260603.mbx

260603.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, June 3, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 110 Headlines 106-108 CONVENT: Maddicks Counsel Must Produce Conflict Discovery 7-ELEVEN INC: Rangel Files Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages AKSARAY INC: Badoglu Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ALTO PHARMACY: Class Certification Bid in Muhammad Due July 16 AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Website Uses Tracking Pixel, Yardley Says AUDACIOUS BEAUTY: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Ortiz Says AY MCDONALD: Class Certification Bid Filing Due March 15, 2027 BEACON MUTUAL: Faces Class Action Suit Over Alleged Data Breach BIOLOGICAL LABORATORY: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Salgado Says BLUE ENTERPRISES: Faces Roth Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info BP EXPLORATION: 5th Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment in Breaux Suit BUTTERBLU LLC: Court Sets Scheduling Conference in THC Suit BYOMA US INC: Perry Suit Removed to D. Arizona CANDY NATION: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Pelaez Alleges CARNIVAL CORP: Faces Pottle Class Suit Over Alleged Data Breach CASILLAS PETROLEUM: Class Cert Bid Filing Due March 26, 2027 CHARLIE CONDON: Weathers Sues Over Unprotected Private Info CHESTNUT HEALTH: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Feb. 8, 2027 COINBASE GLOBAL: Settlement Class Gets Certification COLUMBIA ORTHOPAEDIC: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach COMPLETE CARE: Dismissal of Jones Unpaid Wages Class Suit Affirmed CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Sept. 28 COOPER HEALTH SYSTEM: Freeland Suit Removed to D. New Jersey COREWELL HEALTH: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Debt Collection CORNERSTONE SERVICES: Govt Contractor Exemption Clarified in Thomas COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Class Suit Over Kirkland Tortellonis Label DEANCO HEALTHCARE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $1.55-Mil. DEHEN JACKETS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Potrykus Says DELTA GALIL: Faces Sanchez Suit Over Fake Reference Prices DOLE FRESH: Albrigo and Amado Sue Over Unlawful Tariff Retention ELDERLY HOME: Lecleres Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ELEPHANT INSURANCE: Website Uses Tracking Tools, Yardley Says EMERSON ELECTRIC: Underpays Company Employees, Cabrera Says EQUIFAX: 11th Circuit Reinstated Caraway Appeal as Timely F.E.G. HOLDINGS: Jones Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages FACTOR75 LLC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FCA US: Agrees to $3.8-Mil. Wage and Hour Class Action Settlement FITFLOP USA: Randolph Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FRONTWAVE CREDIT: Camargo Sues Over Private Data Breach GEICO INDEMNITY: Seeks to Seal Confidential Info in Shiloah Suit GET LIQUID: Settlement Deal in Brown Suit Gets Court OK GKN AEROSPACE: Faces Class Suit Over Chemical Plant Exposure Risks GOFUNDME INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Munoz Due May 4, 2027 GOLDEN HEAVEN: Agrees to Settle 2023 IPO Class Action for $1.7MM HEALTH LINK: Assawasuksant Suit Removed to Cal. Super. HOMELAND SECURITY: Summary Judgment, Class Certification Upheld HP HOOD: Rubio Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification HYPERSCALE DATA: Faces Class Suit Over Facility's Disruptive Noise IBAN GLOBAL: Bids for Class Certification in Weingrad Due Dec. 17 INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: Wins Dismissal of IIPR Investor Fraud Case INSTRUCTURE INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Odom Alleges JACOBS ENTERTAINMENT: Shanesy Balks at Inadequate Data Security JOHN KRUMME: Minshew Seeks to Amend Phase I Scheduling Order JOHNSB INC: Faces Crawford Suit in Cal. Sup., San Bernardino Cty. KING COUNTY, WA: Court Extends Pretrial Deadlines in Rogers KNOWBE4 INC: Bid to Impound Confidential Exhibits OK'd KRISPY KREME: Deadline to File Breach Settlement Claim Set June 22 LOCKHEED MARTIN: Patrick Files Suit in E.D. Kentucky LONG ISLAND CITY VETERINARY: Miner Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York LOREX CORPORATION: Hill Files Suit in S.D. New York LOVE YOUR BATH: Daniel Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida LUXURBAN HOTELS: Reaches $3MM Settlement in Investors Class Suit MACH ONE TRANSPORTS: Redick Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California MACY'S INC: Allen Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MAJOR HOSPITAL: Mitchell Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation MARINA HOSPITALITY: Shobuj Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime MARMALADE LLC: Maldonado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MARTINELLI CO.: Class Cert Bid Filing in Ramirez Due Sept. 7 MCGEE AIR SERVICES: Torrey Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages MCKESSON CORP: Second Renewed Bid for Class Certification Tossed MEDTRONIC INC: Qualley Files Suit in D. Minnesota META PLATFORMS: Dismissal of Rohingya Violence Class Suit Affirmed