260601.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, June 1, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 108
Headlines
7-ELEVEN INC: Parra-Ochoa Suit Removed to C.D. California
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Lomeli Files Suit in S.D. California
ABM AVIATION INC: Davila Suit Removed to S.D. California
ACE HARDWARE: Twomey Files Suit Over Price-fixing Scheme
ACTIVE USA LLC: Clanton Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
ADIDAS AMERICA INC: Parisi Files Suit in D. Oregon
ADIDAS AMERICA: Hernandez Sues Over Unlawful Tariff-Related Charges
ADT INC: James Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII
ADVANCE AUTO: Consolidated Securities Suit Dismissed
ADVANCE AUTO: Derivative Suits Stayed Pending Dismissal Bid
AFTER HOURS CLINIC: Busby Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ALL COUNTY: Underpays Company Workers, Peralta Alleges
ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK: May 19, 2026 Order Vacated
ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK: Tang Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
ALPHABET INC: Bid for Class Certification in AMI Suit Granted
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Bid for Class Cert. Extended to June 12
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid
AMERICA PAC: Bids for Class Certification in Maglietta Due July 31
AMERICA'S DRIVE-IN: Lewis Sues Over Unlawful Sales Calls
AMERICAN DIRECT FUNDING: Morales Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
ANTERO RESOURCES: Plaintiff's Counsel Awarded $3.7MM in Atty's Fees
APARTMENT INCOME REIT: Mendoza Suit Removed to S.D. California
ASHLEY GLOBAL RETAIL: Penning Suit Removed to N.D. California
ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: M&A Probes Proposed Sale to Zydus Worldwide
AUBURN UNIVERSITY: All Discovery in Yarbrough Due Jan. 4, 2027
AZEK GROUP: Seelye Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation
BAE SYSTEMS: Court Tosses Bid to Stay Rocha Proceedings
BBBB BONDING: Benton Class Cert Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice
BBBB BONDING: Benton Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
BCBST: Seeks to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal
BLUE ENTERPRISES: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Olivas Alleges
BLUECREW LLC: Espinoza Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Status Conference in Patlan Set for June 4
BURGESS INFORMATION: Flores Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia
CARELON MANAGEMENT: Corona Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CARVANA CO: Seeks to Seal Portions of Class Cert Opposition
CENTRAL VALLEY RECOVERY: Sandoval Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CHRISTINE VALMY: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Pineda Says
CIGNA GROUP: Loses Bid to Dismiss ERISA Suit
CLIPPER MAGAZINE: Tabatabai Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
COLUMBIA BANKING SYSTEMS: Meyers Sues Over Recent Cyberattack
COOL EVENTS LLC: Rodriguez Suit Removed to S.D. California
COSMED GROUP: "Motley" Remains Stayed Pending Ch. 11 Proceedings
CPT USA LLC: McKinnley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
CRASH CHAMPIONS: Lucero Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
CROWN & CORK: Conditional Class Cert Bid in Ludwig Due Nov. 20
CTG IP LLC: Henderson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
CUERNO RESTAURANTS: Avendano Sues Over Unpaid Compensation
CUSTOMS AND BORDER: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Mora
DABBLE SPORTS: Georgia Gambling Suit Removed to M.D. Georgia
DIRECT DIGITAL: Dismissal of Consolidated Suit Under Appeal
DOLLAR TREE: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to July 30, 2027
EAGLE PHARMACEUTICALS: Settlement in Miller Wins Initial Nod
ECOLAB INC: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ELECTROLUX CONSUMER: Reato Sues Over Product's Burn Hazard Defect
ELF BEAUTY: Class, Derivative Actions Filed
EQT CORPORATION: Amended Bid for Class Certification Tossed
EQT CORPORATION: Ross Suit Seeks Class Certification
EQUIFAX INFO: Can File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal
ERANI ENTERTAINMENT: Alvarez Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wage
ES SOLAR LLC: Brown Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
EVERLY WELL INC: Alkhafaji Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Indiana
EXXON MOBIL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Pennsylvania Due Oct. 15
FANDOM INC: Settlement in Shah Suit Gets Final Nod
FCA US: Maryland Court Narrows Claims in "Johnson"
FCA US: Maugain Suit Seeks Class Certification
FIFTH THIRD: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Jan. 25, 2027
FLEXIBILITY CAPITAL: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, McKevitt Says
FORD MOTOR: Class Cert Hearing in Lessin Suit Set for Nov. 19
FOUNDATION RISK: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to August 24
FUNDING CHANNEL: Must Respond to Discovery Requests by June 18
FUTU HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
GNC HOLDINGS: Must File Class Cert Opposition by Oct. 30
GREENBRIER CLINIC: Faces Suit Over Mammography Testing Results
GRIFFITH PARK: Ditangco Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
GROVEHOUSE HOSPITALITY: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Oct. 26
GUARDIAN INDUSTRIES: Espinoza Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes
GUARDIAN INDUSTRIES: Espinoza Seeks to File Docs Under Seal
GUZMAN Y GOMEZ: Former Employees Sue Over WARN Act Violations
HOLLY RIDGE, NC: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to July 22
HOME DEPOT: Bid for Class Cert. in Rae-Ellis Due Dec. 11
HOME DEPOT: Class Cert Bid Filing in Sell Due June 19
HONORHEALTH: Underpays Company Employees, Palmer Alleges
HSBC BANK: Cruz Bid for Class Certification Due Oct. 15
ID5 TECHNOLOGY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Babbini Due July 15, 2027
INSTRUCTURE HOLDINGS: Khorami Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
INSTRUCTURE INC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Verbish Alleges
INSTRUCTURE INC: Hornthal Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
INSTRUCTURE INC: Moran Files Suit Over Data Breach
INSTRUCTURE INC: Steinhoff Balks at Unprotected Personal Info
JAN-CARE AMBULANCE: Fox FLSA Suit Transferred to S.D. West Virginia
JARED HOY: Parties Seek to Stay Discovery and Case Deadlines
JP MORGAN: Bodea Seeks to File Class Cert Doc Under Seal
JP MORGAN: Class Cert Bid Conference Set for June 9
JR BUTLER: Seeks Relief from Automatic Stay
KAISER FOUNDATION: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Culbert
KENNAMETAL INC: Hall Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
KENVUE BRANDS: Beyer Amended Complaint Dismissed w/o Prejudice
KRISTI NOEM: Plaintiffs Win Class Certification Bid
LACKAWANNA COUNTY, PA: Seeks Reconsideration of May 6 Order
LANGDON & COMPANY: Bid for Class Certification Due Feb. 18, 2027
LEE UNIVERSITY: Settlement Deal in Butler Suit Gets Prelim OK
LEE UNIVERSITY: Settlement Deal in Goodine Suit Gets Prelim OK
LEE UNIVERSITY: Settlement Deal in Kubba Suit Gets Initial Nod
LEE UNIVERSITY: Settlement Deal in Nabors Suit Gets Initial OK
LEE UNIVERSITY: Settlement Deal in Vaught Suit Gets Initial Nod
LIVERAMP HOLDINGS: Discovery in Riganian Privacy Action Underway
MANEUVER MARKETING: Class Cert Bid in Luxton Due Feb. 1, 2027
MARSHA MCLANE: Hanson Bid for Class Certification Tossed
MASTERCRAFT BOAT HOLDINGS: Taylor Stockholder Class Action Ends
MERCK SHARP: Parties Seeks to Seal Class Cert Materials
MILTON TOWNSHIP: Homeowners Sue Over Short Term Rental Ordinance
MONOLITHIC POWER: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Waterford Due Sept. 4
MONTEFIORE HEALTH: Faces Sims Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
MOSHOLU PARKWAY NURSING: Noble Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
NATIONAL DEBT: Castrillo Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy
NATIONAL ENTERTAINMENT: Hines Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration
NEBRASKA: Bid to Stay Class Certification Proceedings OK'd
NESTLE PURINA: Court Stays Boyle Suit Until July 3
NEW YORK: Class Cert. Reply Due June 8
NFL PLAYER: Renewed Bid for Class Certification Partly OK'd
NFL PLAYER: Seeks to Exceed Page Limit in Class Cert Opposition
NFL PLAYER: Seeks to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal
NOCO ENERGY CORP: Ortiz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
NRA GROUP LLC: Vargas Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
NYS CORPORATION: Anantha Sues Over Breach of Contract
O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Class Certification Bid Due Dec. 30
OCHSNER CLINIC: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Jan. 30, 2027
PACIFICORP: Oregon Wildfire Victims' Class Action Case Wins Appeal
PANERA LLC: Cissokho Wins Conditional Certification Bid
PAYPAL: Parties Must Confer on Class Cert Production Schedule
PENNYMAC LOAN: Court Tosses Hotard Class Action
PERFUME WORLDWIDE: Kenney Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
PETROLEX II: Class Cert. Briefing in Kelly Suit Partly OK'd
PETROLEX II: Parties in Kelly Seek to Extend Deadlines
PFIZER INC: Nakamura Sues Over Illegal Wiretapping
PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Hinton Seeks to Seal Courtroom for Hearing
PLUG POWER: Plaintiffs' Bid to Certify Class Due Oct. 15
POET TECHNOLOGIES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 29
PRIME HEALTHCARE: Lord Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MD: Renewed Class Cert Bid Due August 28
RACK ROOM: Class Certification Bid Filing Extended to August 27
RALPH LAUREN: Redden-Drake Seek Refund of Tariff-Related Charges
RAPID INVESTMENTS: Class Cert Response Due June 26
RAPID INVESTMENTS: Response to Class Cert Bid Due June 26
RAYMOND JAMES: Schmidlin Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
REVIVAL ANIMAL: Lewis Sues Over Illegal Telephonic Sales Calls
RICOH USA: Mike the Printer Seeks to Strike Lucente Declarations
RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Class Settlement in Crews Suit Gets Final Nod
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Parties Seek to Seal Class Certification Brief
RODBRA INC: Caciano Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensations
SAFE HOME: Class Certification Filing in Todd Due April 6, 2027
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Nassif Sues Over Unlawful Voiceprint Use
SANFORD SURROUNDED: Class Cert Hearing Continued to June 18
SEAN REEVES: Convisser's Bid to Certify Class Action Tossed
SECTION 119: Website Denies Equal Access to Blind Users, Ortiz Says
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Must Oppose Evans Class Cert Bid by June 15
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Opposition
SEMTECH CORPORATION: Lead Plaintiffs Win Class Cert Bid
SERGIO ALBARRAN: Must Release Mena from Custody
SHASTA BEVERAGES: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to August 13
SIEMENS INDUSTRY: KBEL Suit Seeks Class Certification
SIG SAUER: Schnau Sues Over Defectively Designed P320 Pistol
SKECHERS USA: Expert Discovery on Class Cert Due Dec. 16
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Class Certification Bid Amended to June 23
ST. MORITZ: Hall Seeks Approval of FLSA Class Notice
STELLANTIS NV: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 8
STRATEGIC DELIVERY: Class Cert. Bids in Abdisalam Suit Due Oct. 2
SUGARED + BRONZED: Grippo Seeks Prelim OK of Class Settlement
SUMMA HEALTH: Burnside Must File Class Cert Bid by Oct. 13
SUN COMMUNITIES: Court Approves $2.3-Mil. Class Action Settlement
SUNRISE COMMUNITIES: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Sullivan Says
SUSHI KATSUEI: Court Imposes $1K Penalty to Defense Counsel
TESLA INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Nov. 16
TOTAL LONGTERM: Stipulation to Continue Class Cert Deadline Tossed
UBP BAY: Bid for Class Certification in Howard Suit Due Nov. 2
UFP TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Pritchard Says
UNCOMMON JAMES: Echols Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users
UP FINTECH: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
VARONIS SYSTEMS: Pomerantz Appointed as Lead Counsel
VGW HOLDINGS: Must File Dismissal Bid by June 26
VIRGINIA WHITE: Bid for Class Certification Stayed
VOZZCOM INC: Wilson Extension of Class Cert Bid Filing Deadline
WASHINGTON: S.O.L. Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
WFS EXPRESS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Foster Due March 30, 2027
ZARATECORP LTD: Conditional Cert. Bid Filing Extended to August 14
ZOOM COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class and Derivative Suits
*********
7-ELEVEN INC: Parra-Ochoa Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Valeria Parra-Ochoa, on behalf of herself and
all other current and former non-exempt employees v. 7-ELEVEN,
INC., a Texas Stock Corporation; 7-ELEVEN, LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. 26STCV12315 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States
District Court for Central District of California on May 28, 2026,
and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-05753.
The Complaint seeks, among other remedies, compensatory damages,
damages for emotional distress, unpaid wages, actual damages,
liquidated damages, restitution, penalties and interest. The
Complaint also specifically seeks recovery of attorneys' fees. The
Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that Defendants, including 7-Eleven,
have: failed to provide Plaintiff and all other similarly situated
individuals with meal periods; failed to provide them with rest
periods; failed to may them premium wages for missed meal and/or
rest periods; failed to pay them at least minimum wage for all
hours worked; failed to pay them overtime wages at the correct
rate; failed to pay them for all vested vacation pay; failed to
reimburse them for all necessary business expenses; failed to
provide them with accurate written wage statements; and failed to
pay them all of their final wages following separation of
employment.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Julie R. Trotter, Esq.
Mireya A.R. Llaurado, Esq.
Madeleine K. Lee, Esq.
Pamela McElroy, Esq.
CALL & JENSEN
A Professional Corporation
610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 717-3000
Email: jtrotter@calljensen.com
mllaurado@calljensen.com
mlee@calljensen.com
pmcelroy@calljensen.com
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Lomeli Files Suit in S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Abercrombie & Fitch
Co. The case is styled as Christopher Lomeli, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., Case
No. 3:26-cv-03300-CAB-SBC (S.D. Cal., May 29, 2026).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. -- https://corporate.abercrombie.com/ -- is
a leading, global, omnichannel specialty retailer of apparel and
accessories for men, women and kids.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ethan Henry Ames, Esq.
Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
9171 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 180
San Diego, CA 92122
Phone: (619) 762-1910
Fax: (858) 313-1850
Email: ethan@lcllp.com
todd@lcllp.com
ABM AVIATION INC: Davila Suit Removed to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Laurie Davila, an individual on behalf of
herself and others v. ABM AVIATION, INC., a Georgia corporation;
and DOES 1 through 50, Case No. 25CU002207C was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, to
the United States District Court for Southern District of
California on May 13, 2026, and assigned Case No.
3:26-cv-03033-JO-GC.
The Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action against ABM on
behalf of herself and the putative class: Failure to Pay
Minimum/Regular Wages; Failure to Pay State Overtime; Failure to
Comply with Meal Break Laws; Failure to Comply with Rest Break
Laws; Failure to Reimburse Expenses; Failure to Provide Accurate
Wage Statements; Failure to Pay Wages Timely; Failure to Provide
and Maintain Records; and Violation of Bus. & Prof. Code Sections
17200.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
Matthew C. Lewis, Esq.
Jack M. McMenamin, Esq.
PAYNE & FEARS LLP
4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
Irvine, CA 92614
Phone: (949) 851-1100
Facsimile: (949) 851-1212
Email: jkb@paynefears.com
mcl@paynefears.com
jmm@paynefears.com
ACE HARDWARE: Twomey Files Suit Over Price-fixing Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------
SEAN TWOMEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ACE HARDWARE CORPORATION; ACE RETAIL
HOLDINGS LLC; ACE RETAIL GROUP, INC.; and EPICOR SOFTWARE
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-05320 (N.D. Ill., May 7,
2026) alleges that Defendants and Ace Member Stores engaged in a
horizontal price fixing scheme by colluding to raise and stabilize
prices at Ace Cooperative Member Stores in violation of the Sherman
Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants participate in and
facilitate a horizontal conspiracy to raise prices on customers of
Ace Member Stores in the relevant markets for convenience hardware
defined above. Defendants Ace Hardware Corporation and Epicor
Software Corporation participate in and facilitate this price
collusion with and on behalf of Ace Member Stores, including
Independent Ace Stores and Ace Corporate Stores owned by Defendants
Ace Retail Holdings LLC and Ace Retail Group, Inc., by, among other
things, collecting, analyzing, and distributing Ace Member Stores'
price and output data; by issuing Critical Price Change alerts to
Ace Member Stores directing them to raise prices; by making
localized price recommendations to Ace Member Stores; by
encouraging Ace Member Stores to follow these price
recommendations; and by developing, procuring, and supplying the
technology that enables Ace Member Stores to collude to increase or
stabilize prices.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants and co-conspirator Ace
Member Stores conspired and agreed with one another to implement
this scheme. The Defendants and their co-conspirators used the Ace
Cooperative to implement this scheme. The Defendants' illegal price
coordination and market allocation schemes have enabled Ace Member
Stores to charge consumers supracompetitive prices in local markets
nationwide. The Defendants have allegedly reaped enormous profits
as a result of this scheme, adds the complaint.
This action seeks to put a stop to Defendants' ongoing
anticompetitive conduct and recover for consumers the amounts they
have overpaid at Ace Member Stores as a result of Defendants'
violations of law.
The Plaintiff purchased from Palos Ace Hardware in Palos Heights,
Illinois on November 26, 2025.
Ace Hardware Corporation operates as a hardware store. The Company
offers lawn and garden, outdoor living, home and decor, plumbing,
heating and cooling, specialty hardware, electrical, and automotive
products. Ace Hardware serves customers worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Walchak, Esq.
KOREIN TILLERY LLC
205 North Michigan, Suite 1950
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 641-9750
Facsimile: (312) 641-9751
E-mail: dwalchak@koreintillery.com
- and -
Stephen M. Tillery, Esq.
KOREIN TILLERY LLC
505 N 7th Street, Suite 3600
St. Louis, MO 63101
E-mail: stillery@koreintillery.com
- and -
Steven F. Molo, Esq.
Eric A. Posner, Esq.
Matthew E. Gold, Esq.
Zakary M. Kadish, Esq.
MOLOLAMKEN LLP
300 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 5350
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 450-6700
E-mail: smolo@mololamken.com
eposner@mololamken.com
mgold@mololamken.com
ACTIVE USA LLC: Clanton Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Danny Ray Clanton, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Active USA LLC, Case No.
26-00002-15261-6 was removed from the King County Superior Court,
to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
on May 28, 2026.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01835 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Active USA LLC -- https://activetransport.com/ -- is an active
carrier, broker in Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David A. Nauheim, Esq.
NAUHEIM LAW OFFICE LLC
101 SYCAMORE AVENE
CHARLESTON, NC 29417
Phone: (843) 534-5084
Fax: (843) 350-3572
Email: davidnauheim@gmail.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Jeffery M. Wells, Esq.
WILLIAMS KASTNER (SEA)
Two Union Square
601 Union St., Ste. 4000
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 628-6600
Fax: (206) 628-6611
Email: jwells@williamskastner.com
ADIDAS AMERICA INC: Parisi Files Suit in D. Oregon
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against adidas America, Inc.
The case is styled as Aaron Parisi, Carlos Aris, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. adidas America, Inc.,
Case No. 3:26-cv-01079-JR (D. Ore., May 29, 2026).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Injury for Breach of
Contract.
Adidas -- https://www.adidas.com/us -- is the creator sports
brand—a global designer and developer of athletic and lifestyle
footwear, apparel and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kaleigh Boyd, Esq.
MCNAUL EBEL PLLC
600 University Street, Suite 2700
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 389-9332
Email: kboyd@mcnaul.com
ADIDAS AMERICA: Hernandez Sues Over Unlawful Tariff-Related Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Hernandez and Jason Schoen, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ADIDAS AMERICA, INC., Case No.
1:26-cv-02848 (E.D.N.Y., May 12, 2026), is brought against the
Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff and Class Members who suffered
economic injury as a direct result of Defendant's conduct,
including payment of unlawful tariff-related charges and associated
fees via increased prices for Defendant's goods.
The purchase price for the goods that the Plaintiff purchased from
Adidas was increased to account for the tariffs imposed on those
products. The Plaintiff would not have paid the increased price if
Adidas had not passed the cost of the IEEPA tariffs on to
consumers. The Defendant has retained the increased amount paid by
Plaintiffs and Class Members despite being eligible for a refund of
the cost of the unlawful tariffs. Defendant has not indicated any
plans to return tariff refunds to customers who paid higher
prices.
The Plaintiffs and Class Members paid tariff-inflated prices to
Defendant, but Defendant now seeks to retain both the consumer pass
through and any government refund of the same unlawful tariff
charges. Despite lacking lawful authority, Defendant charged,
collected, and retained tariff related fees from Plaintiffs and
Class Members via its increased prices.
The Defendant was not authorized by contract, statute, or law to
charge or retain unlawful tariff-related fees. The Defendant's
conduct breached its contracts (express or implied) with Plaintiffs
and Class Members and violated the fundamental obligation of good
faith and fair dealing inherent in those agreements. The Defendant
was unjustly enriched by collecting and retaining money to which it
was not legally entitled, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased goods from Adidas that were imported from
countries subject to tariffs imposed under the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act ("IEEPA").
Adidas America Inc., is responsible for the marketing,
distribution, and sale of Adidas AG's shoes, apparel, and
accessories for men, women, boys, girls, infants, and
toddlers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
1 County Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Phone: 516-873-9550
Fax: 516-747-5024
Email: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
- and -
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY| ANASTOPOULO, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: 803-222-2222
Fax: 843-494-5536
Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
cmad@poulinwilley.com
ADT INC: James Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII
------------------------------------------------------------
Latonia James, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ADT INC., Case No. 9:26-cv-80546-DMM (S.D. Fla., May
12, 2026), is brought for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals
("Class Members") personally identifying information, including
names, phone numbers, addresses, dates of birth, last four digits
of Social Security numbers, and/or Tax IDs (collectively "PII" or
"Private Information").
By collecting, storing, and maintaining Plaintiff's and Class
Members' Private Information, ADT has a resulting duty to secure,
maintain, protect, and safeguard the Private Information that it
collects and stores against unauthorized access and disclosure
through reasonable and adequate data security measures.
Despite ADT's duty to safeguard the Private Information of
Plaintiff and Class Members, their Private Information in
Defendant's possession was compromised when an unauthorized party
gained access to Defendant's computer network and exfiltrated
sensitive data stored therein on or about April 20, 2026 (the "Data
Breach"). The Data Breach occurred when cybercriminals infiltrated
Defendant's inadequately protected network servers and accessed
highly sensitive PII that was being kept.
The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members
by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing
to implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was safeguarded, failing to take
available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data and
failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols,
policies, and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for
internal use.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was compromised by an
unauthorized third-party. Plaintiff and Class Members have a
continuing interest in ensuring that their information is and
remains safe and are entitled to injunctive and other equitable
relief. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failure to
implement and follow basic security procedures, Plaintiff's and
Class Members' Private Information is, upon information and belief,
now in the hands of cybercriminals, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are individuals who were required
to indirectly and/or directly provide Defendant with their Private
Information.
ADT Inc. is one of the largest providers of residential and
commercial security, alarm monitoring, and related services
throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor
Pittsburgh PA, 15222
Phone: 412.322.9243
Email: nickc@lcllp.com
- and -
Stephen E. Connolly, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1760 Market Street, Suite 600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (267) 609-6910
Fax: (267) 609-6955
Email: steve@lcllp.com
ADVANCE AUTO: Consolidated Securities Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
Advance Auto Parts Inc disclosed in its quarterly report on Form
10-Q, for the period ending April 25, 2026, dated and delivered to
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 21, 2026, that on
January 23, 2025, a motion to dismiss was granted by the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
and on April 17, 2026, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
the dismissal in full.
On October 9, 2023, and October 27, 2023, two putative class
actions on behalf of purchasers of the company's securities who
purchased or otherwise acquired their securities between November
16, 2022, and May 30, 2023, inclusive were commenced against the
Company and certain of the company's former officers in the Eastern
District of North Carolina.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made certain false and
materially misleading statements during the alleged class period in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. These cases were
consolidated on February 9, 2024, and the court-appointed lead
plaintiff filed a consolidated and amended complaint on April 22,
2024. The consolidated and amended complaint proposes a class
period of November 16, 2022 to November 15, 2023, and alleges that
defendants made false and misleading statements in connection with
the company’s 2023 guidance and (b) certain accounting issues
previously disclosed by the company. On June 21, 2024, defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated and amended complaint.
Advance Auto Parts Inc is a leading automotive aftermarket parts
provider that serves both professional installers and
do-it-yourself customers through its retail stores, branches, and
distribution network across North America. The company offers
replacement parts, accessories, batteries, and maintenance items
for a wide range of vehicles.
ADVANCE AUTO: Derivative Suits Stayed Pending Dismissal Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
Advance Auto Parts Inc disclosed in its quarterly report on Form
10-Q, for the period ending April 25, 2026, dated and delivered to
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 21, 2026, that on
June 10, 2024, the court issued a stay order on a consolidated
derivative complaint pending resolution of a motion to dismiss for
two putative class actions filed on October 9 and October 27, 2023.
On January 17, February 20 and 26, 2024, derivative shareholder
complaints were commenced against the company's directors and
certain former officers alleging derivative liability for the
allegations made in the securities class action complaints noted
above. On April 9, 2024, the court consolidated these actions and
appointed co-lead counsel.
Advance Auto Parts Inc is a leading automotive aftermarket parts
provider that serves both professional installers and
do-it-yourself customers through its retail stores, branches, and
distribution network across North America. The company offers
replacement parts, accessories, batteries, and maintenance items
for a wide range of vehicles.
AFTER HOURS CLINIC: Busby Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Amber Busby, and all other similarly situated employees v. AFTER
HOURS CLINIC, INC., CARON BELLESTRI, & RICK BELLESTRI, Case
7:26-cv-00800-NAD (N.D., Ala. May 12, 2026), is brought pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), as a result of the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff overtime wages.
The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff for all hours worked in
excess of forty in a workweek for multiple workweeks. The
Defendants paid Plaintiff and all other similarly situated
employees overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of
eighty hours in a two-week period ("80 hours overtime policy").
During her employment, Plaintiff asked Defendant Carol Bellestri
regarding its practice of only paying overtime compensation after
the employee worked in excess of eighty hours in a two week period
and Defendant stated that its practice was legitimate, but provided
no written basis or support for such policy; this means that
Defendants' violations of the law, if proven, are willful, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a Family Nurse
Practitioner.
After Hours Clinic, Inc. is a company registered and doing business
in the State of Alabama.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Allen D. Arnold, Esq.
ALLEN D. ARNOLD, LLC
6 Office Park Circle, Ste. 209
Mountain Brook, AL 35223
Phone: (205) 252-1550
Fax: (205) 469-7163
Email: ada@allenarnoldlaw.com
ALL COUNTY: Underpays Company Workers, Peralta Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH PERALTA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ALL COUNTY TOILETS, INC., a Florida Profit
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-61434-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May
13, 2026) is a class action seeking to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, an additional amount as liquidated damages, and
reasonable attorney's fees and costs arising from Defendant's
willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to compensate
Plaintiff, and all similarly situated hourly-paid Technicians, at a
rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Due to the
intentional, willful, and unlawful acts of Defendant, Plaintiff and
FLSA Collective members suffered, and continue to suffer, damages
and lost compensation for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek
throughout the relevant period of this action, adds the complaint.
Plaintiff JOSEPH PERALTA worked for Defendant from May 2025 through
February 2026.
Defendant ALL COUNTY TOILETS, INC. is a Florida profit corporation
engaged in providing portable toilets (or porta potties) and/or
temporary fences for All County's customers throughout the State of
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Corey L. Seldin, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road., Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) 807-7765
Facsimile: (954) 807-7786
E-mail: cseldin@forthepeople.com
ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK: May 19, 2026 Order Vacated
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEXIN TANG, an individual;
RYAN JAMES ROBERTSON, an individual; and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK INDEMNITY COMPANY, Case
No. 2:25-cv-09734-JFW-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Walter entered
an order that:
1. The May 19, 2026 Order striking Docket No. 45 is vacated.
2. The Plaintiffs' corrected re-filing of the motion for class
certification - the same moving papers filed and served May
18, 2026, with each document and exhibit meaningfully
described on the docket in conformity with Standing Order ¶
3(b) and Local Rules 5-4 and 5-4.3.1— is deemed filed as of
May 18, 2026 (nunc pro tunc).
3. The class allegations shall not be stricken under Standing
Order section 5(i), the motion for class certification having
been filed within the time the Court set.
4. Docket No. 46 (Request for Judicial Notice) was not stricken
and remains on the docket in support of the Motion.
5. No date set by the Court is continued or extended. The
existing dates set by the Court remain in full force, and
there are no new proposed dates: (i) the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification filing deadline: continued from Feb.
6, 2026 to May 6, 2026, and thereafter to May 20, 2026 by the
parties' stipulation; and (ii) hearing on the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification: July 13, 2026, 1:30 p.m. (as
noticed in the Motion).
The Defendant is a wholly-owned subsidiary and underwriting company
operating under the umbrella of Allstate Insurance Company.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 20, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ey1iPq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Maro Burunsuzyan, Esq.
David L. Scott, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MARO BURUNSUZYAN
A Professional Law Corporation
800 North Brand Boulevard, 8th Floor
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 507-5188
Facsimile: (818) 507-5199
E-mail: marob@marolaw.com
davids@marolaw.com
ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK: Tang Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEXIN TANG, an individual;
RYAN JAMES ROBERTSON, an individual; and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK INDEMNITY COMPANY; and
DOES 1–50, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-09734-JFW-E (C.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiffs, on July 13, 2026, at 1:30 p.m., will move the
Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, for an order:
(1) certifying the following class:
"All persons whom Allstate's own records show, during the
period beginning four years before the filing of the
original Complaint and continuing through the date of final
judgment, (1) were insured under an automobile
physical-damage policy issued by Allstate Northbrook
Indemnity Company in California that provided for payment of
the vehicle's actual cash value, less the applicable
deductible, in the event of a total loss; (2) submitted a
claim Allstate adjusted and paid as a covered total loss;
(3) whose total loss Allstate evaluated using an Allstate
prepared CCC ONE Market Valuation Report on which Allstate
itemized one or more negative line items that reduced the
Report "Total," other than by depreciation reflected within
actual cash value and the policy deductible, as any of: (a)
a combined towing-and-storage charge; (b) a combined
repair-facility (shop) and storage charge; (c) a storage
charge; (d) a towing charge; or (e) a vehicle-teardown
charge; (4) whose claim Allstate settled and paid, to the
insured or a lienholder, using the amount determined in that
Report as so reduced; and (5) whose claim was paid without
the parties agreeing to use, and using, an appraisal or
signed settlement process that resolved the claim at the
full CCC ONE actual cash value without the reduction
described in (3)."
Excluded: any reduction Allstate's own records identify as a
prior-, initial-, or advance-payment offset; and Allstate,
its officers and counsel, and the judicial officers assigned
to this case.
(2) appointing the Plaintiffs Kexin Tang and Ryan James
Robertson as Class Representatives;
(3) appointing the Law Offices of Maro Burunsuzyan as Class
Counsel under Rule 23(g); and
(4) in the alternative, should the Court conclude that any
individualized issue precludes certification of the Class as
defined, (a) certifying under Rule 23(c)(4) the common
question whether Allstate’s standardized
Limits-of-Liability
formula authorizes the challenged line-item reductions,
and/or (b) certifying one or more subclasses under Rule
23(c)(5) corresponding to the enumerated cost-family line
items in the Class definition.
The Plaintiff Kexin Tang purchased an Allstate Northbrook Indemnity
Company auto policy providing comprehensive and collision coverage
for her 2018 Mercedes-Benz E300.
The Plaintiff Ryan James Robertson purchased an Allstate Northbrook
Indemnity Company auto policy providing comprehensive and collision
coverage for his 2015 Dodge Charger.
For both Plaintiffs, the reductions described above, $3,172.50 from
Tang’s settlement and $3,725.00 from Robertson's, were the
amounts Allstate actually applied to and withheld from the final
total-loss settlement it paid each, computing and effectuating each
settlement through its Allstate-prepared CCC ONE Market Valuation
Report, the standardized instrument Allstate uses for its
total-loss settlements.
Allstate provides marine, fire, marine, business, credit, and
casualty insurance products and services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 19, 2026, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cQmUMg at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Maro Burunsuzyan, Esq.
David L. Scott, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MARO BURUNSUZYAN
A Professional Law Corporation
800 North Brand Boulevard, 8th Floor
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 507-5188
Facsimile: (818) 507-5199
E-mail: marob@marolaw.com
davids@marolaw.com
ALPHABET INC: Bid for Class Certification in AMI Suit Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMI - GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
PROVIDENT FUND MANAGEMENT COMPANY LTD., et al., v. ALPHABET INC.,
et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01186-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita
Lin entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification subject to the modified class definition agreed to at
oral argument:
"All persons and entities other than the Defendants, members
of the immediate family of the Individual Defendant, Alphabet
Inc.'s ("Alphabet" or the "Company") subsidiaries and
affiliates; any person who is or was an officer or director of
the Company or any of the Company's subsidiaries or affiliates
during the Class Period; any entity in which any Defendant has
a controlling interest; and the legal representatives, heirs,
successors, and assigns of any such excluded person or entity,
who purchased or otherwise acquired Alphabet's Class A and/or
Class C shares between Sept. 15, 2020 and Jan. 23, 2023, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period") on (i) any stock
exchanges located in the United States, (ii) on any
alternative trading systems located in the United States, or
(iii) pursuant to other domestic transactions, seeking to
recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against
Alphabet, Google LLC ("Google"), and Sundar Pichai."
