260602.mbx

260602.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, June 2, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 109 Headlines 3COMMAS TECHNOLOGIES: Class Certification Filing Due Oct. 4, 2027 7-ELEVEN INC: Parra-Ochoa Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ABV GROUP INC: Anderson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ACADEMIA INC: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid in Singh Judge Suit AEROPRESS INC: Vaughn Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ALCON LABORATORIES: Khan Files Suit in E.D. New York AMERICAN AIRCRAFT PRODUCTS: Zavala Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AUDIBLE INC: Seeks to Keep Class Cert Opposition Under Seal AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Vickers Sues Over Toxic Synthetic Fragrance AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL: Bids for Class Certification Due August 17 BANK OF AMERICA: Arbitration Order in Performance Jet Suit Affirmed BANNER CAPITAL: Plaintiffs Win Bid to Consolidate Cases BISSELL HOMECARE: Martin Files Suit in N.D. Illinois BLUE CROSS: Seeks Leave to File Opposition Surreply BLUE ENTERPRISES: Fulfs Files Suit in E.D. Missouri BLUE ENTERPRISES: Grimes Files Suit in E.D. Missouri BMO BANK NATIONAL: Chavez Suit Removed to E.D. California BRIAN ENGLISH: Gonzalez Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Tossed BURGESS INFORMATION: Barnes Suit Removed to S.D. Ohio BURGESS INFORMATION: Bradford Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia BURGESS INFORMATION: Brooks Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois CAMELBACK: Whittington TCPA Suit Transferred to D. Arizona CAPRI HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Suits in D. Del. CENTENE CORPORATION: Bid for Class Cert. in Sampson Due Dec. 18 CENTURION OF DELAWARE: Class Cert Bid Filing Due June 28 CLUB DEMONSTRATION: Westbrook Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages COMPASS GROUP: Bid to Reconsider April 9 Order Partly OK'd COSTAR REALTY: Divens Suit Removed to W.D. Washington CRASH CHAMPIONS: Parties Must File Amended Joint Status Report CREDIT PROS: Guadian Suit Removed to W.D. Texas CREDIT SUISSE: Plaintiff Loses Bid to File Proposed SAC CREDO LEGAL: Salaiz Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Class Cert Hearing Continued to July 28 DIGNITY HEALTH: Class Cert Bids in Walker Suit Due July 1 DOG6 LLC: Tamm Suit Removed to W.D. Washington DR. JUDY MORGAN'S: Vaughn Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website EBENEZER INDUSTRIES: Hamati FLSA Action Gets Conditional Status EDWARD P. ROMAINE: ILIOU Family Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. EL ORO CATTLE: Garcia Suit Removed to E.D. Washington ELARA CARING PCS: Bennett Sues Over Data Security Incident EXACT CARE PHARMACY: Depue Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio F & J PINE: Bruno Seeks Conditional Cert of FLSA Collective Action FARMERS INSURANCE: Class Certification in Stewart Suit Flipped FASHION NOVA: Richards Appeals Court Order to 7th Circuit FINE GAUGE INC: Walker Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website GEORGIA HERITAGE: Babbit Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct. GUARDIAN INDUSTRIES: Class Cert Opposition Filing Due July 13 HF FOODS: Krawitz Files Suit Over DGCL Violation HSBC BANK: Class Cert Bid Filing in Cruz Suit Due Oct. 15 HUNTSVILLE UTILITIES: Bantam Building Sues Over Conspiracy HUTTIG INC: Martinez Suit Removed to E.D. California ICON PLC: Faces Consolidated Suit in New York INSTRUCTURE INC: Bonham Sues Over Data Breach JARED HOY: Court Stays Discovery and Case Deadlines JEFFERSON COUNTY, WI: Class Cert Filing Due April 16, 2027 JOHN PAUL MITCHELL: Howell Suit Transferred to N.D. California KEEFE GROUP: Hernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California KING COUNTY, WA: Rogers Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification. KNOWBE4 INC: Seeks to Impound Confidential Exhibits L.A. SUPERIOR COURT: Preemptive Writ of Mandate in Smith Partly OKd LANDRY'S INC: Campos Sues Over Breach of Consumer Trust LEE UNIVERSITY: Settlement Deal in Harris Gets Prelim Approval LENDIO INC: Jackson Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. LHASALING FEN: Zamacona Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages LIBERTY MUTUAL: Seeks Leave to Supplement Record in Ward Suit LINCOLN HOLDINGS: Johnson Files Suit in D. Columbia LIVEPERSON INC: Seeks Dismissal of Damri Second Amended Complaint LOUISIANA: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Humphrey Suit to 5th Cir. LPC SURVIVAL: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to Sept. 9 LUME DEODORANT: Moon Suit Removed to C.D. California M&D NY RESTAURANT: Bernal Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Gresham Appeals Judgment in Salazar Suit MARRIOTT RESORTS: Garcia Suit Removed to N.D. California MARSHFIELD CLINIC: Class Cert Bid Filing Due June 11, 2027 MARSHFIELD CLINIC: Class Cert. Bids in Frank Due June 11, 2027 MASSACHUSETTS: Parties in Green Suit Must Submit Status Report MDL 1917: Decertification of IPP and DPP Classes Sought MENESES LAW: Acosta Sues Over Scheme to Defraud Immigrants MERCHANT CAPITAL: Summ. Judgment Against Ohana Counterclaim Upheld MOBIUSPAY INC: Flexsenal Seeks Class Certification MONDAY.COM LTD: Scott+Scott Named Lead Counsel in Securities Suit MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Qutami Suit Removed to C.D. California MONTANA: Johnson Suit Removed to D. Montana NEXTGEN LEADS LLC: Rivera Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California O. MUSTAD & SON: Bennett Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website OPTUMRX INC: Appeals Arbitration & Class Cert. Order in Lackie Suit OSHKOSH CORP: Fullerton Suit Transferred to E.D. Wisconsin PERFECT MOVING: NY Court Enforces Arbitration Despite FAA Exemption PHOENIX EDUCATION: Bronstin Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona PHOENIX, AZ: Wins Partial Bid to Dismiss Herrera Suit PROFUSION COSMETICS: Meade Suit Removed to W.D. Washington PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Krall Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania QUICK AID LLC: Loehr Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida RAD BRANDS INC: Booker Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website REDFIN CORPORATION: Cacas Suit Removed to N.D. California ROBINSON HOOVER: Dismissal of Ross FDCPA-MRCPA Class Suit Reversed RUMI'S KITCHEN: Ruiz Seeks Conditional Certification of FLSA Class SEMTECH CORP: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit SETON HALL UNIVERSITY: Keeperman Suit Removed to D. New Jersey SG GLASS WAREHOUSE: Cruz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SHEIN DISTRIBUTION: Richards Appeals Suit Dismissal to 7th Circuit SIG SAUER INC: Wins Dismissal in Red Dot Sight Injury Suit SMITH COLLEGE: Diaz Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts T-MOBILE USA: Riley Sues Over Failure to Compensate Overtime Hours TACO BUENO RESTAURANTS: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas TASKUS USA: Lopez Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages Owed TGCG HOLDINGS LLC: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property THACHER RESTAURANT: Bradley Suit Removed to W.D. Washington THINKIFIC LABS INC: Wainwright Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. THOMAS L. CARDELLA: Pope Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages TIMESHARES DIRECT: Parties Must Comply with M.D. Florida's Rules TIMKEN COMPANY: McCurry Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ULTA SALON: Appeals Remand Order in Mulanena Suit to 4th Circuit UNIFIED MARKETING: Gerdts Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California UNION STATION HOMELESS: Gooden Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE: Semrau Files Suit in N.D. Georgia UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: E5 Therapy Suit Removed to E.D. California UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Johnson Suit Removed to E.D. Louisiana UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: K. Sasse Suit Removed to D. Nevada UNIVERSAL INTERMODAL: Ghanadan Suit Removed to N.D. California UPBOOST FUNDING: Christ Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina US BANK NATIONAL: Crabb Suit Removed to W.D. Washington VINEYARD VINES: Deceptive Email Suit Remanded to State Court WALMART INC: Pineda Suit Removed to C.D. California WASHINGTON DC: Plaintiffs' Class Certification Bid Due July 16 WASHINGTON: Butler Files Suit in W.D. Washington WEST POINT: Civilian Professors Win Speech Injunction WESTERN STATES ENVELOPE: Hopfer Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages WHITE DUCK OUTDOORS: Youngren Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website XERCIZE STUDIO: Civil Standing Order Entered YAVAPAI COUNTY, AZ: Longnecker Suit Removed to D. Arizona YOUR QUICK OFFER: Blasie TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ZILLION CONCEPTS: Howard Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ********* 3COMMAS TECHNOLOGIES: Class Certification Filing Due Oct. 4, 2027 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES FREEMAN, TIGRAN MELKONYAN, ARI SHOFET, SHAWN MALL, BENJAMIN FERRIS, BRYAN CHAPMAN, NANDAN ARORA, SHAFIQ RAJANI, VIJAY CHRISTOPHER, MARC ASHBY, VINCENT VAN BUSKIRK, LAWRENCE MANICKAM, and EDMUNDO PENA individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. 3COMMAS TECHNOLOGIES OU, an Estonian Private Limited Company, Case No. 3:23-cv-00101-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lin entered AMENDED JOINT PROPOSED CASE SCHEDULE as follows : Event Deadline The Plaintiff shall file a second amended June 19, 2026 complaint: The Defendant shall file its motion to July 17, 2026 dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens: The Plaintiffs shall file their opposition Aug. 17, 2026 to the Defendant's forum non conveniens motion: The Defendant shall file its reply on Aug. 31, 2026 its forum non conveniens motion: Hearing on the Defendant's forum non Sept. 15, 2026, conveniens motion: at 10:00 AM In the event the Court has not granted Oct. 19, 2026 the Defendant's forum non conveniens motion by October 15, 2026, and the Defendant believes that a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is warranted, the Defendant shall file any such motion: Initial expert disclosures for class Aug. 6, 2027 certification: Rebuttal expert disclosures for class Sept. 3, 2027 certification: The Plaintiff shall file its motion for Oct. 4, 2027 class certification: The Defendant provides technology that enables the use of the buy-and-hold strategy and the automatic trading approach A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uAkGvb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 660 S. Figueroa Street Sky Lobby, Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 329-7576 The Defendant is represented by: Daniel T. Rockey, Esq. Jennifer L. D'Addabbo, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP Three Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4070 Telephone: (415) 675-3400 Facsimile: (415) 675-3434 E-mail: daniel.rockey@bclplaw.com Jennifer.daddabbo@bclplaw.com 7-ELEVEN INC: Parra-Ochoa Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Valeria Parra-Ochoa, on behalf of herself and all other aggrieved employees, and the general public v. 7-ELEVEN, INC., a Texas Corporation; 7-ELEVEN, LLC, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV15405 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 14, 2026), is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Labor Codes to recover unpaid 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 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, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt employee from April 14, 2023 through June 24, 2025. The Defendant is a Texas Stock Corporation doing business in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Thomas Segal, Esq. Farrah Grant, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 420 N. Camden Drive, Suite 100 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone (310) 888-7771 Facsimile (310) 888-0109 Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com thomas@setarehlaw.com farrah@setarehlaw.com ABV GROUP INC: Anderson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Lisa Anderson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ABV Group, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-05707 (N.D. Ill., May 15, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://numehair.com/ (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website") to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Wood 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. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff'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 purchase a range of gardening and food growing products, including vegetable and herb seeds, live plants, garden starter kits, irrigation systems, watering tools, fertilizers, soil amendments, pest control solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Phone: 844-731-3343 Direct: 718-554-0237 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law ACADEMIA INC: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid in Singh Judge Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACADEMIA, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to compel arbitration, or alternatively, to dismiss and/or strike and granting in part the Plaintiff's motion for protective order in the lawsuit entitled Rajbir Singh Judge, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Academia, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-05857-AMO, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff brings this case against the Defendant for allegedly misappropriating his name in advertisements for Academia's Mentions service. On Sept. 22, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion for protective order. On Oct. 17, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration, or alternatively, to dismiss and/or strike. On May 7, 2026, Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered an Order denying the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration, or alternatively, to dismiss and/or strike and granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion for protective order. In sum, the Plaintiff's motion for a protective order is granted in part insofar as Academia cannot rely on the Terms of Use changes to retrospectively limit putative class members' claims in this case. It is otherwise denied. The appellate case is styled as Singh Judge v. Academia, Inc., Case No. 26-3169, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 18, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on May 26, 2026; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on May 26, 2026; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on June 25, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on August 4, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on September 3, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee RAJBIR SINGH JUDGE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: Yaman Salahi, Esq. SALAHI, PC 505 Montgomery Street, 11th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Defendant-Appellant ACADEMIA, INC. is represented by: Shon Morgan, Esq. John Wall Baumann, Esq. Dakota Skyler Speas, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 S. Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 AEROPRESS INC: Vaughn Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Kendrick Vaughn, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Aeropress, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-05708 (N.D. Ill., May 15, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://aeropress.com (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website") to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff 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 the Plaintiff'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 legally visually impaired and a member of a protected class under the ADA. The Defendant provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a selection of coffee brewing products, including coffee makers, filters, accessories, and portable brewing kits.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Phone: 844-731-3343 Direct: 718-554-0237 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law ALCON LABORATORIES: Khan Files Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alcon Laboratories, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Bibi Khan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Alcon Research, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-02900 (E.D.N.Y., May 14, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Contract Dispute. Alcon -- https://www.alcon.com/ -- is the global leader in eye care, dedicated to helping people see brilliantly.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. 1 Old Country Rd Ste 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Phone: 516-873-9550 Fax: 516-747-5024 Email: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com AMERICAN AIRCRAFT PRODUCTS: Zavala Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Aircraft Products, Inc. The case is styled as Esteban Zavala, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Aircraft Products, Inc., Case No. 26STCV15527 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 14, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." American Aircraft Products, Inc. -- https://www.americanaircraft.com/ -- has served commercial and government customers in the areas of sheet metal, forming, fabrication, and assembly.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1450 Los Angeles, California 90071 Phone: (213) 985-1150 Fax: (213) 985-2155 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com AUDIBLE INC: Seeks to Keep Class Cert Opposition Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHON HOLLIS, JEFFREY BILLINGS, OLGA VOLSKAYA, a.k.a. ALANA VOLSKAYA, and COLLEEN MITCHEL individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AUDIBLE, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-01999-TL (W.D. Wash.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order maintaining under seal limited portions of Audible's opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Compelling reasons support Audible's narrowly tailored redactions because the Opposition contains non-public, confidential, and commercially sensitive information, the disclosure of which would cause Audible unfair commercial and financial harm. The proposed redactions do not prevent the public from understanding the substance of the issues in dispute or the parties' arguments, and there is no less restrictive alternative to the relief Audible seeks. The Court should therefore grant Audible's motion to seal. The Defendant sells audiobooks online. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dPeoqs at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Melanie L. Mayer, Esq. Jedediah Wakefield, Esq. Charles E. Moulins, Esq. Cortnay Cymrot, Esq. Justine Vandermel, Esq. FENWICK & WEST LLP 401 Union Street, 5th Floor Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 389-4510 Facsimile: (650) 938-5200 E-mail: mmayer@fenwick.com jwakefield@fenwick.com cmoulins@fenwick.com ccymrot@fenwick.com justine.vandermel@fenwick.com AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Vickers Sues Over Toxic Synthetic Fragrance ------------------------------------------------------------------ Monica Vickers, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC. and AVALON AT MISSION BAY III, L.P., Case No. 3:26-cv-04645 (N.D. Cal., May 15, 2026), is brought against Defendants seeking remedies for Defendant's practice of employing toxic doses of Synthetic fragranced consumer products at Defendant's Facilities--despite Defendant's knowledge of the realities and the discriminatory effect of these practices. Even beyond the 26.8% of adults who already suffer from asthma/asthma like conditions, or the 27.5% (and growing) of adult Americans who suffer from Chemical Sensitivity, there is rapidly growing concern of the harmful and disabling effects of exposure to Synthetic fragranced consumer products. For most businesses wishing to introduce Synthetic fragranced consumer products into their common areas' ambient air, a multitude of vendors offer scent dispersion machines ("SDMs") and air supply tubes—either as portable/standalone SDMs and/or ones which can be integrated with the businesses' HVAC system, so as to atomize and deliver a steady stream of toxic compounds across the entire or pre-selected zone(s) within those businesses' facilities. The Defendant claims to offer lodging facilities to the general public, including Representative Plaintiff, and markets its facilities as being available equally to all members of that public, and yet, engages in practices that prohibit a substantial segment of that public (i.e., chemically sensitive disabled individuals) from the same benefits and opportunities of those facilities afforded to other individuals. Despite actual or constructive knowledge of the toxic properties of Synthetic fragranced consumer products, Defendant flooded its common and private areas with said products, thereby showering unsuspecting customers, employees, guests and/or patrons with substances known to cause respiratory problems, headaches, skin irritation, and adverse gastrointestinal, cardiovascular and cognitive reactions. The Plaintiff asserts Defendant had, and continues to have, a consistent policy of releasing Synthetic fragranced consumer products upon individuals as they enter Defendant's Facilities. Indeed, by the time these unsuspecting customers, employees, guests and/or patrons are aware of the pervasive scents/toxins, it is simply too late: the toxins are ingested, have landed upon the skin, have entered the lungs and, thus, entered these victims' bloodstreams and targeted various organs/systems, says the complaint. The Plaintiff suffers and continues to suffer from chemical sensitivities and, when exposed to fragrance. AvalonBay Communities, Inc. is "a leading multifamily real estate investment trust (REIT) focused on developing, redeveloping, acquiring, and managing distinctive communities in select U.S. markets."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edward Cole, Esq. Laura G. Van Note, Esq. Mark T. Freeman, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone: (510) 891-9800 Facsimile: (510) 891-7030 Email: sec@colevannote.com lvn@colevannote.com mtf@colevannote.com AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL: Bids for Class Certification Due August 17 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY SEGURA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 1:24-cv-01577-DDD-NRN (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge N. Reid Neureiter entered an order lifting the stay issued on Feb. 17, 2026. The discovery deadlines are certification briefing schedules are revised as follows: -- Deadline to serve written discovery: June 1, 2026 -- Deadline for completion of fact and expert discovery: July 17, 2026 -- Motions for class certification: Aug. 17, 2026 -- Opposition to motion for class certification: Sept. 7, 2026 -- Reply in further support of motion for class certification: Sept. 28, 2026 The Court further orders that the Plaintiff is given leave to serve discovery related to five non-Montane properties on or before June 1, 2026. The Defendant is a multifamily and single-family property management services firm. A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=p3rsq4 at no extra charge.[CC] BANK OF AMERICA: Arbitration Order in Performance Jet Suit Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PERFORMANCE JET SKIS, LLC; WORLDWIDEWEBBSOLUTIONS, LLC; A&F LOGISTICS, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 25-2438 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting BANA's motion to compel arbitration and denying the Plaintiffs' motion to compel judicial reference. Plaintiffs-Appellants are three California businesses. They each have business accounts with Defendant-Appellee BANA, and filed a class action challenging BANA's practice of charging various overdraft fees. Each Plaintiff signed BANA's standard Deposit Agreement, which includes a section titled "How Claims on Business Accounts will be Resolved." These Dispute Resolution Provisions provide three options for resolving claims, subject to certain circumstances: arbitration, a bench trial, or judicial reference. The latter option is a special procedure in California, wherein a court-appointed referee resolves the case, while the court retains judicial oversight over the decision. The appeal concerns the threshold question of which procedural resolution pathway applies under the Deposit Agreement. After BANA removed the case from California state court to federal court, it moved to compel arbitration. The Plaintiffs subsequently moved to compel judicial reference. The district court granted BANA's motion and denied the Plaintiffs' motion, reasoning that the contract language was not ambiguous and that the Plaintiffs' interpretation of the Dispute Resolution Provisions, which permitted them to move to compel judicial reference after BANA invoked the right to arbitrate, was unreasonable. Accordingly, the district court held that the agreement compels only one result: that either party has the right to compel arbitration. The question before the Ninth Circuit on appeal was whether the district court erred in finding no ambiguity in the contract and, likewise, adopting BANA's interpretation such that the parties can only invoke judicial reference in the absence of arbitration. The parties offered two alternative interpretations of the Dispute Resolution Provisions. The Plaintiffs argued that judicial reference is an exception to both arbitration and a bench trial. Alternatively, asserting that their reading is at least plausible, they contended that the contract is ambiguous and should therefore be construed against BANA as the drafter. In contrast, BANA maintained that the contract is unambiguous. It reasoned that compelling arbitration is a "right" that each party holds under the Deposit Agreement, and therefore, judicial reference can only be compelled if neither party exercises its right to compel arbitration. Giving effect to the Dispute Resolution Provisions as a whole, the Ninth Circuit found that they are not ambiguous and that BANA's proffered interpretation is the most natural reading. It agreed with BANA's interpretation, finding that the limiting clause marks a natural break between the right to arbitrate and the other two judicial resolution pathways. For one, California courts have the general rule that if a general and specific provision are inconsistent, the specific provision will control. The specific provision—here, the limiting clause—would thus control the more general judicial reference exception that follows. Second, giving effect to the language as written, the arbitration provision in the Dispute Resolution Provisions is styled as a "right." As written, and as the parties agreed to, the "right" to compel arbitration stands apart from the other procedural resolution pathways. For these reasons, the district court's order is affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum is available at https://l1nq.com/nh71fry BANNER CAPITAL: Plaintiffs Win Bid to Consolidate Cases ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON BROWN, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated; v. BANNER CAPITAL BANK, Case No. 7:26-cv-05008-JFB-RCC (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Ryan C. Carson entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiffs' motion to consolidate cases and to appoint interim co-lead counsel is granted. 2. The above-captioned cases are consolidated for all purposes. The court designates Case No. 7:26-cv-5007, as the "Lead Case" and Case Nos 7:26cv5008 and 8:26cv118, as "Member Cases." The Lead Case will proceed under the new title "In Re Banner Capital Bank Data Privacy Litigation." 3. The Plaintiffs shall have 30 days from the entry of this Order to file a consolidated amended complaint in the lead case. The deadline for the Defendant to file an answer or other responsive pleading to the consolidated amended complaint shall be 30-days after the consolidated amended complaint is filed. 4. Laura Van Note of Cole & Van Note, Carl V. Malmstrom of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC, and Leigh S. Montgomery of Ellzey Kherkher Sanford Montgomery LLP are appointed as interim co-lead counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3). The Defendant provides products and services including saving and fixed deposits, personal and commercial loan, and credit cards. A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hFVUPy at no extra charge.[CC] BISSELL HOMECARE: Martin Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bissell Homecare Inc. The case is styled as Wendy Martin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Bissell Homecare Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-05615 (N.D. Ill., May 14, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Bissell Homecare, Inc. -- https://www.bissell.com/ -- manufactures household vacuum cleaners and cleaning products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. 