgment to 2nd Circuit --------------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE 1, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Jane Doe 1, et al., individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Government of the United States Virgin Islands, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-10301, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Plaintiffs filed this suit against the Defendants for violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and negligence. On May 24, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on July 2, 2024. On Mar. 21, 2025, Judge Arun Subramanian entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On Apr. 18, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed an amended motion for entry of judgment under Rule 54(b), which Judge Subramanian denied on July 30, 2025. On Sept. 4, 2025, stipulation of voluntary dismissal was filed. The action is voluntarily dismissed with prejudice against Defendant Stacey Plaskett and without costs. On May 5, 2026, judgment is entered in favor of the Defendants. Accordingly, the case is closed. The appellate case is captioned Doe 1 v. Government of the United States Virgin Islands, Case No. 26-1316, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on May 13, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants JANE DOE 1, et al. are represented by: Annette G. Hasapidis, Esq. HASAPIDIS LAW OFFICES 38C Grove Street, 1st Floor Ridgefield, CT 06877 Defendants-Appellees GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS, et al. are represented by: Benjamin H. Torrance, Esq. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Southern District of New York 86 Chambers Street New York, NY 10007 - and - Amelia Schmidt, Esq. KAISER PLLC 1099 14th Street, NW, 8th Floor West Washington, DC 20005 - and - Kenneth Mapp, Esq. 2611 Meadowedge Loop Saint Cloud, FL 34772 - and - Celestino White, Esq. 3438 Kronprinders Gade GERS Complex St. Thomas, USVI 00802 - and - Vincent Frazer, Esq. P.O. Box 304982 St. Thomas, USVI 00803 - and - Daniel Louis Cevallos, Esq. CEVALLOS & WONG LLP 60 Broad Street, Suite 2900 New York, NY 10004 - and - David J. Cattie, Esq. THE CATTIE LAW FIRM, PC 1710 Kongens Gade St. Thomas, VI 00802 - and - Carlton Dowe, Esq. 3438 Kronprinders Gade GERS Complex St. Thomas, USVI 00802 WAGYU HOT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Thomas Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WAGYU HOT POT, INC.; and CHUBBY GROUP, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-02749-TWT (N.D. Ga., May 15, 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 Thomas was employed by the Defendants as a server. Wagyu Hot Pot, Inc. operates as a restaurant specializing in serving Wagyu beef and hot pot dishes. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher B. Hall, Esq. Gordon Van Remmen, Esq. Joseph Quattlebaum, Esq. HALL & LAMPROS, LLP 300 Galleria Parkway, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30339 Email: chall@hallandlampros.com gordon@hallandlampros.com joseph@hallandlampros.com Telephone: (404) 876-8100 Facsimile: (404) 876-3477 WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Martinez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- CLEMENCIA MARTINEZ, individually and for others similarly situated v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 26STCV10050 (Filed March 27, 2026) was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 22, 2026. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-05535 to the proceeding. The complaint asserts one cause of action against Walmart for alleged Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et seq. The complaint alleges that Walmart failed to provide Plaintiff and class members with meal periods, rest breaks, and reimbursement of business expenses earned upon termination of employment for the period of December 19, 2020, to the present. Wal-Mart is a specialized corporate subsidiary of Walmart Inc. primarily utilized as the employing entity and benefits administrator for the company's U.S. workforce. It manages payroll, employment records, and workforce policies for Walmart's vast network of associates across its physical stores and distribution centers.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Paloma P. Peracchio, Esq. Melis Atalay, Esq. Mitchell A. Wrosch, Esq. Sandra Aguilar, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 Facsimile: (213) 239-9045 E-mail: paloma.peracchio@ogletree.com melis.atalay@ogletree.com mitchell.wrosch@ogletree.com sandra.aguilar@ogletree.com WASHINGTON: Fails to Protect Constitutional Rights, Williams Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jennafur Williams, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, KING COUNTU, ELIZABETH GARRETT, CONSTANCE LOCKLEAR, MICHAEL K. RYAN, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-01541-TL (W.D. Wash., April 30, 2026) accuses the Defendants of conspiring to violate other families' and individual's constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the laws. The case arises from Plaintiff's July 15, 2020 petition for de facto parentage with King County Superior Court. The Plaintiff alleges that the assigned guardian ad litem (GAL) has continuously ignored the misleading information being presented and biasly support orders in favor of the respondent. Throughout the proceedings, the Plaintiff repeatedly relayed her concerns regarding GAL's unethical behavior to the court during hearings and written declarations. However, the court repeatedly ignored and/or dismissed Plaintiff's concerns of misconduct, says the suit. Washington is a state in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States. The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN] WESTERN ORTHOPAEDICS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Marco Says --------------------------------------------------------------- DAVE MARCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WESTERN ORTHOPAEDICS, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-2074 (D. Colo., May 13, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to secure and safeguard the personally identifying information ("PII") and personal health information ("PHI") of approximately 113,330 of its current and former patients (including Plaintiff's), including names, addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, financial accounts, credit, or debit card numbers, health insurance information, health insurance plan or subscriber identification number, medical provider name, medical dates of service, and medical cost or billing information. The complaint relates that as a condition of providing services to Plaintiff, Western Ortho required Plaintiff to provide it with his PII/PHI. Western Ortho owed a duty to Plaintiff and Class members to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect, and safeguard their PII/PHI against unauthorized access and disclosure. But Western Ortho breached that duty by, among other things, failing to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect its current and former patients' PII/PHI from unauthorized access and disclosure. Between September 17, 2025 and September 25, 2025, an unauthorized third party gained access to Western Ortho's network systems and obtained files containing the PII/PHI of Western Ortho's current and former patients, including Plaintiff's. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all persons whose PII/PHI was exposed as a result of the Data Breach, says the suit. The Plaintiff asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment, and seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, monetary damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, equitable relief, and all other relief authorized by law. Plaintiff Dave Marco is a former patient of Western Ortho. Defendant Western Orthopaedics, P.C. is an orthopedic surgery practice that treats various musculoskeletal injuries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ben Barnow, Esq. Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 205 West Randolph Street, Ste. 1630 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: 312-621-2000 Facsimile: 312-641-5504 E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com aparkhill@barnowlaw.com WHALECO INC: Chandi Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Whaleco Inc. The case is styled as Melissa Chandi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Whaleco Inc. doing business as Temu, U.S., Case No. 1:26-cv-03656-SAB (E.D. Cal., May 12, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Whaleco Inc. doing business as Temu, U.S. -- https://www.temu.com/ -- is an online marketplace operated by e-commerce company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Faythe Gutierrez, Esq. PLG DAMAGE ATTORNEYS, PLLC 700 S. Flower Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (951) 285-2179 Email: faythegutierrez@gmail.com WS SOLUTIONS INC: Rivera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against WS Solutions, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Albert Rivera, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. WS Solutions, Inc., Case No. 26STCV15166 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 12, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." WS Solution's Global Delivery Model -- https://www.solutionsws.com/ -- provides for the best resources to be drawn from its vast talent pool across the globe to offer optimal solutions.[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 Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Faces 409 New PI Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation, for the three months ended March 31, 2026, has received 409 new personal injury claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Claims have been asserted alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos-containing components historically used in some products manufactured by predecessors of Air & Liquid (the "Asbestos Liability"). Air & Liquid, and in some cases the Corporation, are defendants (among a number of defendants, often in excess of 50 defendants) in claims filed in various state and federal courts. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fmqrRm ASBESTOS UPDATE: CarParts.com Defends Product Liability Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- A wholly-owned subsidiary of CarParts.com, Inc., Automotive Specialty Accessories and Parts, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary Whitney Automotive Group, Inc. ("WAG"), are named defendants in several lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by installation of brakes during the late 1960's and early 1970's that contained asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "WAG marketed certain brakes, but did not manufacture any brakes. WAG maintains liability insurance coverage to protect its and the Company's assets from losses arising from the litigation and coverage is provided on an occurrence rather than a claims made basis, and the Company is not expected to incur significant out-of-pocket costs in connection with this matter that would be material to its consolidated financial statements." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zy1mPh ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enviri Has 17,000 Pending Personal Injury Actions ------------------------------------------------------------------ Enviri Corporation is named as one of many defendants in legal actions in the U.S. alleging personal injury from exposure to airborne asbestos over the past several decades, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Enviri Corp. states, "As of March 31, 2026, there were approximately 17,000 pending asbestos personal injury actions filed against the Company. The vast majority of these actions were filed in the New York Supreme Court (New York County), of which the majority of such actions were on the Deferred/Inactive Docket created by the New York Supreme Court in December 2002 for all pending and future asbestos actions filed by persons who cannot demonstrate that they have a malignant condition or discernible physical impairment. A relatively small portion of cases are on the Active or In Extremis docket in New York County or on active dockets in other jurisdictions. The complaints in most of those actions generally follow a form that contains a standard demand of significant damages, regardless of the individual plaintiff's alleged medical condition, and without identifying any Company product." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mn3fo6 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Still Defends PI Cases ------------------------------------------------------ Kaanapali Land and its subsidiary, D/C Distribution Corporation ("D/C"), have in the past and continue to be named as defendants in personal injury actions allegedly based on exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "While there were relatively few cases that name Kaanapali Land, there were a substantial number of cases that were pending against D/C on the U.S. mainland (primarily in California). Cases against Kaanapali Land were allegedly based on its prior business operations in Hawaii and cases against D/C were allegedly based on sale of asbestos-containing products by D/C's prior distribution business operations primarily in California. D/C emerged from bankruptcy in 2023 with no assets. However, personal injury claimants have asserted and may in the future assert, asbestos-related claims against D/C. In that regard, the Company maintains a contingent liability relating to the continued filings of asbestos claims. Such filings are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company, but no assurance can be given." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HffVTx ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Receives 712 New Exposure Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is and has been a defendant in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts, principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "For the three months ended March 31, 2026 and 2025, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company received approximately 712 and 602 new asbestos-related claims, respectively. "The ability of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company to estimate its ultimate asbestos exposure is subject to considerable uncertainty, and the conditions impacting its liability can be dynamic and subject to change. The availability of reliable data is limited and it is difficult to predict the numerous variables that can affect liability estimates, including the number of future claims, the cost to resolve claims, the disease mix and severity of disease in pending and future claims, the willingness of courts to allow plaintiffs to pursue claims against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company when exposure to asbestos took place after the dangers of asbestos exposure were well known, and the impact of any possible future adverse verdicts and their amounts. "The ability to make estimates regarding ultimate asbestos exposure declines significantly as the estimates relate to years further in the future. In the Company’s judgment, there is a future point after which losses cease to be probable and reasonably estimable. It is reasonably possible that the Company’s total exposure to asbestos claims may be materially greater than the asbestos liability currently accrued and that future charges to income may be necessary, but management does not believe any such charges are likely to have a material effect on the Company’s financial position." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qzhP3J ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Accrues $44.2MM Liabilities as of March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Olin Corporation, and its subsidiaries, are defendants in various other legal actions (including proceedings based on alleged exposures to asbestos) incidental to its past and current business activities, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "As of March 31, 2026, December 31, 2025 and March 31, 2025, our condensed balance sheets included accrued liabilities for these other legal actions of $44.2 million, $20.1 million and $17.1 million, respectively. These liabilities do not include costs associated with legal representation. Based on our analysis, and considering the inherent uncertainties associated with litigation, we do not believe that it is reasonably possible that these legal actions will materially adversely affect our financial position, cash flows or results of operations. "During the ordinary course of our business, contingencies arise resulting from an existing condition, situation or set of circumstances involving an uncertainty as to the realization of a possible gain contingency. In certain instances, such as environmental projects, we are responsible for managing the cleanup and remediation of an environmental site. There exists the possibility of recovering a portion of these costs from other parties." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jLqTpe ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Defends 118 Exposure Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Park-Ohio Industries, Inc. is a co-defendant in 118 cases asserting claims on behalf of 162 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages. "In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from $25,000 to $75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages sought. To the extent that any specific amount of damages is sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants. "Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-containing product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries. We intend to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe we will continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases. However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation. Despite this uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows for a particular period could be adversely affected by asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, liquidity or results of operations. Among the factors management considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits on the bases mentioned above; (b) many cases have been improperly filed against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs have been unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our products or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable injury or compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they have incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos; and (e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants and, in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to individual defendants. Additionally, we do not believe that the amounts claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful indicators of our potential exposure because the amounts claimed typically bear no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's injury, if any." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=I6uclb ********* 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 ***