The Plaintiffs (AMI -- Government Employees Provident Fund
Management Company Ltd.; City of Fort Lauderdale Police & Fire
Retirement System; Menora Mivtachim Insurance Ltd.; and Menora
Mivtachim Pensions and Gemel Ltd.) are appointed as class
representatives.
Pomerantz LLP is appointed as class counsel.
The Defendants have not disproven back-end price impact from the
first and last corrective disclosures within the class period. And
those two incidents of back-end price impact support the
Plaintiffs' theory that the alleged misrepresentation maintained
the initial stock price at the front end, the Court says.
According to the Plaintiffs, Google's advertising auctions actually
favored bids submitted by the Facebook Advertising Network.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' misrepresentation
artificially maintained Alphabet's stock price, thereby violating
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.
The Plaintiffs initially proposed to certify a class of persons or
entities who acquired Alphabet's stock between Sept. 14, 2020 and
Jan. 23, 2023.
Alphabet is an American multinational technology conglomerate
holding company.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 18, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=T5aaLv at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Bid for Class Cert. Extended to June 12
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VINCENZETTI v. AMAZON.COM
SERVICES LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02681 (D. Colo., Filed Oct. 1,
2021), the Hon. Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney entered an order
granting125 motion for extension of time for plaintiffs to file
motion for class certification.
The briefing scheduling for Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification is as follows:
-- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification: June 12, 2026
The nature of suit states Contract -- Other Contract.
Amazon.com provides e-commerce services.[CC]
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER VINCENZETTI and
ALICIA GRUMET, on behalf of themselves and those similarly
situated, v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-02681-CNS-NRN (D. Colo.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order granting their motion to extend deadline for the
Plaintiffs to file motion for class certification.
The Parties request that the Court enter the following briefing
schedule for the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification:
The Plaintiffs' motion for class June 12, 2026
certification due by:
Opposition to class certification due by: July 31, 2026
Reply in support of class certification Aug. 31, 2026
due by:
All other deadlines shall remain in place. In light of the work
that has been completed during discovery, and the efforts of the
Parties, the Parties request that the Court grant
this extension.
Given the schedules of the Parties and the upcoming holidays,
additional time is needed to prepare full and complete briefs to
the Court. Indeed, the Parties request this extension so that full
information can be provided to the Court so that it can make an
informed decision. Good cause also exists because the Parties have
been diligent. The Parties have exchanged their expert reports,
exchanged written discovery, and completed twelve depositions.
This lawsuit is a putative class action alleging that Amazon should
have paid its employees for the time spent off the clock as a
result of the COVID-19 symptom screenings and exit screenings. The
Plaintiffs have brought their claims under Colorado law as class
action under Rule 23. Amazon denies the allegations and disputes
that class certification is appropriate.
Amazon.com provides e-commerce services.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 20, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DTdWzq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Don J. Foty, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P.
4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
- and -
Alexander N. Hood, Esq.
David H. Seligman, Esq.
Brianne M. Power, Esq.
TOWARDS JUSTICE
Denver, CO 80237-5680
Telephone: (720) 441-2236
E-mail: alex@towardsjustice.org
david@towardsjustice.org
brianne@towardsjustice.org
- and -
Brian D. Gonzales, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES
2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201
Fort Collins, CO 80528
Telephone: (970) 214-0562
E-mail: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kyle Anne Petersen, Esq.
Michael E. Steinberg, Esq.
Alison H. Silveira, Esq.
Molly C. Mooney, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
Chicago, IL 60606-6448
E-mail: kpetersen@seyfarth.com
msteingerg@seyfarth.com
asilveira@seyfarth.com
mmooney@seyfarth.com
AMERICA PAC: Bids for Class Certification in Maglietta Due July 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY MAGLIETTA, STEVEN
REID, and JERRY VICTORIOUS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. AMERICA PAC, GROUP AMERICA, LLC, and
ELON MUSK, Case No. 5:25-cv-02364-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
Beetlestone entered a scheduling order as follows
1. Any motions for class certification shall be filed and served
on or before July 31, 2026
2. All fact discovery shall be completed 60 days after either:
(a) the conclusion of the class opt-out period (in the event a
class is certified); or, (b) the denial of class
certification.
3. Any expert reports are due no later than 60 days after
either: (a) the conclusion of the class opt-out period (in
the event a class is certified); or, (b) the denial of class
certification.
4. Any discovery depositions of expert witnesses shall be
completed no later than 30 days after the deadline to serve
any rebuttal expert reports as outlined in Paragraph 4 of
this Order.
5. Any motions for summary judgment and/or Daubert motions shall
be filed and served on or before Nov. 23, 2026.
America PAC is a super PAC created by Elon Musk with the backing of
a number of prominent tech businessmen.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AjAQCP at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMERICA'S DRIVE-IN: Lewis Sues Over Unlawful Sales Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
Adam Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AMERICA'S DRIVE-IN BRAND PROPERTIES, LLC, Case No.
CACE-26-008049 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., May 13,
2026), is brought for injunctive and declaratory relief, and
damages for violations Of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida
Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA").
In direct contravention of the Caller ID Rules, however, many
callers, such as Defendant, make Telephonic Sales Calls a central
part of their marketing strategy, and in doing so, intentionally
transmit telephone numbers to recipient's Caller ID services that
are not capable of receiving telephone calls. As such, Plaintiff,
brings this action alleging that Defendant violated the FTSA's
Caller ID Rules by transmitting a phone number that was not capable
of receiving phone calls when it made Telephonic Sales Calls by
text message ("Text Message Sales Calls"). Specifically, Defendant
made Text Message Sales Calls that promoted SONIC ("SONIC Text
Message Sales Calls") and violated the Caller ID Rules when it
transmitted to the recipients' caller identification services a
telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is the regular user of a cellular telephone number
that receives Defendant's telephonic sales calls.
America's Drive-In Brand Properties, LLC, is registered as a
Foreign Limited Liability Company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
974 Howard Ave.
Dunedin, FL 34698
Phone: (202) 709-5744
Fax: (866) 893-0416
Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com
shawn@sjlawcollective.com
AMERICAN DIRECT FUNDING: Morales Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Direct
Funding LLC. The case is styled as Eduardo Morales, individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. American Direct
Funding LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-02975-AJB-MMP (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.
American Direct Funding -- https://americandirectfunding.com/ --
specializes in providing quick and flexible financing solutions for
small businesses, including small business loans, lines of credit,
equipment financing, and SBA loans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
1515 NE 26TH Street
Wilton Manors, FL 33305
Phone: (754) 444-7539
Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com
ANTERO RESOURCES: Plaintiff's Counsel Awarded $3.7MM in Atty's Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THE GRISSOMS, LLC, v.
ANTERO RESOURCES CORPORATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-02028-EAS-SCS (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. entered an order
granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion for
attorney fees and expenses.
The Court awards Counsel $3,736,005 in attorneys' fees and
$219,072.21 in costs, for a total of $3,955,077.21. The Court
awards a $10,000 service fee to Plaintiff The Grissoms, LLC.
Counsel demonstrated substantial experience in a complex
oil-and-gas class action and achieved a significant result against
highly skilled and experienced defense counsel. Because of these
reasons, the Court finds that $3,736,005 is a reasonable award to
compensate the attorneys in this case.
The case involves a contract dispute related to oil and gas
royalties.
The Plaintiff filed a complaint on behalf of itself and those
similarly situated against Defendant Antero Resources Corporation
to "obtain money damages from the Defendant for violating uniform
oil-and-gas leases by underpaying royalties owed to Plaintiffs in
connection with Defendant's receipt of gross proceeds from the sale
of marketable natural gas liquids."
The Court certified a class of landowners who executed leases with
Defendant for mineral interests in a system of horizontal wells,
called the Seneca System, in Ohio.
Antero is an American company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration.
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 19, 2026, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FNhAtR
at no extra charge.[CC]
APARTMENT INCOME REIT: Mendoza Suit Removed to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Juan Mendoza, on behalf of others similarly
situated v. APARTMENT INCOME REIT LP and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 26CU017783C was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California, in and for the County of San Diego, to
the United States District Court for Southern District of
California on May 29, 2026, and assigned Case No.
3:26-cv-03316-AJB-MMP.
In his Complaint, the Plaintiff asserts 11 causes of action against
AIR LP: Failure to Pay All Wages Owed; Failure to Pay All Overtime
Wages; Meal Period Violations; Rest Period Violations; Failure to
Pay All Paid Sick Leave Wages; Untimely Payment of Wages; Wage
Statement Violations; Waiting Time Penalties; Failure to Reimburse
Business Expenses; Failure to Provide Records; in Violation of
Labor Codes and Violation of Business and Professions Code Sections
17200 (Unfair Competition).[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Allison N. Bader, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MEYERS LLP
610 Newport Center Drive, 17th Floor
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: 949.823.6900
Facsimile: 949.823.6944
Email: abader@omm.com
ASHLEY GLOBAL RETAIL: Penning Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Stacy Penning, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. ASHLEY GLOBAL RETAIL, LLC and DOES
1-100, inclusive, Case No. C26-01109 was removed from the Superior
Court of the County of Contra Costa, California, to the United
States District Court for Northern District of California on May
29, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05104.
The Plaintiff alleges that Ashley Furniture violated the federal
Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"), among other
statutes, by using certain tracking technologies on its website,
https://www.ashleyfurniture.com/ (the "Website").[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 94111
Email: classactions@potterhandy.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Stephanie Sheridan, Esq.
BALLARD SPAHR LLP
71 Stevenson St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415.318.2770
Facsimile: 424.731.8301
Email: sheridans@ballardspahr.com
- and -
Brianna R. Howard, Esq.
BALLARD SPAHR LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2915
Phone: 424.204.4400
Facsimile: 424.204.4350
Email: howardbr@ballardspahr.com
ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: M&A Probes Proposed Sale to Zydus Worldwide
--------------------------------------------------------------
Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates
PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State
Building in New York City, is investigating
-- Assertio Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: ASRT) related to its sale to
Zydus Worldwide DMCC. Under the terms of the proposed transaction,
Assertio shareholders are expected to receive $23.50 in cash per
share.
Visit link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/assertio-holdings-inc/. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Sila Realty Trust, Inc. (NYSE: SILA) related to its sale to
Sunshine Ultimate Parent LLC. Under the terms of the proposed
transaction, Sila Realty shareholders are expected to receive
$30.38 in cash per share.
ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for June 26, 2026.
Visit link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/sila-realty-trust-inc/. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Kennedy-Wilson Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: KW) related to its sale to
a consortium led by William McMorrow, Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer of Kennedy Wilson, and certain other senior executives of
Kennedy-Wilson, together with Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited.
Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Kennedy-Wilson
shareholders will receive $10.90 per share in cash.
ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for June 10, 2026.
Visit link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/kennedy-wilson-holdings-inc/. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- UniFirst Corporation (NYSE: UNF) related to its sale to Cintas
Corporation. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, UniFirst
shareholders will be entitled to receive $155.00 in cash and 0.7720
shares of Cintas stock for each UniFirst share.
ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for June 11, 2026.
Visit link for more info
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/unifirst-corporation/. 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]
AUBURN UNIVERSITY: All Discovery in Yarbrough Due Jan. 4, 2027
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SICILY YARBROUGH, v.
AUBURN UNIVERSITY, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-00089-RAH-SMD (M.D.
Ala.), the Hon. Judge R. Austin Huffaker, Jr. entered a scheduling
and case management order as follows:
-- A pretrial conference is scheduled for July 29, 2027, at 10:00
a.m.
-- Dispositive motions(e.g., motions for summary judgment) shall
be filed no later than Feb. 4, 2027.
-- No later than Jan. 4, 2027, counsel for all parties shall
conduct a telephone settlement conference at which counsel
shall engage in good faith settlement negotiations.
-- Neither party has alleged that this is a class action. No
motion for class certification may be filed without prior
leave of Court.
-- All discovery shall be completed on or before Jan. 4, 2027.
The Defendant is a public land-grant research university in Auburn,
Alabama.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tyoeRV at no extra
charge.[CC]
AZEK GROUP: Seelye Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ethan Seelye, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. THE AZEK GROUP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Case No. 1:26-cv-06256 (N.D. Ill., May 28, 2026), is
brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
In addition to the base rate of pay, Defendant incorporated various
types of routine and non-discretionary pay into its compensation
structure, including, but not limited to, a "sign on" bonus
(collectively "Bonus Pay"). Throughout Plaintiff's employment with
Defendant, he and Defendant's Hourly Employees earned Bonus Pay and
other non-discretionary remuneration. As non-exempt employees,
Defendant's Hourly Employees were entitled to full compensation for
all overtime hours worked at a rate of 1.5 times their "regular
rate" of pay. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant,
Defendant failed to properly calculate Plaintiff's Bonus Pay and
other non-discretionary remuneration into the regular rate for
proper overtime calculation, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from October 2025 through
January 2026 as a non-exempt, Hourly Employee with the job title
Production Assistant.
The Defendant holds itself out as an "innovative manufacturer of
beautiful, low maintenance, and environmentally sustainable outdoor
living products."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
SOMMER SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Phone: 248-355-0300
Email: jthompson@sommerspc.com
jrusch@sommerspc.com
BAE SYSTEMS: Court Tosses Bid to Stay Rocha Proceedings
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUIS QUIRINO ROCHA, an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BAE
SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware corporation; TRADE TEAM USA, LLC, a
Virginia limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 3:25-cv-03774-BTM-VET (S.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Torres entered an order denying joint motion to stay
proceedings and vacate the class certification deadline.
The parties propose staying this case to accommodate private
mediation set for Aug. 3, 2026. While the Court appreciates the
parties' willingness to participate in dispute resolution and save
judicial resources, this is a class action that requires the
disclosure of potentially significant information for the parties
to meaningfully engage in any mediation.
The Court also notes that the parties have, to date, failed to
engage in any formal discovery, despite the passage of more than
three months since the Court issued the Scheduling Order.
Moreover, there is no guarantee, despite the parties' good
intentions, that this action will resolve at mediation,
particularly given the parties' prior failed efforts.
Under these circumstances, the Court sees little benefit to staying
and delaying this action.
The Plaintiff filed the Class Action Complaint in state court on
Nov. 19, 2025, and the Defendants removed the action to this Court
on Dec. 24, 2025. The parties participated in an Early Neutral
Evaluation Conference, at which time the parties did not settle.
BAE is a British multinational aerospace, arms and information
security company.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JLimXd at no extra
charge.[CC]
BBBB BONDING: Benton Class Cert Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Benton v. BBBB Bonding
Corp., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01294 (E.D. Cal., Filed May 3,
2024), the Hon. Judge Dena M. Coggins entered an order denying the
Plaintiff's motion to certify without prejudice to Plaintiff filing
a Motion to Certify Class after meaningfully meeting and conferring
with the Defendants.
In light of the Order, the Motion Hearing set for Aug. 7, 2026
before District Judge Dena M. Coggins is vacated.
On May 14, 2026, the Plaintiff filed Motion to Certify Class, but
that Motion does not comply with the meet and confer requirement in
the court's Standing Order, which states:
"Prior to filing a motion in a case in which the parties are
represented by counsel, counsel shall meet and confer to
meaningfully discuss the substance of the contemplated motion and
potential resolution. Counsel should resolve minor procedural or
other non-substantive matters prior to filing the motion. The
briefing on motions should be directed to substantive issues
requiring resolution by the court.
A notice of motion shall contain a certification by counsel filing
the motion that meet and confer efforts have been exhausted, with a
brief summary of the parties' meet and confer efforts."
The Plaintiff's Notice of Motion does not include the required
certification.
The suit Fair alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).
BBBB is a California-based bail bonds company.[CC]
BBBB BONDING: Benton Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL BENTON, on behalf
of himself and all persons similarly situated, v. BBBB BONDING
CORPORATION, CLIFFORD JEFFREY STANLEY, ROBERT HILL-VENN, and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-01294-DC-AC (E.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
1. Certifying the following Class and Subclasses:
Class:
"All current and former bail agents employed by the Defendant
in California during the period of Mar. 25, 2020, to the date
of the order granting class certification"
Labor Code Overtime Sub-Class:
"All bail agents employed by the Defendant in California who
had a salary or salary plus commission compensation plan
during the period of Mar. 25, 2020, to the date of the order
granting class certification"
Labor Code Minimum Wage Sub-Class:
"All bail agents employed by the Defendant in California who
had a salary or salary plus commission compensation plan
during the period of Mar. 25, 2020, to the date of the order
granting class certification"
Meal Period Sub-Class:
"All bail agents employed by the Defendant in California
during the period of Mar. 25, 2020, to the date of the order
granting class certification"
Rest Period Sub-Class:
"All bail agents employed by the Defendant in California
during the period of Mar. 25, 2020, to the date of the order
granting class certification"
Derivative Claim Sub-Class:
"All bail agents employed by the Defendant in California
during the period of Mar. 25, 2020, to the date of the order
granting class certification"
2. Conditionally certifying a FLSA Overtime Class defined as:
"All bail agents employed by the Defendant in California who
had a salary or salary plus commission compensation plan
during the period of Mar. 25, 2021, to the date of the order
granting conditional class certification"
3. Appointing Plaintiff Michael Benton as class representative.
4. Appointing the following individuals as class counsel: Adam
Blair Corren and Spencer D. Sinclair of the Law Offices of
Corren & Corren.
BBBB specializes in providing a range of bonding services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 20, 2026, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Deys2F at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Corren, Esq.
Spencer D. Sinclair, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF CORREN % CORREN
3425 Brookside Road, Suite B
Stockton, CA 95219
Telephone: (209) 478-2621
Facsimile: (209) 478-3038
E-mail: acorren@correnlaw.com
ssinclair@correnlaw.com
BCBST: Seeks to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM MARK CUMALANDER,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v.
BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD OF TENNESSEE ("BCBST"), INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-00176-TRM-CHS (E.D. Tenn.), the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order granting its motion for leave to re-file under seal
portions of BCBST's opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification, previously filed under seal and in redacted form on
March 6, 2026.
BCBST seeks leave to file under seal references in its opposition
to Mr. Cumalander's private and sensitive medical information, in
order to protect the confidentiality interests of the Plaintiff.
BCBST previously filed both sealed and redaction versions of its
Opposition; however, the sealed version inadvertently did not
include highlights showing its specific proposed redactions.
Thus, BCBST files this renewed motion and declaration in support
and attaches its sealed response as Exhibit A so that the Court may
view the portions of BCBST's Opposition that BCBST is requesting
the Court to seal based on Cumalander's designations.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's medical policy on proton
beam therapy was uniformly and arbitrarily applied to deny claims
for PBRT as experimental, investigational, and/or not medically
necessary.
The Defendant is a health benefit plan company.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 18, 2026, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SYXXZj at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Gwendolyn C. Payton, Esq.
Stephanie N. Bedard, Esq.
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
1420 Fifth Ave., Suite 3700
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 626-7714
E-mail: gpayton@ktslaw.com
sbedard@ktslaw.com
- and -
Marc H. Harwell, Esq.
HARWELL & HURST PLLC
832 Georgia Avenue, Suite 510
Chattanooga, TN 37402
Telephone: (423) 756-7333
E-mail: marc@harwelllawgroup.com
BLUE ENTERPRISES: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Olivas Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND OLIVAS JR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE ENTERPRISES, LLC d/b/a HOGAN
TRANSPORTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-738 (E.D. Mo., May
13, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to protect highly
sensitive data.
The complaint relates that the Defendant stores a litany of highly
sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") about its
employees. But Defendant lost control over that data when
cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer
systems in a data breach that occurred on October 25, 2025. It is
unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to
Defendant's network before the breach was discovered. In other
words, Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop,
or mitigate breaches of its systems, thereby allowing
cybercriminals unrestricted access to its employees' PII.
Because of the Data Breach, Plaintiff suffered imminent and
impending injury arising from the substantially increased risk of
fraud, misuse, and identity theft. Plaintiff anticipates spending
considerable amounts of time and money to try to mitigate his
injuries, says the suit.
In addition to injunctive relief, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself
and the other Class Members, seeks compensatory damages for
Defendant's invasion of privacy, which includes the value of the
privacy interest invaded by Defendant, the costs of future
monitoring of their credit history for identity theft and fraud,
plus prejudgment interest and costs.
Defendant Blue Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a Hogan Transports, Inc. is a
transportation provider offering services such as trucking leases
and fleet maintenance across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
One Magnificent Mile
980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com
BLUECREW LLC: Espinoza Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Ruben Espinoza, on behalf of himself and all other aggrieved
employees, and the general public v. BLUECREW, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company; FASHION NOVA, LLC, a California Limited
Liability Company, FASHION NOVA HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; FN LOGISTICS, LLC, a Delaware Corporation; and
DOES I through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV15330 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 13, 2026), is brought against the
Defendants for alleged violations of the Labor Code due to the
Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have failed to provide
Plaintiff and all other similarly situated individuals with meal
periods; failed to provide them with rest periods; failed to pay
them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods; failed to
pay them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods at the
regular rate of pay; failed to pay them at least minimum wage for
all hours worked; failed to pay them overtime wages at the correct
rate; failed to pay them double time wages at the correct rate;
failed to pay them for all vested vacation pay; failed to reimburse
them for all necessary business expenses; tailed to provide them
with accurate written wage statements; and failed to pay them all
of their final wages following separation of employment, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a Warehouse Picker.
The Defendant is a Delaware Limited Liability Company doing
business in the State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shaun C. Setareh, Esq.
Thomas A. Segal, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
9665 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 430
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (310) 888.7771
Facsimile: (310) 888.0109
Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com
thomas@setarehlaw.com
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Status Conference in Patlan Set for June 4
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATLAN, et al., v. BMW OF
NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-09546 (D.N.J., Filed May 22,
2018), the Hon. Judge Claire C. Cecchi entered an order on the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and further relief.
Accordingly, there shall be a telephone status conference before
the Court on June 4, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. ET.
The pending motion is administratively terminated and shall be
deemed reinstated subsequent to the conference upon further of the
Court.
Conference call in information shall be provided to the parties.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Personal Property Damage.
The Defendant is the exclusive importer, distributor, and marketer
of BMW luxury vehicles, motorcycles, and light trucks in the
US.[CC]
BURGESS INFORMATION: Flores Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Joseph Flores, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. BURGESS INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.
d/b/a PROCARE RX and MC-21 LLC d/b/a MC-RX, Case No. 2026-cv-000583
was removed from the Superior Court of Hall County in the State of
Georgia, to the United States District Court for Northern District
of Georgia on May 13, 2026, and assigned Case No.
2:26-cv-00153-RWS.
This action arises out of an alleged data security incident (the
"Incident") pursuant to which Plaintiff alleges Defendants failed
to safeguard the personally identifiable information ("PII") and
protected health information ("PHI") of Plaintiff and a putative
class defined to be "all individuals in the United States who had
Private Information impacted as a result of the Data Breach." The
claims asserted by Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the
Class, consist of: Negligence (Count I); Negligence Per Se (Count
II); Breach of Implied Contract (Count III); Unjust Enrichment
(Count IV); and Declaratory Judgment (Count V).[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Alan S. Clarke, Esq.
GREENSPOON MARDER LLP
1100 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 924
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: (470) 466-1714
Email: Alan.Clarke@gmlaw.com
- and -
Lawren A. Zann, Esq.
Meagan Nicholson, Esq.
200 E. Broward Blvd., Suite 1800
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 333-4345
Fax: (954) 848-3974
Email: lawren.zann@gmlaw.com
meagan.nicholson@gmlaw.com
CARELON MANAGEMENT: Corona Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carelon Management
Services Inc., et al. The case is styled as Natalie Corona, an
individual, an on behalf of those similarly situated v. Carelon
Management Services Inc., Carelon Medical Benefits Management LLC,
Case No. 26STCV16900 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 28,
2026).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
Carelon -- https://www.carelon.com/ -- is a healthcare services
company delivering solutions for pharmacy, behavioral health,
research, and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zachary David Greenberg, Esq.
STARPOINT LAW CORPORATION
15233 Ventura Boulevard, PH 16
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Phone: 310-424-9971
Email: Zach@starpointlaw.com
CARVANA CO: Seeks to Seal Portions of Class Cert Opposition
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned re Carvana Co Securities
Litigation, Case No. 2:22-cv-02126-MTL (D. Ariz.), the Defendants
ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to seal
portions of Securities Act Defendants' opposition to the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and Exhibits 1–24 and
36 in support thereof.
Accordingly, certain information in the allocant declarations
(Exhibits 1–24) and Citi's list of final allocations in Carvana's
April 22, 2022 stock offering (Exhibit 36), and discrete references
to the same contained in the Opposition, should be maintained under
seal.
This information is properly designated "CONFIDENTIAL" or "HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL" under the parties' March 12, 2025, Stipulated
Protective Order, as it is business information that is
confidential and proprietary to Underwriter Defendants.
Exhibits 1–24 and 36 include the names, other identifying
information, and number of shares allocated to each of the direct
investors in Carvana's April 2022 stock offering, as well as the
names of each allocant investor and the specific entities used by
those allocants to purchase Carvana shares in the Offering
Carvana is an American online used car retailer.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 18, 2026, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ripmel at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
David P. Friedman, Esq.
Susanna M. Buergel, Esq.
Michael J. Pisem, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 373-3000
E-mail: dfriedman@paulweiss.com
sbuergel@paulweiss.com
mpisem@paulweiss.com
CENTRAL VALLEY RECOVERY: Sandoval Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central Valley
Recovery Services, Inc. The case is styled as Miranda Sandoval, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Central Valley
Recovery Services, Inc., Case No. VCU335544 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Tulare Cty., May 29, 2026).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil
Unlimited-Visalia."
Central Valley Recovery Services, Inc. -- https://cvrshome.com/ --
offer a variety of services including alcohol rehab, drug rehab,
inpatient rehab, individual therapy, group therapy, family therapy,
and men's and women's rehab.[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
CHRISTINE VALMY: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Pineda Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
SAMANTHA PINEDA, on behalf of herself and the Class, Plaintiff v.
CHRISTINE VALMY INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, INC., MARINA VALMY DE HAYDU,
and PETER DE HAYDU, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03988 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 13, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its
failure to pay wages and overtime premiums, in violation of the New
York Labor Law and New Jersey Laws.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's duties included (i)
general receptionist duties, (ii) performing financial aid
eligibility audits, (iii) performing student academic evaluations,
and (iv) issuing and handling refund checks, among other duties.
Throughout her employment, Plaintiff was regularly scheduled by
Defendants to work five days per week for eight hours per day (from
11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) for a total of 40 hours per week. However,
every day, Defendants required Plaintiff to stay after her
scheduled shifts for one to two hours to perform additional work.
In total, Plaintiff worked approximately 50 hours per week.
Defendants required Class Members to work similar amounts of days
and hours. Throughout her employment, Plaintiff was paid by
Defendants at an hourly rate of $18.00 per hour, for all hours
worked, with no separate overtime rate. Defendants paid Class
Members at similar hourly rates and without separate overtime
rates. Defendants compensated Plaintiff's and Class Members weekly
wages at a bi-weekly frequency.
The Plaintiff alleges on behalf of similarly situated individuals
that, pursuant to the NYLL, the New Jersey Wage Payment Law
("NJWPL") and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"), they are
entitled to recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid overtime premiums
due to straight time pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek,
(2) unpaid wages, including overtime wages, due to unidirectional
rounding, (3) unpaid wages and overtime wages due to timeshaving
compensable break periods, including short rest periods, (4)
statutory penalties, and (5) attorneys' fees and costs.
Plaintiff SAMANTHA PINEDA was a resident of Hudson County, New
Jersey. She was hired by Defendants to work as an Office Clerk for
the student services department of Defendants' School located at
1501 Broadway, Suite 700, New York, NY 10036 from August 2020 to
March 2022.
Defendants provide education services for those seeking an
education in the beauty industry. They provide schooling
estheticians and those providing skin care treatment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: 212-465-1188
Facsimile: 212-465-1181
CIGNA GROUP: Loses Bid to Dismiss ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as In re: Cigna ERISA Litigation, Civil
Action No. 25-cv-2465-JMY (E.D. Pa.), Judge John Milton Younge of
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania denied the defendants' motion to dismiss in this ERISA
class action brought by current and former Cigna employees and
participants in the Cigna Group 401(k) Plan. The ruling, issued May
19, 2026, allowed all seven counts to proceed.
Plaintiffs filed their Amended Consolidated Complaint on September
29, 2025, bringing this action as a class action pursuant to Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all
persons, except defendants and any fiduciary of the Plan and their
immediate family members, who were participants in or beneficiaries
of the Cigna Group 401(k) Plan at any time between May 14, 2019 and
the date of judgment.
The seven counts asserted in the Amended Complaint are: (I) Breach
of Fiduciary Duty of Prudence against the Committee Defendants;
(II) Breach of the Duty to Follow the Terms of the Plan Documents
under 29 U.S.C. Section 1104(a)(1)(D) against the Committee
Defendants; (III) Breach of Fiduciary Duty of Loyalty against all
defendants; (IV) Breach of ERISA's Anti-Inurement Provision against
all defendants; (V) Failure to Adequately Monitor Other Fiduciaries
against the Company; (VI) Prohibited Transactions against all
defendants; and (VII) Prohibited Transactions/Self-Dealing against
all defendants.
Plaintiffs' allegations rested on two factual theories. First,
plaintiffs alleged that defendants invested Plan assets in the
Cigna Fixed Income Fund, which underperformed compared to other
investment vehicles available on the open market. Second,
plaintiffs challenged the Plan's use of forfeitures — unvested
employer-matching contributions surrendered by employees who left
before completing the two-year vesting period — to offset company
matching contributions rather than to pay Plan administrative
expenses. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants' allocation of
forfeited funds cost Plan participants $17.5 million.
On the underperformance theory, defendants argued that plaintiffs
failed to provide meaningful benchmarks establishing that the Cigna
Fixed Income Fund underperformed the market. The court rejected
this argument, finding that plaintiffs had in fact provided
examples of earning results for various stable value funds
purportedly similar to the Cigna Fixed Income Fund. The court noted
that the Third Circuit has not adopted the meaningful benchmark
standard as a threshold pleading requirement, and that differences
and similarities between comparator investment vehicles implicate
disputed factual issues that the court was not willing to resolve
at this stage without the benefit of a factual record developed
through discovery.
On the forfeiture theory, defendants relied on Plan documents as
amended in January 2025, which expressly granted them discretion to
apply forfeitures toward reducing employer contributions. The court
declined to dismiss those claims, reasoning that discovery had not
yet taken place and defendants had not produced Plan contractual
agreements from prior to January 2025. The court found it premature
to dismiss forfeiture-related claims before the specific
contractual language governing defendants' obligations prior to
January 2025 could be examined.
The court also rejected defendants' argument that plaintiffs were
required to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit.
Citing Third Circuit precedent, the court noted that exhaustion is
required when plaintiffs seek to enforce the terms of a benefit
plan, but not when they assert rights established by the ERISA
statute itself. The core claims appeared to be grounded in alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty under ERISA, not a simple breach of
contract action.
A copy of the Court's decision dated May 19, 2026 is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0vk24Q from PacerMonitor.com
CLIPPER MAGAZINE: Tabatabai Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clipper Magazine LLC.
The case is styled as Omid Tabatabai, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Clipper Magazine LLC, Case No.
3:26-cv-03266-JLS-DDL (S.D. Cal., May 28, 2026).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Clipper Magazine LLC -- https://www.clipp.com/ -- provides
advertising and marketing solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vin Roy Venkatesh, Esq.
PROPERTY LITIGATION GROUP PLLC
2750 SW 145th Avenue, Suite 509
Miramar, FL 33027
Phone: (786) 703-8810
Email: vv@plgdamage.com
COLUMBIA BANKING SYSTEMS: Meyers Sues Over Recent Cyberattack
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kristi Meyers, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. COLUMBIA BANKING SYSTEMS, INC. and COLUMBIA BANK, Case
No. 2:26-cv-01606 (W.D. Wash., May 12, 2026), is brought arising
out of the recent cyberattack on Defendants' computer applications
that resulted in unauthorized access to, and disclosure of, the
highly sensitive data of individuals (the "Data Breach").
The specific information compromised in the Data Breach includes,
but is not limited to, personally identifiable information ("PII"
or "Private Information") exchanged in the normal course of
banking, such as names, Social Security numbers, driver's license
numbers, and financial account numbers. The Defendants obtained the
PII of Plaintiff and Class Members and stored that PII,
unencrypted, in an Internet-accessible environment on Defendants'
network, from which unauthorized actors used an extraction tool to
retrieve sensitive PII belonging to Plaintiff and Class Members.
The PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was entrusted to Defendants,
their officials, and agents, yet was compromised and unlawfully
accessed due to the Data Breach. The Defendants maintained the PII
in a negligent and/or reckless manner. In particular, the PII was
maintained on Defendants' computer systems and networks in a
condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. Upon information and belief,
the mechanism of the cyberattack and potential for improper
disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was a known risk
to Defendants, and thus Defendants were on notice that failing to
take steps necessary to secure the PII from those risks left that
property in a dangerous condition.
As a result of the Data Breach, putative Class Members like
Plaintiff Meyers suffered ascertainable losses in the form of the
benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses, fraudulent
transactions, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to
remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack, emotional distress,
and the present risk of imminent harm caused by the compromise of
their sensitive personal information, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff and Class Members provided their Private Information
to Defendants.
CB is an FDIC-insured regional bank serving the western United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
Gregory Haroutunian, Esq.
Brandon P. Jack, Esq.
EMERY REDDY PC
600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (916) 823-6955
Email: anderson@emeryreddy.com
gregory@emeryreddy.com
brandon@emeryreddy.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, L.P.A.
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Phone: 513-345-8291
Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
- and –
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Steet, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phone: (215) 592-1500
Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road - Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514-1851
Phone: 516-873-9550
Email: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com
COOL EVENTS LLC: Rodriguez Suit Removed to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Rebeka Rodriguez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Cool Events LLC doing business
as: Viral Run doing business as: Bubblerun.com; Viral Runs, LLC
erroneously named as Cool Events LLC; Case No. 26CU006039C was
removed from the San Diego Superior Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California on May 12, 2026.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-02979-H-BJW to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Cool Events LLC is a full-service event planning company based in
Phoenix, Arizona, specializing in creating memorable experiences
for a variety of occasions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC
4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 706-6464
Fax: (949) 706-6469
Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Ana Tagvoryan, Esq.
MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS
2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 312-4347
Email: ATagvoryan@manatt.com
- and -
Kyla Nunez, Esq.
MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS
1215 K Street, Suite 1900
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 552-2304
Fax: (916) 552-2323
Email: knunez@manatt.com
COSMED GROUP: "Motley" Remains Stayed Pending Ch. 11 Proceedings
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Brenda Motley, Teresa Liriano, Diana
Valdes, and Angela Santiago, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Cosmed Group, Inc., f/k/a
Cosmed Medical Sterilization, Inc., f/k/a ETO Sterilization, Inc.,
f/k/a Hazel Enterprises, Inc.; C.H.S. Property Development LLC,
f/k/a J.S. Property Renewal Co. L.P.; JS Urban Renewal Corp.;
Balchem Corporation; and John Doe Defendants 1-25, Defendants, Case
No. 2:24-cv-09063 (BRM) (MAH) (D.N.J.), Judge Brian R. Martinotti
of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
ordered that this matter remains stayed pending resolution of
Defendant Cosmed Group Inc.'s bankruptcy proceedings.
The Court reviewed a Joint Status Report filed by Plaintiffs,
Defendants CHS Property Development LLC and JS Urban Renewal Corp.
(together, CHS & JS), and Defendant Balchem Corporation (together
with CHS & JS, Non-Debtor Defendants). The status report addressed
the ongoing Chapter 7 bankruptcy of Defendant Cosmed Group Inc.
(Cosmed).
By way of background, on December 10, 2025, the Court granted the
Non-Debtor Defendants' motions to stay and administratively
terminated their motions to dismiss, holding that due to Cosmed's
indemnification obligations to Non-Debtor Defendants, an extension
of the automatic stay to Non-Debtor Defendants was appropriate. The
parties were ordered to submit joint status reports at sixty-day
intervals regarding Cosmed's bankruptcy proceedings.
The parties submitted their first joint status report on February
6, 2026. The Court maintained the stay on February 19, 2026, and
ordered a further status report within sixty days. On April 20,
2026, the parties filed the Joint Status Report now before the
Court.
Plaintiffs again asked the Court to lift the stay. They pointed to
a March 31, 2026 decision from the Western District of Pennsylvania
denying in part Balchem's motion to dismiss in Morton v. Cosmed
Group, Inc., arguing that Balchem's indemnification claims arise
from the same underlying business relationship and conduct at issue
here. Plaintiffs further contended that no reasonable prediction
can be made regarding when Cosmed's Chapter 7 proceedings will be
completed, and that the Bankruptcy Trustee has indicated an intent
to abandon Cosmed's legacy records due to ongoing storage costs,
making prompt discovery necessary.
Balchem argued that Cosmed's automatic stay remains in place and
that the stay in this case should remain until the Bankruptcy Court
lifts it, noting that nothing has materially changed since the
Court's most recent opinion and order. Balchem further contended
that the Pennsylvania decision has no impact on the stay in this
case, as the defendants there did not invoke an indemnification
agreement with Cosmed or seek an extension of Cosmed's automatic
stay.
CHS & JS joined in Balchem's arguments and further asserted that
their alleged liability is entirely derivative of Cosmed's conduct,
and that lifting the stay would force them to defend claims
dependent on evidence, witnesses, and records unavailable during
the pendency of the bankruptcy proceedings.
The Court agreed with the Non-Debtor Defendants. It found that the
Bankruptcy Court had not lifted Cosmed's automatic stay and that
the underlying reasons for extending that stay to Non-Debtor
Defendants still apply. The Court further found that Plaintiffs had
not identified any material changes in the Cosmed bankruptcy since
the February 19 memorandum opinion and order. As for the
Pennsylvania decision, the Court noted that case involves other
defendants not before this Court, and Plaintiffs had not argued
that those defendants invoked an indemnification agreement with
Cosmed or sought extension of the automatic stay.
Accordingly, on May 20, 2026, the Court ordered that this matter
remains stayed and directed the parties to jointly notify the Court
when Cosmed's automatic stay has been lifted.
A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated May 20, 2026 is also
available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fTPDGB from PacerMonitor.com
CPT USA LLC: McKinnley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
Isaiah McKinnley, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CPT USA LLC, d/b/a COCKPIT USA, Case No. 1:26-cv-03915
(S.D.N.Y., May 12, 2026), is brought against Defendant, the owner
and operator of www.cockpitusa.com for violations of Title III of
the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") due to the Defendant's
website which is not accessible to blind and visually impaired
consumers.
Between January and May 2026, Plaintiff attempted on multiple
occasions to browse and purchase merchandise from
www.cockpitusa.com but was denied full and equal access due to
pervasive accessibility barriers. During these visits, Plaintiff
attempted to research and purchase several items. However, he was
unable to meaningfully navigate product pages, select sizes or
colors, add items to his cart, or complete a purchase due to
widespread accessibility failures.
Independent testing confirmed these barriers: a SortSite scan (39%
complete) identified 435 pages with missing alternative text, 435
pages with unnamed links, 260+ pages with missing fieldset legends,
99 pages with nested interactive controls, and numerous additional
WCAG 2.1 Level A/AA violations. A WAVE scan of Defendant's "New
Arrivals" page revealed 107 errors, including missing form labels,
empty buttons, empty links, broken ARIA references, and contrast
failures. These barriers violate the Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 Level AA, the industry standard for digital
accessibility.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring CPT USA LLC
d/b/a Cockpit USA to remediate www.cockpitusa.com and adopt
policies, practices, and procedures that ensure ongoing compliance
with the ADA and related state and local laws, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a legally blind individual residing in New York
County.
The Defendant markets and sells premium leather jackets, outerwear,
apparel, and accessories through its website, which functions as a
primary gateway for product discovery, customization, and online
purchasing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Schonfeld, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (212) 227-5700
Fax: (212) 656-1889
Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com
CRASH CHAMPIONS: Lucero Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Lucero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CRASH CHAMPIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-05476 (N.D.
Ill., May 12, 2026), is brought against Defendant, seeking all
available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and
the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act ("NMMWA") for failure to pay
overtime wages owed.
Throughout his employment, Plaintiff routinely worked more than 40
hours in a workweek. He typically worked 5 days per week at 9 hours
per day, totaling 45 hours per week. Despite regularly working more
than 40 hours per workweek, Plaintiff did not receive overtime
compensation. Despite Plaintiff's non-exempt duties and his regular
performance of work in excess of 40 hours per workweek, Defendant
failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated Estimators overtime
compensation at one and one half times their regular rate of pay,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Crash Champions as an Estimator or
Service Advisor from January 2020 to April 2025 in New Mexico.
Crash Champions is a national collision repair company
headquartered in Westmont, Illinois. Crash Champions operates
hundreds of auto body repair facilities across the United States,
including multiple locations in New Mexico, and employs thousands
of workers nationwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
Olivia Lanctot, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4620
Email: crodriguez@bergermontague.com
olanctot@bergermontague.com
- and -
Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
8241 La Mesa Blvd., Suite A
La Mesa, CA 91942
Phone: (619) 489-0300
Facsimile: (215) 875-4620
Email: apiazza@bergermontague.com
CROWN & CORK: Conditional Class Cert Bid in Ludwig Due Nov. 20
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ludwig et al v. Crown,
Cork & Seal Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-00195 (N.D.N.Y., Filed Feb. 6,
2026), the Hon. Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr entered an order
setting the following deadlines during the May 20, 2026, video
Initial Pretrial Conference:
-- Limited discovery related to class certification shall be
completed by Nov. 6, 2026
-- Any motion for conditional class certification shall be filed
by Nov. 20, 2026
-- The Plaintiff to file a joint status report by August 20, 2026.
-- All remaining discovery deadlines are stayed and held in
abeyance pending further order of the Court.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Crown Cork provides packaging products.[CC]
CTG IP LLC: Henderson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Henderson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CTG IP LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-05467 (N.D. Ill., May 12,
2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its Website
https://www.cilantrotacogrill.com (hereinafter "Website" or "the
Website") to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Ford and other blind or visually impaired individuals.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals
throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services
Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the
Website. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its
Website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered,
and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Ford's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the
"ADA").
Because Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and
visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff
seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's
policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to
compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful
discrimination, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
The Defendant provides to the public the Website, which provides
consumers access to an array of goods and services, including the
ability to explore a comprehensive range of authentic Mexican
dishes, including traditional menu items such as tacos, tortas, and
burritos, complemented by specialized taco salads, house
specialties, and diverse side dishes, along with traditional
desserts and beverages.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alison Chan, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC
4903 Avenue N,
Brooklyn, NY 11234
Office: 844-731-3343
Direct: 929-442-2154
Email: Achan@ealg.law
CUERNO RESTAURANTS: Avendano Sues Over Unpaid Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------
Arielyz Avendano and Fredy Lopez, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. CUERNO RESTAURANTS LLC d/b/a CUERNO,
Case No. 1:26-cv-04470 (S.D.N.Y., May 28, 2026), is brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York
Labor Law ("NYLL") that they and others similarly situated are
entitled to recover from Defendant: unpaid minimum wages and
overtime compensation, due to an invalid tip credit; unpaid wages
for all hours worked, including hours worked during purported meal
breaks; monies for the illegal retention of gratuities;
unreimbursed uniform expenses and unpaid uniform maintenance
allowances; unpaid call-in pay premiums; statutory penalties,
including for violations of the Wage Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA");
liquidated damages; and attorneys' fees and costs.
The Defendant maintained a policy and practice whereby management
collected the cash tips received from customers at the end of each
service. Cash tips were not pooled, recorded, or distributed to
tipped employees through any transparent process. On information
and belief, Defendant's management retained these cash tips, in
whole or in part, in violation of the FLSA and the NYLL. The
Defendant knowingly and willfully operated its business with a
policy of failing to reimburse Plaintiffs and Class Members for
required uniform expenses and failing to pay the required uniform
maintenance allowance, in violation of the NYLL and 12 NYCRR, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant.
The Defendant operates a Mexican steakhouse and bar known as
"Cuerno."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Phone: 212-465-1188
Fax: 212-465-1181
CUSTOMS AND BORDER: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Mora
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIAN SANCHEZ MORA, et
al., v. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION ("CBP"); DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY ("DHS"), Case No. 1:24-cv-03136-BAH (D.D.C.), the
Hon. Judge Howell entered a judgment:
-- granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment;
-- denying the plaintiffs' motion for discovery pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d); and
-- denying as moot the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
The Defendants' declarations are sufficiently detailed to show that
CBP's Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") workload has increased
substantially in recent years, that CBP and DHS have diligently
worked to improve processing times, and that when CBP has failed to
comply with FOIA's statutory guidelines for timing, these delays
have been justified by "exceptional circumstances" going beyond the
agency's "ordinary workload" and are therefore not part of a policy
or practice of FOIA noncompliance.
The Plaintiffs filed this case on April 24, 2024, in the Northern
District of California, along with an initial class certification
motion. The original complaint asserted a single claim that the
defendants maintained a "pattern or practice of violating the FOIA
statute by failing to make timely determinations."
CBP is a subdivision of the US Department of Homeland Security
responsible for safeguarding the nation's borders.
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated May 18, 2026, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Y64QAV
at no extra charge.[CC]
DABBLE SPORTS: Georgia Gambling Suit Removed to M.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Georgia Gambling Recovery LLC, and others
similarly situated v. DABBLE SPORTS, LLC; and DABBLE SPORTS PTY
LTD, Case No. SC2025CV001602 was removed from the State Court of
Muscogee County, Georgia, to the United States District Court for
Middle District of Georgia on May 29, 2026, and assigned Case No.
4:26-cv-00886-CDL.
The Plaintiff's allegations against Dabble in this case arise from
Dabble's operation of its online gaming platform, where Georgia
residents have the opportunity to play "Pick 'Em" games related to
sports, which Plaintiff claims constitute illegal gambling under
Georgia law. The Plaintiff seeks to recover the gambling losses of
unidentified Georgian gamers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David C. Rayfield, Esq.
David R. Helmick, Esq.
WALDREP, MULLIN & CALLAHAN, LLC
111 Twelfth Street, Suite 300
P.O. Box 351
Columbus, GA 31902-0351
Phone: (706) 320-0600
Fax: (706) 320-0622
Email: davidrayfield@waldrepmullin.com
- and -
Derek T. Ho, Esq.
Kyle B. Grigel, Esq.
KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C.
1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20036
Phone: (202) 326-7900
Fax: (202) 326-7999
Email: dho@kellogghansen.com
kgrigel@kellogghansen.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Terry R. Weiss, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS LLP
1075 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 1700
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: (404) 253-6900
Fax: (404) 253-6901
Email: trweiss@duanemorris.com
- and -
William M. Gantz, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS LLP
100 High Street, Suite 2400
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: (857) 488-4234
Fax: (857) 401-3026
Email: bgantz@duanemorris.com
DIRECT DIGITAL: Dismissal of Consolidated Suit Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Direct Digital Holdings, Inc. disclosed in a current report on Form
8-K, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission
on May 21, 2026, that a consolidated shareholder suit is currently
on appeal after being dismissed and derivative actions were filed
with regards to its disclosures.
Between April 2023 and March 2024, the company and certain of its
officers and directors made false or misleading disclosures in the
company's public filings, in violation of federal securities laws.
On July 9, 2024, another alleged stockholder filed a similar
securities class action against the company and certain of its
officers and directors, also in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas. The two actions have been consolidated,
and each complaint seeks unspecified damages, plus costs, fees, and
attorneys' fees.
On August 7, 2025, the district court granted the company's motion
to dismiss the consolidated action in full and with prejudice. The
lead plaintiff appealed that dismissal and filed an opening brief
with the appellate court on November 3, 2025. The company filed a
response brief on January 2, 2026, and the lead plaintiff filed a
reply brief on February 6, 2026.
A related shareholder derivative action was also filed in
connection with the same alleged misconduct, acting on behalf of
the company, asserted claims against certain current and former
officers and directors for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and
other violations arising out of the same facts and circumstances
alleged in the consolidated securities class action. The derivative
complaint seeks, among other relief, damages on behalf of the
company, corporate governance reforms, and an award of attorneys'
fees and expenses. The derivative action has been stayed by
agreement of the parties pending the final resolution of the
consolidated securities class action and any appeals therefrom.
Direct Digital Holdings, Inc. is a digital advertising and
marketing technology company that provides data-driven,
technology-enabled solutions to help advertisers and publishers
optimize their digital marketing campaigns. The company offers
end-to-end programmatic advertising services across multiple
channels, including display, video, and connected television.
DOLLAR TREE: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to July 30, 2027
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CECILIA GODINES,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. DOLLAR
TREE STORES, INC., a Virginia corporation; and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-01743-TLN-CSK (E.D. Cal.), the Court
entered an order grating stipulation to continue upcoming
deadlines:
-- The Phase One Discovery Cut-Off shall be continued from June
8, 2026 to March 5, 2027;
-- The Disclosure of Expert Witnesses shall be continued from
April 10, 2026 to March 31, 2027;
-- The Rebuttal Expert Disclosure Deadline shall be continued
from May 10, 2026 to April 30, 2027;
-- The Plaintiff's deadline to file motion for class
certification shall be continued from Sept. 10, 2026 to July
30, 2027;
-- The Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification will be due on Sept. 28, 2027; and
-- The Plaintiff's reply to the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification will be due on Nov. 9, 2027.
On March 9, 2026, the Court granted the Plaintiff's administrative
motion, extending the Phase One discovery cut-off to June 8, 2026.
Dollar Tree is an American multi-price-point chain of discount
variety stores.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hG9SPn at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Karen I. Gold, Esq.
Sara Pezeshkpour, Esq.
Noam Y. Reiffman, Esq.
Marissa M. Mayhood, Esq.
BLACKSTONE LAW, APC
8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 745
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 622-4278
Facsimile: (855) 786-6356
E-mail: kgold@blackstonepc.com
spezeshkpour@blackstonepc.com
nreiffman@blackstonepc.com
mmayhood@blackstonepc.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Ryan D. Derry, Esq.
Emily Stover, Esq.
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
101 California Street, 48th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 856-7000
Facsimile: (415) 856-7100
E-mail: ryanderry@paulhastings.com
emilystover@paulhastings.com
EAGLE PHARMACEUTICALS: Settlement in Miller Wins Initial Nod
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLAS MILLER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
EAGLE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., SCOTT TARRIFF, and BRIAN CAHILL, Case
No. 2:23-cv-23011-MAH (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Hammer entered an
order preliminary approving class action settlement.
Eagle is a specialty pharmaceutical company.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 20, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WMrd4D at no extra
charge.[CC]
ECOLAB INC: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ecolab Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Jose Ruiz Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated v. Ecolab Inc., Ecolab USA Inc., Case No.
26STCV15297 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 13, 2026).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
Ecolab -- https://www.ecolab.com/ -- is a global leader in water,
hygiene and infection prevention solutions and services that
protect people and the resources vital to life.[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
ELECTROLUX CONSUMER: Reato Sues Over Product's Burn Hazard Defect
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES REATO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ELECTROLUX CONSUMER PRODUCTS, INC.
Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02142-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill., May 14, 2026)
is a class action against the Defendant for its fraudulent, unfair,
deceptive, misleading, and/or unlawful conduct stemming from its
omissions surrounding the risk of burn hazard affecting its
products.
Defendant Electrolux Consumer Products, Inc. is a home appliance
manufacturer. Plaintiff James Reato purchased Model GCRG3060BF from
Frank's Appliance Center and Sleep Source.
The complaint relates that the Plaintiff purchased a model number
subject to recall whose serial number is within the range noted in
the CPSC Recall Notice. The Product was sold at Lowe's, other
stores nationwide, and online at Frigidaire.com. The Plaintiff
purchased the Product as "new" and intended it for ordinary use.
The Plaintiff bargained for a Product that was safe to use.
However, the Defendant's Products were, and are, unsafe. At this
time, the Defendant is offering an in-home installation of a new
bake burner at no cost to consumers.
As a result of the burn risk while using the Gas Range, Plaintiff,
and all others similarly situated, were deprived of the basis of
their bargain. This dangerous burn risk inherent to the Products
renders them unmerchantable and unfit for their normal intended
use, says the suit.
The complaint asserts that the Plaintiff is entitled to damages for
the injury sustained in being exposed to such danger, damages
related to the Defendant's conduct, economic damages and injunctive
relief.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
Poulin | Willey | Anastopoulo, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (803) 222 – 2222
E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
cmad@poulinwilley.com
ELF BEAUTY: Class, Derivative Actions Filed
-------------------------------------------
e.l.f. Beauty, Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K,
for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated May 20, 2026, and
delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 21,
2026, that a consolidated securities suit and derivative actions
were filed against the company over its disclosures with the SEC.
On March 6, 2025 and April 8, 2025, the company, its Chief
Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer were named as
defendants in separate purported securities class action complaints
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California by plaintiffs Luke Rottman and Boston Retirement
System. The complaints in both purported securities class actions
allege that defendants made false or misleading statements in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and violated Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. The complaints seek damages and other relief.
On May 28, 2025, the court consolidated the two putative securities
class action suits, and appointed Boston Retirement System and
Metropolitan Employee Benefit System as lead plaintiffs. Lead
plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on July 23,
2025. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated
complaint on September 5, 2025.
On February 4, 2026, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss as to nearly all of plaintiffs' challenged statements, but
found that plaintiffs adequately stated a claim as to statements
made on November 21, 2024. Lead plaintiffs did not file a second
amended complaint, and defendants filed an answer responding to the
consolidated complaint on April 3, 2026. The case is in the early
stages of discovery.
Separately, on March 28, 2025 and April 22, 2025, derivative action
complaints were filed purportedly on behalf of the company by
separate putative shareholders Joseph Falconio and Robbie Bosworth
against certain of the company's current and former officers and
directors in the Northern District of California. The complaints
allege that certain of the company's officers and directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with its purported
issuance of false and misleading statements concerning the
financial condition of the company. Premised upon the same
allegations, the complaints also assert derivative causes of action
under the Exchange Act, including Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, under Sections 24400 and 25500 of California's
Corporations Code, and for waste and unjust enrichment.
The latter filed complaint likewise asserts derivative claims under
the Exchange Act, including Sections 14(a) and 20(a), and for abuse
of control and gross mismanagement, and seeks contribution under
Sections 10(b) and 12D of the Exchange Act. On May 19, 2025, the
parties subsequently filed a stipulation to consolidate the two
cases and to appoint lead counsel, which the court granted on July
3, 2025. The consolidated action is currently stayed pending the
resolution of the securities class action.
Additionally, on May 19, 2025, putative shareholder Mikhail Venikov
filed a derivative lawsuit purportedly on behalf of the company
against certain of its current and former officers and directors in
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
Plaintiff Venikov asserts derivative claims under the Exchange Act,
including Sections 14(a), 10(b), and 20(a), in addition to
asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment. The action is currently stayed pending the resolution
of the securities class action.
On April 14, 2026, putative shareholder Felipe Peerally filed a
derivative lawsuit purportedly on behalf of the company against
certain of its current and former officers and directors in the
Northern District of California. Plaintiff Peerally previously sent
a litigation demand to the Board, which the Board had deferred
pending related securities and stockholder matters. Peerally
asserts derivative claims under the Exchange Act, including
Sections 14(a), 10(b), and 20(a), in addition to asserting claims
for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate
assets, and abuse of control.
e.l.f. Beauty, Inc. is a cosmetics and skincare company offering
mass-market beauty products through national retailers, e-commerce
channels and its own direct-to-consumer platforms. The Company
focuses on providing high-quality, cruelty-free products at
accessible price points.
EQT CORPORATION: Amended Bid for Class Certification Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD A. ROSS, et al.,
on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. EQT CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01585-WSS (W.D. Pa.),
the Hon. Judge Stickman IV entered an order denying the Plaintiffs'
amended motion for class certification.
The Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the requirements for class
certification pursuant to Fed.R. Civ.P. 23(b)(2) and (b)(3).
The Court further orders that the Plaintiffs' motion for
appointment of interim class counsel be denied. Appointment of
interim counsel is within the discretion of the Court, which may
designate interim counsel to act on behalf of a putative class
before determining whether to certify the action as a class
action.
EQT is an American energy company engaged in hydrocarbon
exploration and pipeline transport.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 18, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1T9afL at no extra
charge.[CC]
EQT CORPORATION: Ross Suit Seeks Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD A. ROSS, et al.,
on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. EQT CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01585-WSS (W.D. Pa.),
the Hon. Judge Stickman IV will deny the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification due to failure to satisfy the requirements for
both a Rule 23(b)(2) or (b)(3) class.
The Plaintiffs are unleased. While EQT has a method of royalty
accounting for individuals who have executed a lease, to account
for unknown owners with unknown interests and unknown ownership
proportions in the land, specifically determining whether their
ownership interests give them the right to royalties will
inevitably require individual evidence. As the Court has already
found, individual issues as to ownership predominate.
The Plaintiffs filed their amended motion for class certification
and propose the following class definitions:
"All persons (natural or fictitious) who owned a real property
interest in a natural gas mineral estate in Pennsylvania
during the statutory period, wherein- (1) such owner is not a
party to a lease with any of the Defendants for such interest;
and (2) such natural gas mineral estate was at least partially
situated within a "drilling unit," as set forth in 25 Pa. Code
section 79.1; and (3) one or more Defendants extracted natural
gas from such drilling unit; and (4) the Defendants failed to
pay such persons for those persons' pro rata shares of the
natural gas extracted from such drilling unit (the "Class")";
EQT is an American energy company engaged in hydrocarbon
exploration and pipeline transport.
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated May 18, 2026, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eCE2RJ
at no extra charge.[CC]
EQUIFAX INFO: Can File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martinez v. Equifax
Information Services, LLC, Case No. 8:24-cv-02609 (M.D. Fla., Filed
Nov. 8, 2024), the Hon. Judge Thomas P. Barber entered an order
granting unopposed motion to file under seal.
The Defendant may file its opposition to class certification with
redactions and may file Exhibits B and D to that motion under seal.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA).
Equifax provides data solutions. [CC]
ERANI ENTERTAINMENT: Alvarez Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wage
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Carlos Alvarez, on behalf of himself and all similarly
situated employees v. ERANI ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION, ROBERT
ERANI, Case No. 2:26-cv-06047 (D.N.J., May 27, 2026), is brought
seeking damages for failure to comply with the minimum wage and
overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the
New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law ("NJSWHL").
The Defendants repeatedly and systemically failed to pay minimum
wage to Plaintiff and other employees. For each shift, Plaintiff
was paid $30 plus tips. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees were not paid minimum wage. The Plaintiff, FLSA Overtime
Collective Members. and NJ Overtime Class members remain
uncompensated for minimum wage, and they are entitled to damages
under the FLSA and New Jersey law, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Bartender since
2014 and continues to be employed there.
The Defendants operate a bar/restaurant in Jersey City, New
Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
NAYDENSKIY LAW FIRM, LLC
426 Main St, #201
Spotswood, NJ, 08884
Phone: 718-808-2224
Email: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com
ES SOLAR LLC: Brown Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ES Solar, LLC, et al.
The case is styled as Andrew Brown, all others similarly situated
v. ES Solar, LLC, Does 1-50, Case No. 26CV012885 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., May 28, 2026).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
ES Solar -- https://essolar.com/ -- specializes in providing
comprehensive home energy solutions, including solar panel
installations, battery backup systems, and roofing services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jose Patino, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
660 S. Figueroa St., Sky Lobby
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: 213-381-9988
Fax: 213-381-9989
Email: jose.patino@wilshirelawfirm.com
EVERLY WELL INC: Alkhafaji Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Indiana
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Everly Well Inc. The
case is styled as Louise M. Alkhafaji, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Everly Well Inc., Case No.
3:26-cv-00750 (N.D. Ind., May 29, 2026).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Everlywell -- https://www.everlywell.com/ -- offers health and
wellness solutions including laboratory testing for wellness
monitoring, informational and educational use.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD - LOMBARD IL
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Fax: (630) 575-8188
Email: ahmad.sulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com
EXXON MOBIL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Pennsylvania Due Oct. 15
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as The Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania V. Exxon Mobil Corporation, ET AL., Case No.
1:14-cv-06228-DLC-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Parker entered the
following scheduling order pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure:
-- The Defendant shall have until June 9, 2026, to file its
motion to dismiss; the Plaintiff's opposition or amended
complaint shall be due by July 9, 2026; and if the Plaintiff
files an opposition, the Defendant shall file its reply by
July 23, 2026.
-- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification under Rule 23
is due by Oct. 15, 2026; the Defendant's opposition is due by
Nov. 12, 2026; and any Reply is due by Nov. 25, 2026.
-- The deadline to complete all discovery is Feb. 26, 2027.
Parties shall submit a joint status update by June 18, 2026.
-- The parties shall follow the Court's Individual Procedures
with respect to any discovery disputes.
ExxonMobil is an energy provider and chemical manufacturer.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=m9Yvue at no extra
charge.[CC]
FANDOM INC: Settlement in Shah Suit Gets Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VISHAL SHAH, and JAYDEN
KIM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
FANDOM, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-01062-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Lin entered an order granting final approval of class action
settlement.
–- The Court certifies the following Settlement Class:
"all persons who accessed www.gamespot.com, or any of its
subdomains, in California and had their information collected
by the Trackers between Jan. 5, 2023 to the present, meaning
the effective date of the settlement."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) any Judge or
Magistrate presiding over this Action and members of their
families; (2) the Defendant, its subsidiaries, parent
companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which
the Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest and
their current or former officers, directors, agents,
attorneys, and employees; (3) persons who properly execute and
file a timely request for exclusion from the class; and (4)
the legal representatives, successors or assigns of any such
excluded persons.
-- The Court appoints Bursor & Fisher, P.A. as Class Counsel for
the Settlement Class. The Court appoints Vishal Shah and
Jayden Kim as the Class Representatives.
-- The Court awards Class Counsel total attorneys' fees, costs,
and expenses in the amount of $399,962.96.
-- The Court awards $5,000 each to the Plaintiffs Vishal Shah and
Jayden Kim as service awards for their participation in this
matter.
-- The action is dismissed with prejudice and without costs as
against the Defendant and the released Parties.
Fandom is a global digital media and fan engagement platform.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=clEPFw at no extra
charge.[CC]
FCA US: Maryland Court Narrows Claims in "Johnson"
--------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Jermaine Johnson, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Kody
Domestics II, Inc., d/b/a Waldorf Dodge Ram, and FCA US LLC,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 25-1949-TDC (D. Md.), Judge Theodore
D. Chuang of the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland granted in part and denied in part Defendant FCA US LLC's
motion to dismiss, and denied Defendant Kody Domestics II's
(Waldorf Dodge) motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff Jermaine Johnson purchased a new 2016 Ram 3500 pickup
truck from Waldorf Dodge on December 24, 2016, along with a Mopar
Lifetime Maximum Care Warranty (the Lifetime Warranty) for $5,995
-- FCA's most comprehensive protection plan, under which more than
5,000 vehicle components would be repaired or replaced at no cost
so long as the original purchaser owned the vehicle. FCA honored
the Lifetime Warranty on two separate repair occasions, but in
January 2022, after the Ram Truck developed valve-train failure
symptoms, FCA canceled the Lifetime Warranty, citing the vehicle's
status as a dual rear-wheel vehicle. Plaintiff alleges that all
vehicles equipped with Gen III 5.7-liter HEMI or 6.4-liter HEMI 392
V-8 engines spanning model years 2014 to the present have a latent
valve-train defect causing premature camshaft and lifter wear,
abnormal ticking, misfires, loss of power, and ultimately
catastrophic engine failure.
Plaintiff filed a 12-count Amended Complaint alleging breach of
contract, breach of express warranty, violations of the Maryland
Service Contracts and Consumer Products Guaranty Act (MSCCPGA), the
Maryland Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), fraudulent concealment,
negligent misrepresentation, negligent design and manufacture,
unjust enrichment, fraud based on intentional misrepresentation,
breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and a claim
under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA).
On jurisdictional challenges, the court dismissed Plaintiff's MMWA
class action claim, finding that the MMWA requires at least 100
named plaintiffs for a federal class action, a threshold Plaintiff
did not meet and did not contest. The court rejected FCA's standing
argument, finding that Plaintiff's injury was based on the engine
type rather than a particular truck model, and that Plaintiff had
adequately alleged injuries-in-fact common to himself and the
Proposed Class Members.
The court declined to dismiss any remaining claims as time-barred.
As to the breach of contract and MSCCPGA claims, the allegations
did not clearly demonstrate that Plaintiff knew of the Lifetime
Warranty cancellation more than three years before the May 15, 2025
filing. As to the warranty claims, the court found that Section
5-203 of the Maryland Code could toll the limitations period where
Plaintiff had adequately pleaded fraudulent concealment. The court
similarly declined to dismiss the tort-based claims, finding the
Amended Complaint did not clearly establish that Plaintiff knew or
should have known of the valve-train defect or the warranty
misrepresentations prior to October 2022.
On agency, the court found Plaintiff had plausibly alleged that
Waldorf Dodge acted as FCA's agent, given that the Sales Contract
expressly stated that Waldorf Dodge performed its obligations as
FCA's agent. The court also declined to dismiss claims against
Waldorf Dodge on a disclosed-principal theory, finding it unclear
whether Plaintiff was fully informed of that relationship, as the
relevant disclosure appeared in fine print directed to the dealer,
not the purchaser.