1 Old Country Rd Ste 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Phone: 516-873-9550 Fax: 516-747-5024 Email: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com BLUE CROSS: Seeks Leave to File Opposition Surreply --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHNNY C. RUTHERFORD, JR. and MARY RUTHERFORD, v. HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION, A Mutual Legal Reserve Company, doing business in Montana as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana ("BCBSMT"), and MONTANA UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, Case No. 6:24-cv-00081-BMM (D. Mont.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting them leave to file a surreply in further opposition to the Plaintiff Johnny Rutherford's motion for class certification. A surreply is warranted to allow BCBSMT the opportunity to address new evidence Rutherford submitted with his reply brief. Specifically, Rutherford submitted the Second Declaration of Yvonne Hencley with his reply brief. BCBSMT requests leave of Court to file the proposed surreply, attached as Exhibit A, to address the new evidence, which both contradicts Ms. Hencley's deposition testimony and provides further support for why this case is unsuitable for class certification. A surreply is proper under these circumstances because BCBSMT has had no prior opportunity to address this evidence that was introduced for the first time in this case as an attachment to Rutherford's reply brief. Health Care is a member-owned health insurance company in the United States. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=S18ZQW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Morrison, Esq. Scott Peterson, Esq. MORRISON, SHERWOOD, WILSON & DEOLA, PLLP 401 N. Last Chance Gulch St. Helena, MT 59601 Telephone: (406) 442-3261 E-mail: john@mswdlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Daniel J. Auerbach, Esq. Christy S. McCann, Esq. BROWNING, KALECZYC, BERRY & HOVEN, P.C. 201 West Railroad Street, Suite 300 Missoula, MT 59802 Telephone: (406) 728-1694 E-mail: daniel@bkbh.com christy@bkbh.com - and - Martin J. Bishop, Esq. Robert C. Deegan, Esq. Tracy A. Roman, Esq. Elizabeth Parr Hecker, Esq. Emily T. Kuwahara, Esq. CROWELL & MORING LLP 300 N. LaSalle Drive, Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 321-4200 E-mail: mbishop@crowell.com rdeegan@crowell.com troman@crowell.com ehecker@crowell.com ekuwahara@crowell.com BLUE ENTERPRISES: Fulfs Files Suit in E.D. Missouri --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue Enterprises, LLC. The case is styled as Christopher Fulfs, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Blue Enterprises doing business as: Hogan Transport, Inc., LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-00755-SEP (E.D. Mo., May 14, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Blue Enterprises doing business as Hogan Transports, Inc. -- https://hogan1.com/ -- operates as a trucking company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Casondra R. Turner, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: cturner@milberg.com BLUE ENTERPRISES: Grimes Files Suit in E.D. Missouri ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue Enterprises, LLC. The case is styled as Aaron Grimes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Blue Enterprises, LLC also known as: Hogan Transports, Inc., Case No. 4:26-cv-00760-SEP (E.D. Mo., May 15, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract. Blue Enterprises doing business as Hogan Transports, Inc. -- https://hogan1.com/ -- operates as a trucking company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maureen M. Brady, Esq. MCSHANE & BRADY LLC 4006 Central Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Phone: (816) 888-8010 Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com BMO BANK NATIONAL: Chavez Suit Removed to E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Daniela Chavez, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BMO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; and DOES 1 through 20 inclusive, Case No. 26CUB01006 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Kern, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on May 15, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-03759-CDB. The Complaint asserts causes of action on a class-wide basis for: Failure to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum wage in violation of Labor Code sections 1194, 1194.2, and 1197; Failure to pay overtime wages for daily overtime worked in violation of Labor Code sections 510, 1194, and 1198; Failure to authorize or permit meal periods in violation of Labor Code sections 512 and 226.7; Failure to authorize and permit rest periods in violation of Labor Code sections 512 and 226.7; Failure to reimburse business expenses in violation of Labor Code sections 2800 and 2802; Failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation of Labor Code section 226; Failure to timely pay all earned wages due at time of separation of employment in violation of Labor Code sections 201, 202, and 203; and Unfair business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code sections 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Andrew R. Livingston, Esq. Rachel Capler, Esq. Rizelle J. Dizon, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP The Orrick Building 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2669 Phone: +1 415 773 5700 Facsimile: +1 415 773 5759 Email: alivingston@orrick.com rcapler@orrick.com rdizon@orrick.com BRIAN ENGLISH: Gonzalez Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIO JORGE GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. BRIAN ENGLISH, Case No. 3:26-cv-00424-DRL-SJF (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Damon R. Leichty entered an order: (1) Denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, except to find that Julio Jorge Gonzalez must be classified under 8 U.S.C. section 1226(a), including for purposes of any custody redetermination; and (2) Directing the clerk to enter final judgment and to close this case. The district judge's decision vacating Hurtado is thus unlikely to change the outcome of a custody redetermination motion filed by an individual like Mr. Gonzalez, who is outside of California. The appropriate remedy is to put the ball in his court to file a motion for custody redetermination in his pending removal proceedings, with the benefit of a finding from the court that he is not categorically ineligible for bond under 8 U.S.C. section 1225(b)(2). The court likewise must deny immediate release because Mr. Gonzalez has not met his burden of showing his current detention unlawful under section 1226. Mr. Gonzalez is a citizen of Cuba who arrived at the Florida Keys in 1980. He was immediately detained by United States Border Patrol and later paroled into the country. In October 2025, he was taken into custody by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Wisconsin pursuant to an administrative warrant and served with a notice to appear in immigration court. He is detained at Miami Correctional Facility pending the outcome of his removal proceedings. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=u83OJN at no extra charge.[CC] BURGESS INFORMATION: Barnes Suit Removed to S.D. Ohio ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Marvin Barnes, Ricky Duett, Dempsey Dejanette, Shane White and others similarly situated v. Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority, Touchstone Property Services Inc., and Park Eden Evanston, LLC, Case No. A2602499 was removed from the Circuit Court, Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for Southern District of Ohio on May 15, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-00485-JPH. The Plaintiffs also assert state law claims against Defendants for violation of the Due Course of Law Clause of the Ohio Constitution (Count III); the Ohio Landlord Tenant Act, RC 5321.01, et seq. (Counts IV, V and VI); breach of contract (Count VII); and, breach of implied contract/unjust enrichment (Count VIII), for which this court has supplemental jurisdiction.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Pierre H. Bergeron, Esq. Paul M. De Marco, Esq. Isabell C. DeMarco, Esq. 119 E. Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Email: pbergeron@msdlegal.com jdemarco@msdlegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey C. Mando, Esq. Daniel E. Linneman, Esq. ADAMS LAW, PLLC 40 West Pike Street Covington, KY 41011 Phone: 859.394.6200 Fax: 859.392.7200 Email: jmando@adamsattorneys.com dlinneman@adamsattorneys.com BURGESS INFORMATION: Bradford Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Michael Bradford, 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-000602 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-00152-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 "Class").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alexander M. Chemers, Esq. Austin J. Freeman, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 Email: zander.chemers@ogletree.com austin.freeman@ogletree.com BURGESS INFORMATION: Brooks Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Landon Brooks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ILLINOIS-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, Case No. 2026LA000344 was removed from the Circuit Court, Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for Southern District of Illinois on May 14, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-00650. The Plaintiff alleges that drinking water provided in certain "Illinois-American Water Company ("IAWC") service regions across Illinois" is "contaminated" because the water "exceeds" U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") "health advisory levels and proposed regulatory limits" for PFAS.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carson C. Menges, Esq. MENGES LAW FIRM 6400 W. Main St., Ste 1G Belleville, IL 62223 Email: cmenges@mengesfirm.com - and - Fletcher Trammel, Esq. TRAMMEL PC 3262 Westheimer Rd., #423 Houston, TX 77098 Email: fletch@trammellpc.com - and - Robert W. Cowan, Esq. Aaron M. Heckaman, Esq. Hayden Wyatt, Esq. BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN PLLC 1360 Post Oak Blvd., Ste 2300 Email: rcowan@bchlaw.com aheckaman@bchlaw.com hwyatt@bchlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Carl J. Pesce, Esq. Carl L. Rowley, Esq. Robert J. Wagner, Esq. THOMPSON COBURN LLP One US Bank Plaza St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 552 6000 Fax: (314) 552 7000 Email: cpesce@thompsoncoburn.com crowley@thompsoncoburn.com rwagner@thompsoncoburn.com - and - Kenneth J. Giacobbe, Esq. THOMPSON COBURN LLP 1405 N. Green Mount Road, Suite 300 O'Fallon, IL 62269 Phone: (618) 680-4200 Fax: (618) 236-3434 Email: kgiacobbe@thompsoncoburn.com CAMELBACK: Whittington TCPA Suit Transferred to D. Arizona ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jason Whittington, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Camelback Administrative Group Incorporated, Case No. 4:26-cv-00009 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on May 14, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-03394-ROS to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Camelback Administrative Group Incorporated -- https://www.camelbackadmin.com/ -- is an administrative and management company primarily operating within the home and auto service contract (warranty) industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Elizabeth Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN PA 237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Fl Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com - and - Matthew J Morrison, Esq. MORRISON LAW OFFICE 1887 N 270 E Orem, UT 84057 Phone: (801) 845-2581 The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey Gilbert, Esq. Hector A. Chichoni, Esq. GREENSPOON MARDER LLP - MIAMI, FL 600 Brickell Ave., Ste. 3600 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 789-2761 CAPRI HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Suits in D. Del. ------------------------------------------------- Capri Holdings Ltd. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending March 28, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 27, 2026, that it is facing actions alleging violations of the federal securities laws in connection with statements about the previously proposed merger with Tapestry, Inc. and the Federal Trade Commission's action to enjoin that merger. Two purported shareholders of Capri filed putative securities class action complaints on December 23, 2024 and January 28, 2025 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Capri, Tapestry, and certain of their officers, including John D. Idol, Capri's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and Thomas J. Edwards, Jr., Capri's former Chief Financial and Chief Operating Officer. These complaints alleged violations of the federal securities laws based on certain statements by defendants concerning the previously proposed merger and the FTC's action to enjoin the merger. The court appointed the lead plaintiff on March 7, 2025, and on May 15, 2025, the lead plaintiff filed the consolidated securities law complaint. The latter sought to bring federal securities claims on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased Capri stock and sold Capri puts between August 10, 2023 and October 24, 2024. On March 31, 2026, the court granted Capri's motion to dismiss it without prejudice. On April 30, 2026, plaintiffs filed the first amended complaint, and this litigation remains pending. Capri Holdings Ltd. is a global fashion luxury group that owns the Versace, Jimmy Choo and Michael Kors brands. The company designs, markets and distributes premium apparel, footwear and accessories through a worldwide retail and wholesale network. CENTENE CORPORATION: Bid for Class Cert. in Sampson Due Dec. 18 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONA SAMUEL SAMPSON AND ORLANDO SAMUEL, personal representative of the Estate of HARRY SAMUEL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. CENTENE CORPORATION, CENTURION OF DELAWARE LLC, VITALCORE HEALTH STRATEGIES, & MEDICAL DIRECTOR DR. AWELE MADUKA-EZEH, Case No. 1:23-cv-01134-SRF (D. Del.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their stipulation regarding modifications to the scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline Class certification document production May 13, 2026 substantial completion deadline: Class certification fact discovery Nov. 13, 2026 deadline: Class certification disclosure of expert July 20, 2026 testimony Disclosures for Party with Initial Burden: Class certification rebuttal expert Oct. 2, 2026 testimony: Class certification reply expert reports: Oct. 30, 2026 Motion for class certification: Dec. 18, 2026 Centene is an American for-profit healthcare company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qbn721 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel A. Griffith, Esq. WHITEFORD TAYLOR PRESTON LLC Courthouse Square 600 North King St., Suite 300 Wilmington, DE 19801-3700 Telephone: (302) 357-3254 E-mail: dgriffith@wtplaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Jeremy D. Anderson, Esq. Brian F. McEvoy, Esq. Jarvarus A. Gresham, Esq. Maia F. Semmes, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1201 North Market Street, Suite 1407 Wilmington, DE 19801-1147 Telephone: (302) 407-4224 E-mail: jdanderson@bakerlaw.com bmcevoy@bakerlaw.com jgresham@bakerlaw.com msemmes@bakerlaw.com - and - Marisa R. De Feo, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 3411 Silverside Road, Suite 104B #203 Wilmington, DE 19810 Telephone: (302) 506-8036 E-mail: marisa.defeo@huschblackwell.com CENTURION OF DELAWARE: Class Cert Bid Filing Due June 28 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENAIL BROWN, et al., on behalf of Themselves and others similarly situated, v. CENTURION OF DELAWARE, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00923-JLH (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge Hall entered an order continuing dates in the Scheduling Order and extending by a period of 90 days, as follows: Event Deadline Paper and Document Discovery deadline: Aug. 3, 2026 Fact Deposition Deadline: Oct. 2, 2026 The Plaintiffs' expert report: Nov. 6, 2026 The Defendants' expert report: Feb. 5, 2027 The Plaintiffs' reply expert report: April 23, 2027 Expert discovery deadline: June 25, 2027 Class certification motion deadline: June 28, 2027 The Defendant is a regional affiliate and subsidiary of Centurion Health, a major national provider of comprehensive healthcare and managed Medicaid services to correctional facilities. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JXMf6u at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick C. Gallagher, Esq. JACOBS & CRUMPLAR, P.A. 10 Corporate Circle, Ste. 301 New Castle, DE 19720 Telephone: (302) 656-5445 E-mail: pat@jcdelaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Dawn C. Doherty, Esq. Brett T. Norton, Esq. MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY, P.C. 300 Delaware Avenue, Ste. 900 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 658-6538 E-mail: Ddoherty@moodklaw.com Bnorton@moodklaw.com CLUB DEMONSTRATION: Westbrook Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Shirley Westbrook, on behalf of herself and all other aggrieved employees, and the general public v. CLUB DEMONSTRATION SERVICES, INC., a Connecticut Stock Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV15405 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 14, 2026), is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Labor Codes to recover unpaid 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 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 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 worked for Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt employee from February 20, 2022, through July 13, 2025. CLUB DEMONSTRATION SERVICES, INC. is a Connecticut Stock Corporation doing business in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Victoria Mas, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 420 N. Camden Drive, Suite 100 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone (310) 888-7771 Facsimile (310) 888-0109 Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com vmas@setarehlaw.com COMPASS GROUP: Bid to Reconsider April 9 Order Partly OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD L. MEHLBERG, and ANGELA R. DEIBEL, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the Plan, v. COMPASS GROUP USA, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-04179-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to reconsider April 9, 2026, Order on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The motion is granted insofar as the Court's Order dated April 9, 2026, is modified and amended to reflect that ERISA Section 413's six-year statute of repose does not apply to the Plaintiffs' plan terms violation claims. The motion is denied in all other respects. Accordingly, the Court finds that most of Defendant's arguments were -- or could have been -- raised during the class certification briefing. The Defendant's pending motion primarily focuses on timeliness and statute of limitation issues, and those issues were extensively argued in class certification briefing and resolved in the Class Order. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the "bulk of Defendant's arguments were directly presented -- and rightly rejected -- at the class certification stage. The remainder consists of arguments the company could have raised but did not. Rehashing losing positions, or belatedly advancing ones that were available all along, is not grounds for reconsideration." Compass is a provider of food and support services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9Tecu3 at no extra charge.[CC] COSTAR REALTY: Divens Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jessica Divens, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. COSTAR REALTY INFORMATION, INC. d/b/a APARTMENTS.COM, Case No. 26-2-02355-34 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, in and for the County of Thurston, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on May 15, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05508. The Plaintiff alleges that she has paid rent for her apartment through CoStar's online platform. As a result of CoStar's alleged "deceptive and unfair imposition of junk 'Transaction Fees' on rent payments," Plaintiff purportedly paid "additional, unexpected rent that was undisclosed in her lease agreement," In particular, Plaintiff alleges that when she paid her monthly rent, CoStar charged her a $6.60 transaction fee. The Plaintiff alleges that "as a result" she has "suffered injury." The Complaint asserts causes of action against CoStar for violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, tortious interference with contract, and unjust enrichment.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Emily J. Harris, Esq. CORR CRONIN LLP 1015 Second Ave, Floor 10 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 625-8600 Fax: (206) 625-0900 Email: eharris@corrcronin.com - and - Nicholas J. Boyle, Esq. Anne C. Malinee, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 555 Eleventh St, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20004 Phone: (202) 637-2200 Fax: (202) 637-2201 Email: nicholas.boyle@lw.com anne.malinee@lw.com CRASH CHAMPIONS: Parties Must File Amended Joint Status Report -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Freudenthal v. Crash Champions LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00621 (W.D. Wash., ), the Hon. Filed Feb. 20, 2026 Judge Tana Lin entered an order directing the parties to file an amended joint status report including required information within seven (7) days of the Order. The Court's initial case scheduling order requires that joint status reports for class action cases include a proposed agreed-upon briefing schedule for the class certification motion as well as the following certifications: (1) a certification that all counsel and any pro se parties have reviewed Judge Lin's Chambers Procedures (available at https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/judges/lin-procedures), the Local Rules, General Orders and the applicable Electronic Filing Procedures; and (2) a certification that all counsel and any pro se parties have reviewed and complied with Judge Lin's Standing Order Regarding 28 U.S.C. section 455 and Canon 3 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. The nature of suit states Civil Rights – Employment. Crash Champions provides automotive collision repair services.[CC] CREDIT PROS: Guadian Suit Removed to W.D. Texas ----------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Manuel Guadian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE CREDIT PROS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Case No. 2026DCV1707 was removed from the El Paso County Court, to the United States District Court for Western District of Texas on May 14, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-01375. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that Credit Pros "directs and participates in outbound telemarketing campaigns designed to identify and qualify consumers for Credit Pros's credit repair services," with such efforts purportedly directed "to consumers nationwide, including residents of Texas," in violation of the Texas Telephone Solicitation Act ("TTSA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Christian J, Keeney, Esq. Alis M. Moon, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 885-1360 Facsimile: (949) 885-1380 Email: Christian.Keeney@jacksonlewis.com Alis.Moon@jacksonlewis.com CREDIT SUISSE: Plaintiff Loses Bid to File Proposed SAC ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned re Credit Suisse Securities Class Actions, Case No. 1:23-cv-05874-CM-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge McMahon entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a proposed second amended complaint without prejudice. The Court concludes that the existing motion papers do not present the issues in a form that permits meaningful adjudication. Accordingly, any renewed motion for leave to amend by the Plaintiff must include a chart organized statement by statement. For each proposed alleged misstatement or omission, the Plaintiff must identify: 1. the date, speaker, source, and exact verbatim quotation of the challenged statement; 2. the defendant or defendants against whom the statement is asserted; and 3. whether the statement was alleged to be false or misleading in the operative complaint. The renewed motion must be filed by June 12, 2026. The Defendants' opposition must be filed by July 2, 2026. The Plaintiff's reply must be filed by July 17, 2026. The parties must comply with the Court's individual rules, except that the required statement-by-statement charts may be attached as exhibits and will not count against the page limit unless the Court orders otherwise. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motion for leave to amend without prejudice to renewal. Credit was a global investment bank and financial services firm. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=N9xcqR at no extra charge.[CC] CREDO LEGAL: Salaiz Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIK SALAIZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CREDO LEGAL SERVICES, P.A., a Florida Professional Association, and KERRY TIBOR, JR., Case No. 3:25-cv-00138-LS (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the proposed Class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Mark L. Javitch and Javitch Law Office as Class Counsel under Rule 23(g). The Plaintiff seeks certification of the following Class: "All persons in Texas who, during the two years preceding the filing of the Complaint, received an email from the address support@credolegal.com containing a Credo Legal Services, P.A. retainer agreement transmitted in connection with the telemarketing campaign described herein." Excluded from the Class are: (1) any Judge or Magistrate presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendants and their parents, subsidiaries, successors, and predecessors, and any entity in which Defendants have a controlling interest, and the Defendants' current or former employees, officers, and directors; (3) persons who properly execute and timely file a request for exclusion from the Class; (4) persons whose claims have been finally adjudicated on the merits or otherwise released; (5) the Plaintiff's counsel and the Defendants' counsel; and (6) the legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons. Credo offers legal representation for debt-relief services to consumers nationwide. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sUMCx1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark L. Javitch, Esq. JAVITCH LAW OFFICE 3 East 3rd Ave. Ste. 200 San Mateo CA 94401 Telephone: (650) 781-8000 Facsimile: (650) 300-0343 CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Class Cert Hearing Continued to July 28 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Conriquez v. Cushman & Wakefield U.S., Inc. et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-02734 (N.D. Cal., Filed May 6, 2022), the Hon. Judge Rita F. Lin entered an order as follows: The hearing on the motion for class certification is continued to July 28, 2026. By July 10, 2026, the parties shall file an update on state court proceedings. The update shall indicate what impact, if any, those state court proceedings have on the motion for class certification. The suit states Civil Rights -- Employment. Cushman is a full-service commercial real estate firm focusing on office, industrial, commercial and land brokerage.[CC] DIGNITY HEALTH: Class Cert Bids in Walker Suit Due July 1 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELE WALKER, PEARL IRENE WISE, and TAMI HUNTER-NEAL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. DIGNITY HEALTH, a California Corporation; dba MERCY MEDICAL CENTER - MERCED; and DOES 1 to 100, Case No. 1:23-cv-00349-FJS (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the stipulation to extend the class certification motion filing deadline by 30 days. The class certification motions filing deadline is continued by 30 days from June 1, 2026, to July 1, 2026. Dignity is a California-based not-for-profit public-benefit corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tvCHQv at no extra charge.[CC] DOG6 LLC: Tamm Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ---------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ryan Tamm, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. DOG6, LLC d/b/a CAT5 COMMERCE d/b/a TACTICALGEAR.COM, Case No. 26-2-12071-4 SEA, was removed from the Washington State Superior Court for King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on May 15, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01671. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant sent commercial emails to Washington residents containing false or misleading information in the subject lines, in violation of the Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("CEMA"), RCW 19.190.020, and the Consumer Protection Act ("CPA"), RCW 19.86.020. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all Washington citizens holding an email address to which Defendant sent or caused to be sent any email listed in Exhibit A to the Complaint during the Class Period. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, liquidated damages of $500 per violation (trebled), and attorneys' fees and costs.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Diane C. Babbitt, Esq. Shaun M. Morgan, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 1900 N. Pearl Street, Suite 1800 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 999-6126 Facsimile: (214) 999-6170 Email: Diane.babbitt@huschblackwell.com Shaun.morgan@huschblackwell.com DR. JUDY MORGAN'S: Vaughn Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Kendrick Vaughn, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Dr. Judy Morgan's Naturally Healthy Pets LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-05694 (N.D. Ill., May 15, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://drjudymorgan.com (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website") to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff 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 the Plaintiff'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 legally visually impaired and a member of a protected class under the ADA. The Defendant provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a range of natural pet supplements and wellness products, including vitamins, probiotics, digestive and immune support, along with treats, grooming essentials, and holistic care items for dogs and cats.[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 EBENEZER INDUSTRIES: Hamati FLSA Action Gets Conditional Status --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jordan Hamati, v. Ebenezer Industries Incorporated, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-03432-JJT (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Tuchi entered an order granting the parties' motion and stipulation agreeing to Fair Labor Standards act (FLSA) conditional certification of collective action class. The Court grants conditional certification of an FLSA collective action comprised of: "All individuals in Arizona employed by Liberty Market who participated in the tip pool, from the date three years before the date of distribution of the FLSA Notice to the date the FLSA Notice is distributed." The FLSA Notice and Consent Form submitted with the parties' stipulation are authorized. No later than 14 days from the date of this Order, the Defendants shall provide to the Plaintiff the names, last known addresses, and last known personal email addresses of each of the putative FLSA opt-in plaintiffs in an electronic, portable format, and the Plaintiff shall effectuate FLSA Notice in accordance with the terms of the parties' Stipulation. Opt-in plaintiffs shall have 45 days from the date the Plaintiff distributes the FLSA notice and consent form to file a consent form with the Court to join the case. Ebenezer is a manufacturer and service provider of ceiling cloth dryer hanger, safety net, wall hook hanger etc. A copy of the Court's order dated May 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gogdqO at no extra charge.[CC] EDWARD P. ROMAINE: ILIOU Family Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Edward P. Romaine, et al. The case is styled as ILIOU Family Holding Company, Inc., Babylon Associates, Bayshore Associates, and all other Plaintiff-Petitioners similarly situated identified in the annexed Exhibit A affecting the parcels listed therein by Section, Block and Lot description v. Edward P. Romaine in his official capacity as SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE; Charles J Bartha in his official capacity as COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC WORKS and ADMINISTRATIVE HEAD OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT and CHAIRPERSON OF THE SEWER AGENCY BOARD; SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS; SUFFOLK COUNTY LEGISLATURE; SUFFOLK COUNTY; Case No. Index not Assigned: Pre-RJI (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., May 15, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Special Proceedings - CPLR Article 78. Edward P. Romaine was elected Suffolk County Executive in November of 2023.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jennifer Hower, Esq. HERMAN KATZ, LLP 1407 Broadway, Suite 4002 New York, NY 10018 Phone: 212.953.5000 Fax: 212.953.5001 EL ORO CATTLE: Garcia Suit Removed to E.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jose Garcia, and Dominic Valdovinos, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EL ORO CATTLE FEEDERS, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company; and WASHINGTON BEEF, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company, Case No. 25-2-00197-39 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for Yakima County, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of Washington on May 14, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00215. The Plaintiffs generically allege the following violations against Defendants on a class wide basis: failure to provide rest breaks in violation of RCW 49.12.020 and WAC 296-126-092; failure to provide meal breaks in violation of RCW 49.12.020 and WAC 296-126-092; failure to pay overtime wages in violation of RCW 49.46.130; failure to pay minimum wage for all hours worked in violation of RCW 49.46.090; failure to accrue and allow use of paid sick leave in violation of RCW 49.46.210 and WAC 296-128-620; unlawful deductions and rebates in violation of RCW 49.52.060 and WAC 296-126 028; failure to pay all wages due at termination in violation of RCW 49.48.010; willful refusal to pay wages in violation of RCW 49.52.050; failure to provide rest breaks in violation of WAC 296 131-020; failure to provide meal breaks in violation of WAC 296-131-020; and failure to provide adequate pay statements in violation of RCW 49.030.020 and WAC 296-131-015.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Sean Worley, Esq. Justo G. Gonzalez, Esq. Olivia Gahm, Esq. STOKES LAWRENCE VELIKANJE MOORE & SHORE 120 N. Naches Avenue Yakima, WA 98901-2757 Phone: 509-853-3000 Facsimile: 509-895-0060 Email: Sean.Worley@stokeslaw.com JGG@stokeslaw.com Olivia.Gahm@stokeslaw.com ELARA CARING PCS: Bennett Sues Over Data Security Incident ---------------------------------------------------------- Brandy Bennett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ELARA CARING PCS LOUISIANA HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-01574-E (N.D. Tex., May 15, 2026), is brought arising out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant (the "Data Breach"), which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively, the "Private Information") of Plaintiff and other current and former patients of Defendant, the putative class members ("Class"). On May 14, 2026, Defendant publicly disclosed the Data Breach by notifying the Texas Attorney General, which published the breach report on its website. The Defendant's public disclosure indicated that the Data Breach involved the private information of 3,311 Texas residents and included individuals' names, addresses, Social Security numbers, medical information, health insurance information, and dates of birth. The Defendant maintained the Private Information in a reckless manner. In particular, the Private Information was maintained on Defendant's computer network in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. Upon information and belief, the mechanism of the Data Breach and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was a known risk to Defendant, and thus Defendant was on notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure the Private Information from those risks left that property in a dangerous condition. Because of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members may also incur out of pocket costs for, e.g., purchasing credit monitoring services, credit freezes, credit reports, or other protective measures to deter and detect identity theft. Through this Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed during the Data Breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former patients of Defendant. Elara Caring is one of the nation's largest providers of home-based care, with operations across 18 states in the Northeast, Midwest, and Southwest.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD MONTGOMERY, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (888) 350-3931 Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com EXACT CARE PHARMACY: Depue Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Exact Care Pharmacy, LLC. The case is styled as Richard Depue, Robin Fioretti, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Exact Care Pharmacy, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-01113-BMB (N.D. Ohio, May 14, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. ExactCare -- https://www.exactcarepharmacy.com/ -- is a specialized, national pharmacy provider focused on patients managing multiple medications, complex medical needs, and chronic conditions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William M. Harrelson, II, Esq. HARRELSON & HARRELSON 9 West Water Street Troy, OH 45373 Phone: (937) 552-9400 Fax: (937) 552-9361 Email: will@harrelsonllp.com F & J PINE: Bruno Seeks Conditional Cert of FLSA Collective Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JORGE BRUNO, on behalf himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, v. F & J PINE RESTAURANT LLC d/b/a F & J PINE RESTAURANT, and 4 A KIDS LLC d/b/a F & J PINE RESTAURANT, and ANTHONY BASTONE, individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-10599-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will move the Court, before the Honorable Jesse M. Furman, on a date and time to be determined by the Court, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), for an Order: (1) Conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action consisting of: "Current and former non-managerial employees, who at any time between Dec. 22, 2022, and the present, performed any work for the Defendants, and who consent to file a claim to recover unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages that are legally due to them." ("potential collective action members"); (2) Requiring the Defendants, within 14 days of the Court's Order, to produce a computer-readable data file containing the names, last known mailing addresses, compensation rate, titles, all known home and mobile telephone numbers, primary language spoken, and dates of employment of all potential collective action members; (3) Permitting the Plaintiffs to disseminate to the potential collective action members the Notice of Lawsuit and Consent to Join Form in English, Spanish, and any other identified primary language of any potential collective action member, in the form attached to the Declaration of Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. as Exhibits A, C, and D, via regular mail, email, and text message, and permitting a 60-day opt-in period; and (4) Equitably tolling the FLSA statute of limitations from the date on which the Plaintiffs filed this motion until that date on which the Court decides this motion. F&J is a quintessential Italian restaurant. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3Ev7sz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 FARMERS INSURANCE: Class Certification in Stewart Suit Flipped -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JAMES STEWART, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FARMERS INSURANCE OF COLUMBUS, INC., Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 115049 (Ohio App.), Judge Kathleen Ann Keough of the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County, reverses the judgment of the trial court granting class certification. In 2022, Farmers issued a car insurance policy to Stewart insuring his 2008 Honda Element that he purchased in 2016 for around $12,000. In December 2022, while the policy was in effect, Stewart was involved in an automobile accident. Farmers declared the vehicle a total loss and pursuant to the policy, elected to pay Stewart for the loss in money, as opposed to repairing or replacing the damaged vehicle. In January 2023, Farmers paid Stewart $9,795, which represented the adjusted vehicle value of $10,295 plus fees, but minus Stewart's $500 deductible. According to the record, Stewart did not, at the time, dispute the payment or invoke the appraisal process under the policy. In June 2023, Stewart filed a class-action complaint against Farmers, asserting claims individually and as representative of a class of insureds by Farmers who suffered total losses of their vehicles. The alleged claims included (1) breach of contract; (2) unjust enrichment; and (3) fraud and fraudulent/negligent misrepresentation and omission. The underlying class issue Stewart raised was whether Farmers breached its policies for each insured by applying a "condition adjustment" not mentioned in the policy and is otherwise contrary to law. According to Stewart and the putative class, Farmers breached the insurance contracts by not paying the insureds "actual cash value" for their total-loss vehicles. According to Stewart, "actual cash value" was not defined in the policy nor did the policy explain how Farmers calculated it. He alleged that Farmers also breached the policy by using a third-party company, CCC Intelligent Solutions ("CCC"), to reduce the payment to him and the putative class by subtracting an arbitrary "condition adjustment" from the actual cost of the comparable vehicles used to determine the actual cash value. He said this practice is not disclosed in the policy and Farmers fraudulently concealed it from policyholders. After the complaint was filed and in accordance with the policy, Farmers made an appraisal demand, which resulted in Farmers formally filing a motion to compel appraisal. Ultimately, in December 2023, the trial court granted Farmers' August 2023 motion to compel appraisal of the claim. It concluded, after relying on and applying the criteria in Saba v. Homeland Ins. Co., 159 Ohio St. 237 (1953), that the Policy language contained "plain, inescapable language" that the appraisal provision was mandatory. Moreover, relying on Bobel v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Indiana, 2018 US Dist. LEXIS 240663 (N.D. Ohio May 10, 2018), the court found no merit to Stewart's argument that the appraisal provision did not apply if a lawsuit was already filed. It ordered Stewart to submit to the appraisal process as invoked by Farmers. In March 2024, following discovery and while the parties waited for the appraisal, Stewart moved for class certification, amending the class as defined in the complaint by removing the exclusion of appraisal-based claims, adding a reference to "condition adjustments," and shortening the class period. His new class definition provided: All Ohio residents who: 1) were insured by Defendant under a motor vehicle policy; 2) suffered damage to their auto declared a total loss by Defendant, and Defendant made a cash payment to resolve the claim on or after June 16, 2017; 3) the payment was derived using a CCC One® Market Valuation Report that applied a "condition adjustment" reducing the comparable vehicle value. The class excludes Plaintiff's counsel; officers of the court handling this matter; and employees of Defendant. In April 2024, the appraisal was completed. The two appraisers jointly issued an award finding the "actual cash value" for Stewart's vehicle to be $11,564.08, which was higher than the amount Farmers originally paid Stewart. Because the appraisal had been completed and Farmers tendered the check to Stewart for the difference, Farmers opposed Stewart's motion for class certification, contending that Stewart lacked standing as a class representative or his claims were otherwise moot because he was fully compensated following the policy's binding appraisal process, which was also mandated by the court. Stewart opposed Farmers' assertion that he lacked standing or that his claims were otherwise moot by virtue of the appraisal. The trial court agreed with Stewart, finding that invoking the policy's appraisal process did not moot Stewart's standing to maintain the class action. Further, it found that Stewart satisfied the Civ.R. 23 requirements and certified the following proposed class: All Ohio residents who: 1) are or were insured by Defendant under a motor vehicle policy; 2) suffered damage to their auto declared a total loss by Defendant, and 3) received a cash payment to resolve the claim on or after June 16, 2017; 4) the payment was derived using a CCC One® Market Valuation Report that applied a "condition adjustment" reducing the comparable vehicle value. The class excludes Plaintiff's counsel; officers of the court handling this matter; and employees of Defendant. The appeal followed. In its sole assignment of error, Farmers contends that the trial court erred in granting class certification, raising the following issues: (1) Whether Stewart's individual and class claims are moot because (a) the valuation of his total-loss car was fully resolved in a court ordered appraisal; and (b) he alleges no other injury and cannot move to certify a class on an unstated liability theory that would include him as a class member; (2) Whether Stewart satisfied the requirements of Civ.R. 23(A) by showing a properly defined class, typicality, and commonality; and (3) Whether Stewart satisfied the predominance test of Civ.R. 23(B)(3). Judge Keough finds merit to Farmers' first assignment of error. Because the appraisal award was binding on both parties after being invoked and Farmers' tendering payment to Stewart, representing the actual cash value for his vehicle, there was no longer a live controversy between the parties. Accordingly, because Stewart's individual claims were resolved prior to class certification, dismissal of the entire action, including the class claims, was required. The trial court erred in failing to find the claims moot and dismiss the action. Hence, Farmers' first assignment of error is sustained. Finding merit to Farmers' first issue raised in its assignment of error renders the other two issues, challenging the trial court's decision granting and certifying the class, moot. For these reasons, Judge Keough reverses the judgment and remands. She orders that the Appellant recovers from the Appellee costs therein taxed. She finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://sl1nk.com/hc3y89t. Dworken & Bernstein Co., LPA, and Patrick J. Perrotti; Garson Johnson LLC, and James A. DeRoche, for appellee. Tucker Ellis LLP, Karl A. Bekeny -- karl.bekeny@tuckerellis.com -- Benjamin C. Sasse -- benjamin.sasse@tuckerellis.com -- and Ariana E. Bernard -- ariana.bernard@tuckerellis.com; Akerman LLP, and Bryan T. West -- bryan.west@akerman.com -- pro hac vice, for appellant. FASHION NOVA: Richards Appeals Court Order to 7th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------- WARREN RICHARDS is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Warren Richards, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Fashion Nova, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01145-TWP-MKK, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The Plaintiff brings this suit against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The appellate case is styled as Warren Richards v. Fashion Nova, LLC, Case No. 26-2082, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on May 19, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant WARREN RICHARDS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. BRODERICK LAW, PC 99 High Street Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 Defendant-Appellee FASHION NOVA, LLC is represented by: David M. Krueger, Esq. BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN & ARONOFF 127 Public Square, Suite 4900 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (440) 313-2974 FINE GAUGE INC: Walker Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Leah Walker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. A Fine Gauge, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-05700 (N.D. Ill., May 15, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://www.whiteandwarren.com/ (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website") to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff 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 the Plaintiff'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 legally visually impaired and a member of a protected class under the ADA. The Defendant provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a selection of women's cashmere and knitwear products, including cashmere sweaters, cardigans, jackets, button-down shirts, tops and tanks, bottoms and skirts, loungewear, travel wraps, scarves, and accessories.[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 GEORGIA HERITAGE: Babbit Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Georgia Heritage Federal Credit Union. The case is styled as Chad Babbit, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Georgia Heritage Federal Credit Union, Case No. SPCV26-00749-MO (Ga. Super. Ct., Chatham Cty., May 13, 2026). The case type is stated as "Contract/Account." Georgia Heritage Federal Credit Union -- https://gaheritagefcu.org/ -- offers savings, checking, loans, and digital banking solutions to help members across Georgia thrive financially.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq. GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP 4279 Roswell Road NE Suite 208 - 108 Atlanta 30342-3700 Phone: (678)-642-2503 Email: marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com GUARDIAN INDUSTRIES: Class Cert Opposition Filing Due July 13 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANK ESPINOZA, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated and of Defendant 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 Defendants will administratively move for an order continuing Plaintiff's motion for class certification hearing currently set for June 24, 2026 for 60 days until Aug. 25, 2026, and also extending the Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification to July 13, 2026. Good cause exists because the current deadline of June 1, 2026, does not give the Defendant sufficient time to adequately prepare and accomplish all the tasks necessary to oppose the motion prior to the current deadline. The Defendant could not have requested a copy of the expert report before the close of discovery even if it had wanted to, because the report did not exist. Similarly, the Defendant could not have requested to examine the declarants until they "injected" themselves into this litigation, which also occurred after the discovery cutoff deadline. The Plaintiff claims she is entitled to surprise the Defendant with new evidence because she waited to gather it just before she filed her motion. The Defendant posits that such tactics should not be rewarded. On April 18, 2024, the Plaintiff filed this action in the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno. On July 24, 2024, the Defendant removed this action to this Court. More than two years later, on May 18, 2026, the Plaintiff Frank Espinoza filed his motion for Class Certification seeking to certify a class comprised of: "All current and former non-exempt employees of the Defendant who performed work during the period of May 28, 2020, to the date of the certification order" and about seven subclasses. Guardian is a privately held industrial manufacturer of glass, automotive and building products. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wWwiKZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: John F. Kuenstler, Esq. Mark W. Wallin, Esq. Michael Witczak, Esq. BARNES & THORNBURG LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 284-3880 Facsimile: (310) 284-3894 E-mail: john.kuenstler@btlaw.com mark.wallin@btlaw.com michael.witczak@btlaw.com HF FOODS: Krawitz Files Suit Over DGCL Violation ------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL KRAWITZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HF FOODS GROUP INC., Defendant, Case No. 2026-0606 (Chancery Ct., Del., May 13, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for expanding the Information Request Provision to action via consent in violation of Section 228(a) of the Delaware General Corporation Law ("DGCL"). Defendant HF Foods Group Inc. is a marketer and distributor of fresh produce, frozen and dry food, and non-food products to Asian restaurants and other foodservice customers throughout the United States. Plaintiff Michael Krawitz is an HF Foods stockholder. The complaint relates that HF Foods has adopted and maintains provisions in its bylaws that expand the Company's power beyond what is permissible under the Delaware General Corporation Law ("DGCL"). The Company's board of directors refused to cure those facial statutory violations when they were brought to the Board's attention, forcing Plaintiff to commence this litigation to vindicate rights guaranteed to stockholders by Delaware law. Section 228(a) of the DGCL provides that, unless otherwise provided in a corporation's certificate of incorporation, any action that may be taken at a meeting of stockholders may be taken by written consent "without a meeting, without prior notice and without a vote[.]" The Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of HF Foods Group Inc. does not impose any limitation on stockholders' right to act via consent. On April 25, 2023, the Board adopted an amendment to the Amended and Restated By-Laws of HF Foods Group Inc. This amendment, among other things, replaced in its entirety Article II, Section 2.3(b) of the Bylaws which concerns the procedures for determining the record date for actions taken by written consent. Section 2.7(a)(ii) of the Bylaws, which already existed at the time the Board amended Section 2.3(b), purports to require that a stockholder seeking action via consent provide extensive advance-notice disclosures (the "Information Request Provision"), which far exceed any ministerial prerequisites to the exercise of statutory consent rights. The Bylaws, therefore, violate Section 228(a) of the Delaware General Corporation Law ("DGCL")'s requirement that, unless otherwise provided in the certificate of incorporation, stockholder action may be taken by written consent "without prior notice[.]" Recognizing that these facial statutory violations are readily curable, Plaintiff, through his counsel, made a pre-suit demand upon the Board on April 21, 2026. HF Foods rejected the Demand via counsel by letter dated April 28, 2026. Because the reasons for the refusal to take action were legally unsupported, Plaintiff, again acting through counsel, sent a follow-up letter on April 30, 2026, setting forth the relevant Delaware authority and explaining that expansion of the Information Request Provision through Section 2.3(b) bore no resemblance to a bylaw imposing minimal essential provisions for ministerial review of the validity of the action taken by stockholder consent. Plaintiff restated his demand for corrective action. On May 6, 2026, counsel for HF Foods emailed that it was "[stand]ing by [its] prior correspondence[,]" necessitating this lawsuit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter B. Andrews, Esq. David M. Sborz, Esq. Andrew J. Peach, Esq. Jackson E. Warren, Esq. ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC 4001 Kennett Pike, Suite 250 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 504-4957 E-mail: pandrews@andrewsspringer.com dsborz@andrewsspringer.com apeach@andrewspringer.com jwarren@andrewsspringer.com - and - J. Abbott R. Cooper, Esq. ABBOTT COOPER PLLC 1266 East Main Street Suite 700R Stamford, CT 06902 Telephone: (475) 477-5031 - and - William J. Fields, Esq. Christopher J. Kupka, Esq. Samir Shukurov, Esq. FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP 141 Tompkins Ave, Suite 404 Pleasantville, NY 10570 Telephone: (212) 231-1500 - and - D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. KASKELA LAW LLC 18 Campus Blvd., Suite 100 Newtown Square, PA 19073 Telephone: (484) 258-1585 HSBC BANK: Class Cert Bid Filing in Cruz Suit Due Oct. 15 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned ALYSSA CRUZ, v, HSBC BANK USA, N.A. (Re: Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether ("MTBE") Products Liability Litigation), Case No. 1:00-cv-01898 (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. A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BipQVu at no extra charge.