The court sustained the breach of contract, MSCCPGA, breach of
express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability, and
individual MMWA claims, finding Plaintiff had plausibly alleged
that FCA entered into a contractual obligation to provide Lifetime
Warranty coverage, which it breached by canceling the warranty
before the stated expiration date or mileage. The court rejected
the economic loss rule defense, finding that each tort-based claim
fell within recognized exceptions for statutory claims, fraud,
misrepresentation, and defects presenting a substantial and
unreasonable risk of death or personal injury. The court further
found Plaintiff had adequately alleged actionable
misrepresentations, scienter, and damages to support the MCPA,
fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, negligent
design and manufacture, unjust enrichment, and fraud by intentional
misrepresentation claims.
Therefore, FCA's motion to dismiss was granted as to the MMWA class
action claim only, and denied in all other respects. Waldorf
Dodge's motion to dismiss was denied in its entirety.
A copy of the Memorandum Opinion dated May 20, 2026 is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AGwiIz from PacerMonitor.com
FCA US: Maugain Suit Seeks Class Certification
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ETIENNE MAUGAIN, JOHN
KUNDRATH, LOUISE SHUMATE, RICHARD ARCHER, DENISE HUNTER, STEPHEN
DREIKOSEN, KENNETH ESTEVES, JOHN SKLERES, AND LEONEL CANTU,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FCA
US LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00116-JLH-SRF (D. Del.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order:
-- Certifying California, Georgia, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania
and Texas Classes for breaches of implied warranty under state
law pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and
23(b)(3);
-- Appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel Berger Montague PC as class
counsel;
-- Appointing the Plaintiffs Maugain and Kundrath as class
representatives for the California Class;
-- Appointing the Plaintiff Archer as Class Representative for
the Georgia Class;
-- Appointing the Plaintiff Dreikosen as Class Representative for
the New Hampshire Class;
-- Appointing the Plaintiff Skleres as Class Representative for
the Pennsylvania Class; and
-- Appointing the Plaintiff Cantu as Class Representative for the
Texas Class.
The proposed Classes are defined as follows:
Class Vehicles: 2014 to 2017 model year FCA-brand vehicles sold
with the Pentastar Classic Engine manufactured prior to April 20,
2017 and sold with roller finger followers with part numbers
5184296AD, 5184296AE, 5184296AF and/or 5184296AG.
California Class:
"All buyers who purchased or leased new or certified preowned
Class Vehicles in California."
Georgia Class:
"All buyers who purchased or leased new Class Vehicles in
Georgia."
New Hampshire Class:
"All buyers who purchased a Class Vehicle in New Hampshire and
paid out-of-pocket for repairs and/or diagnosis involving
roller finger followers at an authorized FCA dealership."
Pennsylvania Class:
"All buyers who purchased a Class Vehicle in Pennsylvania and
paid out-of-pocket for repairs and/or diagnosis involving
roller finger followers at an authorized FCA dealership."
Texas Class:
"All buyers who purchased or leased new or certified pre-owned
Class Vehicles in Texas."
FCA designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 18, 2026, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PFnkLa at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kelly A. Green, Esq.
Jason Z. Miller, Esq.
SMITH, KATZENSTEIN &
JENKINS, LLP
1000 N. West Street, Suite 1501
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 504-1656
Facsimile: (302) 652-8405
E-mail: kag@skjlaw.com
jzm@skjlaw.com
- and -
Russell D. Paul, Esq.
Amey J. Park, Esq.
Natalie Lesser, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: rpaul@bm.net
apark@bm.net
nlesser@bm.net
- and -
Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
Majdi Hijazin, Esq.
Abigail Gertner, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-4811
E-mail: Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
Majdi.Hijazin@capstonelawyers.com
Abigail.Gertner@capstonelawyers.com
- and -
Steven Calamusa, Esq.
Geoff Stahl, Esq.
GORDON & PARTNERS, P.A.
4114 Northlake Blvd.,
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Telephone: (561) 799-5070
Facsimile: (561) 799-4050
E-mail: scalamusa@fortheinjured.com
gstahl@fortheinjured.com
- and -
Theodore Leopold, Esq.
Geoffrey Graber, Esq.
Karina Puttieva, Esq.
Blake R. Miller, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
11780 U.S. Highway One, Suite N500
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33408
Telephone: (561) 515-1400
Facsimile: (561) 515-1401
E-mail: tleopold@cohenmilstein.com
brmiller@cohenmilstein.com
FIFTH THIRD: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Jan. 25, 2027
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Troy Howards, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. Fifth Third Bank,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00869-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Michael R.
Barrett entered an amended calendar order as follows:
1. The Plaintiffs to confirm all fields of transactional data
sought on additional Plaintiffs: March 13, 2026
2. Complete production of additional Plaintiff class
representative account data: June 10, 2026
3. File amended complaint: June 25, 2026
4. Completion of additional Plaintiff specific discovery: Oct.
23, 2026
5. Deadline for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification:
Jan. 25, 2027
6. Deadline for the Defendant's response to motion for class
certification: March 12, 2027
7. Deadline for the Plaintiff's reply in support of motion for
class certification: April 2, 2027
Fifth Third is a bank holding company headquartered in Cincinnati,
Ohio.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 20, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ESJwDL at no extra
charge.[CC]
FLEXIBILITY CAPITAL: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, McKevitt Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH MCKEVITT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. FLEXIBILITY CAPITAL INC.; MICHAEL PEELER;
and all other related entities or individuals, Defendants, Case No.
1:26-cv-03980 (S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2026) is a class action against
the Defendant for its failure to pay Plaintiff and other members of
the putative collective action their rightfully owed wages.
The complaint relates that since 2018, Defendants have operated an
online small-business financing marketplace and have employed
numerous individuals, such as Plaintiff, to perform tasks related
to selling and marketing Defendants' lending and financial services
and products, including business term loans, lines of credit,
equipment financing, amongst other services. In the performance of
those services, Defendants employ a staff of cold callers, sale
representatives, and administrative workers under the guise that
those workers will receive significant sums of monies in the form
of commission payments.
Since March 2020, Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice
of failing to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated workers
for all hours worked, requiring them to regularly work in excess of
40 hours per week without providing overtime compensation, failure
to provide accurate wage statements and paystubs, as required by
applicable State and Federal law, failure to pay commissions owed,
and failure to notify employees of changes to the commission
structure in writing. Moreover, since March 2020 and continuing
through the present, Defendants have wrongfully classified
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees as exempt from
overtime compensation. Therefore, Defendants have wrongfully paid
their workers under the guise of deeming them exempt from wage
payments, says the suit.
The Plaintiff has initiated this action seeking, for himself and
all similarly situated employees in New York State, all
compensation, including overtime compensation, and unpaid
commissions, that he was deprived of, plus interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and costs.
Plaintiff Joseph McKevitt was employed by Defendants from
approximately March 2025 to March 2026 at Defendants' Manhattan
office.
Defendant Flexibility Capital Inc. is a financial service company
based in New York servicing small businesses nationwide.
Flexibility Capital offers alternative funding solutions such as
lines of credits and merchant cash advances across various
industries including construction, manufacturing, auto repair, and
so on.
Defendant Michael Peeler is the owner, chief executive officer, and
operator of Defendant Flexibility Capital Inc.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: 516-873-9550
E-mail: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
FORD MOTOR: Class Cert Hearing in Lessin Suit Set for Nov. 19
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM LESSIN, CAROL
SMALLEY, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG (S.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Battaglia entered an order:
(1) Dismissing the Maine Class implied warranty claims; and
(2) Setting briefing schedule for supplemental briefing related
to class certification.
The Court sets the following supplemental briefing schedule related
to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification:
1. The Plaintiffs' supplemental brief must be filed on or
before July 17, 2026;
2. The Defendant Ford Motor Company's response must be filed on
or before Aug. 28, 2026;
3. The Plaintiffs' reply must be filed on or before Sept. 25,
2026.
4. The Court sets a hearing on the motion for class
certification for Nov. 19, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom
4A before the Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia. The parties'
supplemental briefs must address the issues outlined in the
Court's April 23, 2026 Order.
On Feb. 11, 2026, the Ninth Circuit issued a memorandum disposition
affirming in part and reversing and remanding in part the Court's
class certification order.
On May 18, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a notice of withdrawal of
their motion for class certification to the extent it sought
certification of the Maine Class.
Ford is an American multinational automobile manufacturer.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 20, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Kx6c0d at no extra
charge.[CC]
FOUNDATION RISK: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to August 24
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLAS CHARTON, v.
FOUNDATION RISK PARTNERS CORP., a Delaware corporation doing
business in California, Case No. 2:25-cv-11738-JFW-RAO (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge entered an order granting second stipulation to
extend time to file class certification motion.
-- The Plaintiff's deadline to file his motion for class
certification is currently set for July 8, 2026.
-- The Plaintiff's deadline to file his motion for class
certification is extended to Aug. 24, 2026.
The Defendant offers employee benefits consulting and brokerage,
risk management and analysis services, and commercial and personal
insurance brokerage.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rhXeFz at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul T. Cullen, Esq.
THE CULLEN LAW FIRM, APC
9800 Topanga Canyon Boulevard
Suite D, PMB 325
Chatsworth, CA 91311-4057
Telephone: (818) 360-2529
Facsimile: (866) 794-5741
E-mail: paul@cullenlegal.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Elizabeth Staggs Wilson, Esq.
Matthew Morris, Esq.
NICHOLAS CHARTON
1164 Roadrunner Way
Simi Valley, CA 93065
E-mail: estaggs-wilson@littler.com
mamorris@littler.com
- and -
Derek Hecht, Esq.
Nicole LeFave, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
633 West Fifth Street, 63rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 443-4300
Facsimile: (213) 443-4299
E-mail: dhecht@littler.com
nlefave@littler.com
FUNDING CHANNEL: Must Respond to Discovery Requests by June 18
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bachhuber, Kevin v. The
Funding Channel LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00959 (W.D. Wisc., Filed Nov.
20, 2025), the Hon. Judge William M. Conley entered an order that
the motion to compel is granted in large part, in that the
Defendant must respond to the outstanding discovery requests by
June 18, 2026.
Attorney Rosen must continue to assist in these efforts until
successor counsel is retained. The court will reserve on shifting
fees and costs to assess compliance with this order.
Likewise, the court will defer on ruling on the motion to withdraw,
until new defense counsel makes an appearance, which the court
expects to happen before June 18, 2026.
The parties must submit at joint status report by June 18, 2026
providing an update on these points. The parties had no other
matters for the court's attention.
The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA).
The Defendant is a business-to-business financial services
firm.[CC]
FUTU HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Futu Holdings Limited (NASDAQ: FUTU) resulting from
allegations that Futu may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
So What: If you purchased Futu securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/cases/futu-holdings-limited/join or call
Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
What is this about: On May 22, 2026, Reuters published an article
entitled "China to crack down on 'illegal' cross-border
securities." The article stated that China "announced a major
crackdown on cross-border investment on Friday and said it would
punish brokers it accused of illegally moving money to foreign
markets, sending their shares plunging." Further, "online brokers
Tiger, Futu and Longbridge would be penalised for soliciting
business in China without an onshore licence, the securities
regulator said."
On this news, Futu American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") fell 27.5%
on May 22, 2026.
Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at
that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement
against a Chinese Company. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked
No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of
securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds
of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm
secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner
Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar.
Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and
Super Lawyers.
Contacts
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
GNC HOLDINGS: Must File Class Cert Opposition by Oct. 30
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEA MOQUETE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GNC HOLDINGS,
LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Case No. 3:24-cv-05393-BHS (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge entered an
order
This matter having come before the Court, having considered the
Parties’ Joint Status Report and Proposed Scheduling Order, Dkt.
40, the following deadlines are adopted:
Event Date
Deadline for discovery related to Sept. 25, 2026
class certification:
Deadline to file motion regarding Oct. 9, 2026
class certification:
Deadline to file opposition to Oct. 30, 2026
motion regarding class certification:
Deadline to file reply in support of Nov. 6, 2026
motion regarding class certification:
GNC is a retailer and manufacturer of health and wellness products,
including vitamins, supplements, protein, and herbs.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mZh0R9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian Denlinger, Esq.
ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100
Seattle, WA 98101
2602 North Proctor Street, Suite 205
Tacoma, WA 98406
Telephone: (310) 277-0614
Facsimile: (310) 277-0635
E-mail: bd@ackermanntilajef.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Breanne Sheetz Martell, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
One Union Square
600 University Street, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101.3122
Telephone: (206) 623-3300
Facsimile: (206) 447-6965
E-mail: bsmartell@littler.com
GREENBRIER CLINIC: Faces Suit Over Mammography Testing Results
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Tony, writing for WV Press, reports that the teetering
business empire of Sen. Jim Justice, R-W.Va., faces a new legal
challenge responding to one of its units reporting a systematic
failure that has cast doubt over more than two years of patient
health assessments.
The Greenbrier Clinic, a self-billed, all-inclusive medical
services unit at the Justice family's Greenbrier resort in White
Sulphur Springs, was hit with a federal class-action lawsuit
Wednesday, May 20.
It's the second class-action lawsuit to be filed against the clinic
in as many months in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia over that self-reported failure.
The lawsuits followed the clinic in March sending letter
correspondence to patients saying it failed to meet federal
mammography standards over a two-plus-year period, calling into
question the validity of testing results delivered in that span.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of two Greenbrier County residents,
April Wilson of White Sulphur Springs and Erin Dotson of
Ronceverte, who respectively had mammograms performed at the clinic
in October 2024 and March 2025, according to their complaint.
The complaint notes that the clinic on its website advertises 3D
mammography service it bills as "one of the latest technological
innovations in women's healthcare" and that its 3D technology
"improves accuracy and can help detect breast cancer earlier and
therefore allow treatment sooner."
But the complaint holds that the plaintiffs and potential class
members received mammograms that were "inaccurate, inferior, and
not in compliance with applicable image quality standards."
The Wilson and Dotson complaint reports they were among the
recipients of letter correspondence dated March 23, 2026, from the
Greenbrier Clinic to those who had at least one mammogram performed
at the clinic between Oct. 28, 2023, and Feb. 26 of this year. The
letter correspondence reported "a serious concern about the quality
of the mammography" conducted there during that time frame.
In its March 23 correspondence, the clinic reported that the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration determined it had failed to meet
clinical image quality standards established by the facility's
accreditation body, the American College of Radiology, as required
by the FDA, resulting in the agency mandating that the clinic stop
performing mammography as of Feb. 26.
The Greenbrier Clinic had not responded with an answer to that
class-action complaint or another filed against it last month as of
Thursday, May 21, afternoon.
Justice family business attorney Steve Ruby said through a public
relations official in a statement the Greenbrier Clinic "takes
patient care and safety extremely seriously and strongly disputes
any suggestion that patients were intentionally misled or that the
Clinic failed to act responsibly."
GRIFFITH PARK: Ditangco Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Griffith Park
Rehabilitation Center, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Leah
Ditangco, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Griffith Park Rehabilitation Center, LLC,
Griffith Park Healthcare Center, Case No. 26STCV15144 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 12, 2026).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
Griffith Park Healthcare Center -- http://griffithparkhc.com/-- is
a skilled live-in nursing facility located in Los Angeles County in
Glendale, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
KOUL LAW FIRM
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010-2003
Phone: 213-761-5484
Fax: 818-561-3938
Email: nazo@koullaw.com
GROVEHOUSE HOSPITALITY: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Oct. 26
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUBEN MENDEZ, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. GROVEHOUSE
HOSPITALITY, LLC, GROVEHOUSE HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS, LLC, WOODFIRE
COLLISION LLC, MISI DOMINO LLC, MELISSA ROBBINS, individually, and
SEAN FEENEY, individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-01646-HG-JRC
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Cho entered an order granting the joint
motion to extend scheduling order deadlines as follows:
-- Fact Discovery is to be completed by Jan. 15, 2027;
-- Motion for Rule 23 class certification:
- The Plaintiffs to move no later than Oct. 26, 2026;
- The Defendants' opposition shall be submitted no later than
Nov. 16, 2026; and
- The Plaintiffs' reply shall be submitted no later than Nov.
30, 2026.
-- Service of contention interrogatories is to be completed by
Sept. 22, 2026;
-- Service of requests for admissions is to be completed by Sept.
22, 2026; and
-- All expert discovery is to be completed by March 15, 2027.
Grovehouse is a hospitality company that celebrates Italian
cuisine, culture and spirit.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 18, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z0SaNW at no extra
charge.[CC]
GUARDIAN INDUSTRIES: Espinoza Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANK ESPINOZA,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated employees of
Defendants in the State of California, v. GUARDIAN INDUSTRIES,
LLC., and Does 1 Through 50, inclusive, Case No.
1:24-cv-00853-KES-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on June 24, 2026,
at 10:00 a.m., will move the Court, pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as follows:
1. Determining that the Class and Subclasses meet
the pre-requisites of Rule 23(a) because:
2. Certifying a class action pursuant to Rule
23(b)(3) on behalf of a class consisting of:
"All current and former non-exempt employees of Guardian who
performed work in California during the period of May 28,
2020, to the date of the certification order ("Class
Members")."
3. Certifying a class action pursuant to Rule
23(b)(3) as to the Second and Eighth Causes of Action for
failure to provide rest periods on behalf of the following
Subclass:
a. Third Rest Period Subclass:
"All Class Members who worked between 10 and 11.5 hours in
a workday and were not authorized and permitted to take
three rest breaks."
4. Certifying a class action pursuant to Rule
23(b)(3) as to the First, Second, and Eighth Causes of action
for failure to pay premium wages on behalf of the following
Subclass:
a. Regular Rate Premium Wage Subclass:
"All Class Members whose payroll records show that they
were paid a meal and/or rest period premium during the
same pay period in which they were paid an incentive."
5. Certifying a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) as to the
Third and Eighth Causes of action for failure to pay minimum,
regular, and overtime wages on behalf of the following
Subclass:
a. Regular Rate Overtime Subclass:
"All Class Members whose time records show that they
worked in excess of eight hours in a workday, 40 hours in
a workweek, or on the seventh consecutive day of work in a
workweek during the same pay period in which they were
paid an incentive."
6. Certifying a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) as to the
Fourth and Eighth Causes of action for failure to indemnify
necessary business expenses on behalf of the following
Subclass:
a. Reimbursement Subclass:
"All Class Members who were not reimbursed for use of
their personal cell phones during each pay period in which
they were paid wages for work performed."
7. Certifying a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) as to the
fifth cause of action for failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements on behalf of the following Subclass:
a. Regular Rate Wage Statement Subclass:
"All members of the regular rate premium wage subclass and
regular rate overtime Subclass who received at least one
wage statement and worked for Guardian within one year
preceding the filing of the Complaint."
b. Unpaid Premium Wage Statement Subclass:
"All members of the Third Rest Period Subclass who
received at least one wage statement and worked for
Guardian within one year preceding the filing of the
Complaint."
8. Certifying a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) as to the
Seventh Cause of action for failure to timely pay all wages
due on behalf of the following Subclass:
a. Waiting Time Penalties Subclass:
"All members of the Third Rest Period Subclass, Regular
Rate Premium Wage Subclass, and Regular Rate Overtime
Subclass who separated from their employment at least once
within three years preceding the filing of the Complaint."
9. Appointing ARCH Legal, P.C. (formerly GrahamHollis, APC),
including attorneys Nathan J. Reese and Monique R. Rodriguez,
attorneys of record for the Plaintiff, as Class Counsel
pursuant to Rule 26(g).
Guardian is a privately held industrial manufacturer of glass,
automotive and building products.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 18, 2026, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9p3qwC at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nathan J. Reese, Esq.
Monique R. Rodriguez, Esq.
ARCH LEGAL, P.C.
3555 Fifth Avenue Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619) 692-0800
Facsimile: (619) 692-0822
E-mail: nreese@archlegal.com
mrodriguez@archlegal.com
GUARDIAN INDUSTRIES: Espinoza Seeks to File Docs Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANK ESPINOZA,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated employees of
Defendants in the State of California, v. GUARDIAN INDUSTRIES,
LLC., and Does 1 Through 50, inclusive, Case No.
1:24-cv-00853-KES-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting its ex parte application to file documents
under seal in support of the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification pursuant to Rule 26(c) and the Parties' stipulated
protective order.
The Plaintiff seeks to seal the redacted wage statements and
payroll register reports for multiple putative class members, filed
in connection with his motion for class certification.
The Plaintiff does not believe that the documents he is presenting
to be filed under seal are appropriate for a confidential filing
because the information the Defendant argues is "confidential
business information" would give its competitors an economic
advantage, namely the hourly rates it pays its employees, is not
confidential as California mandates comprehensive pay transparency.
However, because Defendant has marked the documents as
"confidential," under the terms of the Parties' Stipulated
Protective Order, the Plaintiff is required to make this
application.
Guardian is a privately held industrial manufacturer of glass,
automotive and building products.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 18, 2026, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2s66I0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nathan J. Reese, Esq.
Monique R. Rodriguez, Esq.
ARCH LEGAL, P.C.
3555 Fifth Avenue Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619) 692-0800
Facsimile: (619) 692-0822
E-mail: nreese@archlegal.com
mrodriguez@archlegal.com
GUZMAN Y GOMEZ: Former Employees Sue Over WARN Act Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Chiarito, writing for Evanston Roundtable, reports that former
workers of Guzman y Gomez are alleging the company violated
Illinois' Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act
by failing to give adequate notice before closing its eight
Chicago-area locations and filed a lawsuit Sunday, May 24, in
federal court.
The class action lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court
Northern District of Illinois, seeks only damages and other relief
permitted under the state and federal WARN Acts.
"There was no notice. It happened Thursday, May 21, night and all
operations were closed by that morning," said Yomira Gomez, one of
the lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit and a shift leader who worked at
the Evanston location for the past year. Yomira Gomez is not
related to the childhood friends of founders Steven Marks and
Robert Hazan for whom the chain is named.
For Jocelyn Delgado, a former shift supervisor at the chain's Des
Plaines location who worked for the chain the past year, the sudden
closure potentially puts her family in financial jeopardy.
"I was about to get a new apartment but had to put a pause on it
because of this," she said.
Delgado also said the job was her first after taking a six-year
pause to focus on raising her children.
"Then I became a single mom and had to get back into the workforce
and support my kids."
Delgado said she also suspects the company knew of the closure in
advance but did not share the plan with workers.
"I had two district managers come into the store around 4 p.m., May
21. They didn't let us know until the evening so I literally worked
a shift without any knowledge that they were closing."
Joseph Guzman, no relation to the chain's namesake, worked at the
chain's Evanston, Des Plaines and Bucktown locations for the past
year. Guzman said the closing puts his status as a college student
at Wilbur Wright College in jeopardy.
"They're only paying us one week's worth of pay," he said, adding
that assistant managers and managers will receive three months of
severance.
The workers demonstrated outside the Evanston location and plan to
hold additional demonstrations.
Guzman y Gomez is an Australian-founded fast-casual Mexican chain
that announced May 21 that it was closing its eight U.S. locations
-- all in the Chicago area. Its Evanston location opened in March
2025.
The former employees allege that because they did not receive
advance notice, the company may be in violation of both the federal
and State of Illinois' WARN Act. Employers found in violation could
be responsible for back pay, and the value of benefits employees
were receiving, including medical expenses that would have been
covered under their benefit plan. Additionally, employers who fail
to give proper notice can be fined up to $500 for each day of the
violation.
"They did not give us any notice. We found out through a leaked
email at 8:11 p.m. May 21 and then the company resent it roughly
two hours later," Joseph Guzman said.
The WARN Act requires employers with more than 25 employees at one
location to provide 60 days' notice of closures or mass layoffs. An
exception can be made for employers actively seeking capital that
reasonably and in good faith believe that giving the required
notice would have prevented them from obtaining it.
The federal WARN Act applies to employers with more than 100
employees.
Guzman y Gomez did not respond to requests for comment on the
workers' lawsuit.
Yomira Gomez said the Evanston location had about 55 employees. The
chain has more than 13,000 employees worldwide, mostly in
Australia, Singapore and Japan.
Whether Guzman y Gomez was actively seeking capital -- which could
qualify it for an exception under the act -- is not known. A review
of the company's most recent annual report, for fiscal year 2025,
ending June 30, 2025, shows a record year globally with one
significant exception: the U.S. segment continued to lose money.
Steven Marks, founder and co-CEO, said in a statement Friday, May
22, to the RoundTable that he had "assessed the trajectory of the
business carefully with the board, and concluded that the path to
the performance needed to justify continued investment was not
there. That is a business reality and is the reason for this
decision," he said.
Guzman y Gomez's eight U.S. locations -- Naperville, Schaumburg,
Crystal Lake, Buffalo Grove, Deerfield, Des Plaines, Chicago's
Bucktown neighborhood and Evanston -- generated only $12.2 million
in network sales and lost $13.2 million at the EBITDA level,
according to the company's FY2025 annual report. That loss was more
than double the FY2024 loss of $6.5 million. The report said U.S.
losses were expected to increase slightly in FY2026 with two
additional openings planned, as the company was still investing in
infrastructure and proving its concept. [GN]
HOLLY RIDGE, NC: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to July 22
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIANA PAULL, et al., V.
THE TOWN OF HOLLY RIDGE, et al., Case No. 7:23-cv-01625-M-RJ
(E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Robert Jones Jr. entered an order
granting the parties' joint motion to extend case deadlines.
The case deadlines are amended as follows:
1. Responses to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
And Daubert motions related to class certification shall be
filed by no later than July 22, 2026, and any replies shall
be filed by no later than Aug. S, 2026.
Provisions of the court's prior scheduling order not altered herein
remain in effect.
Holly Ridge is a town in Onslow County, North Carolina.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EwiLyc at no extra
charge.[CC]
HOME DEPOT: Bid for Class Cert. in Rae-Ellis Due Dec. 11
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN RAE-ELLIS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a foreign profit corporation; DANIEL
SWORY, an individual; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington
entities, Case No. 3:26-cv-05070-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge
David G. Estudillo entered the following minute order setting class
certification briefing schedule:
The Defendants motion for judgment on June 1, 2026
the pleadings to be filed on the ordinary
28-day motion calendar in accordance
with LCR 7(d)(4):
Class certification expert disclosures: Sept. 4, 2026
Class certification rebuttal expert Oct. 23, 2026
disclosures:
The Plaintiff's motion for class Dec. 11, 2026
certification:
Response to motion for class certification: Jan. 11, 2027
The Plaintiff's reply: Feb. 1, 2027
Hearing on motion for class certification: TBD
Home Depot is an American multinational home improvement retail
corporation.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yIDiMo at no extra
charge.[CC]
HOME DEPOT: Class Cert Bid Filing in Sell Due June 19
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUANE SELL, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HOME DEPOT, INC.
et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01297-LK (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge
Lauren King entered an order setting the following class
certification briefing schedule as follows:
Deadline for the Plaintiff to file motion June 19, 2026
for class certification:
Deadline for the Defendants to file July 17, 2026
response/opposition to motion for class
certification:
Deadline for the Plaintiff to file reply July 31, 2026
in support of motion for class
certification:
The court will set further case schedule deadlines pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) after ruling on the motion
for class certification.
Counsel for the Plaintiffs shall inform the court immediately
should the Plaintiffs at any time decide not to seek class
certification.
Home Depot is a home improvement specialty retailer.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 18, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QeDIek at no extra
charge.[CC]
HONORHEALTH: Underpays Company Employees, Palmer Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA PALMER, individually and on behalf of, All Other Persons
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff vs HONORHEALTH, An Arizona Nonprofit
Corporation, DOES I-X; BLACK & WHITE ENTITIES I-X, Defendants, Case
No. 2:26-cv-03386-DWL (D. Ariz., May 14, 2026) is a class action
seeking 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") on behalf of Plaintiff and similarly situated current and
former employees of Defendant, and who elect to opt into this
action, and applicable Arizona State wage and hour laws.
According to the complaint, the Defendant generally did not pay the
Plaintiff and the other members of the FLSA Collective and the
State Law Class for the total number of hours worked. The Defendant
also failed to account for the total hours worked by the Plaintiff
and other prospective class members, and routinely withheld and
continues to withhold wages owed. Instead, Defendant calculates
wages based on rounded, modified, and inaccurate and/or incomplete
records which do not reflect total hours of compensable work
performed by Plaintiff and other prospective class members for the
benefit of the Defendant. In addition, the Defendant willfully
manipulated both the beginning and end of shift time records of
Plaintiff and members of the FLSA Collective and the State Law
Class to reflect less time worked when Defendant submitted these
employees' records to payroll, resulting in unpaid wages owed for
time worked.
The Defendant's rounding system has resulted in, over a period of
time, the failure to pay Plaintiff Palmer and other members of the
FLSA Collective and the State Law Class for all hours worked, in
violation of the FLSA and the Arizona Wage Act, says the suit.
Plaintiff, on his own behalf and on behalf of the FLSA Collective
and State Law Class, seeks compensatory, statutory,
extra-contractual, and punitive damages, declarative and injunctive
relief, as well as attorneys' fees, costs, and such other relief as
the Court may deem just and appropriate. This action also seeks to
recover unpaid compensation, interest, costs, and all other
appropriate relief, including treble liquidated damages, under the
Arizona Wage Act on behalf of Plaintiff and similarly situated
current and former employees of Defendant.
Plaintiff Joshua Palmer has been employed as care technician by
Defendant for approximately three years. He was hired to work for,
and thereafter continued to work for, Defendant as an hourly,
nonexempt employee. He initially worked forty hours or more per
week.
Defendant HonorHealth is a healthcare provider in Arizona, and
operated as a non-profit healthcare.
Defendant DOES I-X and BLACK & WHITE CORPORATIONS are individuals
and/or corporate entities currently unknown to the Plaintiff at
this time, but they are believed to each be liable in some manner
for the events and harms alleged in this Complaint.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steve German, Esq.
STEVE GERMAN, A LAW FIRM
11201 N Tatum Blvd., Suite 110
Phoenix, AZ 85081
Telephone: (480) 626-2700
E-mail: steve@lawfirmaz.com
- and -
Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
Jessica Rado, Esq.
KLAFTER LESSER LLP
Two International Drive, Suite 350
Rye Brook, NY 10573
Telephone: (914) 934-9200
E-mail: seth@klafterlesser.com
christopher.timmel@klafterlesser.com
- and -
Michael A. Galpern, Esq.
Amy C. Winters, Esq.
Kyle Scheibner, Esq.
JAVERBAUM WURGAFT HICKS
KAHN WIKSTROM & SININS
Laurel Oak Corporate Center
1000 Haddonfield-Berlin Road - Suite 203
Voorhees, NJ 08043
Telephone:(856)596-4100
E-mail: mgalpern@lawjw.com
HSBC BANK: Cruz Bid for Class Certification Due Oct. 15
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALYSSA CRUZ, v. HSBC BANK
USA, N.A., Case No. 1:26-cv-01582-GHW-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Parker entered the following scheduling order pursuant to
Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
-- The Defendant shall have until June 9, 2026, to file its
motion to dismiss; the Plaintiff's opposition or amended
complaint shall be due by July 9, 2026; and if the Plaintiff
files an opposition, the Defendant shall file its reply by
July 23, 2026.
-- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification under Rule 23
is due by Oct. 15, 2026; the Defendant's opposition is due by
Nov. 12, 2026; and any reply is due by Nov. 25, 2026.
-- The deadline to complete all discovery is Feb. 26, 2027. The
Parties shall submit a joint status update by June 18, 2026.
-- The parties shall follow the Court's Individual Procedures
with respect to any discovery disputes.
-- Counsel shall comply with Rule 1 and Rule 26(b)(1) in the
conduct of discovery.
On May 19, 2026, the parties appeared for an Initial Case
Management Conference.
The Defendant is a major American financial institution.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ru3l3x at no extra
charge.[CC]
ID5 TECHNOLOGY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Babbini Due July 15, 2027
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL BABBINI, et al., v.
ID5 TECHNOLOGY, INC., Case No. 4:26-cv-01428-JST (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Tigar entered an order.
The Court sets the following case deadlines pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and Civil Local Rule 16-10:
Event Deadline
Deadline to add parties or amend the Nov. 19, 2026
pleadings:
Parties to select method of ADR and June 1, 2027
ADR provider:
Fact discovery cut-off: June 15, 2027
Class certification motion and the July 15, 2027
Plaintiffs' expert disclosures due:
Class certification opposition and the Sept. 9, 2027
Defendants' expert disclosures due:
Expert discovery cut-off: Oct. 21, 2027
Class certification reply due: Oct. 21, 2027
ID5 provides identity verification services.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zU9qG6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
INSTRUCTURE HOLDINGS: Khorami Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bayan Khorami, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. INSTRUCTURE HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-00418 (D.
Utah, May 12, 2026), is brought on behalf of all persons who
entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable
Information ("PII" or "Private Information") that was impacted in a
data breach (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"), arising from the
Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private
Information that was entrusted to it and its accompanying
responsibility to store it securely.
The Defendant had numerous statutory, regulatory, contractual, and
common law duties and obligations to Plaintiff and Class Members,
to keep their Private Information confidential, safe, secure, and
protected from unauthorized disclosure or access. The Defendant
failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' Private
Information secure.
The Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all
reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information
collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. The Defendant
solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private
Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or
maintain adequate security practices in its programs. The Defendant
admits that unauthorized individuals accessed information in its
system. The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach
contained identifying information which can be used by
cybercriminals. The data included, but is not limited to, names,
email addresses, student ID numbers, and private messages.
Despite having the financial means, knowledge, and personnel
necessary to prevent the Data Breach, Defendant failed to use
reasonable security procedures and practices 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. The Plaintiff brings this
class action lawsuit to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding
of Class Members' Private Information that it collected and
maintained, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff and Class Members provided their Private Information
to Defendant.
The Defendant is an educational technology company that develops
and publishes Canvas Learning Management System ("LMS"), a platform
that manages online learning materials and allows students to
communicate with their teachers; view assignments, grades, and
other learning material; and submit assignments.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
Cecily C. Jordan, Esq.
Arshia Nilchian, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1200 5th Ave, Suite 1700
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: 206.682.5600
Email: kstephens@tousley.com
cjordan@tousley.com
anilchian@tousley.com
- and -
Jason L. Lichtman, Esq.
Michael J. Miarmi, Esq.
John D. Maher, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013-1413
Phone: (212) 355-9500
Fax: (212) 355-9592
Email: jlichtman@lchb.com
mmiarmi@lchb.com
jmaher@lchb.com
INSTRUCTURE INC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Verbish Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHEYENNE VERBISH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSTRUCTURE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:26-cv-00394-RJS (D. Utah, May 8, 2026) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable
information, resulting in a data breach impacting millions of
students nationwide in May 2026.
Canvas is a web-based learning management system platform developed
by Defendant. Canvas is used by over 8,000 universities and K-12
schools for course websites, assignments, and communication.
On May 1, 2026, the Defendant disclosed that Canvas had experienced
a "cybersecurity incident perpetrated by a criminal threat actor."
As a result, Canvas was shut down for several hours on May 7, 2026.
Shortly after the breach, a hacking group known as "ShinyHunters"
claimed responsibility for the data breach and claimed it had
accessed data from more than 275 million people across nearly 9,000
schools. As such, it is evident that highly sensitive personally
identifiable education records were exposed to criminal hackers by
virtue of the data breach.
The complaint says that Defendant failed to properly monitor and
properly implement data security practices with regard to the
computer network and systems that housed the sensitive information.
Had Defendant properly monitored its networks, it would have
discovered the breach sooner.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk
because of Defendant's negligent conduct. The sensitive information
that Defendant collected and maintained is now in the hands of data
thieves and other unauthorized third parties, says the suit.
Instructure, Inc. is an educational technology company based in
Salt Lake City, Utah.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason R. Hull, Esq.
MARSHALL OLSON & HULL, PC
Ten Exchange Place, Suite 350
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 456-7655
E-mail: jhull@mohtrial.com
- and -
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
Kennedy M. Brian, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
101 Park Avenue Suite 1300, #16982799
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com
kbrian@sirillp.com
INSTRUCTURE INC: Hornthal Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
------------------------------------------------------------
David Hornthal, on behalf of his minor child S.H. and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. INSTRUCTURE, INC., Case No.
2:26-cv-00412-DAO (D. Utah, May 12, 2026), is brought against
Instructure for its failure to secure and safeguard the personally
identifiable information ("PII") of his minor child and other
individuals who use Instructure's Canvas learning management system
("Canvas") from cyberattacks which affected Instructure on or about
April 29, 2026 and May 7, 2026.
On April 29, 2026 and May 7, 2026, Instructure experienced a
cybersecurity incident caused by cybercriminal threat actors in
which cybercriminals accessed and stole PII belonging to
Plaintiff's minor child and other Canvas users, including at least
names, usernames, email addresses, course names, enrollment
information, and messages (the "Data Breach").
Instructure owed a duty to Plaintiff and Class members to implement
and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure,
protect, and safeguard their PII against unauthorized access and
disclosure. Instructure breached that duty by, among other things,
failing to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures
and practices to protect Class members' PII from unauthorized
access and disclosure.
As a result of Instructure's inadequate security and breach of its
duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiff's
minor child's and Class members' PII was accessed and disclosed.
This action seeks to remedy these failings and their consequences.
Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of his minor child and all
persons whose PII was exposed as a result of the Data Breach, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff David Hornthal and his minor child S.H. who uses
Instructure's Canvas system through her school.
Instructure is an education technology company that develops and
publishes Canvas, a web-based learning management system "that
allows institutions to manage digital learning, educators to create
and present online learning materials and assess student learning,
and students to engage in courses and receive feedback about skill
development and learning achievement."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Magleby, Esq.
Jennifer Fraser Parrish, Esq.
MAGLEBY CATAXINOS, PC
141 West Pierpont Avenue
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Phone: (801) 359-9000
Fax: (801) 359-9011
Email: magleby@mcpc.law
parrish@mcpc.law
- and -
Ben Barnow, Esq.
Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq.
BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
205 West Randolph Street, Ste. 1630
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: 312.621.2000
Fax: 312.641.5504
Email: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
aparkhill@barnowlaw.com
- and -
Russell B. Cate, Esq.
RILEYCATE, LLC
11 Municipal Drive, Suite 320
Fishers, Indiana 46038
Phone: (317) 588-2866
Fax: (317) 458-1785
Email: rcate@rileycate.com
INSTRUCTURE INC: Moran Files Suit Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------
JOSE MORAN, on behalf of his minor child J.M.U., and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSTRUCTURE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:26-cv-431 (D. Utah, May 13, 2026) arises out of the recent
data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against
Defendant, which held in its possession certain personally
identifiable information ("PII") of Plaintiff, his minor child
J.M.U., and Class Members.
The complaint relates that the Plaintiff, his minor child J.M.U.,
and Class Members provided their PII to Defendant with the
reasonable expectation and on the mutual understanding that
Defendant would comply with its obligations to keep such
information confidential and secure from unauthorized access. On
April 29, 2026, Instructure first detected unauthorized access to
its systems. On April 30, 2026, Instructure "announced that it was
experiencing a service disruption" and then on May 1, 2026,
Instructure confirmed that cybercriminals were behind the attack.
On May 3, 2026, the cybercriminal group ShinyHunters uploaded 3.65
terabytes of data, and shared a ransom note, claiming to have
exfiltrated 275 million individuals' data and billions of private
messages. On May 7, 2026, ShinyHunters defaced Canvas login pages
with a ransom demand, preventing students and instructors from
accessing the platform, and causing delays relating to assignment
deadlines, grading, and exams. On May 12, 2026, Instructure
announced that it paid the ransom, and in exchange, Instructure
received its data back from ShinyHunters, as well as digital
confirmation that the exfiltrated data was destroyed, and assurance
that Instructure customers will not be extorted.
The complaint asserts that the Plaintiff, his minor child J.M.U.,
and Class Members have been harmed because they are at immediate
risk of having their personal information used against them. They
do not know if their data has been sold, transferred, replicated,
or irrevocably disseminated and exposed. They suffered harm in the
loss of the value of their data which cannot be easily recovered,
if ever, adds the complaint.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of his minor child J.M.U., and on behalf
of a nationwide class, alleges claims of (1) Negligence, (2)
Negligence Per Se, (3) Breach of Implied Contract; (4) Unjust
Enrichment, and (5) violation of New York's General Business Law.
Plaintiff also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiff
asks the Court to compel Defendant to adopt reasonable information
security practices to secure the sensitive PII that Defendant
collects and stores in its databases and to grant such other relief
as the Court deems just and proper.
Plaintiff Jose Moran is the father and legal guardian of J.M.U. who
attends high school at Saunders Trades and Technical High School in
Yonkers, New York, and is also dual enrolled at Embry-Riddle
Aeronautical University, which uses Canvas to conduct its
operations.
Defendant Instructure, Inc. is an educational technology company
that operates the learning management system ("LMS") Canvas. Canvas
offers "powerful tools for course creation, grading, collaboration,
and mobile learning.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason R. Hull, Esq.
MARSHALL OLSON & HULL, PC
Ten Exchange Place, Suite 350
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Telephone: 801-456-7655
E-mail: jhull@mohtrial.com
- and -
Amber L. Schubert, Esq.
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
2001 Union Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94123
Telephone: 415-788-4220
E-mail: aschubert@sjk.law
INSTRUCTURE INC: Steinhoff Balks at Unprotected Personal Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
ETHAN STEINHOFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INSTRUCTURE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:26-cv-00387 (D. Utah, May 7, 2026) is a class action arising from
a large-scale data breach affecting users of the Canvas learning
management system, which is operated by Defendant and used by
educational institutions throughout the United States, including in
North Carolina.
According to the complaint, on or about April 30, 2026, an
unauthorized criminal threat actor accessed Defendant's systems and
exfiltrated personal information belonging to users of Canvas at
thousands of educational institutions worldwide.
Allegedly, the Defendant failed to implement reasonable,
industry-standard data security measures appropriate to the volume,
sensitivity, and special legal status of the data in its custody.
As a result, criminal extortion group ShinyHunters was able to
access Defendant's systems, exfiltrate user data on a large scale,
and publish a ransom demand on its public leak site.
Plaintiff Steinhoff is a college student at East Carolina
University in Greenville, North Carolina, who used Canvas
continuously throughout his enrollment to access course materials,
submit assignments, view grades, and exchange messages with
faculty, staff, and classmates.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and a
Nationwide Class and a North Carolina Subclass of similarly
situated individuals, seeking damages, equitable relief, and
injunctive relief to compel Defendant to adopt reasonable data
security practices, to provide adequate individualized notice and
identity-monitoring services, and to compensate Class Members for
the substantial harm Defendant's conduct has caused.
Instructure Inc. provides online education technology.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason R. Hull, Esq. [
MARSHALL OLSON & HULL, PC
Ten Exchange Place, Suite 350
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 456-7655
E-mail: jhull@mohtrial.com
- and -
Scott J. Falgoust, Esq.
BRYSON, HARRIS, Suciu, & DEMAY, PLLC
5301 Canal Boulevard
New Orleans, LA 70124
Telephone: (919) 585-5634
E-mail: sfalgoust@brysonpllc.com
JAN-CARE AMBULANCE: Fox FLSA Suit Transferred to S.D. West Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Daniel Fox, Jr., Robert Sovine, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Jan-Care Ambulance, Inc., Case
No. 2:26-cv-00273 was transferred the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of West Virginia on May 12, 2026.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-00336 to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Jan-Care Ambulance -- https://www.jancare.com/ -- is the largest
EMS provider in West Virginia, dedicated to delivering high-quality
and compassionate care to the communities it serves.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
William F. Goodrich, Esq.
GOODRICH & GEIST PC
3634 California Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
Phone: 412-766-1455
Facsimile: 412-766-0300
Email: josh@goodrichandgeist.com
bill@goodrichandgeist.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
5847 San Felipe Street, Suite 2400
Houston, TX 77057
Phone: (713) 352-1100
Fax: (713) 352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Colby S. Bryson, Esq.
JACKSON KELLY
Union Trust Building, Suite 1010
501 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Phone: (412) 434-8815
Email: colby.bryson@jacksonkelly.com
JARED HOY: Parties Seek to Stay Discovery and Case Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT HUBER, v. JARED
HOY, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00404-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the parties
ask the Court to enter an order staying all discovery and case
deadlines pending a ruling on Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class
under Rule 23.
The plaintiff's motion to certify class was filed on Jan. 15, 2026.
The Defendants filed a response in opposition on Feb. 19, 2026. The
plaintiff filed a response on March 6, 2026.
The motion is fully briefed, but the Court has not yet rendered a
decision.
Per the Court's pretrial conference order, the deadline for filing
dispositive motions is July 14, 2026 and the discovery cut off is
Nov. 11, 2026.
A copy of the parties' motion dated May 19, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vUJaPv at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nathaniel Cade, Jr, Esq.
Annalisa Pusick, Esq.
CADE LAW GROUP LLC
Milwaukee, WI 53217
Telephone: (414) 255-3802
Facsimile: (414) 255-3804
E-mail: nate@cade-law.com
annalisa@cade-law.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Joshue L. Kaul, Esq.
Mary Kathlin Sickel, Esq.
Rebecca A. Paulson, Esq.
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Madison, WI 53707-7857
Telephone: 608) 266-7326
Facsimile: (608) 294-2907
E-mail: sickelmk@doj.state.wi.us
paulsonra@doj.state.wi.us
JP MORGAN: Bodea Seeks to File Class Cert Doc Under Seal
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bodea v. JPMorgan Chase &
Co. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-06404-LGS-SN (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order grating permission to file under
seal letter requesting a pre-motion conference regarding their
anticipated motion for class certification.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff has (i) publicly filed the letter with
proposed redactions as an attachment hereto; and (ii)
electronically filed under seal a highlighted copy of the
unredacted letter.
The reason for the request is that the letter contains and
references information that have been designated by Defendant J.P.
Morgan Securities LLC as "Confidential."
The Plaintiffs take no position on the propriety of any
confidential designations and reserve the right to challenge such
designations.
JPMorgan is an American multinational banking institution.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 18, 2026, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rJcT46 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
Alex B. Heller, Esq.
Joel M. Sweet, Esq.
Radha Nagamani Raghavan, Esq.
Joseph E. Samuel, Jr., Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
E-mail: mdellangelo@bergermontague.com
aheller@bergermontague.com
jsweet@bergermontague.com
rraghavan@bergermontague.com
jsamuel@bergermontague.com
- and -
Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq.
John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq.
Adam H. Wierzbowski, Esq.
Michael D. Blatchley, Esq.
Emily A. Tu, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 554-1400
E-mail: salvatore@blbglaw.com
johnr@blbglaw.com
adam@blbglaw.com
michaelb@blbglaw.com
emily.tu@blbglaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Jayant W. Tambe, Esq.
Laura Washington Sawyer, Esq.
Cealagh P. Fitzpatrick, Esq.
Meredith Christian, Esq.
JONES DAY
250 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281
Telephone: (212) 326-3939
E-mail: jtambe@jonesday.com
lwsawyer@jonesday.com
cfitzpatrick@jonesday.com
mchristian@jonesday.com
JP MORGAN: Class Cert Bid Conference Set for June 9
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bodea v. JPMorgan Chase &
Co. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-06404-LGS-SN (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Schofield entered an order that a conference will be held
June 9, 2026, to address the Plaintiff's anticipated motion for
class certification.
JPMorgan is an American multinational banking institution.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aAztkk at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
Alex B. Heller, Esq.
Joel M. Sweet, Esq.
Radha Nagamani Raghavan, Esq.
Joseph E. Samuel, Jr., Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
E-mail: mdellangelo@bergermontague.com
aheller@bergermontague.com
jsweet@bergermontague.com
rraghavan@bergermontague.com
jsamuel@bergermontague.com
- and -
Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq.
John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq.
Adam H. Wierzbowski, Esq.
Michael D. Blatchley, Esq.
Emily A. Tu, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
& GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 554-1400
E-mail: salvatore@blbglaw.com
johnr@blbglaw.com
adam@blbglaw.com
michaelb@blbglaw.com
emily.tu@blbglaw.com
JR BUTLER: Seeks Relief from Automatic Stay
-------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned re J.R. Butler, Inc., Case
No. 25-15598-TBM (D. Colo.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter
an order granting relief from the automatic stay, to the extent
applicable, to permit payment and/or advancement of defense costs
and other loss under the Directors and Officers (D&O) Policy.
The Movants request that the Court enter an Order:
(i) determining that the proceeds of the D&O Policy, to the
extent they are needed to pay the Defense Costs and/or
other Loss of the Movants, do not constitute property of
the estate under 11 U.S.C. section 541;
(ii) providing that the automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C.
section 362(a) is not applicable and/or, if applicable,
lifting the automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. section
362(a) pursuant to 11 U.S.C. sections 362(d)(1) and (2) to
allow the Insurer to advance and/or reimburse Defense
Costs and/or other Loss in accordance with and subject to
the terms and conditions of the D&O Policy; and
(iii) waiving the 14-day stay provided by Bankruptcy Rule
4001(a)(4).
On Aug. 29, 2025, the Defendant filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection in this Court.
The Underlying Litigation alleges that the Debtor and Movants
ordered aluminum extrusions from Western Extrusions LLC on seven
different projects and failed to pay the full amount due and owing
to Western.
Western brings claims for breach of contract, violation of
Colorado's trust fund statute (C.R.S. section 38-22-127), and civil
theft against Debtor and Movants in a total alleged amount of
$857,000 (collectively, the "Claim").
J.R. Butler is a commercial glass and glazing specialty
contractor.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 19, 2026, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RSMbKy at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent R. Owen, Esq.
Allison K. Regan, Esq.
HAYNES AND BOONE LLP
675 15th Street, Suite 2200
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 382-6242
Facsimile: (303) 382-6210
E-mail: brent.owen@haynesboone.com
Allison.regan@haynesboone.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Christopher J. Harayda, Esq.
Zane A. Gilmer, Esq.
Alex J. Gunning, Esq.
STINSON LLP
50 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 335-1500
E-mail: cj.harayda@stinson.com
zane.gilmer@stinson.com
Alex.gunning@stinson.com
KAISER FOUNDATION: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Culbert
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER CULBERT,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF COLORADO, a Colorado Nonprofit
Corporation, and COLORADO PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, P.C., a
Colorado corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-01231-DDD-NRN (D. Colo.),
the Hon. Judge N. Reid Neureiter entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's unopposed motion to amend the scheduling order as
follows:
The Scheduling Order is further amended to extend the following
deadlines:
-- Disclosure of affirmative experts: Nov. 10, 2026
-- Disclosure of rebuttal experts: Dec. 10, 2026
-- Discovery cut-off: Dec. 14, 2026;
-- Motion for class certification: Jan. 15, 2027
-- Opposition to motion for class certification: Feb. 15, 2027
-- Reply on motion for class certification: March 1, 2027
-- Dispositive motion deadline: March 1, 2027
Kaiser offers medicare and health insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 18, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6wZ3m3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
KENNAMETAL INC: Hall Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Hall, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
KENNAMETAL INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-00887 (W.D. Pa., May 12, 2026),
is brought against Defendant Kennametal Inc. for its failure to pay
its employees overtime wages, seeking all available relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") and Ohio law and
O.R.C. Section 4111.03 ("Ohio Wage Act").
The Plaintiff and other similarly situated production/manufacturing
employees worked for Defendant as hourly non-exempt employees and
worked 40 or more hours in one or more workweek(s) during the three
years immediately preceding the filing of this Complaint. During
their employment with Defendant, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated production/manufacturing employees were required to clock
in and out on Defendant's time clocks, which Defendant controlled.
Defendant failed to track, keep, or transmit the hours accurately
worked each day by The Plaintiff and other similarly situated
production/manufacturing employees.
The Defendant willfully transmitted inaccurate and/or incomplete
records to payroll for compensation purposes, which do not include
all work performed. The incorrect and/or incomplete records had the
direct effect of reducing Defendant's labor costs to the detriment
of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
production/manufacturing employees. Thus, Defendant willfully did
not record and pay all hours worked in violation of the FLSA and
violated the FLSA's recordkeeping requirements, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from January 2022 through
March 2026.
The Defendant is engaged in the production of various industrial
materials, engine parts, and cutting tools for use in a variety of
industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
Tristan T. Akers, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126
Columbus, OH 43220
Phone: 614-949-1181
Fax: 614-386-9964
Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
sdraher@mcoffmanlegal.com
agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
takers@mcoffmanlegal.com
KENVUE BRANDS: Beyer Amended Complaint Dismissed w/o Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHEYENNE BEYER, YOLANDA
PITRE, CAMERON GASKINS, LATONYA WRIGHT and DAVONNA COX,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
KENVUE BRANDS LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-12180-SDW-AME (D.N.J.), the
Hon. Judge Susan D. Wigenton entered a judgment granting without
prejudice the motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended class
action complaint for failure to state a claim.
The Plaintiff shall have 30 days to file an amended complaint.
This putative class action involves allegations that the Defendant
has unlawfully misled consumers into purchasing certain Aveeno Kids
and Aveeno Baby skin care products by misrepresenting the products
as "hypoallergenic" and suitable for "sensitive skin."
The court found that the plaintiffs' claims were speculative
because the plaintiffs failed to connect their allegations by
establishing that the levels of heavy metals in the challenged
products were unsafe. As such, like the plaintiffs in Kimca, the
Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege a key inference necessary for
standing. Given this, the Plaintiffs cannot establish Article III
standing with a benefit of the bargain theory of economic harm.
The Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint on June 26, 2025.
On Oct. 26, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint.
Kenvue Brands is an American consumer health company.
A copy of the Court's opinion dated May 19, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HHC4RS at no extra
charge.[CC]
KRISTI NOEM: Plaintiffs Win Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Immigration Center for
Women and Children, Lupe A., Camila B., Paulo C., Kenia J. Merlos,
Luna E., Carmen F., Yessenia Ruano, Daniel H., Coalition for Humane
Immigrant Rights, La Raza Centro Legal, and California
Collaborative for Immigrant Justice, v. Kristi Noem, Secretary of
Homeland Security, in her official capacity, U.S. Immigration &
Customs Enforcement ("ICE"), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services, Case No. 2:25-cv-09848-AB-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order:
-- granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; and
-- granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary injunction.
The Court preliminarily certifies the following classes:
1. Pending Petition Class:
"All individuals with pending principal or derivative U visa
petitions, T visa petitions, or Violence Against Women Act
("VAWA") self-petitions who ICE detains or seeks to detain
for civil immigration enforcement."
2. Deferred Action Class:
"All individuals to whom USCIS has granted deferred action
based on a pending U or T visa petition and who, during the
authorized period of deferred action, ICE detains, seeks to
detain, or removed without providing notice and an
opportunity to be heard regarding potential revocation of
their deferred action status."
3. Stay of Removal Class:
"All individuals with a pending U or T visa petition who,
since Jan. 30, 2025, have been, are, or will be detained by
ICE and who request or requested a stay of a final removal
order prior to enforcement of that removal order.
The Court appoints the following class representatives:
1. The Plaintiffs Lupe A., Camila B., Paulo C., Kenia J. Merlos,
Luna E., Carmen F., Yessenia Ruano, and Daniel H. as the
Pending Petition Class representatives.
2. Lupe A., Camila B., Paulo C., and Ms. Merlos as the Deferred
Action Class representatives.
3. Carmen F. and Yessenia Ruano as the Stay of Removal Class
representatives.
The Court appoints the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional
Law, Public Counsel, La Raza Centro Legal, and the Coalition for
Humane Immigrant Rights as class counsel for the three classes.
As to the motion for preliminary injunction, the Court orders:
1. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. section 705, the Court stays the 2025
Guidance, including its rescission of prior policies.
Insofar as the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction seeks
preliminary relief other than what expressly ordered above, it is
denied.
The Plaintiffs have therefore satisfied all four of the Winter
factors as to all eight claims upon which they seek preliminary
relief. The Court therefore grants the Plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary injunction. However, the Court denies the motion
insofar as it seeks Proposed Orders ¶¶ 6, 9, and 11 because, as
discussed in Section II(B)(4), such relief appears barred by §
1252(f)(1).
On Jan. 30, 2025, ICE issued a new policy governing its immigration
enforcement actions against "aliens who are known beneficiaries of
victim-based immigration benefits or are known to have pending
applications or petitions for such benefits."
The Plaintiffs allege that the 2025 Guidance and the two resulting
policies allow for the detention and removal of VAWA
self-petitioners and of U visa and T visa petitioners contrary to
protections afforded them by Congress and contrary to congressional
intent, and represent a sea change in policy that the Defendants
adopted in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and the
Accardi doctrine.
Kristi Noem is an American politician.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 20, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qUJTH8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
LACKAWANNA COUNTY, PA: Seeks Reconsideration of May 6 Order
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA HUZZARD and DAMPSEY
STUCKEY, Individually And as representatives of the classes, v.
LACKAWANNA RECYCLING CENTER, INC., LACKAWANNA COUNTY, Case No.
3:14-cv-01891-RDM (M.D. Pa.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter
an order granting motion for reconsideration of the Court's Order
dated May 6, 2026.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 20, 2026, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dmkaOZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Joseph T. Healey, Esq.
CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C.
Lackawanna County
415 Wyoming Avenue
Scranton, PA 18503
Telephone: (570) 347-0600
E-mail: jhealey@c-wlaw.com
LANGDON & COMPANY: Bid for Class Certification Due Feb. 18, 2027
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned RE LANGDON & COMPANY, LLP
DATA BREACH LITIGATION, Case No. 5:25-cv-00544-FL (E.D.N.C.), the
Hon. Judge Flanagan entered a case management order as follows:
-- All class discovery shall be commenced or served in time to be
completed by Jan. 19, 2027.
-- In the event expert discovery is necessary during the class
discovery period, the disclosures required by Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 26(a)(2), including reports from retained
experts, shall be served by Nov. 18, 2026.
-- Any motion for leave to join additional parties or to
otherwise amend the pleadings shall be filed by Oct. 1, 2026.
-- The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be filed
by Feb. 18, 2027. The Defendant's opposition to the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be filed by
April 1, 2027. The Plaintiffs' reply to the defendant's
opposition shall be filed by May 19, 2027.
Langdon is a CPA & accounting firm.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pNLXbk at no extra
charge.[CC]
LEE UNIVERSITY: Settlement Deal in Butler Suit Gets Prelim OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Butler v. Lee University,
Case No. 1:25-cv-00114 (E.D. Tenn.), the Court entered a memorandum
preliminarily approving the Rule 23 settlement agreement in this
action.
The Plaintiffs also request that the Court conditionally certify
the Settlement Class, appoint Leanna Loginov and J. Gerard Stranch
as Class Counsel, appoint Plaintiffs as class representatives,
approve the Notices, Notice Program, Claim Form, and Claim Process,
and the opt-out or objection procedures, appoint Kroll as the
settlement administrator, stay the action pending final settlement
approval, and schedule a final approval hearing.
The action stems from a data breach that occurred on March 22,
2024, when an unknown actor gained access to Defendant Lee
University's systems and accessed the private information of
136,928 individuals, including students, faculty, and staff.
In April 2024, ransomware gang Medusa claimed responsibility for
the data breach, and demanded one million in ransom. The Defendant
begin contacting those individuals whose information was
compromised on March 25, 2025.
On April 1, 2025, the Plaintiff Michael Harris filed a class-action
complaint in the Eastern District of Tennessee on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated.
The Defendant is a private Christian university in Cleveland,
Tennessee.
A copy of the Court's memorandum dated May 18, 2026, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dZCXHg at no extra
charge.[CC]
LEE UNIVERSITY: Settlement Deal in Goodine Suit Gets Prelim OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GOODINE v. Lee University,
Case No. 1:25-cv-00125 (E.D. Tenn.), the Court entered a memorandum
preliminarily approving the Rule 23 settlement agreement in this
action.
The Plaintiffs also request that the Court conditionally certify
the Settlement Class, appoint Leanna Loginov and J. Gerard Stranch
as Class Counsel, appoint Plaintiffs as class representatives,
approve the Notices, Notice Program, Claim Form, and Claim Process,
and the opt-out or objection procedures, appoint Kroll as the
settlement administrator, stay the action pending final settlement
approval, and schedule a final approval hearing.
The action stems from a data breach that occurred on March 22,
2024, when an unknown actor gained access to Defendant Lee
University's systems and accessed the private information of
136,928 individuals, including students, faculty, and staff.
In April 2024, ransomware gang Medusa claimed responsibility for
the data breach, and demanded one million in ransom. The Defendant
begin contacting those individuals whose information was
compromised on March 25, 2025.
On April 1, 2025, the Plaintiff Michael Harris filed a class-action
complaint in the Eastern District of Tennessee on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated.
The Defendant is a private Christian university in Cleveland,
Tennessee.
A copy of the Court's memorandum dated May 18, 2026, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1aSl3Z at no extra
charge.[CC]
LEE UNIVERSITY: Settlement Deal in Kubba Suit Gets Initial Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kubba v. Lee University,
Case No. 1:25-cv-00118 (E.D. Tenn.), the Court entered a memorandum
preliminarily approving the Rule 23 settlement agreement in this
action.
The Plaintiffs also request that the Court conditionally certify
the Settlement Class, appoint Leanna Loginov and J. Gerard Stranch
as Class Counsel, appoint Plaintiffs as class representatives,
approve the Notices, Notice Program, Claim Form, and Claim Process,
and the opt-out or objection procedures, appoint Kroll as the
settlement administrator, stay the action pending final settlement
approval, and schedule a final approval hearing.
The action stems from a data breach that occurred on March 22,
2024, when an unknown actor gained access to Defendant Lee
University's systems and accessed the private information of
136,928 individuals, including students, faculty, and staff.
In April 2024, ransomware gang Medusa claimed responsibility for
the data breach, and demanded one million in ransom. The Defendant
begin contacting those individuals whose information was
compromised on March 25, 2025.
On April 1, 2025, the Plaintiff Michael Harris filed a class-action
complaint in the Eastern District of Tennessee on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated.
The Defendant is a private Christian university in Cleveland,
Tennessee.
A copy of the Court's memorandum dated May 18, 2026, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=d1rbMm at no extra
charge.[CC]
LEE UNIVERSITY: Settlement Deal in Nabors Suit Gets Initial OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nabors v. Lee University,
Case No. 1:25-cv-00113 (E.D. Tenn.), the Court entered a memorandum
preliminarily approving the Rule 23 settlement agreement in this
action.
The Plaintiffs also request that the Court conditionally certify
the Settlement Class, appoint Leanna Loginov and J. Gerard Stranch
as Class Counsel, appoint Plaintiffs as class representatives,
approve the Notices, Notice Program, Claim Form, and Claim Process,
and the opt-out or objection procedures, appoint Kroll as the
settlement administrator, stay the action pending final settlement
approval, and schedule a final approval hearing.
The action stems from a data breach that occurred on March 22,
2024, when an unknown actor gained access to Defendant Lee
University's systems and accessed the private information of
136,928 individuals, including students, faculty, and staff.
In April 2024, ransomware gang Medusa claimed responsibility for
the data breach, and demanded one million in ransom. The Defendant
begin contacting those individuals whose information was
compromised on March 25, 2025.
On April 1, 2025, the Plaintiff Michael Harris filed a class-action
complaint in the Eastern District of Tennessee on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated.
The Defendant is a private Christian university in Cleveland,
Tennessee.
A copy of the Court's memorandum dated May 18, 2026, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=It4bfB at no extra
charge.[CC]
LEE UNIVERSITY: Settlement Deal in Vaught Suit Gets Initial Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Vaught v. Lee University,
Case No. 1:25-cv-00108 (E.D. Tenn.), the Court entered a memorandum
preliminarily approving the Rule 23 settlement agreement in this
action.
The Plaintiffs also request that the Court conditionally certify
the Settlement Class, appoint Leanna Loginov and J. Gerard Stranch
as Class Counsel, appoint Plaintiffs as class representatives,
approve the Notices, Notice Program, Claim Form, and Claim Process,
and the opt-out or objection procedures, appoint Kroll as the
settlement administrator, stay the action pending final settlement
approval, and schedule a final approval hearing.
The action stems from a data breach that occurred on March 22,
2024, when an unknown actor gained access to Defendant Lee
University's systems and accessed the private information of
136,928 individuals, including students, faculty, and staff.
In April 2024, ransomware gang Medusa claimed responsibility for
the data breach, and demanded one million in ransom. The Defendant
begin contacting those individuals whose information was
compromised on March 25, 2025.
On April 1, 2025, the Plaintiff Michael Harris filed a class-action
complaint in the Eastern District of Tennessee on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated.
The Defendant is a private Christian university in Cleveland,
Tennessee.
A copy of the Court's memorandum dated May 18, 2026, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QcTlhv at no extra
charge.[CC]
LIVERAMP HOLDINGS: Discovery in Riganian Privacy Action Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
LiveRamp Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form
10-K, for the period ending March 31, 2026, dated and delivered to
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 21, 2026, that
disclosing that on January 24, 2025, a purported class action
styled "Riganian et al v. LiveRamp Holdings, Inc. and LiveRamp,
Inc." (Case No. 4:25-cv-824-JST) was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California against the
Company and LiveRamp, Inc.
The complaint alleges violations the California Invasion of Privacy
Act, the Federal Wiretap Act and unjust enrichment. The lawsuit
seeks certification of classes of California and national
consumers, unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees,
and other relief, including injunctive and declaratory relief.
Discovery has begun in this action, and it is anticipated that
issues relating to class certification will be determined in late
2026.
LiveRamp Holdings, Inc. is a data connectivity platform company
that enables businesses and agencies to unify, analyze, and
activate customer data across channels and devices. It provides
privacy-focused identity resolution and data onboarding solutions
to support data-driven marketing and analytics.
MANEUVER MARKETING: Class Cert Bid in Luxton Due Feb. 1, 2027
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RACHEL LUXTON, et al., v.
MANEUVER MARKETING PTE. LTD., Case No. 5:25-cv-04004-PCP (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts entered a case management
order as follows:
Joinder and other amendments: July 14, 2026
Motion for class certification: Feb. 1, 2027
Opposition to class certification: April 2, 2027
Reply in support of class May 17, 2027
certification:
Completion of ADR: Oct. 30, 2026
Maneuver builds, operates, and scales hyper-growth health and
wellness e-commerce brands.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 18, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7EPIcc at no extra
charge.[CC]
MARSHA MCLANE: Hanson Bid for Class Certification Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK HANSON, ROBERT AL
CONWAY, RICHARD A. DUNSMORE, STEVEN A. HAYES, and GARY CARDENAS, v.
MARSHA McLANE, JESSICA MARSH, § KARA GOUGLER, and DAVID BOWERS,
Case No. 1:26-cv-01043-ADA (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Alan D
Albright entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' request for class
certification and the appointment of counsel.
The Court further orders that the Plaintiffs must file an amended
complaint on or before June 26, 2026. Their amended complaint must
address the deficiencies detailed in this order. Failure to respond
to this order may result in the dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to
prosecute or comply with a court order.
The Plaintiffs' current complaint does not establish their
standing. They make general claims about biased psychological
evaluators, poor medical care, the denial of constitutional rights,
and violations of state law, but they do not mention how they were
injured by any of these alleged violations of their constitutional
rights. In their amended complaint, the Plaintiffs need to allege
details supporting their standing to bring any of the legal claims
they describe, the Court says.
Further, the Plaintiffs' complaint does not identify overly complex
legal issues and two of the Plaintiffs—Mr. Dunsmore and Mr.
Cardenas—have previously and are currently representing
themselves in cases before this Court. Accordingly, at this time
the Plaintiffs' complaint does not identify any exceptional
circumstance that would require the appointment of counsel.
The Plaintiffs have all been adjudicated as Sexually Violent
Predators (SVPs) and are all civilly committed under Texas law.
They are under the supervision of the Texas Civil Commitment Office
(TCCO) and reside at the Texas Civil Commitment Center (TCCC) in
Littlefield, Texas.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w7h2j1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
MASTERCRAFT BOAT HOLDINGS: Taylor Stockholder Class Action Ends
---------------------------------------------------------------
MasterCraft Boat Holdings, Inc. disclosed in a Form 8-K, dated and
delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 22,
2026, that disclosing that on February 11, 2026, Bruce Taylor, that
on May 19, 2026, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
entered an order closing the action after MasterCraft and the
applicable stockholders entered into an amendment on March 11, 2026
to amend the stockholders' agreement that removed the provision
challenged by the plaintiff.
Taylor, a purported stockholder of the company, filed a putative
class action complaint in said court against the company under the
caption "Taylor v. MasterCraft Boat Holdings, Inc.," C.A. No.
2026-0201-NAC seeking declaratory relief, challenging a provision
in a stockholders' agreement, dated February 5, 2026, that required
the written consent of certain stockholders of the company prior to
removing certain director nominees from its board of directors.
Plaintiff alleged that this provision breached the MasterCraft
certificate of incorporation and violated Section 141(k) of the
Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL). Plaintiff also alleged
that MasterCraft filed a certificate of amendment on October 24,
2019, with the Delaware Secretary of State that did not reflect
language approved by stockholders at MasterCraft’s 2019 annual
meeting.
On March 11, 2026, MasterCraft and the applicable stockholders
entered into an amendment to the stockholders' agreement that
removed the provision challenged by the plaintiff, and MasterCraft
filed with the Delaware Secretary of State on March 10, 2026, a
certificate of correction including the language alleged to have
been omitted.
On March 16, 2026, the company filed a Form S-4 disclosing the
amendment to the stockholders' agreement and the certificate of
correction. Plaintiff agreed that these actions mooted his claims.
Following the mooting of the claims, plaintiff's counsel indicated
their intent to apply for reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses.
Following negotiation among the parties, the company subsequently
agreed to pay $425,000.00 in attorneys' fees and expenses in full
satisfaction of any and all claims by plaintiff and all of his
counsel for fees and expenses in the action.
On May 19, 2026, the court entered an order closing the action,
subject to the company filing an affidavit confirming that this
notice has been issued. In entering the order, the court was not
asked to review, and did not pass judgment on, the payment of the
attorneys' fees and expenses or their reasonableness.
MasterCraft Boat Holdings, Inc. is a manufacturer of recreational
powerboats and related marine products, marketing premium brands
for water sports, fishing and leisure boating. The company sells
its boats and accessories through an independent dealer network
primarily in North America and select international markets.
MERCK SHARP: Parties Seeks to Seal Class Cert Materials
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mayor and City Council of
Baltimore, v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Case No. 2:23-cv-00828-GAM
(E.D. Pa.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting
their motion to maintain sealing on certain portions of the
briefing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and the
Defendant's motion to exclude the testimony of Einer Elhauge.
Specifically, the Parties move the Court to maintain the sealing on
the materials as listed in the attached Memorandum of Law. Good
cause exists for maintaining the sealing of these documents due to
the presence of sensitive business information.
The Defendant operates as a research-intensive biopharmaceutical
company.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 20, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3q9enJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
Russell D. Paul, Esq.
David Langer, Esq.
Sarah R. Zimmerman, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: ecramer@bergermontague.com
rpaul@bergermontague.com
dlanger@bergermontague.com
szimmerman@bergermontague.com
- and -
Daniel H. Silverman, Esq.
Sharon K. Robertson, Esq.
Jared Dummitt, Esq.
Grace Ann Brew, Esq.
Silvie Saltzman, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
769 Centre Street, Suite 207
Boston, MA 02130
Telephone: (617) 858-1990
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
E-mail: dsilverman@cohenmilstein.com
srobertson@cohenmilstein.com
jdummitt@cohenmilstein.com
ssaltzman@cohenmilstein.com
gbrew@cohenmilstein.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Ashley Bass, Esq.
Andrew Lazerow, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
One CityCenter
850 Tenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 662-6000
E-mail: abass@cov.com
alazerow@cov.com
- and -
Lisa C. Dykstra, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
2222 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-3007
Telephone: (215) 963-5000
Facsimile: (215) 963-5001
E-mail: lisa.dykstra@morganlewis.com
MILTON TOWNSHIP: Homeowners Sue Over Short Term Rental Ordinance
----------------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Review reports that homeowners in Milton Township,
Michigan filed a federal class action lawsuit on behalf of hundreds
of Milton Township homeowners challenging the constitutionality of
the Township's recently enacted short-term rental ordinance. The
lawsuit alleges that the ordinance is part of a deliberate campaign
to eliminate short-term rentals from the community altogether.
The lawsuit asserts that the Township's sweeping restrictions
violate multiple constitutional protections, including rights of
free speech, free association, private property ownership, and
freedom from unreasonable governmental intrusion and regulation.
According to the Complaint, the ordinance was enacted, not to
address legitimate public harms, but to suppress a lawful and
longstanding use of private property through arbitrary and punitive
regulations.
Among other things, the lawsuit challenges the ordinance's
prohibition on undefined "special events" at short term rentals --
including birthday parties, holiday gatherings, and family reunions
-- as an unconstitutional and irrational restriction on private
association and ordinary residential activity. The Complaint also
attacks the ordinance's seven-day minimum stay requirement, its
six-week annual cap on short-term rentals, and its arbitrary
limitation on the number of individuals permitted to be present at
a property, regardless of the size of the home or the nature of the
gathering.
The homeowners allege that these restrictions collectively amount
to a transparent effort to phase out short-term rentals through
economic strangulation and excessive governmental regulation and
control, including into what activities can occur at home,
depriving the property owners of fundamental constitutional rights
and the reasonable use and enjoyment of their property.
Paul Schwiep, co-counsel for the homeowners, said, "Many of these
homeowners acquired properties years ago as long-term investments.
The Township's ordinance effectively strips away any realistic
chance these homeowners have to use the homes as short-term rentals
and engage in proper activity necessary to maintain
them. The Township is punishing responsible property owners and
good neighbors who bring guests to the community who support local
businesses and contribute to the region. Instead of working
cooperatively with homeowners, the Township has adopted an
exclusionary and hostile approach designed to force them out." [GN]
MONOLITHIC POWER: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Waterford Due Sept. 4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WATERFORD TOWNSHIP GENERAL
EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on Behalf of Itself and All Others
Similarly Situated, v. MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC., MICHAEL
HSING, and BERNIE BLEGEN, Case No. 2:25-cv-00220-JLR (W.D. Wash.),
the Hon. Judge Robart entered an order that:
1. Any additional parties shall be joined on or before June 15,
2026.
2. The Parties shall exchange initial disclosures on or before
June 17, 2026.
3. The Parties shall submit a joint status report per Local Rule
16(a)(2) on or before June 26, 2026.
4. The Parties shall substantially complete the production of
documents relating to class certification on a date to be
determined by the Parties following agreement on the scope of
document productions, but no later than Aug. 14, 2026.
5. Lead Plaintiff shall file a motion for class certification on
or before Sept. 4, 2026.
6. The Defendants shall respond to any motion for class
certification on or before Nov. 4, 2026.
7. The Plaintiff shall file any reply in support of class
certification on or before Dec. 4, 2026.
8. Any sur-reply by the Defendants in opposition to Lead
Plaintiff's motion for class certification will be filed on
or before Jan. 8, 2027, but a sur-reply will only be filed if
and to the extent the Defendants raise a price impact
argument against the application of the Basic presumption as
to which the Defendants bear the burden of proof.
9. The court will set further case schedule deadlines pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) after ruling on the
motion for class certification. Counsel for Lead Plaintiff
shall inform the court immediately should Lead Plaintiff at
any time decide not to seek class certification.
Monolithic designs, develops, and markets integrated power
semiconductor solutions and power delivery architectures.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 20, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=naF3tC at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
Rebecca L. Solomon, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 682-5600
Facsimile: (206) 682-2992
E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
rsolomon@tousley.com
- and -
Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
Brendan T. Jarboe, Esq.
Zoe van Vlaanderen, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 398-5600
E-mail: jeff@blockleviton.com
jake@blockleviton.com
brendan@blockleviton.com
zoe@blockleviton.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Stephen C. Wiley, Esq.
FENNEMORE CRAIG, P.C.
999 Third Avenue, Suite 600
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 749-0500
E-mail: swilley@fennemorelaw.com
- and -
Geoffrey J. Ritts, Esq.
Marjorie P. Duffy, Esq.
JONES DAY
North Point, 901 Lakeside Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 586-3939 (phone)
E-mail: gjritts@jonesday.com
mpduffy@jonesday.com
MONTEFIORE HEALTH: Faces Sims Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
LINDSEY SIMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MONTEFIORE HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. and
MONTEFIORE MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03841
(S.D.N.Y., May 8, 2026) arises from the Defendants' alleged
unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York Wage Theft Prevention
Act.
According to the complaint, Montefiore sources labor from staffing
companies. Over the last decade, Montefiore has consistently worked
with Fastaff, LLC, a staffing company focused on travel nursing, to
supply healthcare clinicians who work fixed-term assignments,
typically 13 weeks, at its hospital facilities across New York.
As part of the arrangement between the two companies, Fastaff
serves as the acknowledged employer of the travel clinicians who
work for Montefiore. In other words, Fastaff acknowledges an
employment relationship with the travel clinicians. However, the
economic realities of the relationship show that Montefiore also
employs the travel clinicians. Employers like Montefiore cannot
contract around their obligation to ensure their employees are paid
correctly under state and federal remedial wage and hour statutes.
The suit asserts that travel clinicians who work for Montefiore
through Fastaff are systematically underpaid overtime because
significant portions of their pay is excluded from their "regular
rate of pay." Specifically, the clinicians are paid "stipends" for
housing and meals and incidentals, which are treated ostensibly as
payments for expense reimbursement. However, the payments function
as wages because, for example, the payments are tied to the
quantity of work performed, says the suit.
The Plaintiff was an hourly, non-exempt travel nurse who worked
several fixed-term assignments for Defendants at Montefiore Medical
Center, including from August 27, 2023 until November 18, 2023.
Montefiore Health System, Inc., a not-for-profit corporation, is
one of the largest hospital systems in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matt Dunn, Esq.
GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN PLLC
260 Fair Street
Kingston, NY 12401
Telephone: (845) 255-9370
Facsimile: (845) 255-8649
E-mail: mdunn@getmansweeney.com
- and -
Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
Yasmin Zainulbhai, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
E-mail: ricke@stuevesiegel.com
zainulbhai@stuevesiegel.com
MOSHOLU PARKWAY NURSING: Noble Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mosholu Parkway
Nursing and Rehabilitation Center LLC. The case is styled as
Michael Noble, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Mosholu Parkway Nursing and Rehabilitation Center LLC,
Case No. 809351/2026E (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty., May 12, 2026).
The nature of suit stated as Torts - Other (Class Action-Unpaid
Wages).
Mosholu Parkway Nursing and Rehabilitation Center --
https://www.mosholucares.com/ -- is home to some of the area's
finest professional nursing and rehabilitation specialists.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
1613 Northern Blvd.
Roslyn, NY 11576
Phone: 516-625-0105
NATIONAL DEBT: Castrillo Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy
-----------------------------------------------------------
JASMINE CASTRILLO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL DEBT RELIEF LLC, a New
York entity, d/b/a NATIONALDEBTRELIEF.COM, Defendant, Case No.
3:26-cv-4481 (N.D. Cal., May 13, 2026) is a class action against
the Defendant for unlawful spamming and invasion of privacy.
The complaint relates that through its affiliate marketers like
Wisdom Companies, NATIONAL DEBT RELIEF spams plaintiff and other
class members relentlessly. The spam directly caused Plaintiff's
interaction with Defendant's site, which was the intended result of
the deceptive campaign.
The complaint alleges that this invaded Plaintiff's privacy and
disrupted the ordinary use and enjoyment of Plaintiff's email
account, diminishing its value as a communication tool and
necessitating additional filtering and security precautions. These
injuries were directly caused by Defendant's unlawful email.
For this reason, the Plaintiff seeks judgment against Defendant for
all available declaratory, legal, and equitable relief including
injunctive relief; for statutory damages; for punitive damages; for
attorneys' fees and costs as allowed by law; and for any and all
other relief at law or equity that may be appropriate.
Plaintiff JASMINE CASTRILLO received countless misleading spam
e-mail advertising.
Defendant NATIONAL DEBT RELIEF LLC is a financial services company
incorporated in New York with its principal place of business at
180 Maiden Lane, 28th Floor, New York, NY 10038.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
A Professional Corporation
4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 706-6464
Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com
NATIONAL ENTERTAINMENT: Hines Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA HINES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
NATIONAL ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, LLC d/b/a Vanity, Case No.
2:23-cv-02952-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Marbley entered
an order granting Vanity's motion to stay pending arbitration for
all Plaintiffs.
The portions of the arbitration agreement referencing costs and
fees are void and unenforceable and severed from the arbitration
agreement. The remainder of the agreement stands. The parties are
ordered to file a joint status report with the Court once
arbitration for all Plaintiffs concludes.
Given that the fee bearing provision in the arbitration agreement
makes no express mention of FLSA and that Ohio law allows for
severability, this Court finds the arbitration agreement
enforceable.
Given the Court determined that Opt-Ins claims rise and fall with
Hines's claims, and that all claims asserted arise out of the
relationship between Vanity and the Opt-In Plaintiffs, the Court
finds it prudent to stay the entire case pending arbitration.
On Sept. 13, 2023, Hines brought her initial Complaint on behalf of
herself and all putative collective action members against the
Defendant Vanity under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the
Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA"), the Ohio
Semi-Monthly Payment Act, and common law unjust enrichment,
Vanity is an adult entertainment club in Columbus, Ohio.
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 18, 2026, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sS5nKQ
at no extra charge.[CC]
NEBRASKA: Bid to Stay Class Certification Proceedings OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Reierson, et al., v.
Nebraska State Board of Education et al., Case No. 8:25-cv-00697
(D. Neb., Filed Dec. 5, 2025), the Hon. Judge John M. Gerrard
entered an order that:
-- The Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings for Certification of
Class is granted as the relevant factors weigh in favor of
staying
briefing pending the Court's ruling on Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss.
-- Defendants' deadline to file a response to Plaintiffs' Motion
for
Class Certification is stayed until 14-days after the Court
enters
a ruling on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, if necessary.
The suit alleges violation of the Handicapped Child Act.
State Board is an elected, constitutional body that sets policy and
ensures that the State Department of Education functions
effectively.[CC]
NESTLE PURINA: Court Stays Boyle Suit Until July 3
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Boyle, et al., v. Nestle
Purina Pet Care Co., Case No. 1:25-cv-01745 (D. Colo., Filed June
4, 2025), the Hon. Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney entered an order
granting the parties' joint motion to stay.
-- The case is stayed through July 3, 2026.
-- On or before July 8, 2026, the parties shall jointly submit a
status report to the Court stating whether a settlement has
been
reached or the litigation will continue.
If a settlement is not reached, the existing deadlines relating to
class certification shall be modified as follows:
-- Deadline for NPPC to depose Plaintiffs' experts is August 12,
2026
-- Deadline for NPPC's expert disclosures is August 21, 2026
-- Deadline to depose NPPC's experts is September 30, 2026
-- Deadline to file Daubert/class certification motions is October
14, 2026
-- Deadline for Daubert/class certification oppositions is
November
16, 2026
-- Deadline for Daubert/class certification replies is December
16,
2026
The nature of suit states Real Property -- Torts to Land.
The Defendant produces and markets pet food, treats, and cat and
dog litter.[CC]
NEW YORK: Class Cert. Reply Due June 8
--------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK POE, RACHEL ROE,
and VERONICA VOE. individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, V. DAMIA HARRIS-MADDEN, as Commissioner of the
New York State Office of Children and Family Services; KRISTIN
GLEESON, as Director of Statewide Central Register of Child Abuse
and Maltreatment, and Acting Associate Commissioner of Child
Welfare and Community Services; and STEVEN CONNOLLY, as Director of
the Bureau of Special Hearings, Case No. 1:26-cv-01606-GBD
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Daniels entered an order for briefing
schedule relating to complaint and class certification motion:
1. The Defendants shall answer, move, or otherwise respond to
the Complaint on or before June 2, 2026;
2. If the Defendants file a motion to dismiss, then the
Plaintiffs shall either file an amended complaint or an
opposition to the Defendants' motion to dismiss on or before
Aug. 24, 2026;
3. The Defendants shall file any reply brief in further support
of their motion to dismiss on or before Oct. 8, 2026;
4. The Defendants shall respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification on or before June 8, 2026;
5. The Plaintiffs shall file a reply brief in further support of
their motion for class certification on or before July 23,
2026; and
6. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Parties reserve their
rights to seek further adjournments and/or a stay of the
foregoing deadlines.
On Feb. 26, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action
complaint, alleging a procedural due process claim under 42 U.S.C.
section 1983.
On March 2, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 18, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2tlz9B at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Garrard R. Beeney, Esq.
Suhana S. Han, Esq.
Jessica M. Klein, Esq.
Stella S. Meyer, Esq.
Aneesa Mazumdar, Esq.
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004-2498
Telephone: (212) 558-4000
E-mail: beeneyg@sullcrom.com
hans@sullcrom.com
kleinj@sullcrom.com
meyerste@sullcrom.com
mazumdara@sullcrom.com
- and -
David Shalleck-Klein, Esq.
Lewis Bossing, Esq.
Sarah Ortlip-Sommers, Esq.
Phoenix Rice-Johnson, Esq.
FAMILY JUSTICE LAW CENTER
183 Madison Avenue, Suite 419
New York, N.Y. 10016
Telephone: (212) 223-6939
E-mail: dshalleckklein@fjlc.org
lbossing@fjlc.org
sortlipsommers@fjlc.org
pricejohnson@fjlc.org
- and -
Lucas S. Marquez, Esq.
Lauren Shapiro, Esq.
Alyssa Briody, Esq.
BROOKLYN DEFENDER SERVICES
177 Livingston Street, 7th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (718) 254-0700
E-mail: lmarquez@bds.org
lshapiro@bds.org
abriody@bds.org
- and -
Christine Gottlieb, Esq.
NYU SCHOOL OF LAW FAMILY DEFENSE CLINIC /
WASHINGTON SQUARE LEGAL SERVICES, INC.
245 Sullivan Street, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10012
Telephone: (718) 374-1364
E-mail: gottlieb@mercury.law.nyu.edu
- and -
Tehra Coles, Esq.
Christine Waer, Esq.
Melissa Lombreglia, Esq.
CENTER FOR FAMILY REPRESENTATION
40 Worth Street, Suite 605
New York, NY 10013
Telephone: (212) 691-0950
E-mail: tcoles@cfrny.org
cwaer@cfrny.org
mlombreglia@cfrny.org
- and -
Aditi Fruitwala, Esq.
Viviana Bonilla Lopez, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION
915 15th Street NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (212) 549-2500
E-mail: afruitwala@aclu.org
vbonillalopez@aclu.org
- and -
Jessica Perry, Esq.
Gabriella Larios, Esq.
NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION
125 Broad Street, 19th Floor
New York, N.Y. 10004
Telephone: (212) 607-3300
E-mail: jperry@nyclu.org
glarios@nyclu.org
The Defendants are represented by:
Elizabeth B. Gates, Esq.
Ihaab Syed, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK
STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
28 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 416-6402
E-mail: elizabeth.gates@ag.ny.gov
ihaab.syed@ag.ny.gov
NFL PLAYER: Renewed Bid for Class Certification Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alford, et al., v. The NFL
Player Disability & Survivor Benefit Plan, et al., Case No.
1:23-cv-00358 (D. Md., Filed Feb. 9, 2023), the Hon. Judge Julie
Rebecca Rubin entered an order granting in part and denying in part
the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification which
consumes 28 substantive pages.
-- Defendants may file an opposition not to exceed 40 pages.
-- Plaintiffs are entitled to file their own motion to exceed
page limits in their reply, but the court will not provide
leave to exceed that limit absent good cause)
The nature of suit states Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
The Defendant provides financial, medical, and long-term care
support to former players and their families.[CC]
NFL PLAYER: Seeks to Exceed Page Limit in Class Cert Opposition
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON ALFORD, et al., v.
THE NFL PLAYER DISABILITY & SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN, et al.,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00358-JRR (D. Md.), the Defendants ask the Court
to enter an order granting their motion for leave to exceed the
page limitation for their opposition to the Plaintiffs' renewed
motion for class certification
The Defendants request that the Court grant leave for the Parties
to exceed the page limit set forth in Local Rule 105.3, permit the
Defendants to file an opposition to Plaintiffs' renewed motion not
exceeding 50 pages, and permit the Plaintiffs to file a reply to
the Defendants' opposition not exceeding 25 pages.
The Plaintiffs filed their renewed motion for class certification
on March 24, 2026. The Plaintiffs' renewed motion requests
certification of four separate classes, each involving different
class members, distinct factual allegations, and unique legal
questions.
To fully and fairly address the distinct claims, class definitions,
and legal standards applicable to each of the Plaintiffs' four
proposed classes, the Defendants require more than the 30 pages
permitted by Local Rule 105.3 for their opposition.
The Defendant is a collectively bargained welfare plan providing
financial assistance to eligible former players suffering from
injuries or impairments stemming from their careers.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 19, 2026, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WE5DHA at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Gregory F. Jacob, Esq.
Meredith N. Garagiola, Esq.
Elizabeth L. McKeen, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
1625 Eye Street, N.W., 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 383-5300
Facsimile: (202) 383-5414
E-mail: gjacob@omm.com
mgaragiola@omm.com
emckeen@omm.com
NFL PLAYER: Seeks to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON ALFORD et al., v.
THE NFL PLAYER DISABILITY & SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN et al., Case No.
1:23-cv-00358-JRR (D. Md.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter
an order granting their motion to file under seal their opposition
to the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification.
The documents the Defendants seek to seal either have been
designated as confidential information within the meaning of the
Protective Order or describe or quote confidential information. To
the extent these documents only describe or quote Confidential
Information, Defendants will also file redacted, public versions of
these documents.
The Defendants request 10 days to do so following the granting of
this Motion. By filing redacted versions of these documents on the
public docket, the Defendants will preserve the public's right to
judicial records while ensuring that the Court can consider the
full context of these documents.
The NFL Player Disability & Survivor Benefit Plan is a collectively
bargained welfare plan providing financial assistance to eligible
former players suffering from injuries or impairments stemming from
their careers.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 20, 2026, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IRMEqM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Gregory F. Jacob, Esq.
Meredith N. Garagiola, Esq.
Elizabeth L. McKeen, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
1625 Eye Street, N.W., 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 383-5300
Facsimile: (202) 383-5414
E-mail: gjacob@omm.com
mgaragiola@omm.com
emckeen@omm.com
NOCO ENERGY CORP: Ortiz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Ortiz, for himself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, v. NOCO ENERGY CORP., Case No. 1:26-cv-00973
(W.D.N.Y., May 12, 2026), is brought against the Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website,
www.noco.com, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon
(collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not
equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it
violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures
so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.
By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and
visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
NOCO ENERGY CORP., operates the Noco online retail store, as well
as the Noco interactive Website and advertises, markets, and
operates in the State of New York and throughout the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
dana@gottlieb.legal
NRA GROUP LLC: Vargas Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NRA Group, LLC. The
case is styled as Michelle Vargas, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. NRA Group, LLC doing business as:
National Recovery Agency, Case No. 3:26-cv-01294-JFS (M.D. Pa., May
13, 2026).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
NRA -- https://www.nragroup.com/ -- is a full service collection
agency that offers a wide range of services in a number of
industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob U. Ginsburg, Esq.
KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, PC
30 E. Butler Ave.
Ambler, PA 19002
Phone: (267) 468-5374
Email: jginsburg@creditlaw.com
NYS CORPORATION: Anantha Sues Over Breach of Contract
-----------------------------------------------------
Seema Anantha, an individual, on her own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. NYS CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation, MICHAEL PALANCE, an individual, and DOES 1-10
inclusive, Case No. 26CU026425C (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty.,
May 13, 2026), is brought seeking damages for breach of contract,
damages ("not less than three times the amount paid" to NYS),
attorney's fees, and injunctive relief under the Krekorian Act, and
restitution and injunctive relief under the Business and
Professions Code Section 17200 ("UCL"), and an award of attorneys'
fees under Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1021.5.
The Plaintiff signed a contract with NYS under which she paid
$10,000 in exchange for her child to have an opportunity to
participate in a NYS production, namely a "Go Iguanas!" movie that
was to be shot in January 2026 and distributed by NYS's online
video service. NYS breached this contract by postponing the date of
this production, and then stopped responding to follow up inquiries
by the Plaintiff. Further, NYS 's contract violates the Krekorian
Act, including Labor Code 1702, and the "unlawful" and "unfair"
prongs of the unlawful competition law, the UCL, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a natural person who resided in the County of San
Diego.
NYS Corporation is a Delaware corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ethan Preston, Esq.
PRESTON LAW OFFICES
4054 McKinney Avenue, Suite 310
Dallas, TX 75204
Phone: (972) 564-8340
Facsimile: (866) 509-1197
Email: ep@eplaw.us
O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Class Certification Bid Due Dec. 30
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GEORGE BRIAN HAWLEY, v.
O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE STORES, INC., et al., Case No.
1:25-cv-01013-DAB-JEP (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Peake entered an
approving the parties' Joint Rule 26(f) Report:
-- Any motion for class certification or conditional
certification must be filed by Dec. 30, 2026.
-- Mediation must be conducted during Phase 1, by Nov. 13, 2026.
-- The Parties must file a Local Rule 5.5 Report by June 8, 2026.
O'Reilly supplies automobile equipment.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 18, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7VLgoF at no extra
charge.[CC]
OCHSNER CLINIC: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Jan. 30, 2027
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY TAYLOR, V. OCHSNER
CLINIC FOUNDATION and DR. ANDREW MATTHEWS, Case No.
2:24-cv-01872-ASJ-DPC (E.D. La.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order granting their motion for entry of class
certification scheduling order as follows:
Event Deadline
Initial Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures: May 31, 2026
Deadline for conducting fact discovery on Dec. 31, 2026
class certification issues (the parties
will not have expert witnesses on class
certification):
The Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion Jan. 30, 2027
for class certification, accompanying
memorandum, and evidence on which the
Plaintiff relies for class certification:
The Defendants' deadline to file any Feb. 27, 2027
opposition memoranda to the motion for
class certification, and evidence on which
the Defendants rely for class certification:
Ochsner is a non-profit academic healthcare system.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 19, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=z636N8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony D. Irpino, Esq.
J. Reed Poole, Jr., Esq.
Dustin L. Poche, Esq.
IRPINO AVIN & HAWKINS
2216 Magazine Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 525-1500
Facsimile: (504) 525-1501
E-mail: airpino@irpinolaw.com
rpoole@irpinolaw.com
dpoche@irpinolaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael C. Drew, Esq.
Thomas A. Casey, Jr., Esq.
JONES WALKER LLP
201 St. Charles Avenue, 49th Floor
New Orleans, LA 70170
Telephone: (504) 582-8000
E-mail: mdrew@joneswalker.com
tcaseyjr@oneswalker.com
- and -
Jack E. Truitt, Esq.
Michele Mayne Davis, Esq.
Kaylin K. Storey, Esq.
Lou Anne Milliman, Esq.
Jenniferl Cortes-Johnson, Esq.
Michael St. Roman, Esq.
TRUITT LAW FIRM, LLC
1321 Ochsner Boulevard, Suite 200
Covington, LA 70433
Telephone: (985) 327-5266
Facsimile: (985) 327-5252
E-mail: mail@truittlaw.com
PACIFICORP: Oregon Wildfire Victims' Class Action Case Wins Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bach Ted Sickinger of The Oregonian/OregonLive report that
a Multnomah County judge Friday, May 22, paused most proceedings
for victims seeking damages from PacifiCorp for homes and property
destroyed in 2020 wildfires after an appellate court handed the
electric utility a big victory last month.
Multnomah County Circuit Court Judge Steffan Alexander ordered a
stay in the long-running class action lawsuit known as the James
case after the Oregon Court of Appeals in April found error with
Alexander's jury instructions.
Under the order, litigants will be allowed to continue document
discovery and other limited pre-trial actions, but the case
temporarily cannot move forward to damages trials. The ruling
effectively pauses the case pending an appeal before the Oregon
Supreme Court.
Three years ago, a jury found Portland-based PacifiCorp reckless
and grossly negligent for failing to shut off power during a Labor
Day windstorm, which led to four devastating blazes: the Santiam
Canyon, 242, Echo Mountain Complex and South Obenchain fires. The
jury's finding in the James case applied to all 2,500 class
members, with a series of other trials taking place to determine
individual plaintiffs' individual damages.
The three-member appellate panel found Alexander's instructions to
jurors that evidence presented at trial applied to all members of
the class action lawsuit was "erroneous" and "prejudicial to
PacifiCorp," in effect reversing awards that had already surpassed
$1 billion across eighteen damages trials representing more than
170 wildfire victims, according to court records.
On May 13, attorneys for victims appealed the appellate ruling to
the Oregon Supreme Court. Judge Alexander stayed proceedings in the
James case, which has been ongoing since September 2020.
In their petition for review to the Oregon Supreme Court, lawyers
for the wildfire victims argued that the appeals court agreed the
evidence supported a liability verdict for every class member.
"But it reversed the liability verdict because of a single sentence
in a standard instruction defining how a class action works," the
plaintiff lawyers wrote. "In doing so, the Court of Appeals applied
a new and erroneous rule of class-action law, misunderstood the
class-wide evidence at trial, and hypothesized prejudice that the
trial record conclusively disproves."
PacifiCorp, meanwhile, welcomed Alexander's stay in the James case,
calling it a "reasonable outcome based on the Oregon Court of
Appeals decision."
"We acknowledge the devastating effects of the 2020 wildfires and
seek to help provide closure to impacted individuals," PacifiCorp
said in the emailed statement. "The company remains willing to
settle all reasonable claims related to the South Obenchain, Echo
Mountain and 242 fires." [GN]
PANERA LLC: Cissokho Wins Conditional Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OUSSEYNOU CISSOKHO, v.
PANERA, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-02559-LLA (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge
Alikhan entered an order that Mr. Cissokho's unopposed motion for
conditional certification and for the continuation of discovery is
granted.
The action is certified as a collective action composed of
employees who have worked for Panera, LLC, as Bakery Training
Specialists at any point during the three years preceding the date
of the filing with the court of their written notice of consent to
become a party, and who claim that Panera failed to pay them
overtime wages at some point during that period.
The court further entered an order that Panera shall provide to Mr.
Cissokho's counsel a list of all employees who have worked for
Panera as Bakery Training Specialists since May 20, 2023, as well
as the full name, dates of employment, last known mailing address,
and email address of each of those individuals. Panera shall
provide this list on or before June 10, 2026.
Accordingly, on Mr. Cissokho's telling, the allegations show that
Panera had a uniform policy and set of practices of failing to
properly track Bakery Training Specialists' hours and to compensate
them for overtime hours worked off the clock.