[CC] HUNTSVILLE UTILITIES: Bantam Building Sues Over Conspiracy ---------------------------------------------------------- Bantam Building Performance, LLC d/b/a Southern Valley Services, LLC on behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated v. HUNTSVILLE UTILITIES, Case No. 5:26-cv-00803-LCB (N.D. Ala., May 13, 2026), is brought under violations of the Sherman Act for Conspiracy in Restraint of Trade as a result of the Defendant entering into and engaged in unlawful contracts, combinations in the form of trust or otherwise, and/or conspiracies in restraint of trade and commerce. Southern Valley performs inspections for new homes constructed in North Alabama which provide HERS ratings and documentation required before a certificate of occupancy can be issued ("New Home Inspections.") While Southern Valley charges about $550 for a New Home Inspection, builders can apply to the Rebate Program and get $400 refunded for each home from the Rebate Program. In 2023, Huntsville Utilities became aware of the Rebate Program. Seeing an opportunity for an additional revenue stream, Huntsville Utilities hired three inspectors and began conducting New Home Inspections. However, companies, like Southern Valley, were still in business and continuing to thrive due to their superior knowledge, faster response times, and overall flexibility. Seeing an opportunity for a monopoly, Huntsville Utilities changes it internal requirements for HERS inspections which would qualify for the Rebate Program. As a result of the changes, the only acceptable New Home Certification for the Rebate Program performed in the Huntsville Utilities service area must be performed by one of Huntsville Utilities' inspectors. That is, Huntsville Utilities now has complete control of the Rebate Program as it now has a monopoly on New Home Inspections in its area. It now collects all Rebates for itself. As a result of Huntsville Utilities' anti-competitive actions, Southern Valley and other New Home Inspection companies have been blocked from inspection business in Huntsville Utilities' area. All inspection companies except Southern Valley have abandoned performing New Home Inspections in Huntsville Utilities' service area as it now has a monopoly on the Rebate program. Southern Valley has already lost hundreds of thousands of dollars as a result of Huntsville Utilities' monopoly, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a corporation qualified and doing business within the State of Alabama with its principal place of business in Huntsville, Alabama. Huntsville Utilities is a public utility organized and doing business in Madison County, Alabama and is owned by the City of Huntsville.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric J. Artrip, Esq. MASTANDO & ARTRIP, LLC 301 Holmes Ave. NE, Suite 100 Huntsville, AL 35801 Phone: (256) 532-2222 Fax: (256) 513-7489 Email: artrip@mastandoartrip.com - and - Richard P. Rouco, Esq. QUINN, CONNOR, WEAVER, DAVIES & ROUCO, LLP 2 – 20th Street North, Suite 930 Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 870-9989 Fax: (205) 803-4143 Email: rrouco@qcwdr.com HUTTIG INC: Martinez Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Paul Martinez, individually, and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. HUTTIG, INC., a Delaware corporation; HUTTIG BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., a Delaware corporation; WOODGRAIN INC., an Oregon corporation; WOODGRAIN TRANSPORTATION LLC, an Idaho corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 26CV007594 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on May 13, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01817-CKD. The Complaint alleges the following causes of action: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Breaks; Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses; Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; and Violations of the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 against Defendants (the "Superior Court Action").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael E. Brewer, Esq. BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP 101 California Street, Suite 4100 San Francisco, CA 94111-6107 Phone: (415) 576-3000 Facsimile: (415) 576-3099 Email: michael.brewer@bakermckenzie.com - and - Phillip R. Di Tullio, Esq. BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP 10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 1850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 201-4728 Facsimile: (310) 201-4721 Email: phillip.ditullio@bakermckenzie.com ICON PLC: Faces Consolidated Suit in New York --------------------------------------------- ICON plc disclosed in its annual report on Form 20-F, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 27, 2026, that it is currently facing a consolidated case, "In re ICON plc Securities Litigation," No. 2:25-cv-00763 lodged in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The company, its former Chief Executive Officer, and its former Chief Financial Officer were named as defendants in two class action lawsuits involving similar claims, filed in said court on Feb. 10, 2025 (Shing v. ICON plc, et al.) and April 2, 2025 (Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit v. ICON plc), respectively. The complaints allege that defendants made misleading statements regarding the Company's financial performance and future business prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The two cases have been consolidated and are proceeding under the caption "In re ICON plc Securities Litigation," No. 2:25-cv-00763. Lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for the putative class were appointed on June 10, 2025. On Sept. 12, 2025, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that names the company's current Chief Executive Officer in addition to the original defendants. As a follow-up to said case, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on Nov. 12, 2025. Lead plaintiffs filed an opposition to that motion on Jan. 13, 2026. On Feb. 13, 2026, the parties filed a stipulation providing that the lead plaintiffs may file a further amended complaint within 30 days after the Company publicly reports its full-year 2025 results. ICON plc is a global clinical research organization that provides outsourced development and commercialization services to pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical device industries. The company supports all phases of clinical development, from trial design and management to regulatory and market access services. INSTRUCTURE INC: Bonham Sues Over Data Breach --------------------------------------------- Alyssa Bonham and Kyra Mohr, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INSTRUCTURE, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-00448 (D. Utah, May 15, 2026), is brought seeking to remedy harms on behalf of themselves, and all similarly situated individuals whose Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") was accessed during the Data Breach. Despite knowing how valuable customer information is, Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII. This PII was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect customers' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII because of the value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiffs and Class Members. The present and continuing risk to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes. As a result of the Data Breach, through which their PII was compromised, disclosed, and obtained by an unauthorized criminal hacking group, Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered concrete damages and are now exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft for a period of years, if not decades. Furthermore, Plaintiffs and Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft, at their own expense. Consequently, Plaintiffs and the other Class Members will incur ongoing out-of-pocket costs for, e.g., purchasing credit monitoring services, credit freezes, credit reports, or other protective measures to deter and detect identity theft, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are required to use Canvas as students. Instructure, Inc., based in Salt Lake City, markets itself as "champions of open edtech."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 - and - Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. Karin B. Swope, Esq. Ellen J. Wen, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY LLP 1809 7th Ave., Ste. 1610 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-802-1272 Fax: 206-299-4184 Email: tloeser@cpmlegal.com kswope@cpmlegal.com ewen@cpmlegal.com JARED HOY: Court Stays Discovery and Case Deadlines --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Huber v. Jared Hoy, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00404 (W.D. wisc., Filed June 15, 2024), the Hon. Judge William M. Conley entered an order granting joint motion to stay discovery and case deadlines. Courts have broad discretion to stay cases to manage their dockets and promote efficiency. Accordingly, efficiency and economy are served by the stay and there appears to be no undue prejudice by the delay. The nature of suit states Civil Rights.[CC] JEFFERSON COUNTY, WI: Class Cert Filing Due April 16, 2027 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARA DOMRES, et al., v. JEFFERSON COUNTY, WISCONSIN, et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-00050-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Boor entered a preliminary pretrial conference order as follows: Amendments to the Pleadings: July 24, 2026 Disclosure of experts: Plaintiff/Proponent: Nov. 20, 2026 Defendant/Respondent: Jan. 22, 2027 Deadline for filing dispositive motions Apr. 16, 2027 and class certification: Discovery Cutoff: Feb. 26, 2027 Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures and all: Aug. 20, 2027 motions in limine Responses: Sept. 3, 2027 Trial: Sept. 27, 2027 Jefferson County comprises the Watertown-Fort Atkinson, WI Micropolitan Statistical Area, which is also included in the Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha, WI Combined Statistical Area. A copy of the Court's order dated May 20, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xBUwyi at no extra charge.[CC] JOHN PAUL MITCHELL: Howell Suit Transferred to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Hannah Howell, Brigette Lowe, Robin Eisman, Keri Lynch, Kathryn Kessinger, Hollie Shadd, Ashley Price-Horton, Gayanna Lynne Rule, Jinny Hager, Kimbrelle Rodgers, Denise Smith, Katelyn Dias, Deanna Harrell, Lauren Carr, Kerri Parker, Aliki Marinos, Lynette Armstrong, Jake Tulogeski, Mark Geis, Kelly Dugas, Julie Dziekan, Erin Coyle, Leila Mello, Kimberly Weatherbee, Kristy Creech, Kim Davis, Isabelle Salhani, Terasa Rowe, Susan Veach, and Anthony Francesconi, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. JOHN PAUL MITCHELL SYSTEMS, Case No. 2:26-cv-01986 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on May 14, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-04519-KAW to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. John Paul Mitchell Systems -- https://www.paulmitchell.com/ -- is an American manufacturer of hair care products and styling tools through several brands including Paul Mitchell, Tea Tree, Neuro, Pro Tools, Awapuhi Wild Ginger, MITCH, MVRCK, and Professional Hair Color.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Pitoun, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 301 North Lake Ave, Suite 920 Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone: (213) 330-7150 Fax: (213) 330-7152 Email: christopherp@hbsslaw.com Elizabeth Tory Beardsley, Esq. Michella A. Kras, Esq. Robert B. Carey, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 11 West Jefferson Street Suite 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Phone: (602) 840-5900 Fax: (602) 840-3012 Email: toryb@hbsslaw.com michellak@hbsslaw.com rob@hbsslaw.com KEEFE GROUP: Hernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Olga Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KEEFE GROUP; TKC HOLDINGS, INC.; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 2026CUBT060428 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Ventura, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on May 13, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-05163. The Complaint generally alleges that Defendants, as the sole vendors for commissary goods in Ventura County, Los Angeles County, and other unidentified county jails across Southern California, imposed unlawful markups on these commissary goods more than 600% of the wholesale cost on certain commissary goods. Defendants allegedly dictate the pricing structures for commissary goods inside the various jails, and these prices vary between different county jails by up to 200%. Upon this set of allegations, Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and were Unjustly Enriched.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Linh T. Hua, Esq. Avanti D. Bakane, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 576-5002 Facsimile: (213) 680-4470 Email: lhua@grsm.com abakane@grsm.com KING COUNTY, WA: Rogers Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification. ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ray C. Rogers v. King County et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-01034-DGE-GJL (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for Rule 23 Class Certification. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aVcW0N at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff appears pro se. KNOWBE4 INC: Seeks to Impound Confidential Exhibits --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned re KnowBe4, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:25-cv-22574-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to impound certain confidential and highly confidential exhibits to the Plaintiffs' reply in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification Pursuant to Local Rule 5.4, the Defendants request: (1) leave of Court to impound four exhibits to the Plaintiffs' forthcoming reply in support of their motion for class certification that contain discovery material designated as confidential or highly confidential by the Defendants and non-party Morgan Stanley, LLC. and (2) an order (a) permitting the Plaintiffs to file those four exhibits under seal, (b) directing the Plaintiffs to redact from the publicly-filed version of the Plaintiffs' reply brief any language describing and quoting those exhibits, and (c) permitting the Plaintiffs to file an unredacted version of their forthcoming Reply under seal. The Defendants have established good cause to seal these four exhibits sufficient to overcome the presumption of public access here. Each of the four documents contain proprietary business analysis and internal strategies that, if disclosed publicly, would risk significant competitive harm to KnowBe4 and Vista, respectively. KnowBe4 provides software security solutions. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IEcfpW at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: David A. Nabors, Esq. Samuel G. Williamson, Esq. Andrew J. Rossman, Esq. Courtney C. Whang, Esq. Sarah Bittman, Esq. Marielle Paloma Greenblatt QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP 2601 S Bayshore Drive, Suite 1550 Miami, FL 33133-5417 Telephone: (305) 402-4880 E-mail: samwilliamson@quinnemanuel.com davidnabors@quinnemanuel.com andrewrossman@quinnemanuel.com courtneywhang@quinnemanuel.com sarahbittman@quinnemanuel.com mariellegreenblatt@quinnemanuel.com L.A. SUPERIOR COURT: Preemptive Writ of Mandate in Smith Partly OKd ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CANDICE SMITH et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA OF LOS ANGELES et al., Real Parties in Interest, Case No. B349974 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Three, grants in part the Plaintiffs' preemptive writ of mandate. In 2016, Plaintiffs and Petitioners Candice Smith and Elizabeth Grundy filed a class action against their former employer, Defendant and real party in interest Volunteers of America of Los Angeles (VOALA), asserting meal and rest period violations and other wage-and-hour claims. VOALA provides services to homeless individuals, veterans, and young adults. Through its Children's Services division, VOALA also runs Head Start preschool programs and provides other services to families. Before new employees report to their specific program sites, VOALA's human resources department informs them about the company's policies in the employee handbook, including meal and rest break policies. At all times relevant to these proceedings, the handbook instructed hourly employees to take an unpaid, 30-minute off-duty meal period for every shift of more than five hours. Until 2015, hourly employees at VOALA recorded their hours by writing their clock-in and clock-out times on paper timesheets. In 2015, VOALA switched to the electronic timekeeping system NOVAtime, which allowed employees to clock in and out using their fingerprints. Smith worked at VOALA from 2012 to 2016. In October 2016, she filed a class action complaint against VOALA and two related entities. The operative complaint asserted causes of action for unpaid overtime (Lab. Code, Sections 510, 1198); 2 unpaid minimum wages (Sections 1182.12, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198); failure to provide meal periods (Sections 226.7, 512, subd. (a), 1198); failure to provide rest periods (Sections 226, subd. (a), 1198); non-compliant wage statements and failure to maintain payroll records (Sections 226, subd. (a), 1174, subd. (d), 1198); failure to timely pay wages upon termination (Sections 201–203); unreimbursed business expenses (Section 2802); and unlawful business practices under California's Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, Section 17200 et seq.). An amended complaint added Elizabeth Grundy as a named Plaintiff. Grundy is a former VOALA employee who worked as a Head Start teacher from 2012 to 2016. In July 2024, the Plaintiffs moved for class certification. They sought to represent one class and five subclasses of nearly 6,000 non-exempt, hourly employees who worked for VOALA any time from October 2012 to the date of certification and who were subject to, among other things, the underpayment of wages, failure to provide meal breaks, and failure to pay meal break premiums when due. They proposed the following subclasses "predicated on VOALA's companywide, uniform policies and practices: Underpayment Theory (Underpayment Subclass): from May 1, 2015 to July 1, 2019, Defendant underpaid its employees by calculating employee pay using clock-in and clock-out times other than an employee's actual time punches; Meal Break Policy Theory (Meal Break Policy Subclass): Throughout the Class Period, Defendant failed to provide employees with first meal periods before the end of the fifth hour of work as a result of its facially invalid meal period policies and practices; Meal Break Electronic Timesheet Premium Theory (Meal Break Electronic Timekeeping Premium Subclass): From June 2015 to the present, Defendant failed to pay meal break premiums when required because its electronic timekeeping system is programmed to trigger the payment of a meal period premium when a meal period is less than 29 minutes, missed, or taken later than the fifth hour of work; Meal Break Handwritten Timesheet Premium Theory (Meal Break Handwritten Timekeeping Premium Subclass): From October 31, 2012 through May 2015, Defendant failed to pay meal break premiums when required when it used handwritten timesheets either because employees were not instructed on how to indicate on the timesheet that a premium is due, or there was no place on the timesheet to do so; Failure to Provide Proper Coverage Theory (Children's Services Subclass): Throughout the Class Period, Defendant failed to provide teachers working in the Children's Services division coverage to release them from the employer's control during meal and rest breaks." The Plaintiffs also sought to certify subclasses under section 203 for waiting time penalties and section 226 for failure to provide accurate wage statements. They argued each subclass presented common questions of law or fact that would predominate in the litigation. Citing Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC (2021) 11 Cal.5th 58 (Donohue), they argued that VOALA's time records created a rebuttable presumption of meal period violations that supported certification of the class. In opposition to certification, VOALA contended the meal period policy stated in its handbook fully complied with the law. It further argued that its time records did not trigger a rebuttable presumption under Donohue because wage statements showed employees were automatically compensated for noncompliant meal periods. VOALA also argued that the meal period subclasses were not susceptible to common proof. The trial court certified two subclasses after limiting their scope and denied certification of the three remaining subclasses, all of which related to meal period violations. It concluded the meal period subclasses lacked commonality because VOALA's affirmative defense of waiver would require individualized proof. The Plaintiffs seek a preemptive writ of mandate. They contend the trial court's ruling was inconsistent with Donohue. They also assert that the trial court erred in limiting the scope of one of the subclasses. The Court of Appeals grants the Plaintiffs' petition in part. It agrees that the trial court made an erroneous legal assumption in determining that the mere pleading of waiver as an affirmative defense was sufficient to show individual issues would predominate as to the meal period subclasses. The Court of Appeals denies the Plaintiffs' petition with respect to the Children's Services Subclass, as substantial evidence supported the trial court's conclusion that certification was proper only as to the locations where the class representatives worked. Respondent Los Angeles Superior Court is directed to vacate its order denying certification as to the Meal Break Policy Subclass, the Meal Break Electronic Timekeeping Premium Subclass, the Meal Break Handwritten Timekeeping Premium Subclass, and the derivative penalty subclasses. The trial court is further directed to reconsider the Plaintiffs' class certification motion as to these subclasses, consistent with the views expressed in the Opinion. In all other respects, the petition is denied. The Petitioners are awarded their costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://sl1nk.com/xvpyhld. Capstone Law, Ryan H. Wu -- Ryan.Wu@capstonelawyers.com -- Melissa Grant -- melissa.grant@capstonelawyers.com -- Bevin Allen Pike -- bpike@tomorrowlaw.com -- for Petitioners. David Lee, Court Counsel, for Respondent. Wolflick, Khachaturian & Bouayad, Gregory D. Wolflick -- greg@wolfsim.com -- and Theodore S. Khachaturian -- theo@wolfsim.com -- for Real Party in Interest Volunteers of America of Los Angeles. LANDRY'S INC: Campos Sues Over Breach of Consumer Trust ------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Campos and Jennie Corona Cantu, individuals, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated v. LANDRY'S INC., Case No. 4:26-cv-04608 (N.D. Cal., May 15, 2026), is brought concerning egregious violations of consumer privacy and a breach of consumer trust in violation of California law. When consumers visit Defendant's websites, bubbagump.com (the "Bubba Gump Website"), chart-house.com, delfriscos.com, delfriscosgrille.com, horatios.com, joescrabshack.com (the "Joe's Crab Shack Website"), kincaids.com, mastrosrestaurants.com (the "Mastro's Website"), mccormickandschmicks.com (the "McCormick Website"), mortons.com (the "Morton's Website"), peohes.com, rainforestcafe.com, rustypelican.com, and skatesonthebay.com (each separately a "Website" and collectively, the "Websites"), Defendant displays to them a popup cookie consent banner, which is substantially similar on each of the Websites. The Defendant's cookie banners disclose that the Websites use cookies but expressly gives users the option to control how they are tracked and how their personal data is used. Defendant assures visitors that, rather than accepting cookies, they can instead opt out of cookies by clicking a "Do Not Sell My Personal Information" link, as shown in the following example screenshot from the Bubba Gump Website. Like most internet websites, Defendant designed the Websites to include resources and programming scripts from third parties that cause those parties to place cookies and other similar tracking technologies on visitors' browsers and devices and/or transmit cookies along with user data. Unlike many websites, however, Defendant affirmatively represented that users could browse the Websites without being tracked, followed, or targeted by third-party data brokers and advertisers. Those representations were false. This type of tracking and data sharing is exactly what the Websites' visitors sought to avoid when they adjusted the toggle switch on the Websites' Manage Consent Preferences window to reject all non-strictly necessary cookies (including Performance and Targeting cookies) and the "Sale of Personal Data. Defendant falsely told their Websites' users that it respected user privacy choices and would refrain from tracking and data sharing when users rejected cookies. Despite receiving clear notice of users' lack of consent, Defendant ignored those choices and violated state statutes and tort duties owed to Plaintiffs and those similarly situated users of the Websites, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs and other consumers in California visited the Defendant's Websites. The Defendant owns, operates, manages, and/or controls numerous restaurant brands and affiliated Websites, including through subsidiary and affiliated entities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Todd Kennedy, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 336-6545 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 Email: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com todd@gutridesafier.com LEE UNIVERSITY: Settlement Deal in Harris Gets Prelim Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL HARRIS, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LEE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:25-cv-00107 (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Curtis L. Collier entered a judgment that will grant the motion and preliminarily approve the proposed Rule 23 settlement agreement. The Court will appoint Kroll Settlement Administration LLC as settlement administrator. The Court will approve the proposed settlement notice plan and opt-out/objection procedures and direct the settlement administrator to provide notice of the proposed settlement to the class members. The Court will confirm the Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel and will appoint the Plaintiffs as class representatives. The settlement agreement defines the class as: "All persons whose Private Information was potentially compromised in the Data Breach, including all individuals to whom the Defendant sent an individual notification letter regarding the Data Breach." The agreement provides for a $1,750,000.00 settlement fund. The action stems from a data breach that occurred on March 22, 2024, when an unknown actor gained access to the Defendant's systems and accessed the private information of 136,928 individuals, including students, faculty, and staff. 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=85uz5J at no extra charge.[CC] LENDIO INC: Jackson Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lendio, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Taylor Jackson, Joseph Fontana, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Lendio, Inc., Brock Blake and all other related entities and individuals, Case No. 610642/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., May 15, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Torts (Wage and Hour). Lendio -- https://www.lendio.com/ -- is the nation's leading small business financing platform.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Alexander Tompkins, Esq. HERMAN KATZ, LLP One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Phone: (516) 873-9550 Email: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com LHASALING FEN: Zamacona Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Francisco Zamacona, and other similarly situated workers v. LHASALING FEN and SHA RU CORP., Case No. 1:26-cv-02930 (E.D.N.Y., May 15, 2026), is brought for unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid spread-of-hours premiums, statutory penalties for failure to provide wage notices and accurate wage statements, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"); the New York Labor Law (the "NYLL"), as amended by the Wage Theft Prevention Act (the "WTPA"); and the Hospitality Industry Wage Order. Throughout his employment, Plaintiff worked 12 hours per day, 6 days per week, for a total of 72 hours per workweek--32 of which were overtime hours. The Defendants never paid Plaintiff the lawful minimum wage. Defendants never paid Plaintiff an overtime premium of one and one-half times his regular rate for hours worked over forty in a workweek. Defendants never paid Plaintiff one additional hour of pay at the minimum wage for any day on which his spread of hours exceeded ten hours--even though every one of Plaintiff's workdays had a twelve-hour spread. The Defendants' violations were willful. They followed a deliberate cash-pay scheme designed to suppress wages, avoid scrutiny, and deny Plaintiff and other similarly situated workers the wages and protections owed under federal and state law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants for four years as a non-exempt restaurant worker performing dishwashing, delivery, cleaning, cooking, and basic plumbing and maintenance duties at Defendants' restaurant. Sha Ru Corp. owns, operates, and/or does business as the restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12t Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 203-2417 Web: www.StillmanLegalPC.