Mr. Cissokho filed this lawsuit in September 2024, alleging that
Panera's failure to pay overtime wages violates the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").
The Defendant provides food and beverage services.
A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated May 20, 2026, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gd9pec
at no extra charge.[CC]
PAYPAL: Parties Must Confer on Class Cert Production Schedule
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned re PayPal Honey Browser
Extension Litigation, Case No. 5:24-cv-09470-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Susan Van Keulen entered an order directing PayPal and
the FNPs to meet and confer regarding a production schedule,
mindful of the deadline for substantial completion of document
productions and written discovery of August 14, 2026.
PayPal urges that, as in Capital One, the requested documents are
needed to challenge class certification, specifically whether
"contracts between Affiliate Marketers and third parties uniformly
reflect an 'industry standard' of owed commissions;" as well as the
"variability of injury among class members."
The FNPs argue that they are now absent class members who have not
"inserted themselves into the litigation" and as such are generally
not subject to discovery. They also argue that the requests are
largely overbroad and unduly burdensome, in contravention of Rule
45.
The Court considers the proffered Capital One order in this vein.
The Court also agrees that the FNPs are not in the same posture as
wholly absent class members, who may not even be aware of the
litigation.
The Court is satisfied that having participated in the litigation
for over a year, including receiving requests for production as
parties but dismissing their claims before responding, the FNPs
have sufficiently "inserted" themselves into the case to be subject
to discovery.
PayPal is a platform that allows individuals and businesses to
transfer funds electronically.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 18, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oLUMZE at no extra
charge.[CC]
PENNYMAC LOAN: Court Tosses Hotard Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JARED HOTARD, V. PENNYMAC
LOAN SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01634-JTM-KWR (E.D. La.), the
Hon. Judge Jane Triche Milazzo entered an order granting the
Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
The Plaintiff may amend his Complaint within 20 days of this Order
to the extent that he can allege standing. Failure to amend will
result in dismissal.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant refused to release the
funds to reimburse him for repairs to his home for three months.
The Plaintiff alleges that when the Defendant ultimately released
the funds, it failed to pay the Plaintiff interest on those amounts
as required by Louisiana Revised Statutes section 6:337.
The Plaintiff is the owner of property located at 3508 Main Street,
LaPlace, Louisiana.
PennyMac provides home mortgage loans to borrowers and investors.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 18, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CTb9Wn at no extra
charge.[CC]
PERFUME WORLDWIDE: Kenney Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Perfume Worldwide
Inc. The case is styled as Jennifer Kenney, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Perfume Worldwide Inc.
doing business as: Perfume.com, Case No. 3:26-cv-02974-AJB-JAC
(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.
Perfume Worldwide Inc. doing business as Perfume.com --
https://www.perfume.com/ -- operates an online retail stores.[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
PETROLEX II: Class Cert. Briefing in Kelly Suit Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kelly v. Petrolex II, LLC
et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-40175 (D. Mass., Filed Dec. 12, 2023), the
Hon. Judge Margaret R. Guzman entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the joint motion re Briefing on Class
Certification, Summary Judgment, and Daubert/Kumho Motions.
The motion is granted in part to enlarge page limits and extend the
deadlines for briefing.
The Court denies the motion as to the proposed reply briefs.
The parties may re-file the request to submit a reply brief after
the relevant briefings and oppositions are filed for the Court's
consideration.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Property
Damage Product Liability.
Petrolex is a provider of heating oil, propane, and HVAC services.
[CC]
PETROLEX II: Parties in Kelly Seek to Extend Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEAN KELLY, CATHRYN KELLY;
and KENNETH J. GREW, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. PETROLEX II, LLC, d/b/a CK SMITH SUPERIOR
and JOHN C SANTORO, individually, Case No. 4:23-cv-40175-MRG (D.
Mass.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their
motion to (1) enlarge the page limits, (2) extend the applicable
deadlines, and (3) to the extent not already authorized, to
authorize reply briefs on class certification, summary judgment,
and Daubert/Kumho motions.
The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of over 15,000 customers
and allege that each customer suffered extensive property damage
and other losses, and seek trebling and attorneys' fees under
Chapter 93A.
As a result of the complexity of the issues in dispute and the
amount at stake, as well as the significance of the outcome of the
motions to the case, the Parties believe more than the default
number of pages and more than the default amount of time are
necessary to properly and fully address the relevant issues on
anticipated motions for class certification, summary judgment, and
to exclude under Daubert/Kumho.
Petrolex is a company specializing in specialized repair services
and fuel delivery, primarily in the HVAC and heating oil sectors.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 18, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BLfObY at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John P. Regan, Esq.
Jeffrey S. Strom, Esq.
REGAN STROM, P.C.
185 Devonshire Street, Suite 301
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (857) 449-2967
Facsimile: (857) 401-3023
E-mail: jregan@reganstrom.com
jstrom@reganstrom.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Gavin G. McCarthy, Esq.
Melanie Conroy, Esq.
Nolan L. Reichl, Esq.
Sarah R. Remes, Esq.
PIERCE ATWOOD LLP
100 Summer Street
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 488-8100
Facsimile: (617) 824-2020
E-mail: gmccarthy@pierceatwood.com
mconroy@pierceatwood.com
nreichl@pierceatwood.com
sremes@pierceatwood.com
- and -
Kip J. Adams, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
60 State Street, 23rd Floor
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (857) 313-3950
Facsimile: (857) 313-3951
E-mail: Kip.adams@lewisbrisbois.com
- and -
George F. Leahy, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE F. LEAHY
West Boxford, MA 01885-0015
Telephone: (978) 686-5600
Facsimile: (978) 686-5600
E-mail: gleahylaw@yahoo.com
PFIZER INC: Nakamura Sues Over Illegal Wiretapping
--------------------------------------------------
Paul Nakamura, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PFIZER INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-03914 (S.D.N.Y., May 12,
2026), is brought against the Defendant's violation of the federal
Wiretap Act; California's Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"),
including Cal. Penal Code (illegal wiretapping) and (unlawful use
of a pen register or trap and trace device); California's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); California's Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"), and common law, including invasion of privacy, intrusion
upon seclusion, fraud and deceit, and unjust enrichment.
Through its commercial website, https://www.pfizer.com (the
"Website"), Pfizer provides consumers, patients, healthcare
professionals, and investors with information regarding its
products, research initiatives, clinical trials, and corporate
operations.
Like many modern websites, the Website displays a data privacy
banner (the "Privacy Banner") and a "cookie preferences" interface
(the "Cookie Settings") purporting to give users meaningful control
over what data the Website shares with third parties. Defendant's
assurances are false. The Website begins placing and transmitting
cookies and other third-party tracking technologies (the "Tracking
Tools") capable of transmitting users' data the moment users visit
the Website, before they can interact with the Privacy Banner or
select their preferences in the Cookie Settings.
Users were misled by Defendant's Privacy Banner and Cookie
Settings, which led users to believe that their data would only be
shared through continued use and interaction with the Website and
with user consent. The Defendant invaded Plaintiff's fundamental
right to privacy and fraudulently misrepresented the Website's
data-collection practices by facilitating the Tracking Entities'
unlawful interception of and intrusion into Plaintiff's Sensitive
Information, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff visited Defendant's Website in July 2025 for ordinary
consumer purposes, including browsing content and otherwise
navigating the Website's content.
Pfizer is a global biopharmaceutical company engaged in the
discovery, development, manufacture, marketing, distribution, and
sale of medicines and vaccines for a wide range of medical
conditions and diseases.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark S. Reich, Esq.
Mark Jensen, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
Email: mreich@zlk.com
mjensen@zlk.com
PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Hinton Seeks to Seal Courtroom for Hearing
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHIRLEY HINTON and HEATHER
SHIPLEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA, INC., Case No.
3:23-cv-04529-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order sealing the courtroom for the June 11, 2026, hearing on
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The Plaintiffs expect that the Hearing will require discussion of
their personal and sensitive health information. This information
is intimate in nature and identifiable as to each Plaintiff and is
the type of information intended to be protected by the Health
Insurance Portability & Accountability Act ("HIPAA"). Should this
health information be made available to the public, it could be
used for improper purposes, such as to embarrass or defraud the
Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs seek an expedited ruling on this motion because the
hearing is scheduled to occur on June 11, 2026
The Defendant is a nonprofit organization that provides sexual
health care in the United States and globally.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 21, 2026, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GXjXyZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
PLUG POWER: Plaintiffs' Bid to Certify Class Due Oct. 15
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned Re Plug Power Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:23-cv-00409-JLH (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge
Hall entered a scheduling order as follows:
Event Deadline
Initial disclosures: Five days after Court's
entry of Scheduling Order
Motions to join other Parties, Sept. 9, 2026
and/or for leave to amend or
supplement the pleadings:
The Plaintiffs' motion to certify Oct. 15, 2026
the Class, including any
supporting expert reports:
Completion of expert discovery: Oct. 15, 2027
Case dispositive motions: Nov. 18, 2027
Pretrial conference: Aug. 14, 2028
Trial begins: Aug. 21, 2028
Plug Power is an American company engaged in the development of
hydrogen fuel cell and electrolyzer systems that replace
conventional batteries in equipment and vehicles powered by
electricity.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DP12Qm at no extra
charge.[CC]
POET TECHNOLOGIES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 29
------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Review reports that Pomerantz LLP announces that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against POET Technologies Inc.
("POET" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:POET). Such investors are advised
to contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980,
(or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by
e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone
number, and the number of shares purchased.
The class action concerns whether POET and certain of its officers
and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful
business practices.
You have until June 29, 2026, to ask the Court to appoint you as
Lead Plaintiff for the class if you purchased or otherwise acquired
POET securities during the Class Period. A copy of the Complaint
can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.
On April 27, 2026, Investing.com published an article entitled
"POET Technologies stock tumbles after losing Marvell orders." The
article reported that POET stock fell "after the company disclosed
the cancellation of all purchase orders from Celestial AI, now
owned by Marvell Semiconductor Inc. Marvell provided written notice
on April 23, 2026, canceling all purchase orders, including those
for initial production units first announced by POET in a press
release on April 25, 2023. Marvell cited the company's disclosures
of information related to the purchase orders and shipping details
as violations of confidentiality obligations."
On this news, POET's stock price fell $7.15 per share, or 47.35%,
to close at $7.95 per share on April 27, 2026.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later,
Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for
the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class
members. See www.pomlaw.com. [GN]
PRIME HEALTHCARE: Lord Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Michael Lord, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC. and
SAINT JOSEPH HOSPITAL – ELGIN, LLC, Case No. 2026-LA-000166 was
removed from the Circuit Court of Kane County, Illinois, Sixteenth
Judicial Circuit, to the United States District Court for Northern
District of Illinois on May 13, 2026, and assigned Case No.
1:26-cv-05569.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Illinois Genetic
Information Privacy Act ("GIPA" or the "Act"), by "requiring that
employees provide their genetic information as a condition of
employment with the company."[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
PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MD: Renewed Class Cert Bid Due August 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT FRAZIER, et al.,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons, v. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND, Case No.
8:22-cv-01768-DKC (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Chasanow entered an
amended scheduling order as follows:
Date Description
June 29, 2026: Deadline for completion of document production
and responses
July 28, 2026: Fact discovery deadline
Aug. 11, 2026: Deadline for the Plaintiffs' Rule 26(a)(2)
disclosures
Aug. 28, 2026: Deadline for renewed motion for class
certification
Sept. 29, 2026 Deadline for response to renewed motion for
class certification
Nov. 13, 2026 Deadline for summary judgment motions
Prince George's County is located in the U.S. state of Maryland
bordering the eastern portion of Washington, D.C.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 20, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NVTaRK at no extra
charge.[CC]
RACK ROOM: Class Certification Bid Filing Extended to August 27
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEMETRIUS SMITH and MIA
WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. RACK ROOM SHOES, INC. Case No. 3:24-cv-06709-RFL (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the
class certification briefing deadlines by 90 days.
The Plaintiffs request that the Court enter the following amended
class certification briefing schedule:
Event Deadline
The Plaintiffs' motion for class Aug. 27, 2026
certification:
The Defendant's opposition and rebuttal: Oct. 12, 2026
The Plaintiffs' reply: Nov. 9, 2026
Hearing on class certification: Dec. 8, 2026
Good cause supports extending the briefing schedule for class
certification by 90 days, which will allow the Court to resolve the
pending motion for sanctions, including through an order that
reopens discovery and requires Defendant to remedy the identified
deficiencies.
Good cause supports such an extension because the Plaintiffs have
repeatedly sought to receive the requisite discovery to move for
class certification. Despite those efforts, the Plaintiffs still
lack foundational discovery, including the source code for the Meta
Pixel and documents post-dating September 2024.
The Plaintiffs will thus incur substantial prejudice by moving for
class certification prior to the Court's resolution of the motion
for sanctions.
Rack markets shoes for men, women, and kids.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 20, 2026, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xh5RLp at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher R. Reilly, Esq.
Michael A. Pineiro, Esq.
MARCUS RASHBAUM
PINEIRO & MEYERS LLP
2 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2530
Miami, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 402-9050
E-mail: mpineiro@mrpfirm.com
creilly@mrpfirm.com
- and -
Brian Levin, Esq.
Jacob Polin, Esq.
LEVIN LAW, P.A.
2665 S. Bayshore Dr., Ph. 2B
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 400-4260
E-mail: brian@levinlawpa.com
jpolin@levinlawpa.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Ana Tagvoryan, Esq.
BLANK ROME LLP
One Logan Square130 North 18th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 569-5500
Facsimile: (215) 569-5555
- and -
Anahit Tagvoryan, Esq.
Brad W. Seiling, Esq.
Brandon M. Wong, Esq.
Kyla Nunez, Esq.
MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS
2049 Century Park East
Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 312-4347
E-mail: ATagvoryan@manatt.com
bseiling@manatt.com
BWong@manatt.com
knunez@manatt.com
RALPH LAUREN: Redden-Drake Seek Refund of Tariff-Related Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHONDA REDDEN-DRAKE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-4029 (S.D.N.Y., May 14, 2026) is a
class action against the Defendant for its unfair or deceptive acts
and practices by not issuing refunds for money paid by consumers
for Defendant's products to account for now-illegal tariffs.
The complaint relates that in early 2026, it was reported that
Defendant, "has relied on raising prices and reallocating
production to regions with lower duty exposure to offset U.S.
tariff pressures." On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court of the
United States ruled that certain tariffs imposed under the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act were illegal.
Before that ruling, Ralph Lauren imposed tariff-related charges and
increased shipping costs on customers, including Plaintiff, based
on those now-invalid tariffs. Plaintiff paid these increased
charges as part of shipping costs for goods. Plaintiff and Class
members suffered economic injury as a result of Defendant's unjust
retention of these funds, says the suit.
Because the underlying tariffs have been declared illegal,
Plaintiff seeks recovery of amounts collected by Defendant that
were based on or attributed to those unlawful tariffs. Plaintiff
brings this action on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated to recover money wrongfully collected from her and the
Class by Defendant under the illegal tariffs and to obtain
appropriate relief permitted by law.
Plaintiff Shonda Redden-Drake paid money under the illegal tariffs
to Defendant.
Defendant Ralph Lauren Corporation is an American fashion company
that maintains a principal place of business at 650 Madison Ave,
New York, NY 10022.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
E-mail: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
- and -
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO,
LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (803) 222-2222
E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
cmad@poulinwilley.com
RAPID INVESTMENTS: Class Cert Response Due June 26
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHLEY HALL, both
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
RAPID INVESTMENTS, LLC, d/b/a RAPID FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, d/b/a
RELEASE PAY; and AXIOM BANK N.A., Case No. 3:25-cv-05039-BHS (W.D.
Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their
stipulation and order extending briefing on class certification
motion by one week.
The Parties request that the class certification briefing schedule
be modified as follows:
The Plaintiff's motion for class May 29, 2026
certification:
The Defendants' response to motion for June 26, 2026
class certification:
The Plaintiff's reply in support of class July 10, 2026
certification:
Hearing on motion for class certification: To be set by the
Court
The Parties are presently engaged in active settlement discussions,
and agree, subject to approval by the Court, that the deadlines for
each of the briefs should be extended by one week while those
discussions are ongoing.
This putative class action is brought by Plaintiff Ashley Hall
against the Defendants for alleged damages stemming from the
Defendants' release card program.
Rapid Investments is a private market investment management firm
specializing in placing commitments from institutional and private
investors.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 18, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sNmYJM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq.
Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
SIRIANNI YOUTZ
SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
Telephone: (206) 223-0303
E-mail: rspoonemore@sylaw.com
ehamburger@sylaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Robert J. Hoffman, Esq.
Randall T. Thomsen, Esq.
Shane P. Cramer, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
Telephone: (206) 600-6650
E-mail: bob.hoffman@bclplaw.com
randall.thomsen@bclplaw.com
shane.cramer@bclplaw.com
RAPID INVESTMENTS: Response to Class Cert Bid Due June 26
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHLEY HALL, both
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
RAPID INVESTMENTS, LLC, d/b/a RAPID FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, d/b/a
RELEASE PAY; and AXIOM BANK N.A., Case No. 3:25-cv-05039-BHS (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge Settle entered an order extending briefing
on class certification motion by one week as follows:
The Plaintiff's motion for class certification: May 29, 2026
The Defendants' response to motion for class June 26, 2026
certification:
The Plaintiff's reply in support of class July 10, 2026
certification:
Hearing on motion for class certification: To be set by
the Court
The putative class action is brought by the Plaintiff against the
Defendants for alleged damages stemming from the Defendants'
release card program.
Rapid Investments is a private market investment management firm
specializing in placing commitments from institutional and private
investors.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=91uinf at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq.
Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
SIRIANNI YOUTZ
SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
Telephone: (206) 223-0303
E-mail: rspoonemore@sylaw.com
ehamburger@sylaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Robert J. Hoffman, Esq.
Randall T. Thomsen, Esq.
Shane P. Cramer, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
Telephone: (206) 600-6650
E-mail: bob.hoffman@bclplaw.com
randall.thomsen@bclplaw.com
shane.cramer@bclplaw.com
RAYMOND JAMES: Schmidlin Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAYMOND SCHMIDLIN and,
JULIET SCHMIDLIN, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. RAYMOND JAMES FINANCIAL, INC., et al., Case
No. 8:24-cv-02041-KKM-CPT (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to enter an order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23:
(1) certifying the Class and appointing the Plaintiffs Raymond
Schmidlin, Jr., Juliet Schmidlin, and Toni Conran as Class
Representatives for the Class;
(2) certifying the RJ Bank Only Subclass and appointing the
Plaintiff Raymond Schmidlin, Jr. as Class Representative for
the Subclass; and
(3) appointing undersigned counsel as Class Counsel.
The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following Class and Subclass:
"Clients of Raymond James who had cash deposits or balances
in Raymond James's Cash Sweep Program from Sept. 1, 2019
until May 21, 2026." - and -
"Clients of Raymond James who had cash deposits or balances
in the RJ Bank Only version of Raymond James's Cash Sweep
Program from Sept. 1, 2019 until May 21, 2026."
The proposed Class and Subclass easily satisfy Rule 23(a) and Rule
23(b)(3), particularly given that the Plaintiffs' claims rest on
Raymond James's form contracts and Case uniform course of
misconduct.
Raymond provides financial services, such as brokerage and
retirement product offerings.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 21, 2026, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=exuDn0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew L. Dameron, Esq.
Claire Terrebonne, Esq.
Clinton J. Mann, Esq.
WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
Kansas City, MO 64105
Telephone: (816) 945-7110
E-mail: matt@williamsdirks.com
cterrebonne@williamsdirks.com
cmann@williamsdirks.com
- and -
John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq.
Adam H. Wierzbowski, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER &
GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 554-1400
E-mail: johnr@blbglaw.com
adam@blbglaw.com
- and -
Alan L. Rosca, Esq.
Paul J. Scarlato, Esq.
ROSCA SCARLATO LLC
3401 Enterprise Parkway, Suite 340-311
Beachwood, OH 44122
Telephone: (216) 946-7070
E-mail: arosca@rscounsel.law
pscarlato@rscounsel.law
REVIVAL ANIMAL: Lewis Sues Over Illegal Telephonic Sales Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff vs. REVIVAL ANIMAL HEALTH, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. CACE-26-008114 (Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Fla., May 14, 2026) is
a class action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, and
damages for violations of the Caller ID Rules, and the Florida
Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA").
The Defendant made Revival Animal Health Text Message Sales Calls
to Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class and, in doing so, transmitted
to the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class's caller identification
service a telephone number that was not capable of receiving
telephone calls. As such, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of
a class of persons similarly situated, sues Defendant for its
actions that violate the FTSA's Caller ID Rules.
Plaintiff, Adam Lewis, is the regular user of a cellular telephone
number that receives Defendant's telephonic sales calls, and he
resides in Florida.
Defendant Revival Animal Health offers a variety of animal products
such as vaccines, dewormers, microchips and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
Social Justice Law Collective, PL
974 Howard Ave.
Dunedin, FL 34698
Telephone: (202) 709-5744
Facsimile: (866) 893-0416
E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com
shawn@sjlawcollective.com
RICOH USA: Mike the Printer Seeks to Strike Lucente Declarations
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKE THE PRINTER, INC., a
California corporation, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. RICOH USA, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Case No. 2:24-cv-08192-JFW-AYP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on July
6, 2026, will move to strike the declarations of Bartolo Lucente,
Carmen Zesati-Hert, Chris Pollice, Damita Davis, Donna Miner, James
Burken, John Mahoney, Kathleen Carr, Lisanne Henderson, Peter
McNerney in support of the Defendant's opposition to the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
Ricoh did not disclose the Undisclosed Witnesses until it filed its
opposition to class certification, and the Plaintiff had only one
week to reply.
This was insufficient time to notice and take the depositions of
the ten Undisclosed Witnesses and factor the results of those
depositions into Plaintiff's reply. Because of Ricoh's
nondisclosure, the Plaintiff was unable to fully litigate class
certification and had no recourse to do so, the suit says.
Ricoh has violated the evidentiary sanction by including with its
opposition to class certification the Undisclosed Exhibits, the
suit adds.
On Feb. 20, 2026, the Plaintiff filed its motion for class
certification.
On May 12, 2026, Ricoh filed its opposition. The opposition
included declarations of the Undisclosed Witnesses and attached the
Undisclosed Exhibits.
Ricoh is an information management and digital services company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 21, 2026, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EiOFWa at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian J. Panish, Esq.
Jesse Creed, Esq.
PANISH | SHEA | RAVIPUDI LLP
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
Los Angeles, California 90025
Telephone: (310) 477-1700
Facsimile: (310) 477-1699
E-mail: panish@panish.law
jcreed@panish.law
RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Class Settlement in Crews Suit Gets Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Charles Larry Crews, Jr.,
et al., v. Rivian Automotive, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-01524-JLS-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Staton entered an
order granting plaintiffs' motion for final approval of settlement
and plan of allocation and granting plaintiffs’ motion for
attorneys' fees and litigation expenses.
The Court certified the following classes:
For [Exchange] Act Claims:
All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Rivian
Class A common stock between November 11, 2021, and March 10, 2022,
inclusive, and were damaged thereby.
The Class excludes those who purchased Rivian Class A common stock
at the fixed IPO price.
For [Securities] Act Claims:
All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Rivian
Class A common stock between November 10, 2021, and March 10, 2022,
inclusive, and were damaged thereby.
Rivian is an American electric vehicle manufacturer and automotive
technology company.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 20, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JSUxTJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Parties Seek to Seal Class Certification Brief
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dey v. Robinhood Markets,
Inc. et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-07442-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Parties
ask the Court to enter an order granting their omnibus motion to
seal all confidential material filed under seal and in support of
the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, Robinhood's
forthcoming opposition, and the Plaintiff's forthcoming Reply, by
Sept.8, 2026, and any response thereto by Sept. 15, 2026.
The Parties agree that efficiencies would be gained by presenting
evidentiary support for sealing all confidential materials
submitted in support of or opposition to class certification as
part of one motion.
This omnibus motion would obviate the need for Robinhood to respond
to the Plaintiff's administrative motion to seal on May 22, 2026.
The request for an omnibus motion to seal is made to streamline
this Court's review of the extensive confidential materials already
submitted with the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, and
the additional confidential materials that will likely be submitted
with the forthcoming filings in connection with class
certification.
The Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification and
affirmative class certification expert report(s) on May 15, 2026.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 21, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ogeRtU at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melissa L. Yeates, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
E-mail: myeates@ktmc.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Mark Holscher, Esq.
David I. Horowitz, Esq.
Jake A. Feiler, Esq.
Robyn E. Bladow, Esq.
Matthew B. Summers, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
2049 Century Park East, Suite 3700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 552-4200
Facsimile: (310) 552-5900
E-mail: mark.holscher@kirkland.com
david.horowitz@kirkland.com
jake.feiler@kirkland.com
robyn.bladow@kirkland.com
matthew.summers@kirkland.com
RODBRA INC: Caciano Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensations
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Barrios Caciano, individually, and on behalf of the State
of California and other aggrieved persons v. RODBRA, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES I through IO, inclusive, Case No.
26STCV15365 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 13, 2026), is
brought against Defendants under the Private Attorneys General Act
of 2004, California Labor Coded ("PAGA") stemming from the
Defendants' failure to pay compensations.
The Defendants' failed to pay for all hours worked (minimum,
straight time, and overtime wages), failed to provide legally
compliant meal periods and related meal period premiums, failed to
authorize and permit rest periods and related rest period premiums,
failed to pay all earned wages twice per month, failed to maintain
accurate records of hours worked and meal periods, failed to timely
pay final wages at termination, failed to furnish accurate wage
statements, recordkeeping requirement violations, and failure to
indemnify for necessary business expenditures, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in Los Angeles County,
California as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee from July 2025 to
November 2025.
Rodbra, inc. is a business entity qualified to do business and
actually conducting business in numerous counties throughout the
State of California, including in Los Angeles County.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin H. Haber, Esq.
Daniel J. Kramer, Esq.
Chase M. Stern, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
660 S. Figueroa St., Sky Lobby
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
Email: benjamin.haber@wilshirelawfirm.com
daniel.kramer@wilshirelawfirm.com
chase.stern@wilshirelawfirm.com
SAFE HOME: Class Certification Filing in Todd Due April 6, 2027
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER TODD, v. SAFE
HOME SECURITY, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-00320-SVN (D. Conn.), the
Hon. Judge Sarala Nagala entered a scheduling order as follows:
-- Any motion to amend the complaint or join parties must be
filed by Plaintiff no later than July 6, 2026.
-- Any party with a claim or counterclaim for damages shall serve
a damages analysis on the other parties, in compliance with
Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii), on or before Dec. 8, 2026.
-- All discovery will be completed (not propounded) by Mar. 8,
2027.
-- Any motion for class certification must be filed by April 6,
2027.
-- Any motion related to preclusion of an expert related to class
certification must be filed by April 6, 2027.
-- A joint status report of the parties shall be filed on or
before Dec. 7, 2026.
The Defendant offers medical, fire alert, burglary, and related
security system services.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 20, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=f617RQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Nassif Sues Over Unlawful Voiceprint Use
-------------------------------------------------------------
VICTORIA NASSIF, CAROL MARIN, PHILIP ROGERS, ALISON FLOWERS,
LINDSEY DORCUS, ROBIN AMER, and YOHANCE LACOUR, each individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a Korean corporation, and SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation, Defendants, Case
No. 1:26-cv-05567 (N.D. Ill., May 13, 2026) is a class action
against the Defendant for invasion of Plaintiffs' legally protected
privacy interest of their own biometric identifiers by extracting
voiceprints and biometric information without notice or consent.
The Plaintiffs are seven Illinois residents whose recorded voices
are among the most distinguished in their fields -- Pulitzer
winners, Peabody honorees, the recipient of the Order of Lincoln,
and audiobook narrators recorded for the major American
publishers.
Defendant Samsung Electronics Co., Inc. conducts the voice-AI
research through Samsung Research, its global R&D organization.
Samsung Electronics owns the foundational voice models that emerge
from that research. Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
deploys those models to U.S. consumers, including in Illinois,
through the Voice Products.
The complaint asserts that Samsung did not notify Plaintiffs that
their voiceprints were being collected. Samsung treated the voices
of real people as unencumbered raw material for commercial
products, without a word to the people whose voices made the
products possible, and without permission or compensation. None of
the Plaintiffs was told that their voice was being used to train
Samsung's commercial voice AI. None of them was asked. None of them
consented.
The Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered concrete, particularized
injuries, the complaint alleges. Samsung deprived them of the
right, guaranteed by the Biometric Information Privacy Act, to make
an informed decision about whether a private entity may collect,
store, and use their biometric data.
The Plaintiffs assert claims under BIPA, the Illinois Right of
Publicity Act ("IRPA"), the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), the Illinois Uniform Deceptive
Trade Practices Act ("IUDTPA"), and Illinois common law for unjust
enrichment. Plaintiffs seek statutory and actual damages;
restitution and disgorgement of the profits Samsung has earned from
the commercial exploitation of Plaintiffs' biometric data;
classwide injunctive relief including the destruction or retraining
of the foundational voice models in which Plaintiffs' voiceprints
are encoded; and reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses.[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
SANFORD SURROUNDED: Class Cert Hearing Continued to June 18
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tracie Foxworth v. Sanford
Surrounded, LLC et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00818-LAF-JEP (M.D.N.C.),
the Hon. Judge Peake entered an order that the class certification
hearing set for May 21, 2026 is continued to June 18, 2026.
Sanford Surrounded is a veteran owned real estate firm serving
Sanford and the surrounding areas.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eA5S8P at no extra
charge.[CC]
SEAN REEVES: Convisser's Bid to Certify Class Action Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Claude David Convisser, V.
Sean Reeves and Michael P. Kochis, Case No. 3:25-cv-00065-JHY-JCH
(W.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Yoon entered an order:
-- Denying Convisser's motion to set aside judgment and for leave
to amend his complaint; and
-- Denying Convisser's motion to certify class action and appoint
class counsel, and motion for leave to make filings by paper,
as moot.
The Clerk is further directed to forward a copy of this Order to
Convisser.
The proposed amended complaint does not state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, such that the proposed amendment would be
futile. The allegations and claims in his proposed amended
complaint are largely the same as those in his original complaint.
On Sept. 2, 2025, Convisser filed a class action complaint seeking
class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2)
as well as declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C.
section 1983.
A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated May 21, 2026, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SGgW9x
at no extra charge.[CC]
SECTION 119: Website Denies Equal Access to Blind Users, Ortiz Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH ORTIZ, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. SECTION 119 LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:26-cv-990 (W.D.N.Y., May 14, 2026) is a civil rights action
against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.section119.com
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA").
During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on
January 2, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Classic Pullover
Hoodie from Defendant and to view the information on the Website,
Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied
Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person
and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the
public and made available to the public.
Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and
visually-impaired consumers such as Plaintiff, who need
screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the goods,
and services Defendant offers to the public on its Website, says
the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Plaintiff JOSEPH ORTIZ is a visually-impaired and legally blind
person who requires screen-reading software to read website content
using the computer.
Defendant, SECTION 119 LLC, operates the Section 119 online retail
store, as well as the Section 119 interactive Website which
provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services
including information about Defendant's: apparel, as well as other
types of goods, pricing, terms of service, refund, privacy policies
and internet pricing specials. Defendant's interactive Website
advertises, markets and/or operates in the State of New York and
across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: 212-228-9795
Facsimile: 212-982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Must Oppose Evans Class Cert Bid by June 15
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Evans v. Select Portfolio
Servicing, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-05985 (E.D.N.Y., Filed
Oct. 25, 2018), the Hon. Judge Pamela K. Chen entered an order on
Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply:
-- Defendant's opposition is due June 15, 2026
-- Plaintiffs' reply is due June 30, 2026
The Court also entered an order granting
-- the Plaintiff's consented-to request for leave to file a reply
memorandum of up to fifteen (15) pages, and
-- the Defendant's consented-to motion for an extension of time
to file its opposition to Plaintiffs' amended motion for class
certification.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act.
Select is a loan servicing company.[CC]
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Opposition
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Evans v. Select Portfolio
Servicing, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-05985-PKC-RML (E.D.N.Y.),
the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting an
extension of the service and filing deadlines for the Defendant's
opposition to the Plaintiff's amended motion for class
certification, as well as an extension and increased page limit for
the Plaintiff's reply.
The Defendant requests a two-week extension to serve its
opposition, setting the deadline as Monday, June 15. In turn, the
Plaintiffs request an eight-day extension to serve the Reply,
setting the deadline as Tuesday, June 30.
Select is a mortgage servicer founded in 1989 and headquartered in
Salt Lake City, Utah with an additional office in Florida.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 21, 2026, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A6niSB at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Duvol M. Thompson, Esq.
Christine N. Walz, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
787 Seventh Avenue, 31st Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 513-3200
E-mail: duvol.thompson@hklaw.com
christine.walz@hklaw.com
SEMTECH CORPORATION: Lead Plaintiffs Win Class Cert Bid
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Colleen Kleovoulos v.