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: Seeks Leave to Supplement Record in Ward Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADAM WARD, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:24-cv-10526-BEM (D. Mass.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion for leave to supplement the record with newly discovered evidence relevant to Plaintiff's pending motion for class certification and in keeping with its ongoing discovery obligations. At the time of its initial disclosures, Liberty did not have access to nor did it locate the information from the Wayback Machine archives that it currently seeks to supplement. Further, at the time of its responses to the Plaintiff's requests for admission, Liberty had still not found or located the subject screenshots. Lastly, despite its diligence, Liberty did not have the evidence at issue in its possession at the time its Opposition to the Plaintiff's motion to certify was due on March 9, 2026, the Defendant avers. Finally, the Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the Court's consideration of this newly discovery evidence since Liberty will be using the evidence at the trial of either his individual claims in the event class certification is denied or of the claims of any certified class and it therefore should be part of the Court's analysis of whether individual or common issues will predominate at trial, the suit says. The Plaintiff has moved, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), to certify two nationwide classes of individuals on his Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") claims. Liberty is a nationwide insurance company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A2kk7m at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Patrick S. Tracey, Esq. Jacob Weinstein, Esq. James A. Morsch, Esq. SAUL EWING LLP 131 Dartmouth St., Suite 501 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 912-0947 E-mail: patrick.tracey@saul.com Jim.Morsch@saul.com LINCOLN HOLDINGS: Johnson Files Suit in D. Columbia --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lincoln Holdings LLC. The case is styled as Ernessa Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lincoln Holdings LLC doing business as: Monumental Sports and Entertainment, Case No. 1:26-cv-01639-JMC (D.D.C., May 13, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Lincoln Holdings LLC doing business as Monumental Sports & Entertainment -- https://monumentalsports.com/ -- is an American sports and venue management company founded by Ted Leonsis in June 2010.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Svensson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Phone: (202) 975-0468 Email: msvensson@zlk.com LIVEPERSON INC: Seeks Dismissal of Damri Second Amended Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------------- Soundhound AI, Inc. filed a current report on Form 8-K, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 27, 2026, that it is facing a suit over its disclosures regarding a putative stockholder class action entitled "Damri v. LivePerson, Inc.," No. 1:23-cv-10517, filed in December 2023 under the federal securities laws against the company, its former Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On April 21, 2026, SoundHound AI, Inc. entered into a Merger Agreement and a Notes Restructuring Agreement with LivePerson, Inc. The complaint alleges that the company's Form 10-Q filings and forecasts for the first, second, and third quarters of fiscal year 2022 were false and misleading in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based on the company's later disclosures and report on Form 10-K on March 16, 2023. In May 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The company moved to dismiss the amended complaint in August 2024, and in March 2025, the court granted its motion and dismissed the action with prejudice. In April 2025, the plaintiff appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and in March 2026, the dismissal was affirmed but the case was remanded to the district court with leave for the plaintiff to try to replead his complaint. A second amended complaint was filed, and the parties are currently briefing a renewed motion to dismiss. Separately, a parallel litigation on behalf of stockholders who purchased their shares on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange, entitled Weissbrod v. LivePerson, Inc., is pending in the Tel Aviv District Court in Israel. This action has been stayed pending further developments in the Damri case. Soundhound AI, Inc. is a technology company specializing in voice artificial intelligence solutions that enable natural, conversational interactions between people and devices. The company provides voice AI platforms and products for automotive, enterprise, and consumer applications. LOUISIANA: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Humphrey Suit to 5th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES M. LEBLANC is taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Brian Humphrey, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. James M. LeBlanc, Secretary, Department of Public Safety and Corrections, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-233, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit, is brought against the Defendant for alleged violation of civil rights. On July 21, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which Judge John W. deGravelles granted in part and denied in part on Sept. 22, 2025. The motion is granted in that a class will be certified as follows: All persons who have been remanded to the custody of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DOC) since April 16, 2019, and who were entitled to release at the time of their remand (either pursuant to sentencing or parole revocation), but who were released by the DOC more than 48 hours past the date that they were remanded to the DOCs custody due to the Defendants failure to implement and maintain an adequate process for timely releasing inmates. The motion is denied in that claims for emotional distress and mental anguish shall be severed. The appellate case is styled as Humphrey v. LeBlanc, Case No. 26-30301, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on May 22, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees BRIAN HUMPHREY, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Michael Allen, Esq. PROMISE OF JUSTICE INITIATIVE 1024 Elysian Fields Avenue New Orleans, LA 70117 Telephone: (504) 529-5955 Defendant-Appellant JAMES M. LEBLANC, Secretary, Department of Public Safety and Corrections, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections, is represented by: Elizabeth Lauren Brown, Esq. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1885 N. 3rd Street Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Telephone: (225) 406-1864 LPC SURVIVAL: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to Sept. 9 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHAN GAINES, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. LPC SURVIVAL, LTD D/B/A US BERKEY FILTERS, Case No. 2:25-cv-09291-JFW-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Walter entered an order granting the Plaintiff's ex parte application to continue class certification and mediation deadlines as follows: 1. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be continued from June 9, 2026, and now filed on or before Sept. 9, 2026. 2. The Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed on or before Oct. 7, 2026. 3. The Plaintiff's reply in support of his motion for class certification shall be filed on or before Oct. 21, 2026. 4. The hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be set Nov. 9, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. The Defendant specializes in Berkey water filtration and purification systems. A copy of the Court's order dated May 19, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=K2P2l8 at no extra charge.[CC] LUME DEODORANT: Moon Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Shalon Moon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LUME DEODORANT, LLC and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV10405 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on May 14, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-05187. In the Complaint, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, restitution, actual and punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs of this suit. The Plaintiff brings her claims based on California's False Advertising Law (Business and Professions Code Section 17500), California's Unfair Competition Law (Business and Professions Code Section 17500), and California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civil Code Section 1750).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Tyler G. Newby, Esq. Nikki Seichepine, Esq. FENWICK & WEST LLP One Front Street, 33rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415.875.2300 Facsimile: 415.281.1350 Email: tnewby@fenwick.com nseichepine@fenwick.com - and - Janie Yoo-Scott, Esq. FENWICK & WEST LLP 1155 F Street NW, 12th Floor Washington, DC 20001 Phone: 202.970.3000 Email: jyooscott@fenwick.com M&D NY RESTAURANT: Bernal Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Ruben Bernal, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. M&D NY RESTAURANT, INC., d/b/a GUSTO DIVINO TRATTORIA and MIRSAD GLAVATOVIC, Case No. 2:26-cv-02924 (E.D.N.Y., May 15, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of unpaid minimum wages. The Plaintiff was paid for his hours worked at the New York foodservice workers' minimum wage, which is lower than the full NY minimum wage. However, Defendants were not entitled to pay Plaintiff pursuant to the foodservice workers' minimum wage because they did not give Plaintiff notice of the tip credit. The Defendants frequently failed to distribute all of Plaintiff and other service employees' tips and instead required them to share tips with Defendant Glavatovic. The Defendants knew that improperly forcing Plaintiff and Collective Members to share their tips with management would economically injure Plaintiff and Collective Members and violated federal and state laws, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a server from September 2017 to March 2026. M&D NY Restaurant, Inc. is a New York corporation and owns and operates Gusto Divino Trattoria, located in Seaford, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. Lucas C. Buzzard, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 45 Broadway, Suite 320 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 688-5640 Fax: (212) 981-9587 MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Gresham Appeals Judgment in Salazar Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- DARREN GRESHAM is taking an appeal from a court judgment in the lawsuit entitled Vivian Salazar, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Marriott International, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-06664-WHO, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The suit is brought against the Defendant over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). On Oct. 6, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which Judge William H. Orrick granted on Mar. 9, 2026. The Court ruled that there is no dispute of material fact that Plaintiff Paul Merrell lacks standing and Marriott's website met ADA standards for Merrell's purposes. On Apr. 8, 2026, Paul Merrell appealed the Mar. 9 Order. On Apr. 20, 2026, Judge Orrick entered judgment in favor of the Defendant. The appellate case is styled as Salazar, et al. v. Marriott International, Inc., Case No. 26-3199, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 19, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on May 26, 2026; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on May 28, 2026; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on June 29, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on August 6, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on September 8, 2026. [BN] Intervenor-Appellant DARREN GRESHAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Thiago Coelho, Esq. Chumahan Benjamin Bowen, Esq. Jesenia Martinez, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 660 S. Figueroa Street, Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 - and - Jennifer Leinbach, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Defendant-Appellee MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. is represented by: Alex Donald Terepka, Esq. Matthew A. Keilson, Esq. WATSTEIN TEREPKA, LLP 75 14th Street NE, Suite 2600 Atlanta, GA 30309 MARRIOTT RESORTS: Garcia Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Juan Garcia, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. MARRIOTT RESORTS HOSPITALITY CORPORATION, a limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. C26-01211 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Contra Costa, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on May 14, 2026, and assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-04564. On April 8, 2026, the Plaintiff commenced an action against MRHC by filing a Complaint in the Superior Court of California for the County of Contra Costa asserting causes of action for failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to indemnify necessary business expenses, failure to timely pay final wages at termination, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and unfair business practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kenneth D. Sulzer, Esq. Alexander T. Marx, Esq. Nicolas W. Tomas, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-909-7775 Email: ksulzer@constangy.com amarx@constangy.com ntomas@constangy.com - and - Barbara I. Antonucci, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 350 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415-918-3000 Email: bantonucci@constangy.com MARSHFIELD CLINIC: Class Cert Bid Filing Due June 11, 2027 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA MARTIE PETTIS and HOLLY MATHEWS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MARSHFIELD CLINIC HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 26-cv-105-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Boor entered a preliminary pretrial conference order as follows: -- Amendments to the pleadings: July 8, 2026 -- Disclosure of experts Plaintiffs/Proponents: Feb. 2, 2026 Defendants/Respondents: April 2, 2026 -- Motions & briefs to certify class: June 11, 2027 -- Deadline for filing dispositive Nov. 18, 2027 motions: -- Discovery Cutoff: Feb. 18, 2028 -- Trial: May 1, 2028 Marshfield is a health care system with over 50 locations in northern, central, and western Wisconsin. A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dNxwAa at no extra charge.[CC] MARSHFIELD CLINIC: Class Cert. Bids in Frank Due June 11, 2027 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GRETCHEN FRANK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. MARSHFIELD CLINIC, INC., Case No. 3:26-cv-00125-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Boor entered a preliminary pretrial conference order as follows: -- Amendments to the pleadings: July 8, 2026 -- Disclosure of experts Plaintiffs/Proponents: Feb. 2, 2026 Defendants/Respondents: April 2, 2026 -- Motions & briefs to certify class: June 11, 2027 -- Deadline for filing dispositive Nov. 18, 2027 motions: -- Discovery Cutoff: Feb. 18, 2028 -- Trial: May 1, 2028 Marshfield is a health care system with over 50 locations in northern, central, and western Wisconsin. A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8mMdWS at no extra charge.[CC] MASSACHUSETTS: Parties in Green Suit Must Submit Status Report -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Green, et al., v. Massachusetts Department of Correction, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-11504 (D. Mass., Filed Sept. 14, 2021), the Hon. Judge George A. Otoole, Jr. entered an order that the parties shall confer and submit a detailed joint status report. To the extent that the parties believe additional scheduling deadlines are necessary, including for class certification briefing, they shall propose a joint schedule. (FGD) The nature of suit states Civil Rights. The Department of Correction oversees the state prison system, managing 13 institutions across the state.[CC] MDL 1917: Decertification of IPP and DPP Classes Sought ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation (MDL 1917), Case No. 4:07-cv-05944-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants, on July 16, 2026 at 2:00 p.m., will move to decertify the Indirect Purchaser ("IPP") and Direct Purchaser ("DPP") Classes under Rule 23 and to vacate entry of default against Irico under Rule 55(c). The Motion is advanced on the ground that the IPP and DPP experts' models do not exclude class members who have suffered no Article III injury, thus requiring the Court to vacate the default in favor of the classes and to decertify them. On Nov. 22 and 25, 2024, the Clerk of the Court entered default against Irico with respect to both the IPPs, and DPPs, based on the Court's conclusions that Irico committed discovery abuses. That default should be vacated under Rule 55(c) to the extent that it is employed to hold Irico liable to uninjured named plaintiffs or absent class members, as TransUnion forbids. The Court certified the IPP class more than a decade ago on Sept. 24, 2013, before Irico reentered the case, and certified the DPP class on Aug. 1, 2022. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=31JwU9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey Margulies, Esq. Kaylee Yang, Esq. Geraldine Young, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite 1050 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (213) 892-9200 Facsimile: (213) 892-9494 E-mail: jeff.margulies@nortonrosefulbright.com kaylee.yang@nortonrosefulbright.com geraldine.young@nortonrosefulbright.com MENESES LAW: Acosta Sues Over Scheme to Defraud Immigrants ---------------------------------------------------------- Reyna Angeles Acosta, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MENESES LAW, PLLC, a Texas Professional Limited Liability Company; MENESES ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Limited Liability Company; FRANCES CHRISTINE MENESES, an individual; and JULIO CARLOS MENESES, an individual; and ROBERT VICTOR TORREY, an individual; Case No. 4:26-cv-03930 (S.D. Tex., May 16, 2026), is brought against the Defendants for fee disgorgement, restitution, and damages arising from the Defendants' systematic scheme to defraud vulnerable immigrants through a high-volume immigration filing operation disguised as a legitimate law practice. Meneses Law operated as a high-volume VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) filing mill, processing hundreds if not thousands of immigration petitions through a standardized, assembly-line system designed to maximize revenue while minimizing meaningful legal representation. The firm's entire business model was built upon concealment, fabrication, and the systematic exploitation of vulnerable, predominantly Spanish speaking immigrants who were desperate to obtain legal status in the United States. The Defendants' scheme was not an isolated failure of professional responsibility. It was a deliberate, profit-driven enterprise designed to exploit the intersection of immigration desperation and legal complexity. Defendants knew that their predominantly undocumented, Spanish-speaking clients would be unlikely to discover the true nature of the filings made on their behalf, unlikely to understand the legal and criminal consequences of those filings, and unlikely to have the resources or knowledge to seek recourse. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated to recover all fees paid to Defendants, to obtain treble damages under RICO, to obtain exemplary damages, and to secure injunctive and declaratory relief to prevent Defendants from continuing their scheme and to protect class members from retaliation or adverse immigration consequences arising from their participation in this litigation, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a single mother whose adult son, Giovanni, is a United States citizen over the age of twenty-one. Meneses Law, PLLC is a Texas Professional Limited Liability Company that holds itself out as an immigration law firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Anthony Alvarez, Sr., Esq. AVANTI LAW GROUP, PLLC 600 28th St. SW Wyoming, MI 49509 Phone: (616) 257-6807 Email: ralvarez@avantilaw.com - and - Jonathon A. Munoz LAW NERD LLC 2112 S. Shary Rd., Ste. 13 Mission, TX 78572 Email: lawnerdllc@gmail.com MERCHANT CAPITAL: Summ. Judgment Against Ohana Counterclaim Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, MONTANA WEINER AND OHANA CONSTRUCTION & PROPERTY MAINTENANCE, LLC, Appellants, v. MERCHANT CAPITAL GROUP, LLC, D/B/A GREENBOX CAPITAL, Appellee, Case No. CV-24-777 (Ark. App.), Judge Raymond R. Abramson of the Court of Appeals of Arkansas, Division II, affirms the order of the Benton County Circuit Court granting summary judgment in favor of Greenbox on their counterclaim. Ohana is a construction company, and Weiner owns Ohana and founded the company in 2016. Greenbox provides businesses with short-term financing such as merchant cash advances. On August 7, 2018, Ohana agreed to sell $12,012 in future receivables to Greenbox for an upfront payment of $8,400. Based on Ohana’s average monthly sales of $27,607, the agreement required remittance of about 9.7% of daily receivables through daily ACH withdrawals of $130.57 until the purchased amount was collected. Although Ohana could request an adjustment based on actual sales, Greenbox had sole discretion to approve any change, and Weiner personally guaranteed the agreement. The agreement also gave Greenbox extensive control over Ohana's business, including power of attorney over its bank and credit-card processor, priority rights in its assets, access to business records and operations, restrictions on transferring receivables, changing the business name or location, or temporarily closing, and the right to inspect the business and interview employees. Ohana was also required to continue operating consistent with its past practices. On February 4, 2020, Greenbox filed a lawsuit against Ohana and Weiner alleging that they had breached the agreement by failing to pay $10,021.25 plus accrued interest of $887.91. On March 6, Ohana and Weiner filed a counterclaim against Greenbox. The counterclaim included class-action claims and alleged that the agreement with Greenbox violated the Arkansas Securities Act and is, therefore, void ab initio. Ohana and Weiner sought to rescind the agreement, recover the money paid to Greenbox, and collect any origination fee or commissions that were paid to Greenbox. On May 6, Greenbox moved to dismiss the counterclaim, arguing in relevant part that the purchase of future receivables for a lump sum did not constitute a security under the Arkansas Securities Act. On August 21, the circuit court entered an amended order granting Greenbox's motion to dismiss without prejudice. On September 22, 2021, the circuit court held a bench trial on Greenbox's claim against Ohana and Weiner, and on October 18, the court entered an order granting Ohana and Weiner's directed-verdict motion. In the order granting their directed-verdict motion, the court found that Greenbox failed to prove that Ohana had breached the agreement. The court also found that the agreement lacked mutuality of obligations and was unconscionable because the agreement charged a default fee without an accounting for a reduction of principal. The court further concluded that because the agreement did not contain a certain payoff date, the agreement was not a note under Arkansas law. On November 16, Ohana and Weiner appealed to the Court of Appeals the circuit court's order dismissing their counterclaim against Greenbox. On appeal, they argued that the circuit court erred by dismissing their counterclaim against Greenbox because the agreement qualified as a security under the Arkansas Securities Act. On February 21, 2024, the Court of Appeals court reversed and remanded the case to the circuit court. It held that the circuit court erroneously applied only the five-factor Smith test to determine whether the agreement qualified as a security instead of the flexible, all-inclusive test from Schultz v. Rector Phillips-Morse, Inc., 261 Ark. 769, 552 S.W.2d 4 (1977), as provided in Waters v. Millsap, 2015 Ark. 272, 465 S.W.3d 851. On remand, on June 24, 2024, Greenbox moved for summary judgment on Ohana and Weiner's counterclaim and again argued that the agreement was not a security within the meaning of the Arkansas Securities Act. On July 31, the circuit court held a hearing on the summary-judgment motion and on August 9, it court entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of Greenbox on Weiner and Ohana's counterclaim. On August 26, Weiner and Ohana again appealed. On appeal, they argue that the circuit court erred by granting Greenbox's summary-judgment motion and dismissing their counterclaim because the relevant factors show that the agreement in the case is a security under the Arkansas Securities Act. Judge Abramson is unpersuaded by their argument. He opines that Greenbox provided Ohana with funds; thus, the securities laws were enacted to protect parties like Greenbox, not Ohana. As to their sophistication, Ohana and Greenbox are both corporate entities. Further, Weiner entered into the agreement as Ohana's owner, and he was a residential real estate agent from 2006 through 2018 and is an officer for Ohana and another construction company. The Court of Appeals agrees with the circuit court's conclusion that even though Greenbox may have been more sophisticated, which is the case in most lending situations, Ohana and Weiner are not unsophisticated parties that the Arkansas Securities Act was designed to protect. Accordingly, in giving an expansive review of the entire transaction as set forth in Schultz—especially considering the sophistication of the parties and the purpose of the Arkansas Securities Act—as well as a consideration of the factors in the Smith test and the family-resemblance test, Judge Abramson holds that the circuit court did not err in finding that the agreement is not a security. Therefore, the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Greenbox is affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://l1nq.com/5mknvhx. RMP LLP, by: Timothy C. Hutchinson -- thutchinson@rmp.law -- and Mallory D. Shamoon, for appellants. Rose Law Firm, by: E. Joseph McGehee and Tyler D. Mlakar, for appellee. MOBIUSPAY INC: Flexsenal Seeks Class Certification -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FLEXSENAL INC. and MASTER FACTOR MARKETING INC., v. MOBIUSPAY INC., NAB-CW LLC d/b/a CWA MERCHANT SERVICES, MERRICK BANK, and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 5:24-cv-02582-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on June 18, 2026 at 10:00 a.m., will move for certification of the California Subclass and Nationwide Issue Class before the Honorable David T. Bristow. The Plaintiffs request that the Court: (1) certify the California Subclass under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3), and certify the Nationwide Issue Class under Rules 23(a) and 23(c)(4); Nationwide Issue Class "All persons or entities in the United States who: (1) entered into a MobiusPay Merchant Application with Defendants; (2) maintained a merchant account in connection with that Merchant Application; (3) had their merchant account terminated; and (4) were assessed an early termination fee ("ETF") that was collected by deducting funds from a reserve account." California Subclass "All persons or entities who reside in California or whose principal place of business is in California who: (1) entered into a MobiusPay Merchant Application ("Merchant Application") with the Defendants; (2) maintained a merchant account with the Defendants in connection with that Merchant Application; (3) had their merchant account terminated; and (4) were assessed an ETF that was collected by deducting funds from their reserve account; (5) where the applicable Merchant Application did not disclose an ETF or any method for calculating such a fee." (2) appoint Flexsenal Inc. as representative of the California Subclass and the Nationwide Issue Class; (3) appoint Rome LLP as counsel for the California Subclass and the Nationwide Issue Class; and (4) direct the Parties to jointly submit a proposed Notice Plan within 60 days of the Court's Order granting this Motion. The Defendants allegedly imposed ETFs through a centralized process that deducted funds from merchant reserve accounts, and the Defendants' records identify those amounts as "pulled from reserve." MobiusPay is an online merchant processing company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wKX3Mb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eugene Rome, Esq. Bradley Cebeci, Esq. Elizabeth B. Rocha, Esq. ROME LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 282-0690 Facsimile: (310) 282-0691 E-mail: erome@romellp.com bcebeci@romellp.com erocha@romellp.com The Defendant is represented by: Barbara Croutch, Esq. Lawren A. Zann, Esq. Naira M. Castilhos, Esq. GREENSPOON MARDER LLP 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (323) 776-3130 Facsimile: (954) 771-9264 E-mail: barbara.croutch@gmlaw.com lawren.zann@gmlaw.com naira.castilhos@gmlaw.com - and - Reza Ramin Dibadj, Esq. PARK AND DIBADJ LLP San Francisco, CA 94164 Telephone: (650) 383-7397 E-mail: reza@parkdibadj.com MONDAY.COM LTD: Scott+Scott Named Lead Counsel in Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Ben Potter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Monday.com Ltd. et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 26-CV-1956 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jesse M. Furman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York appointed Steve Quinn as lead plaintiff and approved Scott+Scott and the Schall Law Firm as lead counsel in a putative securities class action. On March 10, 2026, Plaintiff filed a putative class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Monday.com common stock between September 17, 2025, and February 6, 2026. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Five movants filed competing motions for appointment as lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. One movant later withdrew, and another implicitly abandoned his motion by failing to file any opposition, leaving three: Samir Sheikh, Steve Quinn, and John Farrell. The court applied the four Lax factors to determine the largest financial interest: the number of shares purchased, the number of net shares purchased, total net funds expended during the class period, and approximate losses suffered. The court treats the size of the loss as the most important factor. The court found that Quinn held the largest financial interest. Farrell's midstream attempt to recalculate losses under Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo principles was rejected as unsubstantiated. The court further found that even under the Dura LIFO method, Quinn remained the biggest loser among the movants. The court also addressed a challenge by Sheikh, who cited public records suggesting Quinn had criminal infractions. Quinn's reply clarified that he is Stephen Joseph Quinn, 61 years old, a Senior Vice President at a software development company, and a stock market investor of approximately 30 years, and is not the individual referenced in Sheikh's opposition. The court found Quinn otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23. Accordingly, the court appointed Quinn as lead plaintiff, canceled the May 27, 2026 hearing as unnecessary, and directed lead counsel and defendant to confer and file a stipulation and proposed schedule no later than two weeks from the date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. A Copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9Zekkl from PacerMonitor.com MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Qutami Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Rateb Qutami, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL, INC., an Illinois corporation, INTERCONTINENTAL GREAT BRANDS, LLC, a limited liability company, and DOES 1 – 20 inclusive, Case No. 26STCV10392 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on May 13, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-05179. The Complaint alleges that Defendants, in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, "falsely and deceptively" advertise their dietary supplement drop products (the "Products") as being naturally flavored, despite containing the artificial flavoring ingredient citric acid. The Complaint alleges that Defendants knew consumers would pay more "for natural, healthy products without any artificial flavors" and intended for consumers to rely on this representation.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jason Stiehl, Esq. CROWELL & MORING LLP 455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 3600 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: 312.321-4200 Facsimile: 312.321.4299 Email: jstiehl@crowell.com - and - Jazmine Buckley, Esq. CROWELL & MORING LLP 515 South Flower Street, 40th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213.622.4750 Facsimile: 213.622.2690 Email: jbuckley@crowell.com MONTANA: Johnson Suit Removed to D. Montana ------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Zoe Johnson, Annette Claflin, for herself and all others similarly situated v. State of Montana, Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services; Case No. DV-32-2026-254 was removed from the Montana Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana on May 14, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:26-cv-00071-KLD to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Montana -- https://mt.gov/ -- is a western state defined by its diverse terrain ranging from the Rocky Mountains to the Great Plains.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andres Haladay, Esq. UPPER SEVEN LAW PO Box 31 Helena, MT 59624 Phone: (406) 219-7722 Email: andres@uppersevenlaw.com - and - Molly E. Danahy, Esq. P.O. Box 51 Helena, MT 59624 Phone: (347) 921-2114 Email: molly@uppersevenlaw.com - and - Rachel Elizabeth Parker, Esq. Raphael Graybill, Esq. GRAYBILL LAW FIRM 300 4th St. North Great Falls, MT 59401 Phone: (406) 291-6169 Email: rachel@graybilllawfirm.com raph@graybilllawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Matthew B. Hayhurst, Esq. Thomas J. Leonard, Esq. BOONE KARLBERG, P.C. 201 West Main Street, Suite 300 PO Box 9199 Missoula, MT 59807-9199 Phone: (406) 543-6646 Fax: 549-6804 Email: mhayhurst@boonekarlberg.com tleonard@boonekarlberg.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 NEXTGEN LEADS LLC: Rivera Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nextgen Leads LLC. The case is styled as Carmen Rivera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nextgen Leads LLC doing business as: Firstquote Health, Case No. 3:26-cv-03049-RBM-JAC (S.D. Cal., May 15, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Nextgen Leads LLC -- https://nextgenleads.com/ -- generate high-quality health insurance, auto insurance, and Medicare leads.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com O. MUSTAD & SON: Bennett Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Livingston Bennett, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. O. MUSTAD & SON AMERICAS, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-05702 (N.D. Ill., May 15, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://mustad-fishing.com/us (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website") to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Wood 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. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff'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 purchase a wide selection of fishing gear, including hooks, lures, jig heads, fishing lines, pliers, knives, tackle storage, apparel, and other fishing accessories.[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 OPTUMRX INC: Appeals Arbitration & Class Cert. Order in Lackie Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- OPTUMRX, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order denying in part its motion to stay pending arbitration and to deny class certification and granting the Plaintiff's motion to compel in the lawsuit entitled Lackie Drug Store, Inc., individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OptumRx, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-01515-JM, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The Plaintiff filed this suit against the Defendants for violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Trade Practices Act, and the Unfair Practices Act, conspiracy, and declaratory relief. On Nov. 4, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to compel. On the same day, the Defendant filed a motion to stay pending arbitration and to deny class certification. On Apr. 29, 2026, Judge James M. Moody Jr. entered an Order granting the Plaintiff's motion to compel and granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to stay pending arbitration and to deny class certification. The Court finds OptumRx has waived its right to arbitrate the class claims under Counts I through III. The Court denies OptumRx's motion to deny class certification. The Court grants OptumRx's motion to stay the proceedings pending arbitration of Counts IV and V. The appellate case is captioned Lackie Drug Store, Inc. v. OptumRx, Inc., Case No. 26-1976, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on May 19, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee LACKIE DRUG STORE, INC. is represented by: Preston Tull Eldridge, Esq. ELDRIDGE LAW FIRM 407 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 201 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 940-8510 - and - Robert Clay Ellis, II, Esq. Scott E. Poynter, Esq. POYNTER LAW GROUP 4924 Kavanaugh Boulevard Little Rock, AR 72207 Telephone: (501) 812-3943 - and - Rodney Paul Moore, I, Esq. WRIGHT & LINDSEY 200 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 371-0808 - and - Darren O'Quinn, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DARREN O'QUINN 36 Rahlings Circle, Suite 4 Little Rock, AR 72223 Telephone: (501) 817-3124 - and - Sean F. Rommel, Esq. James Clark Wyly, Esq. WYLY & ROMMEL 4004 Texas Boulevard Texarkana, TX 75503 Telephone: (903) 334-8646 - and - John R. Whaley, Esq. NEBLETT & BEARD P.O. Box 1190 Alexandria, LA 71309 Telephone: (318) 487-9874 Defendant-Appellant OPTUMRX, INC. is represented by: Katherine Maddox Davis, Esq. Marquan A. Robertson, Esq. Geoffrey Manson Sigler, Esq. GIBSON & DUNN 1700 M Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 955-8500 - and - Megan D. Hargraves, Esq. Graham C. Talley, Esq. MITCHELL & WILLIAMS 425 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 688-8800 OSHKOSH CORP: Fullerton Suit Transferred to E.D. Wisconsin ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as The City of Fullerton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Oshkosh Corp., REV Group, Inc., Boise Mobile Equipment, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:26-cv-00956 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on May 15, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00813-WCG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. Oshkosh Corporation -- https://www.oshkoshcorp.com/ -- formerly Oshkosh Truck, is an American industrial company that designs and builds specialty trucks, military vehicles, truck bodies, airport fire apparatus, and access equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael E. Klenov, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY LLC 505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 241-4844 PERFECT MOVING: NY Court Enforces Arbitration Despite FAA Exemption ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Alex Vorburger, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Perfect Moving and Storage LLC, Summer Moving Corp., Rock Katnic, and Johanna Ulloa, Defendants, Civil Action No. 25 Civ. 6387 (DEH) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Dale E. Ho of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York overruled Plaintiff's objections to the Opinion and Order of Magistrate Judge Cave, compelling Vorburger to arbitrate his claims and striking class action allegations from the complaint. Magistrate Judge Cave had granted a Motion to Compel Arbitration, struck Plaintiff's class and collective action allegations, stayed the action pending arbitration, and denied Plaintiff's cross-motion for limited discovery as moot. Vorburger objected only to the determinations that New York law applied to the contract and that the class action waiver was enforceable under that law. The court reviewed the magistrate judge's order under the clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard. The court found no error in Judge Cave's determination that, although Vorburger's work as a contractor for an interstate moving company fell within a Section 1 exception to the Federal Arbitration Act, that exception did not preclude enforcement of the arbitration agreement under New York state law. Because the parties had agreed that New York law governed the contract, the court upheld application of state arbitration law. Turning to the class action waiver, the court found it enforceable under New York law. The court noted that Plaintiff's sole cited authority for non-enforceability had been reversed by the New York Court of Appeals, and that New York courts have consistently upheld class action waivers in arbitration agreements, finding them neither unconscionable nor contrary to public policy. Accordingly, the court ordered that the Motion to Compel Arbitration be granted, Vorburger be compelled to arbitrate his claims, his class action allegations be stricken from the complaint, and the action be stayed pending arbitration. A copy of the Court's decision dated May 21, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=B5joiu from PacerMonitor.com PHOENIX EDUCATION: Bronstin Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Phoenix Education Partners Incorporated. The case is styled as Asher Bronstin, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Phoenix Education Partners Incorporated doing business as: University of Phoenix, Case No. 2:26-cv-03400-DJH (D. Ariz., May 14, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Phoenix Education Partners, Inc. -- https://phoenixeducationpartners.com/ -- is the parent company of University of Phoenix, Inc., a pioneer in online education for working adults.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 2657 Mt. Carmel Ave. Glenside, PA 19038 Phone: (215) 225-5529 Email: a@perronglaw.com PHOENIX, AZ: Wins Partial Bid to Dismiss Herrera Suit ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alexandra Herrera, v. City of Phoenix, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01360-KML (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Lanham entered an order granting the partial motion to dismiss: The parties who attended the Rule 26(f) meeting and assisted in developing the Joint Case Management Report; The parties shall file a proposed Case Management Order containing all the proposed dates at the same time they file the Rule 26(f) Case Management Report. The proposed Case Management Order must also be emailed in Word format to Lanham_Chambers@azd.uscourts.gov. Accordingly, Herrera does not carry her burden to show her right to be free from arrest in this set of circumstances was clearly-established. A reasonable officer could have believed probable cause existed at the time of her arrest, and neither the facts alleged nor the case-law suggests it had dissipated. Herrera seeks leave to amend a third time to repeat her conclusion that no probable cause existed in more places in the complaint. But she has already amended this claim, and her proposed Third Amended Complaint does not remedy the legal issues with it. Further leave to amend is therefore denied. The Plaintiff Alexandra Herrera alleges Phoenix police officers used excessive force and unlawfully seized her, violating her rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Phoenix is the capital of the southwestern U.S. state of Arizona. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j1YasG at no extra charge.[CC] PROFUSION COSMETICS: Meade Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Mariah Meade, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situation v. PROFUSION COSMETICS CORP., Case No. 26-2-07866-7 was removed from the Pierce County Superior Court, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on May 14, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05498. The Complaint asserts two claims for relief alleging Profusion Cosmetics violated the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act and the Washington Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff alleges Profusion Cosmetics "spams Washington consumers, including Plaintiff, with commercial emails featuring subject lines which employ various tactics to create a false sense of urgency" in violation of CEMA and the CPA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS & BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Natalie A. Lyons, Esq. Ian R. Bensberg, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com nlyons@cohenmalad.com ibensberg@cohenmalad.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Michael C. Tackeff, Esq. Andrew K. Murray, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: 615-254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com mtackeff@stranchlaw.com amurray@stranchlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: David Freeburg, Esq. Danielle Igbokwe, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6900 Seattle, WA 98104-7029 Phone: 206.839.4800 Email: David.Freeburg@us.dlapiper.com Danielle.Igbokwe@us.dlapiper.com PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Krall Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Natalie Krall, and those similarly situated v. THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Case No. GD-26-003818 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court for Western District of Pennsylvania on May 14, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-00918. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts the following causes of action: Count I – Violation of Pennsylvania's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act ("WESCA"), and Count II – Invasion of Privacy – Intrusion Upon Seclusion.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Patrick Papalia, Esq. ARCHER & GREINER, P.C. 21 Main Street, Suite 353 Court Plaza South – West Wing Hackensack, NJ 07601-7095 Phone: (201) 342-6000 QUICK AID LLC: Loehr Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quick Aid LLC, et al. The case is styled as Gregory Loehr, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Quick Aid LLC, Stellar Marketing Solution LLC, Case No. 8:26-cv-01471 (M.D. Fla., May 15, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Quick Aid Safety -- https://quickaidsafety.com/ -- specializes in sourcing, designing, and delivering a wide range of safety products to both wholesale and retail markets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN PA 237 South Dixie Highway, Suite Fourth Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com RAD BRANDS INC: Booker Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Martrell Desamonta Booker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Rad Brands Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-05704 (N.D. Ill., May 15, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://www.lemsshoes.com (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website") to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Wood 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. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff'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 purchase a selection of minimalist footwear and related products, including barefoot shoes, zero-drop shoes, wide-toe-box sneakers, casual shoes, trail and hiking shoes, boots, sandals, insoles, and socks.[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 REDFIN CORPORATION: Cacas Suit Removed to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Sam Cacas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. REDFIN CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 26CV179566 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on May 14, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-04566. On March 30, 2026, the Plaintiff filed the State Court Action alleging multiple claims for violations of federal and California law, including the federal Wiretap Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, Invasion of Privacy under the California Constitution, and California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Rachel E. K. Lowe, Esq. Gillian H. Clow, Esq. Omar Morquecho, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 51st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-576-1000 Facsimile: 213-576-1100 Email: rachel.lowe@alston.com gillian.clow@alston.com omar.morquecho@alston.com - and - Tracy Yao, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 55 2nd Street, Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415-243-1000 Facsimile: 415-243-1001 Email: tracy.yao@alston.com ROBINSON HOOVER: Dismissal of Ross FDCPA-MRCPA Class Suit Reversed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ALEXANDER ROSS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROBINSON, HOOVER & FUDGE, PLLC, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 25-1802 (6th Cir.), Judge Karen Nelson Moore of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reverses the judgment of the district court dismissing Ross's complaint. Ross and his then-wife bought a used car in Oklahoma. After he and his wife divorced, Ross moved to Michigan. Following his move, the former couple failed to make their car payments and their creditor hired Robinson, Hoover & Fudge, PLLC ("RHF"), an Oklahoma-based law firm, to bring a breach-of-contract action against Ross and his ex-wife in Oklahoma. Ross eventually defaulted. By that time, RHF had learned that Ross was living and working in Michigan. RHF then used the Oklahoma default judgment to submit a garnishment summons to the Oklahoma registered agent of Ross's employer's parent company. The parent company passed the garnishment summons to Ross's employer, which began garnishing wages he earned in Michigan. In February 2018, Ross and his then-wife lived outside of Tulsa, Oklahoma and jointly purchased a used 2014 Toyota Scion Xb from a Tulsa-based auto dealership. Following the sale, the dealership assigned its rights under the purchase agreement to Auto Advantage Finance LLC ("AAF"). Within a year of their purchase, Ross and his wife divorced, and Ross moved to Michigan in July 2019. He obtained a Michigan driver's license and notified the U.S. Postal Service of his new address, 30815 Cooley Boulevard in Westland, Michigan. The car, however, remained in Oklahoma with Ross's ex-wife. But the former couple failed to stay up to date on their payments, so AAF repossessed and sold the car in February 2020. On March 13, 2020, AAF mailed Ross a notice, informing him of the repossession and sale and alerting him that he remained liable for approximately $8,500 pursuant to the purchase agreement. AAF mailed this notice to Ross at 30819—not 30815—Cooley Boulevard. The creditor hired Robinson, Hoover & Fudge, PLLC ("RHF"), an Oklahoma-based law firm, to bring a breach-of-contract action against Ross and his ex-wife in Oklahoma. Ross eventually defaulted. By that time, RHF had learned that Ross was living and working in Michigan. RHF then used the Oklahoma default judgment to submit a garnishment summons to the Oklahoma registered agent of Ross's employer's parent company. The parent company passed the garnishment summons to Ross's employer, Detroit Diesel Corp., which began garnishing wages he earned in Michigan. In July 2024, shortly after Detroit Diesel began garnishing wages from his paycheck, Ross brought this putative class action against RHF in the Eastern District of Michigan. In the complaint, he claims that RHF violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq., and the Michigan Regulation of Collection Practices Act ("MRCPA"), Mich. Comp. Laws Section 445.251 et seq., by garnishing his wages without domesticating the Oklahoma default judgment, as he asserts Michigan's Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act requires. RHF then filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). Ross opposed, RHF replied, and neither party requested jurisdictional discovery or an evidentiary hearing. After hearing oral argument, the district court granted the motion, finding that RHF had insufficient contacts with Michigan to support personal jurisdiction. Ross now appeals. He contends that RHF is subject to specific jurisdiction in Michigan, not general jurisdiction. Judge Moore concludes that RHF has seized the Michigan wages of Ross, a Michigan resident, allegedly violating the FDCPA and the MRCPA in the process. In doing so, RHF has purposefully directed its allegedly unlawful actions at Ross in Michigan, fully aware that, in the end, Ross would be injured there. For this reason, RHF has purposefully availed itself of the privileges of conducting activities in Michigan. And because Ross's claims arise out of RHF's Michigan contacts, it is reasonable for Michigan to exercise personal jurisdiction over RHF, and Michigan's long-arm statute reaches RHF, she reverses the judgment of the district court and remands for further proceedings consistent with the Court's Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://l1nq.com/7r7ugit. ON BRIEF: John A. Evanchek -- John@kelawpc.com -- Curtis C. Warner -- cwarner@warner.legal -- KELLEY & EVANCHEK, Canton, Michigan, for Appellant. Eugene Xerxes Martin, IV -- xmartin@mgl.law -- MARTIN GOLDEN LYONS WATTS MORGAN PLLC, Dallas, Texas, for Appellee. RUMI'S KITCHEN: Ruiz Seeks Conditional Certification of FLSA Class ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOAN RUIZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. RUMI'S KITCHEN, LLC, a Georgia Domestic Limited Liability Company, and STEPHEN KAPLAN, an individual, Case No. 1:26-cv-00664-SEG (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (a) conditionally certifying the following FLSA class: "All servers who worked at Rumi's Kitchen in the past three Years"; (b) requiring the Defendants to produce within 14 days a list of all servers who worked in the past three (3) years in an electronic or computer-readable format with their full name, dates of employment, last known address, cell phone number, email address and last four (4) digits of their social security number; and (c) authorizing notice in the form and manner requested. The suit says that the Plaintiffs have met their lenient burden of demonstrating that they and potential collective action members are similarly situated, and that other class members would join this action if notice was issued. The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants willfully violated the minimum wage and overtime wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, due to the unlawful tip credit claimed by the Defendants. Rumi's Kitchen is a Persian restaurant with locations in Georgia, California, Texas, and Washington, D.C. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OtDVwW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan P. Rose, Esq. Carlos V. Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 423-5864 E-mail: jrose@theleachfirm.com cleach@theleachfirm.com ppalmer@theleachfirm.com SEMTECH CORP: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------ Semtech Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending April 26, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 27, 2026, that it is currently facing a consolidated securities suit over its securities sale. On February 20, 2025, February 25, 2025, and March 7, 2025, three company stockholders filed separate, but substantively identical, putative class action complaints against the company and certain of its current officers, Hong Q. Hou and Mark Lin, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired company securities between August 27, 2024 and February 7, 2025. On June 9, 2025, the court entered an order consolidating the three actions, appointing Luis Collazos as lead plaintiff, and Block & Leviton, LLP as Lead Counsel. On July 14, 2025, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated putative class action complaint against the Company, Dr. Hou, and Mr. Lin, on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired company securities between October 10, 2024 and February 7, 2025. It asserts Exchange Act violations related to the company's disclosure surrounding its CopperEdge (TM) products and the plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and other relief. The company, Dr. Hou, and Mr. Lin filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on August 11, 2025, which the court granted in part and denied in part on October 8, 2025. By virtue of this ruling, Mr. Lin is no longer a defendant in the Securities Action. On May 20, 2026, the court granted the motion for class certification for the period November 25, 2024 to February 7, 2025. Semtech Corp. is a global supplier of high-performance analog and mixed-signal semiconductors and advanced algorithms for infrastructure, high-end consumer, and industrial equipment. The company designs and markets products for a variety of applications, including wireless and wired communications, data centers, and Internet of Things devices. SETON HALL UNIVERSITY: Keeperman Suit Removed to D. New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Hayden Keeperman, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. SETON HALL UNIVERSITY, Case No. ESX-L-003915-26 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, to the United States District Court for District of New Jersey on May 14, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-05485. The Complaint asserts minimum wage and overtime claims against Seton Hall under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"), and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law ("NJWPL"). The Plaintiff seeks to assert a collective action under the FLSA, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) on behalf of himself and the "FLSA Collective Members" as defined in the Complaint.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Patrick Papalia, Esq. ARCHER & GREINER, P.C. 21 Main Street, Suite 353 Court Plaza South – West Wing Hackensack, NJ 07601-7095 Phone: (201) 342-6000 SG GLASS WAREHOUSE: Cruz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against SG Glass Warehouse, Inc. The case is styled as Carlos Rodrigo Cruz, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SG Glass Warehouse, Inc., Case No. CU26-04429 (Cal. Super. Ct., Solano Cty., May 5, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment." SG Glass Warehouse, Inc. is a privately-held company that operates in the real estate industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. MOON LAW GROUP, PC 725 S Figueroa St., Ste. 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5404 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com SHEIN DISTRIBUTION: Richards Appeals Suit Dismissal to 7th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ WARREN RICHARDS is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled Warren Richards, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Shein Distribution Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01385-TWP-TAB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The Plaintiff brings this suit against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On Sept. 2, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which Judge Tanya Walton Pratt granted on Mar. 26, 2026. Accordingly, Richards' claims are dismissed with prejudice. On Apr. 17, 2026, the Court entered final judgment in favor of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff. The appellate case is styled as Warren Richards v. Shein Distribution Corporation, Case No. 26-2083, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on May 19, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant WARREN RICHARDS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, PC 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Jessica Garland, Esq. Matthew Wessler, Esq. GUPTA WESSLER LLP 2001 K. St. NW, Suite 850 North Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 888-1741 Email: jessie@guptawessler.com Defendant-Appellee SHEIN DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION is represented by: David M. Krueger, Esq. BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN & ARONOFF 127 Public Square, Suite 4900 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (440) 313-2974 Facsimile: (216) 363-4588 Email: dkrueger@beneschlaw.com - and - Mark S. Eisen, Esq. BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP 71 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 212-4949 Facsimile: (312) 767-9192 Email: meisen@beneschlaw.com SIG SAUER INC: Wins Dismissal in Red Dot Sight Injury Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Jimmy Avalos, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sig Sauer, Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. 25-451 (E.D. Pa.), Judge John R. Padova of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted Defendant's motion to dismiss the putative class action Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), finding that Plaintiff lacked standing to bring the claims. Plaintiff Jimmy Avalos brought the action against Defendant Sig Sauer, Inc., alleging that the Sig Sauer Romeo 5 Red Dot Sight (the Product) was defective because it was powered by a small button cell battery that could be easily accessed by children, posing an ingestion hazard, and that the Product's packaging failed to adequately warn about this hazard. The Complaint asserted nine grounds for relief, including unjust enrichment, breach of express and implied warranty, strict liability for failure to warn and design defect, negligence, and violation of Reese's Law, 16 C.F.R. Section 1263.4. Plaintiff sought class certification, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. Defendant moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that Plaintiff lacked standing, that the claims were moot due to the voluntary recall, and that the Complaint failed to state a claim. The Court addressed only the standing issue, which it found dispositive. On injury in fact, the Court found that the Complaint plausibly alleged an economic injury under the benefit-of-the-bargain theory. The Complaint alleged that Plaintiff was denied the basis of his bargain because he bargained for a product that was safe to use, but the design of the Product exposed his two minor children and two dogs to a safety hazard. The Court accepted that Plaintiff would not have purchased the Product, or would have paid significantly less, had he been aware of the ingestion hazard. However, on the question of traceability, the Court ruled against Plaintiff. Defendant recalled 230,000 units of the Product on January 8, 2025, offering purchasers a free recall kit consisting of a new cap with the required labeling and an updated instruction manual. The Court held that when a defective product is fixed pursuant to a recall and performs as it would without the defect, the product's pre-defect value is likewise restored. Since the Complaint did not allege that Plaintiff participated in the recall, nor that the recall was insufficient to remedy the Product's defect, the Court concluded that no injury fairly traceable to Defendant had been established. The Court further noted that if Plaintiff failed to participate in the recall, any persisting defect would be traceable to Plaintiff himself, not to Defendant. The Court declined to apply the reasoning of Friche v. Hyundai Motor, America, which had allowed standing where the plaintiff plausibly alleged both that a defect actually existed and that the defendant fraudulently concealed it. The Court found the instant Complaint more analogous to Sugasawara v. Ford Motor Co. and related decisions, because the Complaint alleged only that Defendant marketed the Product without adequate safety warnings, not that Defendant fraudulently concealed the defect. On injunctive relief, the Court found that the Complaint failed to plausibly allege that Plaintiff would suffer a future injury, given that the recall had remedied the defect and Plaintiff was already aware of the Product's hazard. Accordingly, the Court held that Plaintiff also lacked standing to seek injunctive relief. A copy of the Memorandum and Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=17zUkq from PacerMonitor.com SMITH COLLEGE: Diaz Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jonathan Diaz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. THE TRUSTEES OF SMITH COLLEGE d/b/a SMITH COLLEGE, Case No. 2679CV00197 was removed from the Superior Court of Massachusetts, Hampden County, to the United States District Court for District of Massachusetts on May 18, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-12246. In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that Smith violated the Massachusetts Wage Act (the "Wage Act") by failing to pay employees for their unused "personal time" upon separation from employment. Specifically, Diaz alleges that he was employed by Smith from October 2019 until November 10, 2025; that at the beginning of every year he received 4 paid personal days; that there were no restrictions on the purpose for which he could use personal time; and that his unused personal time was not paid out at the end of his employment. The Plaintiff further alleges that Smith's practice of not paying out personal time at the end of employment is unlawful because personal time is a wage under the Wage Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Robert A. Fisher, Esq. Alison H. Silveira, Esq. Nicole Ricker, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Seaport East Two Seaport Lane, Suite 1200 Boston, MA 02210-2028 Phone: (617) 946-4800 Facsimile: (617) 946-4801 Email: rfisher@seyfarth.com asilveira@seyfarth.com nricker@seyfarth.com T-MOBILE USA: Riley Sues Over Failure to Compensate Overtime Hours ------------------------------------------------------------------ Nikeva Riley, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. T-MOBILE USA, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-01833 (W.D. Wash., May 28, 2026), is brought arising out of Defendant's systemic failure to compensate its employees for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked at the appropriate overtime rate, in willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), Nevada Revised Statutes ("NRS") and common law. The Defendant's policies and practices deprived Plaintiff and the Representatives of wages owed for off-the-clock pre-shift activities they performed. Because Defendant's Representatives typically worked 40 hours or more in a workweek, Defendant's policies and practices also deprived them of overtime pay. The Defendant knew or should have known that the time spent by Plaintiff and other Representatives in connection with the off-the-clock pre-shift activities is compensable under the law. Indeed, in light of the explicit DOL guidance, there is no conceivable way for Defendant to establish that they acted in good faith. Despite knowing Representatives performed off-the-clock work before their shifts, Defendant failed to make any effort to stop or disallow the off-the-clock work and instead suffered and permitted it to happen, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Dedicated Expert from March 2022 to March 2025. The Defendant is a nationwide telecommunications company that provides wireless services to its customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Lemmon, Esq. 16212 Reitan Road NE Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Phone: (984)257-5987 Email: alemmon@brysonpllc.com - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Paulina R. Kennedy, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ PC One Towne Sq., 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48375 Phone: (248) 355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com pkennedy@sommerspc.com TACO BUENO RESTAURANTS: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Taco Bueno Restaurants, L.P. The case is styled as Karim Wilson, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Taco Bueno Restaurants, L.P., Case No. 4:26-cv-00659-O (N.D. Tex., May 28, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Taco Bueno -- https://tacobueno.com/ -- is a US-based, quick service restaurant chain specializing in Tex-Mex-style cuisine.[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 TASKUS USA: Lopez Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages Owed ------------------------------------------------------------ Krystal Lopez, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TASKUS USA, LLC, Case No. 5:26-cv-03461 (W.D. Tex., May 27, 2026), is brought arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") against Defendant to recover unpaid overtime wages owed. The Defendant instituted company-wide policies that failed to pay the Plaintiff and the Class Members for all hours worked. Consequently, Defendant's compensation policies violate the FLSA which requires non-exempt employees, such as Plaintiff and the Class Members, to be compensated at one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for each hour worked over 40 per week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a customer service agent from January 2020 to December 2024. The Defendant is a company that provides customer support services to various companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. FOTY LAW GROUP, P.C. 2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 Email: dfoty@fotylawgroup.com TGCG HOLDINGS LLC: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property -------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. TGCG HOLDINGS LLC D/B/A AVENUE 12 SHOPS, Case No. 1:26-cv-23607-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 21, 2026), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendants' Commercial Property being inaccessible to people who are disabled. Although over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendants' property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject commercial plaza property. The barriers to access at Defendant's commercial plaza property have denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the subject business and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendant' non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the described commercial plaza property business, including but not necessarily limited to the allegations of this Complaint. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination at the commercial plaza property, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff desires to visit the commercial plaza property located therein, not only to avail himself of the goods and services available at the commercial plaza property, but to assure himself that the commercial plaza property is in compliance with the ADA, so that he and others similarly situated will have full and equal enjoyment of the commercial plaza property without fear of discrimination. The Defendant have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial plaza property, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae down) and requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate. TGCG HOLDINGS LLC D/B/A AVENUE 12 SHOPS, owns, operates and oversees a commercial plaza property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Phone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com THACHER RESTAURANT: Bradley Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jordan Bradley, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. THACHER RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, a California limited liability company; FAR WEST RESTAURANTS, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, Case No. 26-2-12998-3 SEA, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on May 26, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01807. The Complaint purports to seek relief from Defendant related to Washington law, specifically under Washington Administrative Code ("WAC"), Washington Labor Regulations, and the Revised Code of Washington ("RCW"). The Complaint alleges: failure to pay minimum wage; failure to pay overtime; failure to provide rest periods; failure to provide meal periods; willful withholding of and/or refusal to pay wages; failure to properly accrue, allow use of, and compensate sick leave; failure to pay wages due at established pay periods; failure to pay wages owed at termination of employment; failure to furnish itemized and complete wage statements; failure to maintain adequate records; failure to accrue and allow paid sick leave and City of Seattle Paid Sick and Safe Time Ordinance; failure to pay minimum wage under the City of Seattle Minimum Wage Ordinance; wage theft and failure to time pay wages under the City of Seattle Ordinance; and violation of the City of Seattle Secure Scheduling Ordinance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Devin Kathleen Epp Joanna Ghosh LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC 701 Pike Street, Suite 1650 Seattle, WA 98101 Email: devinkepp@gmail.com joanna@calljustice.com The Defendants are represented by: Clarence M. Belnavis, Esq. McKaylin Hughes, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-682-2308 Fax: 206-682-7908 Email: cbelnavis@fisherphillips.com mnhughes@fisherphillips.com THINKIFIC LABS INC: Wainwright Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Thinkific Labs, Inc. The case is styled as Barbara Wainwright, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Thinkific Labs, Inc. a British Columbia entity, d/b/a THINKIFIC.COM, Case No. 26STCV15977 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 19, 2026). Thinkific -- https://www.thinkific.com/ -- is an online course platform that helps you create, market, and sell learning products in one place.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, 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 THOMAS L. CARDELLA: Pope Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Christy Pope, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THOMAS L. CARDELLA & ASSOCIATES, INC. d/b/a TLCx, Case No. 3:26-cv-00047-RGE-SBJ (S.D. Iowa, May 29, 2026), is brought arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") against Defendant to recover unpaid overtime wages owed. The Defendant instituted company-wide policies that failed to pay the Plaintiff and the Collective Members for all hours worked. As a result of not paying for all hours worked, Defendant owes the Plaintiff and the Collective Members substantial wages. The Defendant's unlawful policies include failing to compensate the Plaintiff and Collective Members for their compensable preliminary activities, and instituting a rounding policy that systematically deprived the Plaintiff and Collective Members of compensation that is owed to them. Consequently, Defendant's compensation policies violate the FLSA which requires non-exempt employees, such as Plaintiff and the Collective Members, to be compensated at one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for each hour worked over 40 per week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has worked for Defendant as a licensed phone representative since December 2023. The Defendant is a company that provides customer support services to various private companies and government agencies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian P. Galligan, Esq. GALLIGAN LAW P.C. 13375 University Ave., Ste. 302 Clive, IA 50325 Phone: (515) 395-5065 Facsimile: (515) 282-0318 - and - Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 3 Riverway, Ste. 1910 Houston, TX 77056 Phone: 713 999 5228 Email: matt@parmet.law - and - Don J. Foty, Esq. FOTY LAW GROUP, P.C. 2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 Email: dfoty@fotylawgroup.com TIMESHARES DIRECT: Parties Must Comply with M.D. Florida's Rules ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW AUGUSTINE, v. TIMESHARES DIRECT, INC., Case No. 6:26-cv-01123-RBD-NWH (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Roy Dalton Jr. entered an order directing the parties to read and comply with the Middle District of Florida's Local Rules. Compliant with Local Rule 3.03, within 14 days from the day of this Order or, if a party joins this action subsequent to the entry of this Order, from the date of a party's first appearance, each party, pro se party, governmental party, intervenor, non-party movant, and Rule 69 garnishee is DIRECTED to file and serve a Disclosure Statement substantially in the form attached. No later than 14 days from the date of this Order, counsel and any pro se party shall comply with Local Rule 1.07(c) and shall file and serve a certification if the instant action should be designated as a similar or successive case pursuant to Local Rule 1.07. The parties are DIRECTED to consult Local Rule 3.02 to determine whether this action requires a case management conference and case management report (CMR), or if it falls under one of the exceptions listed in Local Rule 3.02(d). The Defendant is an internet marketing firm based in Orlando, Florida, specializing in helping clients buy, sell, or rent timeshare properties without utilizing real estate brokers. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EZd8tU at no extra charge.[CC] TIMKEN COMPANY: McCurry Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- James McCurry, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. THE TIMKEN COMPANY, Case No. 1:26-cv-01234 (N.D. Ohio, May 29, 2026), is brought for its failure to pay its employees overtime wages, seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff and other similarly situated production/manufacturing employees worked more than 40 hours in one or more workweek(s) during the three years immediately preceding the filing of this Complaint. Despite working before their scheduled shifts, Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated production/manufacturing employees for their pre-shift work. During their employment with Defendant, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated production/manufacturing employees were not fully and properly paid for all overtime wages because Defendant required their employees to perform pre-shift work without compensation. The Defendant's policies described herein resulted in unpaid overtime for the Plaintiff and other similarly situated production/manufacturing employees. The 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 worked for Defendant as a Manufacturing Associate from March 2022 to May 2024 at its facility in Bucyrus, Ohio. The Defendant develops and engineers motion technology solutions for strategic end markets, including aerospace and defense, power and electrification, and automation and industrial solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, 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 agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com ULTA SALON: Appeals Remand Order in Mulanena Suit to 4th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to remand in the lawsuit entitled Tinayia Mulanena, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-03753-JRR, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit, which was removed from the Circuit Court for Frederick County, Maryland, to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, is brought against the Defendant for alleged violation of Maryland's Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("MCEMA"). On Dec. 12, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On Dec. 17, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court. On May 4, 2026, Judge Julie Rebecca Rubin entered an Order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to remand and denying as moot the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Court concludes that because it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' claims for lack of Article III standing, it shall remand the case. The appellate case is captioned as Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. v. Tinayia Mulanena, Case No. 26-164, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on May 15, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents TINAYIA MULANENA, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: David Trojanowski, Esq. Cory L. Zajdel, Esq. Z LAW, LLC 2345 York Road Timonium, MD 21093 Telephone: (443) 213-1977 Defendant-Petitioner ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC. is represented by: Amanda S. Amert, Esq. Debra Bogo-Ernst, Esq. Craig C. Martin, Esq. WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP 300 North LaSalle Drive Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 728-9058 (312) 728-9062 (312) 728-9050 UNIFIED MARKETING: Gerdts Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unified Marketing Partners LLC. The case is styled as Laurette Gerdts, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Unified Marketing Partners LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-03722-KES-EGC (E.D. Cal., May 15, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Universal Marketing Partners -- https://unifiedmktg.com/ -- is a leading performance-based marketing agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Faythe Gutierrez, Esq. PLG DAMAGE ATTORNEYS, PLLC 700 S. Flower Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (951) 285-2179 Email: faythegutierrez@gmail.com UNION STATION HOMELESS: Gooden Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Union Station Homeless Services, et al. The case is styled as Kyiesha Bianca Gooden, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Union Station Homeless Services, Psychpros Inc., Case No. 26STCV15652 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 14, 2026). The case type is stated as "Civil Unlimited - Other Employment." Union Station Homeless Services -- https://ushs.org/ -- providing supportive services for individuals and families experiencing homelessness.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Shkodnik, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 880 E. Broadway Glendale, CA 91205-1218 Phone: 818-962-6465 Fax: 818-962-6469 Email: r.shkodnik@d.law UNITED PARCEL SERVICE: Semrau Files Suit in N.D. Georgia -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Parcel Service, Inc. The case is styled as Nicholas Semrau, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-02761-MHC (N.D. Ga., May 15, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. United Parcel Service -- https://www.ups.com/ -- is an American multinational shipping & receiving and supply chain management company founded in 1907.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Danielle Sweet, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 233-1550 - and - James B. Zouras, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 222 W. Adams Street, Suite 2020 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 233-1550 Email: jzouras@stephanzouras.com rstephan@stephanzouras.com - and - MaryBeth Vassil Gibson, Esq. GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 4279 Roswell Road, Suite 208-108 Atlanta, GA 30342 Phone: (678) 642-2503 Email: marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: E5 Therapy Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as E5 Therapy, Riverbend Counseling Services, Shamynds Healing Center, PC, Repair Physical Therapy Inc., Compassion Recovery Centers LLC, Achieving Balance Chiropractic, Leading Edge Mental Health, Martin Rocha, MD Inc., and Dora K. Gavros, DDS, Inc. and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, UNITEDHEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., OPTUM INSIGHT, CHANGE HEALTCHARE INC., CHANGE HEALTHCARE OPERATIONS, LLC, CHANGE HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, CHANGE HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC., CHANGE HEALTHCARE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, CHANGE HEALTHCARE PHARMACY SOLUTIONS, INC., OPTUM, INC., OPTUM FINANCIAL, INC., OPTUM BANK, AND OPTUM PAY, Case No. 26CV003623 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Joaquin, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on May 18, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01857-CKD. Although the Complaint does not specify the precise amount of damages sought, the preponderance of the evidence shows that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The Complaint alleges that "Plaintiffs was unable to submit claims, receive ERAs, and receive payment for its medical care to patients." The Plaintiffs allege monetary losses including rejected and/or delayed payments for medical care, and spending significant resources investigating the network outage and alternative methods to receive payment for medical care.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Vassi Iliadis, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 785-4600 Facsimile: (310) 785-4601 Email: vassi.iliadis@hoganlovells.com UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Johnson Suit Removed to E.D. Louisiana ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Dr. Warren H. Johnson, Podiatrist (A Professional Medical Corp.), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, UnitedHealthCare Services, Inc., Optum Insight, Change Healthcare Inc., Change Healthcare Operations, LLC, Change Healthcare Solutions, LLC, Change Healthcare Holdings, Inc., Change Healthcare Technologies, LLC, and Change Healthcare Pharmacy Solutions, Inc., Case No. 2026-01267 was removed from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Louisiana, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of Louisiana on May 15, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01045. Although the Petition for Damages does not specify the precise amount of all damages sought, the preponderance of the evidence shows that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The Petition for Damages alleges that: Because of Change Health Defendants' substandard data security measures, Change experienced the Ransomware Attack. In response, Change Health Defendants chose to disconnect the Change Platform. As a result of Change Health Defendants' decision to disconnect the Change Platform, Plaintiff Dr. Johnson was unable to submit claims, receive ERAs, and receive payment for its medical care to patients. Plaintiff Dr. Johnson's business was thereby disrupted.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael C. Drew, Esq. JONES WALKER LLP 201 St. Charles Avenue, 51st Floor New Orleans, LA 70170 Phone: (504) 582-8318 Email: mdrew@joneswalker.co UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: K. Sasse Suit Removed to D. Nevada ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as K. Sasse Surgical Associates, PC, dba Nevada Surgical and Advanced Manual Therapy Institute I, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, UnitedHealthCare Services, Inc., Optum Insight, Change Healthcare Inc., Change Healthcare Operations, LLC, Change Healthcare Solutions, LLC, Change Healthcare Holdings, Inc., Change Healthcare Technologies, LLC, and Change Healthcare Pharmacy Solutions, Inc., Case No. A-26-939363-C was removed from the Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada, to the United States District Court for District of Nevada on May 14, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01488. Although the Complaint does not specify the precise amount of damages sought, the preponderance of the evidence shows that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs suffered monetary losses via missed or delayed payments for medical care and "spent significant time and resources investigating the network outage and alternative methods to receive payment for medical care."