Semtech Corporation et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01474-MCS-AYP (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Scarsi entered an order granting lead
plaintiff's motion for class certification as follows:
1. Lead Plaintiff's motion for class certification is granted.
2. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and
23(b)(3), this action is certified to proceed as a class
action and the Court certifies the following Class:
"All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
common stock of Semtech Corporation during the period from
Nov. 25, 2024, to Feb. 7, 2025 inclusive (the "Class
Period")."
Excluded from the Class are the Defendants and their
families, the officers and directors of the Company, at all
relevant times, members of their immediate families, and
their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and
any entity in which defendants have or had a controlling
interest.
3. Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff satisfies the requirements of
Rule 23(a) and is appointed class representative on behalf of
the Class.
4. Court-appointed Lead Counsel, Block and Leviton LLP, and
Local Counsel, Strumwasser & Woocher LLP, satisfy the
requirements of Rule 23(g) and are appointed Class Counsel on
behalf of the Class.
Semtech is a provider of high-performance semiconductors, Internet
of Things ("IoT") systems, and cloud connectivity solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 20, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EK0P1M at no extra
charge.[CC]
SERGIO ALBARRAN: Must Release Mena from Custody
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN DIEGO MENA, v. SERGIO
ALBARRAN, et al., Case No. 5:26-cv-04749-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order granting ex parte
application for temporary restraining order (TRO).
(1) Petitioner's application is GRANTED to preserve the status quo
pending further briefing and a hearing on this matter.
(2) Respondents are ordered to release Petitioner immediately from
Respondents' custody and enjoined and restrained from re-detaining
Petitioner without notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before a
neutral decisionmaker. Respondents are enjoined from removing
Petitioner from this judicial district, and, if they have already
transferred him, are ordered to return him to this judicial
district. Respondents are prohibited from removing Petitioner from
the United States until these proceedings have terminated.
(3) During the pendency of the habeas proceedings, Respondents are
enjoined and restrained from moving Petitioner from the
jurisdiction.
(4) Respondents are ordered to show cause in-person at a hearing in
the courtroom of the assigned Judge, or as otherwise ordered by
that Judge, at 9:00 a.m. on June 2, 2026, why a preliminary
injunction should not issue. Respondents shall file a response to
Petitioner’s motion by no later than May 25, 2026. Any reply
shall be filed by May 28, 2026. The assigned Judge may modify this
schedule as appropriate.
(5) This Order shall remain in effect until 5:42 a.m. on June 3,
2026.
Because Petitioner satisfies all requirements for temporary
injunctive relief and such relief is necessary to restore the
status quo, the TRO Application is granted.
On May 19, 2026, Petitioner was detained by United States
Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") officers during a
mandatory ICE check-in. Petitioner challenges the lawfulness of his
detention.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 20, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=haaSsi at no extra
charge.[CC]
SHASTA BEVERAGES: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to August 13
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAHANGIR W. AHMAD, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SHASTA
BEVERAGES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and Does 1 to 50,
inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-00212-GW-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Wu entered an order granting the Parties' joint stipulation
to continue the Plaintiff's motion filing deadline and briefing
schedule as follows:
–- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification filing
deadline
is continued to Aug. 13, 2026;
-- The Defendant's opposition to the motion for class
certification
filing deadline is continued to Sept. 24, 2026;
-- The Plaintiff's reply in support of the motion for class
certification filing deadline is continued to Oct. 15, 2026;
and
-- The hearing on the motion for class certification is continued
to Oct. 29, 2026 at 8:30 a.m.
Shasta manufactures soft drinks.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gm2qsl at no extra
charge.[CC]
SIEMENS INDUSTRY: KBEL Suit Seeks Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kevin Brnich Electric LLC,
Bolt Electric LLC, Electricalifornia, Zank Electric, Charles
Vodicka, Patrick Cates, Bryan Butakis, Rick Keyser, Tyler Barrette,
Clifford Oakley, Jason Wylie, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. Siemens Industry, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-01229-MHC (N.D. Ga.), the plaintiffs asks the Court to
enter an order to certify a Nationwide Class of individuals who
purchased Siemens' AFCIs, defined to include:
Nationwide Purchaser Class:
"Any person or entity who resides in the United States and
purchased a new Siemens Gen 3 AFCI from a Siemens distributor
or retailer."
Additionally, Patrick Cates and Jason Wylie move the Court to
certify State Subclasses, defined to include:
State Homeowner Subclasses:
"Any person who resides in California or Texas who used
Siemens Gen 3 AFCI in a residence they owned."
The proposed classes are ascertainable, and each member of the
proposed classes has standing.
The plaintiffs further request that:
(1) The Plaintiffs Kevin Brnich Electric, Bolt Electric,
Electricalifornia, Zank Electric, Charles Vodicka, Rick
Keyser, and Clifford Oakley are appointed Class
Representatives for the Nationwide Purchaser Class;
(2) The Plaintiffs Jason Wylie is appointed Class Representative
of the Texas State Subclass and Patrick Cates is appointed
Class Representative of the California State Subclass; and
(3) Zimmerman Reed LLP and Cohen Milsten Sellers & Toll PLLC are
appointed as Class Counsel.
The Defendant operates in the industry, energy, healthcare, and
infrastructure & cities sectors.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 19, 2026, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Dqby8L at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
Michael J. Laird, Esq.
Madison M. DeMaris, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 341-0400
E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
michael.laird@zimmreed.com
madison.demaris@zimmreed.com
- and -
Eric Kafka, Esq.
Mark Vandenberg, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
88 Pine Street
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 220-2914
E-mail: ekafka@cohenmilstein.com
mvandenberg@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Rachael Flanagan, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
11780 U.S. Hwy. 1 N, Suite N500
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33408
Telephone: (561) 515-1400
E-mail: rflanagan@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Charles H. Van Horn, Esq.
BERMAN FINK VAN HORN P.C.
3475 Piedmont Road, N.E. Suite 1640
Atlanta, GA 30305
Telephone: (404) 261-7711
E-mail: cvanhorn@bvfvlaw.com
- and -
Bonner C. Walsh, Esq.
WALSH PLLC
1561 Long Haul Road
Grangeville, ID 83530
Telephone: (903) 574-1807
E-mail: bonner@walshpllc.com
- and -
Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
David A. Goodwin, Esq.
Anthony J. Stauber, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
Canadian Pacific Plaza
120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
E-mail: dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
tstauber@gustafsongluek.com
- and -
E. Adam Webb, Esq.
G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq.
WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480
Atlanta, Georgia 30339
Telephone: (770) 444-9325
E-mail: Adam@WebbLLC.com
Franklin@WebbLLC.com
- and -
Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
SAUDER SCHELKOPF
1109 Lancaster Avenue
Berwyn, PA 19312
Telephone: (610) 200-0581
E-mail: jgs@sstriallawyers.com
mds@sstriallawyers.com
jbk@sstriallawyers.com
SIG SAUER: Schnau Sues Over Defectively Designed P320 Pistol
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH SCHNAU, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SIG SAUER, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-00274-SH (N.D. Okla., May 8, 2026)
seeks to hold Sig Sauer responsible for selling a defectively
designed pistol, the Sig Sauer P320, to Plaintiff and other
consumers through unfair and deceptive practices in violation of
the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, Sig Sauer designed the P320 without any
external (i.e., manually operated) safety features, even though the
pistol is effectively cocked (i.e., ready to fire) the moment a
round is chambered. This is particularly galling because the P320
also has among the lightest and shortest trigger pulls of any
comparable pistol on the market. The practical effect is that when
consumers carry a loaded P320, it is akin to the consumer taking a
loaded revolver, pulling the hammer back, and then walking around
with that cocked pistol in the holster -- all without any external
safety features. As alleged herein, the combination of these
features constitutes the defect that uniformly exists in every
P320.
The Plaintiff asserts that Sig Sauer has known about the P320's
defect for years but has done nothing to remedy the issue. Rather,
it has actively concealed the defect from its customers and the
public. As a result, all Oklahoma consumers who purchased the P320
have received a product that has the same defect and was sold using
the same unfair and deceptive practices, says the Plaintiff.
Sig Sauer, Inc. designs and manufactures firearms for military, law
enforcement, and commercial markets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew L. Dameron, Esq.
Clinton J. Mann, Esq.
WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
Kansas City, MO 64105
Telephone: (816) 945-7110
Facsimile: (816) 945-7118
E-mail: matt@williamsdirks.com
cmann@williamsdirks.com
- and -
Bradford B. Lear, Esq.
Todd C. Werts, Esq.
Sander C. Sowers, Esq.
LEAR WERTS LLP
103 Ripley Street
Columbia, MO 65201
Telephone: (573) 875-1991
Facsimile: (573) 279-0024
E-mail: lear@learwerts.com
werts@learwerts.com
sowers@learwerts.com
SKECHERS USA: Expert Discovery on Class Cert Due Dec. 16
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN LISS et al., v.
SKECHERS USA INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-05861-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the
Hon. Judge Estudillo entered a minute order as follows:
-- Skechers shall file its motion to compel arbitration no later
than May 28, 2026;
-- The Plaintiffs shall file their opposition to Skechers' motion
to compel arbitration no later than June 18, 2026;
-- Skechers shall file any reply in support of its motion to
compel arbitration no later than July 2, 2026;
-- The deadline for disclosure of expert reports on class
certification-related issues is Oct. 16, 2026;
-- The deadline for disclosure of expert rebuttal on class
certification-related issues is Oct. 30, 2026;
-- Expert discovery relating to class certification issues shall
be completed by Dec. 16, 2026.
Skechers designs and markets branded contemporary casual, active,
rugged, and lifestyle footwear for men, women, and children.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 18, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w78KBQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Class Certification Bid Amended to June 23
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW LANCLOS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Case No. 1:25-cv-00353-RMR-TPO (D. Colo.),
the Hon. Judge O'Hara entered an amended scheduling order as
follows:
-- Deadline for Joinder of Parties and Amendment of Pleadings:
June 27, 2026.
-- Discovery Cutoff: May 8, 2027.
-- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification deadline:
June 23, 2027.
-- The Defendant's response to motion for class certification
deadline: No later than 45 days after the filing
of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
-- Daubert Motion Deadline: Aug. 6, 2027
This case is a potential class action under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime
compensation for all hours worked as required by Colorado
Wage-and-Hour Law.
Southwest Airlines is a major airline in the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kgKkhw at no extra
charge.[CC]
ST. MORITZ: Hall Seeks Approval of FLSA Class Notice
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONALD HALL, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. ST. MORITZ SECURITY
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-00104-RJC (W.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"):
(a) Authorizing the issuance of Court-supervised notice by U.S.
mail, email, and text message to the following individuals
defined as:
"All current and former hourly non-exempt security employees
of the Defendant who worked at least 40 hours in any
workweek beginning three years preceding the filing of this
Motion through the present (hereinafter the "FLSA
Collective" or "Potential FLSA Collective Members")."
(b) Approving the proposed Notice and Consent to Join, as well
as a reminder notice (attached as Exhibit A);
(c) Directing the Defendant, within 14 days of the Court's Order
authorizing the issuance of notice, to produce an electronic
spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel or commadelimited format
containing a roster of all Potential FLSA Collective
Members, including their full names, dates of employment,
locations worked, job titles, last known mailing addresses,
personal email addresses, and cellular phone numbers
("Roster"); and
(d) Directing that, within 14 days of receipt of the Roster, the
Notice and Consent to Join be sent to the Potential FLSA
Collective Members by U.S. Mail, email, and text message;
and
(e) Directing that a follow-up notice be sent by U.S. mail,
email, and text message to the Potential FLSA Collective
Members who have not returned Consent to Join forms halfway
through the notice period.
The Defendant is a security provider.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 21, 2026, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3Wjf26 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
Tristan T. Akers, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Rd, Suite #126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: (614) 949-1181
Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
sdraher@mcoffmanlegal.com
agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
takers@mcoffmanlegal.com
STELLANTIS NV: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 8
-------------------------------------------------------------
National Law Review reports that Pomerantz LLP announces that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against Stellantis N.V.
("Stellantis" or the "Company") (NYSE:STLA). Such investors are
advised to contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or
646-581-9980, (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.
The class action concerns whether Stellantis and certain of its
officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other
unlawful business practices.
You have until June 8, 2026, to ask the Court to appoint you as
Lead Plaintiff for the class if you purchased or otherwise acquired
Stellantis securities during the Class Period. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.
On February 6, 2026, Stellantis announced EUR22 billion in charges
alongside a "reset" of the Company's business and a shortfall, even
discounting the charges, against the Company's previous guidance.
Stellantis described the charges and reset as due in significant
part to the need to shift organizational priorities, stakeholder
relationships, supply chains, execution, and quality control due to
"an initial overestimation of pace of adoption of electrification
in the regions." Stellantis further pointed specifically to
"substantially reduced volume and profitability expectations for
[battery-powered electric vehicle] products."
On this news, Stellantis's stock price fell $2.26 per share, or
23.69%, to close at $7.28 per share on February 6, 2026.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later,
Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for
the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class
members. See www.pomlaw.com. [GN]
STRATEGIC DELIVERY: Class Cert. Bids in Abdisalam Suit Due Oct. 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Abdisalam v. Strategic
Delivery Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-12141 (D. Mass., Filed
Aug. 20, 2024), the Hon. Judge Richard G. Stearns entered an order
granting Motion for Extension of Time:
-- Class discovery will be completed by Sept. 15, 2026
-- Class certification motions will be filed by Oct. 2, 2026, with
any opposition by Oct. 16, 2026.
-- All other pretrial deadlines remain as previously scheduled.
The nature of suit states Labor Litigation.
The Defendant provides logistics services.[CC]
SUGARED + BRONZED: Grippo Seeks Prelim OK of Class Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZOE GRIPPO, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SUGARED +
BRONZED, LLC, Case No. 8:24-cv-01792-AB-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff, on July 17, 2026 at 10:00 a.m., will move the Court for
an order granting preliminary approval of the class action
settlement and certification of the settlement class as detailed in
the Plaintiff's memorandum of points and authorities.
The Plaintiff's operative Complaint alleges the Defendant violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and the Virginia
Telephone Privacy Protection Act ("VTPPA"), by sending text
messages soliciting its products and service to the Class Members'
cellular telephones after they had opted out of receiving future
communications from the Defendant.
The "Settlement Class" is defined in the Agreement as follows:
"All persons throughout the United States (1) to whose phone
number the Defendant sent two or more telemarketing text
messages, in a 12-month period, (2) using the Klaviyo
platform, (3) after the Defendant or the Klaviyo platform
received an inbound stop message, as defined below, from the
telephone number texted, (4) from four (4) years prior to the
filing of the Complaint to March 17, 2026."
Inbound stop messages include the following: "STOP",
"UNSUBSCRIBE", "NOOFFERS", "NO OFFERS", "OPT OUT", "END", and
"QUIT."
The Settlement Agreement provides $750,000 in cash benefits (minus
approved administration costs, approved attorneys' fees, and
approved litigation costs) to Class Members after the claims
period.
Sugared + Bronzed provides personal care services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 19, 2026, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PRcFQy at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
23586 Calabasas Road, Suite 105
Calabasas, CA 91302
Telephone: (323) 306-4234
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
SUMMA HEALTH: Burnside Must File Class Cert Bid by Oct. 13
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER BURNSIDE, v.
SUMMA HEALTH et al., Case No. 5:26-cv-00149-BYP (N.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Judge Benita Pearson entered a case management conference
order as follows:
The Plaintiff shall file her motion for FLSA Notice and Rule 23
class certification by Oct. 13, 2026. The Defendants shall respond
by Nov. 3, 2026. The Plaintiff shall file her reply, if any, by
Nov. 17, 2026.
The Court shall conduct a telephonic status conference on at 12:00
p.m. on Sept. 2, 2026. The Court will discuss pre-FLSA Notice
mediation options and the necessity for an additional status
conference during merits discovery.
The Court will permit only the motion with its supporting
memorandum, the memorandum in opposition, and a reply. No
sur-replies will be permitted absent advance leave of Court.
Summa is a for-profit integrated healthcare delivery system.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 18, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tMZVCb at no extra
charge.[CC]
SUN COMMUNITIES: Court Approves $2.3-Mil. Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pluang reports that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan has approved a proposed $2.3 million class
action settlement for investors who purchased Sun Communities, Inc.
stock between February 28, 2019, and September 24, 2024.
The settlement hearing is scheduled for July 29, 2026, to determine
if the settlement and related attorney fees are fair and adequate.
Investors must submit claims by July 1, 2026, to participate in the
settlement fund. Those who do not opt out will be bound by the
court's judgment, which will resolve claims related to their Sun
Communities stock ownership. [GN]
SUNRISE COMMUNITIES: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Sullivan Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carla Sullivan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Sunrise Communities, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:26-cv-05352 (N.D. Ill., May 8, 2026) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.
According to the complaint, Sunrise underpays Plaintiff Sullivan
and other similarly situated hourly employees in two ways. First,
Sunrise requires employees to work off the clock, resulting in
unpaid overtime. Second, Sunrise pays employees non-discretionary
performance bonuses tied to key performance indicators but excludes
those bonuses from the overtime calculation, so that employees who
earn overtime receive it at a rate lower than the law requires.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a non-exempt hourly employee
during the relevant period.
Sunrise Communities, LLC is a manufactured housing and residential
community company that operates and manages manufactured home
communities and residential properties in Illinois and throughout
the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Francisco Fernandez Del Castillo, Esq.
DEL CASTILLO LAW GROUP, LLC
11 E Adams Street #1401
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 216-0111
E-mail: francisco@delcastillolawgroup.com
SUSHI KATSUEI: Court Imposes $1K Penalty to Defense Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUPAN CHAKMA, SULOY
TRIPORA, TAPAN KANTI TANCHANGYA, TIYANIT KAEWPAN, and PRAMITA
CHAKMA, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v.
SUSHI KATSUEI, INC., d/b/a SUSHI KATSUEI PARK SLOPE; ROYAL KATSUEI,
INC., d/b/a SUSHI KATSUEI WEST VILLAGE; AYE AYE SWE; and AUNG KO
WIN, Case No. 1:23-cv-07804-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Katherine Polk Failla entered an order granting in part and denying
in part the Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions.
The Defendants must pay $46,980 to Class Counsel as reimbursement
for attorneys' fees and $781.88 as reimbursement for costs. Defense
Counsel must pay $1,710 to Class Counsel as reimbursement for
attorneys' fees.
Finally, the Court imposes a $1,000 penalty on Defense Counsel, to
be payable within 30 days by check or money order to the Clerk of
Court of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.
Defense Counsel may now move to replace its AI-generated Case
1:23-cv-07804-KPF Document 142 Filed 05/19/26 Page 36 of 37 37
submissions.
The Court recognizes that Class Counsel spent significant time and
resources sorting through various messes that Defendants created.
The least the Court can do is to ensure that Defendants pay for the
time they forced Class Counsel to spend on those efforts. The Court
also adds that Defendants are fortunate that Plaintiffs have
declined to seek the entry of a default judgment, a request which
the Court would have considered seriously. The Court cannot promise
that such grace will be extended to Defendants in the event of
future missteps.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motion at
docket entry 124.
The Plaintiffs brought this class action against Sushi Katsuei,
Inc., Royal Katsuei, Inc., Aye Aye Swe, and Aung Ko Win, alleging
various labor law violations.
On Feb. 7, 2025, the Court issued an Opinion and Order certifying a
Class and a Subclass in this case.
The Class includes:
"All tipped food-service employees other than sushi chefs who
worked for the Defendants at the Sushi Katsuei restaurants at
any time on or after Sept. 1, 2017."
The Subclass includes:
"Tipped food-service employees (other than sushi chefs) at SK
Park Slope, who were subject to Defendants' tip-pooling
system, at any time on or after Sept. 1, 2017."
Sushi offers both sushi bar experience and a full dinner service.
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 19, 2026, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vdhAZE
at no extra charge.[CC]
TESLA INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Nov. 16
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jane Doe v. Tesla, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-02226-JAK-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
entered an order setting pretrial deadlines as follows:
Last day to conduct settlement Sept. 23, 2026
conference or mediation:
Deadline to file motion for class Nov. 16, 2026
certification:
Deadline to file opposition to motion Dec. 21, 2026
for class certification:
Deadline to file reply in support of Jan. 11, 2027
motion for class certification:
Hearing on motion for class Feb. 8, 2027
certification:
Non-expert discovery cut-off May 10, 2027
Expert discovery cut-off June 21, 2027
Tesla is an American multinational automotive and clean energy
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 20, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4ysVAL at no extra
charge.[CC]
TOTAL LONGTERM: Stipulation to Continue Class Cert Deadline Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OSCAR HERNANDEZ,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. TOTAL
LONGTERM CARE, INC., a Colorado corporation; INNOVAGE CALIFORNIA
PACE-LOS ANGELES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case
No. 5:26-cv-00554-JFW-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Walter
entered an order denying stipulation to continue the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification filing deadline.
Total is a local non-profit established to help families care for
the aging parents, relative or spouse by providing and coordinating
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ghMKsn at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason W. Rothman, Esq.
Guido E. Toscano, Esq.
Camryn L. Melanson, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
1460 Westwood Boulevard,
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 438-5555
Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
E-mail: jason@tomorrowlaw.com
gtoscano@tomorrowlaw.com
cmelanson@tomorrowlaw.com
UBP BAY: Bid for Class Certification in Howard Suit Due Nov. 2
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM HOWARD, et al., v.
UBP BAY CITY, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-10926-MAG-PTM (E.D.
Mich.), the Hon. Judge Mark A. Goldsmith entered a case management
and scheduling order as follows:
Initial disclosures under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1): May 18, 2026
Fact discovery: Sept. 11, 2026
Expert discovery: Oct. 12, 2026
Motion for class certification: Nov. 2, 2026
Dispositive motions & motions to
limit/exclude expert testimony: Jan. 12, 2027
Joint final pretrial order: June 15, 2027
A copy of the Court's order dated May 18, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=G0LzWg at no extra
charge.[CC]
UFP TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Pritchard Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARTHA PRITCHARD, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. UFP TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-12206-JDH (D. Mass., May 14, 2026) is a
class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly
secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members'
personally identifiable information ("PII") stored within
Defendant's information network, including at least names, dates of
birth, Social Security numbers, contact information (e.g.,
addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses), medical
information, driver's license information, and financial account
numbers (e.g., bank account numbers for the purposes of payroll and
direct deposit).
The complaint relates that the Defendant stores a litany of highly
sensitive personal identifiable information about its current and
former employees. But Defendant lost control over that data when
cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer
systems in a data breach that occurred on February 14, 2026. As a
result, Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was
compromised.
With this action, Representative Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant
responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause
Representative Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons.
Plaintiff Martha Pritchard is a citizen of Aurora, IL.
Defendant UFP Technologies, Inc. is an American multinational
developer and custom manufacturer of comprehensive solutions for
medical devices, sterile packaging, and other highly engineered
custom products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq.
REARDON SCANLON LLP
45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor
West Hartford, CT 06107
Telephone: (860) 955-9455
Facsimile: (860) 920-5242
E-mail: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com
- and -
Daniel Srourian, Esq.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 474-3800
Facsimile: (213) 471-4160
E-mail: daniel@slfla.com
UNCOMMON JAMES: Echols Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TAZINIQUE ECHOLS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNCOMMON JAMES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:26-cv-05375 (N.D. Ill., May 8, 2026) is a civil rights action
against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain,
and operate its website, https://uncommonjames.com to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Echols and
other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
On March 6, 2026, Plaintiff Echols searched online for initial
necklaces, as she wanted a personalized piece of jewelry featuring
initials that matched her style preferences. During her search, she
discovered Defendant's website and proceeded to make a purchase of
Defendant's necklace. However, she encountered multiple
accessibility barriers that prevented her from completing the
transaction.
The Plaintiff asserts that website contains access barriers that
prevent free and full use by her and visually impaired individuals
using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are
pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inadequate focus
order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance
warning, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down
menus, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements,
redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address,
and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a
mouse.
Plaintiff Echols seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to
compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful
discrimination.
Uncommon James, LLC operates the website that offers jewelry
products, including necklaces, earrings, rings, bracelets, and
personalized accessories, along with beauty and skincare items,
fragrance, apparel, and home lifestyle goods such as candles and
sunglasses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alison Chan, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
4903 Avenue N
Brooklyn, NY 11234
Office: (844) 731-3343
Direct: (929) 442-2154
E-mail: Achan@ealg.law
UP FINTECH: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of UP Fintech Holding Limited. (NASDAQ: TIGR)
resulting from allegations that UP Fintech may have issued
materially misleading business information to the investing
public.
So What: If you purchased UP Fintech securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/cases/up-fintech-holding-limited/join or
call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
What is this about: On May 22, 2026, Reuters published an article
entitled "China to crack down on 'illegal' cross-border
securities." The article stated that China "announced a major
crackdown on cross-border investment, and said it would punish
brokers it accused of illegally moving money to foreign markets,
sending their shares plunging." Further, the article stated that
"Online brokers Tiger, Futu and Longbridge would be penalised for
soliciting business in China without an onshore licence, the
securities regulator said. Shares in Futu and Tiger parent UP
Fintech Holding fell more than 30% in U.S. premarket trade."
On this news, UP Fintech American Depositary Shares ("ADS") fell
25.3% on May 22, 2026.
Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at
that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement
against a Chinese Company. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked
No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of
securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds
of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm
secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner
Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar.
Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and
Super Lawyers.
Contacts
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
VARONIS SYSTEMS: Pomerantz Appointed as Lead Counsel
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARTEM MOLCHANOV,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
VARONIS SYSTEMS, INC., YAKOV FAITELSON, and GUY MELAMED, Case No.
1:26-cv-00117-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Engelmeyer entered an
order appointing Plaintiffs Clal Pension and Provident Ltd., Clal
Insurance Company Ltd., and Atudot Pension Fund for Employees &
Independent Workers Ltd. as lead plaintiff and Pomerantz as lead
counsel.
The action shall proceed under the caption In re Varonis Securities
Litigation, 26 Civ. 117 (PAE). The Clerk of Court is directed to
terminate all pending motions.
Because no prospective lead plaintiff with a larger financial stake
has come forward, and the Court does not have access to
non-parties' financial records, the Court assumes that Clal's
financial interest makes it a suitable lead plaintiff.
On Jan. 7, 2026, the plaintiff filed this lawsuit against the
defendants. The putative class consisted of:
"All investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Varonis'
common stock between Feb. 4 and Oct. 28, 2025, inclusive (the
"class period")."
Varonis is a global security company that provides software
products and services to detect threats to critical data using
artificial intelligence ("AI")-driven techniques.
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 18, 2026, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Kob5xz
at no extra charge.[CC]
VGW HOLDINGS: Must File Dismissal Bid by June 26
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cox v. VGW Holdings Pty
Ltd. et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-00363 (D. Conn., Filed March 10,
2026), the Hon. Judge Sarah F. Russell entered an order setting a
deadline of June 26, 2026 for Defendants to file a Motion to
Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, a Motion to Transfer, and an
early Motion to Deny Class Certification.
The court also granted Defendants' oral motion to stay discovery
pending the resolution of the Motions to Dismiss, Transfer, and
Deny Class Certification.
The nature of suit states Statutory Actions.
VGW operates an online gaming portal.[CC]
VIRGINIA WHITE: Bid for Class Certification Stayed
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RESIDENTIAL WARRANTY
COMPANY LLC, v. VIRGINIA WHITE, Individually, and in her capacity
as Power of Attorney for Warren Simmons, Case No.
1:25-cv-00302-KD-B (S.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge Kristi DuBose
entered an order granting the motion to stay.
The motion for class certification is stayed until further order of
the Court.
The Court further orders that RWC's motion to strike the motion for
class certification on grounds that her motion exceeds the 30-page
limit, be denied at this time.
Should White's forthcoming second amended answer and counterclaim
survive RWC's forthcoming motion to dismiss, the Court may re-visit
the issue of excess pages in the motion for class certification.
The Court agrees that the motion for class certification is
premature. At this point, White has been ordered to file an amended
answer and counterclaim. Until the viability of her class action
counterclaim is established, the issue of class certification is
premature.
Also, the parties have not yet filed their report of parties
planning meeting, and the Court has not entered a Rule 16(b)
Scheduling Order. Therefore, the parties have not engaged in
discovery with regard to RWC's Complaint or class-related discovery
with regard to White's Counterclaim.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 18, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=U2wTXA at no extra
charge.[CC]
VOZZCOM INC: Wilson Extension of Class Cert Bid Filing Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHET MICHAEL WILSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
VOZZCOM, INC., Case No. 0:25-cv-61793-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion to
extend pretrial deadlines to file class certification motion and
disclose experts.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff requests that the Court extend the class
certification motion and initial expert disclosure deadlines to
June 19, 2026, and the rebuttal expert disclosure deadline to July
20, 2026.
This will allow the Plaintiff the opportunity to depose Vozzcom's
corporate representative regarding the records (which is currently
scheduled to occur on June 5, 2026), to have his expert review the
records before issuing an opinion, and to otherwise use the call
records at class certification.
Because of the relevance of these records and testimony regarding
these records to class certification, despite the Plaintiff's
diligence, the Plaintiff will be prejudiced if required to seek
class certification on May 22, 2026.
On Sept. 5, 2025, the Plaintiff initiated this putative class
action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
On April 22, 2026, Judge Strauss entered an Order compelling
Vozzcom to produce records of its calls to wrong numbers by May 22,
2026.
The Defendant provides wireline telecommunication services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 21, 2026, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LpBKeF at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
237 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
rachel@kaufmanpa.com
WASHINGTON: S.O.L. Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as S.O.L., M.R.G., through her LGAL, D.R.D., for
themselves and those similarly situated; and Legal Counsel for
Youth and Children v. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN,
YOUTH, AND FAMILIES, TANA SENN, Secretary of the Washington State
Department of Children Youth & Families, in her official capacity;
and the STATE OF WASHINGTON, Case No. 26-2-14621-7 SEA was removed
from the Superior Court of Washington for King County, to the
United States District Court for Western District of Washington on
May 13, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01622.
This case concerns and alleges a violation of civil rights under 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 as well as state law claims.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Alix R. Campbell, Esq.
Rebekah Fletcher, Esq.
David Sheaffer, WSBA No. 63214
Assistant Attorneys General
Office of the Attorney General
P.O. Box 40141
Olympia, WA 98504-0141
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: 360-709-4845
Email: Alix.Campbell@atg.wa.gov
Rebekah.Fletcher@atg.wa.gov
David.Sheaffer@atg.wa.gov
WFS EXPRESS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Foster Due March 30, 2027
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAWANDA FOSTER and CORY
HAWKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. WFS EXPRESS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES
1-20, inclusive, Case No. 2:26-cv-00141-TL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon.
Judge Tana Lin entered an order setting jury trial date, class
certification briefing schedule, and other pre-trial dates:
Event Date
Jury trial set for 9:00 a.m. on Apr. 3, 2028
Deadline for joining additional parties: Aug. 17, 2026
The Plaintiffs' motion for class Mar. 30, 2027
certification due:
The Defendant's opposition to motion Apr. 27, 2027
for class certification due:
The Plaintiffs' reply to the May 14, 2027
Defendant's opposition due by:
Discovery completed by: Nov. 5, 2027
All motions in limine must be filed by: Feb. 28, 2028
WFS provides air cargo logistics, ground handling, and passenger
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=625D00 at no extra
charge.[CC]
ZARATECORP LTD: Conditional Cert. Bid Filing Extended to August 14
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cruz v. Zaratecorp Ltd.,
Case No. 2:25-cv-01788 (E.D. Wisc., Filed Nov. 14, 2025), the Hon.
Judge William C. Griesbach entered an order granting joint motion
to extend:
-- the deadline for Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification to Aug. 14, 2026, and
-- the Plaintiff's deadline for class certification of a Rule 23
class and Defendant's deadline to file a collective
decertification motion to Dec. 18, 2026.
The court will schedule a telephone conference to address further
scheduling upon issuing a ruling on class certification.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Zaratecorp is a privately held corporation based in Mequon,
Wisconsin, operating under the self-employment and small business
umbrella.[CC]
ZOOM COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class and Derivative Suits
-----------------------------------------------------
Zoom Communications, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form
10-Q, for the period ending April 30, 2026, dated and delivered to
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 22, 2026, that it is
facing ongoing securities and derivative actions over its
disclosures.
In April 2020, June 2020, July 2020 and October 2021, Zoom officers
and directors were sued in putative class action lawsuits alleging
violations of the federal securities laws for allegedly making
materially false and misleading statements about data privacy and
security measures.
Additionally, in April 2020, June 2020, July 2020 and October 2021,
the same were also sued in purported shareholder derivative
lawsuits alleging violations of the federal securities laws based
on allegedly materially false and misleading statements regarding
our data privacy and security measures.
Zoom Communications, Inc. provides video-first communications and
collaboration solutions, including meetings, chat, phone, webinars
and contact center products for businesses and individuals
worldwide. Its cloud-based platform enables users to communicate,
collaborate and build workflows across multiple devices and
locations.
*********
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 ***