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jason D. Smith, Esq. Jessica E. Chong, Esq. SPENCER FANE LLP 300 S. Fourth Street, Suite 1600 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Phone: (702) 408-3400 Facsimile (702) 408-3401 Email: jchong@spencerfane.com UNIVERSAL INTERMODAL: Ghanadan Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ramin Ghanadan, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. UNIVERSAL INTERMODAL SERVICES, INC., a Michigan corporation; UNIVERSCAL LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 26CV174946 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on May 14, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-04567. The Plaintiff brings the following causes of action on behalf of himself and the putative class members: unpaid overtime; unpaid meal period premiums; unpaid rest period premiums; unpaid minimum wages; final wages not timely paid; wages not timely paid during employment; non-compliant wage statements; failure to keep requisite payroll records; unreimbursed business expenses; all in violation of California Labor Codes and violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Christian J, Keeney, Esq. Alis M. Moon, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 885-1360 Facsimile: (949) 885-1380 Email: Christian.Keeney@jacksonlewis.com Alis.Moon@jacksonlewis.com - and - Joseph A. Lara, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 3390 University Avenue, Suite 110 Riverside, CA 92501 Phone: (951) 848-7940 Facsimile: (951) 848-0009 Email: Joseph.Lara@jacksonlewis.com UPBOOST FUNDING: Christ Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Upboost Funding LLC. The case is styled as Joseph Christ, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons similarly situated v. Upboost Funding LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-01981-RMG (D.S.C., May 15, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Upboost Funding LLC -- https://upboostlending.com/ -- provide access to individual-purpose funding tailored to your unique needs and timeline.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brittany Nicole Clark, Esq. KAUFMAN PA 237 South Dixie Highway, Suite Fourth Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (864) 414-8120 Email: brittany@kaufmanpa.com US BANK NATIONAL: Crabb Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Melanie Crabb and De'erika Fonfara-Cooper, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 26-2-12341-1 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on May 18, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01699. The Complaint alleges claims for failure to compensate for noncompliant meal and rest periods in violation of RCW 49.12 and WAC 296-126-092; failure to pay minimum wages in violation of RCW 49.46 et seq.; failure to pay overtime wages; and violation of RCW 49.46.210.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Julie S. Lucht, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 4200 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Phone: +1.206.359.8000 Facsimile: +1.206.359.9000 - and - Joan B. Tucker Fife, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 101 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5840 Phone: (415) 591-1000 Facsimile: (415) 591-1400 - and - Peyton L. Sherwood, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 333 S. Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543 Phone: (213) 615-1700 Facsimile: (213) 615-1750 VINEYARD VINES: Deceptive Email Suit Remanded to State Court ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Jarrett Carter, et al., on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Vineyard Vines, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. ELH-25-3178 (D. Md.), Judge Ellen L. Hollander of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted the Plaintiffs' motion to remand, denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss without prejudice, and denied the Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees. Three named Plaintiffs -- Maryland residents Jarrett Carter and Elizabeth Nielsen, and Indiana resident Brian Ayers -- filed suit against Vineyard Vines, LLC, a Connecticut limited liability company, alleging violations of the Maryland Commercial Electronic Mail Act and Indiana's Deceptive Commercial Electronic Mail Act by disseminating marketing emails containing false or misleading information in subject lines "with the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving the recipient." The statutes permit a plaintiff to recover $500 for each violation. The Complaint contained two counts: Count One alleged violations of the Maryland statute on behalf of a Maryland Class, and Count Two alleged violations of the Indiana statute on behalf of an Indiana Class. Plaintiffs sought class certification, statutory and exemplary damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and costs. The Defendant removed the case to federal court on grounds of diversity jurisdiction and the Class Action Fairness Act. Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing not that diversity or CAFA jurisdiction was lacking, but that they had not alleged facts sufficient to establish Article III standing, asserting they had merely alleged statutory violations which, without more, do not establish a concrete injury under federal law. Plaintiffs alleged two types of deceptive email practices. First, Vineyard Vines sent emails with subject lines representing that a sale was ending imminently, using phrases such as "FINAL HOURS," "ENDS TONIGHT," "LAST DAY," and "LAST CHANCE," when the promotions in fact continued beyond the advertised end dates, often until the next day, followed by emails announcing that the sales had been "EXTENDED" as part of a pre-planned marketing strategy. Second, the Defendant sent emails advertising a "free gift" without disclosing that the recipient was required to make a minimum purchase, ranging from $150 to $250, to obtain the gift. Carter identified at least 39 allegedly deceptive emails, Nielsen at least 44, and Ayers at least 32. The Court confirmed its independent duty to assess subject matter jurisdiction, including Article III standing. To establish standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (i) a concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent injury in fact; (ii) that the injury was likely caused by the Defendant; and (iii) that the injury would likely be redressed by judicial relief. The dispute here focused on the injury-in-fact element. The Court held that plaintiffs cannot establish a cognizable injury simply by pleading a statutory violation. The Court noted that the Defendant's attempt to distinguish the case rested on injuries it had invented, not injuries the Plaintiffs had alleged. The Plaintiffs had not alleged that they were inundated with emails so as to be forced to expend time reviewing or deleting them, nor had they alleged that they ever made an improvident purchase because of the deceptive emails. The Defendant argued that the alleged harm bore a close relationship to the common law torts of fraud and nuisance, and drew comparisons to cases arising under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and California's anti-spam statute. The Court rejected these comparisons. It reasoned that the privacy and intrusion-based rationales in those cases applied uniformly to unsolicited communications, whereas the Plaintiffs here voluntarily created accounts with Vineyard Vines, provided their email addresses, and made purchases through the company's website or stores. The Plaintiffs had further asserted in the Complaint that it is irrelevant whether misleading commercial emails were solicited, confirming they alleged no invasion of personal privacy. As to fraud, the Plaintiffs did not allege reliance on the misleading subject lines, any improvident purchases, or any economic consequences from having received the emails. As to nuisance, they had not alleged any substantial interference with the enjoyment of their property. The Court found that mere receipt of emails with misleading or false subject lines does not constitute a concrete injury sufficient to confer Article III standing. The Defendant argued that the ongoing risk of improvident purchases conferred standing for injunctive relief. The Court noted that the Maryland statute does not provide a private right to injunctive relief, limiting any future-harm theory to Ayers alone. However, the Complaint contained no allegation that Ayers specifically faced an imminent risk of making an improvident purchase, with nothing said about his current shopping intentions or susceptibility to the Defendant's marketing tactics. The Court further reasoned that even if the risk of future receipt of deceptive emails could constitute future harm, the theory would still fail because the emails were essentially solicited. The Defendant argued that remand would be futile because the Plaintiffs' claims were preempted by the federal CAN-SPAM Act. The Court rejected this argument, citing Fourth Circuit precedent that there is no futility exception to the remand obligation under 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c). The Court also denied the Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees, finding that while the Defendant's contentions did not square with the actual text of the Complaint, the arguments were not frivolous and concerned a contested area of law on which courts across the country have reached differing results. Accordingly, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to remand and remanded the case to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. The Court denied as moot the Defendant's surreply motion and the Plaintiffs' motion to strike. The Defendant's motion to dismiss was denied without consideration of the merits and without prejudice to the Defendant's right to renew the motion in state court. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ohBSAU from PacerMonitor.com WALMART INC: Pineda Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Eziquio Pineda, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated v. WALMART, INC. and WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. CIVSB2608066 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on May 19, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-02696. The Complaint asserts one cause of action against Walmart for Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code sections 17200 (the "UCL"). The Complaint alleges that Walmart failed to provide Plaintiff and class members with overtime pay, meal periods, rest breaks, minimum wages, accurate wage statements, and all wages earned upon termination of employment for the period of March 12, 2022, to the present.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Paloma P. Peracchio, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 Email: paloma.peracchio@ogletree.com - and - Mitchell A. Wrosch, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Park Tower, Fifteenth Floor 695 Town Center Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: 714-800-7900 Facsimile: 714-754-1298 Email: mitchell.wrosch@ogletree.com WASHINGTON DC: Plaintiffs' Class Certification Bid Due July 16 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brown v. GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Case No. 1:15-cv-01380 (D.D.C., Filed Aug. 25, 2015), the Hon. Judge Jia M. Cobb entered an order granting Motion for Extension of Time: The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is due by July 16, 2026 The Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion is due by August 17, 2026 The Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of their Motion is due by September 16, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act. The Defendant is the governmental structure of the U.S. federal district of the District of Columbia.[CC] WASHINGTON: Butler Files Suit in W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Washington State Department of Corrections, et al. The case is styled as Bryson Butler, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Washington State Department of Corrections, American Behavioral Health Systems, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-05501 (W.D. Wash., May 14, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Accommodations Civil Rights for Fair Housing Act. Washington State Department of Corrections (WADOC) -- https://doc.wa.gov/ -- is responsible for administering adult corrections programs operated by the state.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew Dean Boes, Esq. Julie E. Kline, Esq. SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER 401 Union St., Ste. 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 Email: boes@sgb-law.com kline@sgb-law.com WEST POINT: Civilian Professors Win Speech Injunction ----------------------------------------------------- Judge Cathy Seibel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in the case captioned Tim Bakken, individually and on behalf of a putative class of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. United States Military Academy, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 25-CV-7826 (S.D.N.Y.), granted the Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss a putative class action complaint brought by a civilian professor at West Point challenging two speech-restrictive policies as unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Plaintiff Tim Bakken has been employed at the United States Military Academy (USMA or West Point) since June 2000 as a civilian professor of law. He has taught courses and spoken to external audiences on constitutional, criminal, and corporate law issues, authored books and articles, and given media interviews, all while identifying himself as a USMA faculty member. Academic research, writing, and engagement with the scholarly community are part of his job requirements and affect his ability to earn promotions, raises, and tenure. The Defendants are USMA and several of its administrators and departmental supervisors, sued in their official capacities. On January 27, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order No. 14185, Restoring America's Fighting Force, which prohibited the Academy from promoting or inculcating certain theories and required it to teach that America and its founding documents remain the most powerful force for good in human history. On February 13, 2025, Dean's Policy and Operating Memorandum No. 03-24 (DPOM 03-24 or the Academic Engagement Policy) came into effect, requiring USMA faculty to obtain prior approval from department heads for any engagement with external audiences within their disciplinary areas of expertise while on duty or when using any USMA affiliation or branding. Covered engagements included journal publications, conference presentations, media interviews, podcasts, opinion editorials, blog posts, and social media posts. Defendant Colonel Joshua Berry informed Plaintiff that requests would not be approved when the proposed engagement conflicted with applicable Executive Orders or Department of Defense or Army guidance, or when the content reflected personal opinions on current events rather than research-based scholarly analysis. On August 12, 2025, Defendant Brigadier General Shane Reeves, the Dean of the Academic Board, addressed all USMA faculty and stated that if faculty start to feel that they are advocating for a particular position or ideology, or taking a position to help cadets believe a certain way, they are wrong, because cadets do not need to know what the professor believes. Plaintiff understood this address, referred to as the Classroom Directive, as a direct order banning him from sharing personal opinions while instructing students on legal issues. Plaintiff alleges that, because of DPOM 03-24, he has refrained from speaking and writing on issues he otherwise would have pursued, including academic freedom, prosecutorial ethics, and the legality of certain U.S. military actions. He appeared on at least one podcast without identifying his USMA affiliation. He has a book scheduled for release in August 2026 in which he wants to identify himself as a USMA professor without obtaining prior approval. In the classroom, he has declined on multiple occasions to share his opinion on legal topics when asked directly by students. Plaintiff initiated this action on September 22, 2025, asserting three First Amendment claims on behalf of a putative class of civilian professors at USMA. On December 5, 2025, he filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on January 30, 2026. Oral argument on parties' motion was held on May 6, 2026. Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that Plaintiff's claims must be channeled through the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA). According to the Court "DPOM 03-24 and the Classroom Directive are not personnel actions under the CSRA, and specifically not changes in working conditions under Section 2302(a)(2)(A)(xii)". The court reasoned that the policies represent fundamental changes to Plaintiff's academic scholarship and pedagogical approach, not day-to-day working conditions such as salary or assignment. The courtchanneling Plaintiff's challenge further found that through the CSRA could foreclose all meaningful judicial review, that his claims are wholly collateral to the statute's review provisions, and that they fall outside the expertise of the Office of Special Counsel and the Merit Systems Protection Board. Accordingly, the court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court applied the Pickering balancing framework, as clarified by the Second Circuit in Heim v. Daniel, bypassing the Garcetti inquiry because the restriction concerned a public university professor's academic speech. The court found that Plaintiff's external engagements constitute speech on matters of public concern, including commentary on academic freedom, prosecutorial ethics, military law, and military conduct. The court then applied the heightened standard set forth in United States v. National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), applicable because DPOM 03-24 is an ex ante restriction on a broad category of employee speech rather than an isolated disciplinary action. Under that standard, the government must demonstrate that the recited harms are real and that the regulation will in fact alleviate those harms in a direct and material way. The court found that Defendant's justifications for DPOM 03-24, as set forth in the declaration of Defendant Colonel Krista Watts, appeared to be post-hoc rationalizations rather than genuine explanations, and that Defendant failed to identify real harms the policy was designed to address, failed to show the policy would alleviate any harm directly and materially, and failed to rebut Plaintiff's plausible allegation that the policy was enacted to demonstrate compliance with Executive Order 14185. The court also found the policy both overinclusive and underinclusive, and noted that less restrictive alternatives such as a notice requirement or disclaimer were available. The court therefore found that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his challenge to DPOM 03-24. The court found that the Classroom Directive exists at least as informal policy, noting that Defendant did not deny that Reeves made the quoted remarks, did not submit a declaration from Reeves explaining what he meant, took no steps to withdraw or clarify the remarks in the more than seven months after the lawsuit was filed, and had not affirmatively stated that professors may express personal views in the classroom. The court applied the same Pickering and NTEU framework and found that, while West Point's role as a military academy warrants greater deference with respect to internal classroom instruction than external speech, a blanket ban on civilian professors sharing their views on subjects they teach does not implicate professional military judgments and cannot be justified under the First Amendment. The court found that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his challenge to the Classroom Directive as applied to civilian professors. The court found irreparable harm established, noting that loss of First Amendment freedoms constitutes irreparable injury even for minimal periods, and that the ongoing chilling effect of both policies on Plaintiff's speech is a harm that cannot be undone. The court rejected Defendant's argument that Plaintiff's delay in filing undermined irreparable harm, finding that Plaintiff diligently pursued informal resolution before filing suit and that the federal government shutdown from October 1 through November 12, 2025 accounted for a substantial portion of the intervening period. The court further found that the balance of equities and the public interest favor the injunction, as there is no public interest in perpetuating unlawful agency action, and West Point fulfilled its mission for more than two hundred years without the challenged policies. The court granted Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and denied Defendant's motion to dismiss. Pending permanent resolution, Defendant is enjoined from enforcing DPOM 03-24 against civilian faculty members of USMA and from prohibiting or restraining Plaintiff from expressing or offering his opinions, beliefs, or views to his students on the subjects he teaches. The parties are directed to appear for a conference on June 11, 2026. A copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g9W3Sx from PacerMonitor.com WESTERN STATES ENVELOPE: Hopfer Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Hopfer, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. WESTERN STATES ENVELOPE COMPANY, Case No. 2:26-cv-00887 (E.D. Wis., May 19, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, ("FLSA"), and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws ("WWPCL") for purposes of obtaining relief under the FLSA and WWPCL for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem appropriate. The Defendant operated an unlawful compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by shaving time (via electronic timeclock rounding) from Plaintiff's and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees' weekly timesheets for pre shift and post-shift hours worked and/or work performed, to the detriment of said employees and to the benefit of Defendant, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL. The Defendant's failure to compensate its hourly paid, non-exempt employees for compensable work performed each workweek, including but not limited to at an overtime rate of pay, was intentional, willful, and violated federal law as set forth in the FLSA and state law as set forth in the WWPCL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee, most recently working in the position of Operator working at Defendant's Butler, Wisconsin location in September 2010,. Western States Envelope Company, is an entity incorporated in the State of Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Phone: (262) 780-1953 Fax: (262) 565-6469 Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com WHITE DUCK OUTDOORS: Youngren Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dustin Youngren, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. WHITE DUCK OUTDOORS, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-05645 (N.D. Ill., May 14, 2026), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services the Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through its Website https://whiteduckoutdoors.com (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because the 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 the 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 purchase a diverse range of camping gear, including canvas camping tents in bell, wall, and cabin styles, alongside essentials like heavy-duty tarps, canvas bags, all-season sleeping bags.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (630)-478-0856 Email: achan@ealg.law XERCIZE STUDIO: Civil Standing Order Entered -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINA FASHEH, v. THE XERCIZE STUDIO, LLC, Case No. 8:26-cv-01231-FWS-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Slaughter entered a civil standing order as follows: The Plaintiff shall promptly serve the complaint in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and shall comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(l) and Local Rule 5-3 with respect to all proofs of service. Any Answers filed in state court must be refiled in this court as a supplement to the Notice of Removal. If this action is a putative class action, the parties are to act diligently and begin discovery immediately, so that the motion for class certification can be filed expeditiously. Proposed Orders Each party filing or opposing a motion or seeking the determination of any matter shall file, serve, and electronically lodge a proposed order setting forth the relief or action sought and a brief statement of the rationale for the decision with appropriate citations. The Defendant is the parent company behind IM=X (TM) (Integrated Movement Xercize) Pilates and Fitness. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YaYZhC at no extra charge.[CC] YAVAPAI COUNTY, AZ: Longnecker Suit Removed to D. Arizona --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Scott Longnecker and Pamela Jean Longnecker, husband and wife; David W. Dodson; individually and behalf of others similarly situated as the interested persons of Yavapai County v. Yavapai County, a political subdivision of Arizona; Yavapai County Board of Supervisors; Representative Brooks Compton, in his/hers official capacity; Representative Dee Jenkins, in his/hers official capacity; Nikki check, in his/hers official capacity; Chris Kuknyo, in his/hers official capacity; Mary Mallory, in his/hers official capacity; John Does I-V; Jane Does I-V; Black Corporations I-V; and White Partnership I-V, Case No. S1300CV202600284 was removed from the Yavapai County Superior Court, to the United States District Court for District of Arizona on May 19, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-08111-SHD. On March 3, 2026, Plaintiffs commenced this action in the Yavapai County superior court by filing a Verified Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Application for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction and Permanent Injunction and an Application for Preliminary Injunction..[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kristin M. Mackin, Esq. SIMS MACKIN, LTD. 2100 North Central Ave., Suite 220 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Phone: (602) 772-5505 Fax: (602) 772-5509 Email: kmackin@simsmackin.com YOUR QUICK OFFER: Blasie TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Loumyr Blasie, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Your Quick Offer, LLC, was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on May 15, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-61461-XXXX to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Your Quick Offer -- https://yourquickoffer.com/ -- is a trusted team of cash home buyers ready to help homeowners in any situation.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Matthew A. Keilson, Esq. WATSTEIN TEREPKA LLP 218 Northwest 24th Street, Ste 3rd Floor Miami, FL 33127 Phone: (305) 498-3216 Email: mkeilson@wtlaw.com ZILLION CONCEPTS: Howard Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Andrea Howard, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. ZILLION CONCEPTS, LLC d/b/a RUMORS, a Georgia Domestic Limited Liability Company, and NICK WHITE, an individual, Case No. 1:26-cv-02787-SCJ (N.D. Ga., May 18, 2026), is brought for damages and other relief brought by Plaintiffs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as amended by the Tip Income Protection Act of 2018 ("TIPA"), as a result of Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs the minimum wage and overtime wages as required by federal law. The essence of Plaintiffs' claims are that Defendants: misclassified Plaintiffs as independent contractors rather than employees; failed to pay them at least the federal minimum wage for each hour they worked; failed to pay them at least one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for each hour they worked over 40 hours in a given workweek, constituting a violation of the overtime wage provisions of the FLSA; and seized their tips in violation of TIPA and the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are all current or former exotic dancers. The Defendants operates an adult entertainment club.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jordan P. Rose, Esq. Carlos V. Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Phone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 423-5864 Email: jrose@theleachfirm.com cleach@theleachfirm.com ppalmer@theleachfirm.com yhernandez@theleachfirm.com ********* 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 ***