METROPOLITAN MARINE: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach MIAMI OFF CENTER: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property MISSOURI: Dismissal of Ramirez Unjust Enrichment Claim Affirmed MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Singley Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Walsh Sues Over Unlawful Increased Pricing MONSANTO COMPANY: Sharlin Suit Transferred to N.D. California MORRISON INDUSTRIAL: Mertka Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Slater Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. MSC CRUISES: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Ortiz Alleges MUENSTER MILLING: Rendon Suit Removed to C.D. California MUNSON HEALTHCARE: Robinson Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri MURATA ELECTRONICS: Haynes Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct. MY FOOT: Blind Users Face Barriers to Website Access, Bowman Says MY GOALS SOLUTIONS: DeWolf Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Texas MYGRANT GLASS: Kowalczyk Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NATIONAL AUTOMATIC: Kaiser Suit Removed to D. Maryland NATIONAL DEBT RELIEF: Voegtli Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York NELNET SERVICING: Judge OKs $10M Deal, Payments to Take Months NESTLE USA INC: Hohl Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio NETWORKING TECHNOLOGY: Simpson Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info NEW YORK CITY HEALTH: Brady Files Suit in S.D. New York NHB HOLDINGS: Walls Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages NILES DENTAL CARE: Johnson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois NPAS INC: Cox Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida NY UMIYA INC: Cano Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation OCTAPHARMA PLASMA: Watkins Alleges FLSA Breaches OLIPHANT FINANCIAL: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Response ONSITE MAMMOGRAPHY: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $2.53MM OPTION CARE: Lewis Suit Removed to C.D. California OWENS-BROCKWAY: Denial of Lemus' Bid to Intervene in Aguilar Upheld PATHWAYS LA: Oscal Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PB PLUMBING: Cissney Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages PERF OPCO LLC: Bennett Suit Removed to W.D. Washington PERFORMRX LLC: Friendly Pharmacy Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania PERPLEXITY AI: Faces Doe Suit Over Data Privacy Violations PERRIGO COMPANY: Andree Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII PFIZER INC: Simonis Files Suit in N.D. Florida PIPESTONE HOLDINGS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Scotting Says PM PEDIATRICS: Haroutunian Suit Removed to C.D. California PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Miller Suit Removed to D. New Jersey PRECISION HEATING: Picon Seeks to Certify Class Action PRETTYLITTLETHING.COM: McLean Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website PROCTER & GAMBLE: Class Cert Opposition in Barton Due June 10 PROEDGE INVESTORS: Jefferson Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania PROJECT 1920: Hussein Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website PROPERTY RECEIVABLES: Simmons Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California PROPPMOVERS LLC: Spece Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Texas PRYSMIAN CABLES: Perez FLSA Class Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. PYXIS SOLUTIONS: Class Cert Bid in Wilson Due March 1, 2027 QUEEN TRANSPORTATION: Class Cert Opposition Brief Due Feb. 19, 2027 RAW ELEMENTS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Hussein Says RICKY DIXON: Wilson Seeks to Reaffirm Certification of Class Action RM MED CA: Faces Prater Suit Over Paramedics' Unpaid Wages ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Omnibus Bid to Seal Class Cert Briefing OK'd RODD & GUNN: Nonato Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website RUGSUSA LLC: Seeks Live Cross-Examination of Experts SAN JOSE WATER: Court Narrows Claims in BHS Law Suit SARAH BUSH: Stallings Files Wage-and-Hour Suit in Illinois SAVVY SMART: Faces Castrillo Suit Over Illegal Spam Mails SEISUKE KNIFE: Booker Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SHELDON PIZZA: Cost Provision Severed, Arbitration Ordered SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Agrees to $55MM Securities Class Settlement SPORTRADAR GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Short Seller Reports STATE FARM: Class Certification Order in Clippinger Suit Reversed STILA STYLES: Faces Lewis Suit Over FTSA Violations SUBARU OF AMERICA: Consumers Sue Over Defective Electrical System SYNOPSYS INC: Faces Class, Derivative Suits in California TLCS INC: Borger Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TOP TIER SOLAR: Bustamente Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida TOPO DESIGNS LLC: Erwin Suit Removed to W.D. Washington TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Pierre Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections TRUBRIDGE INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims TULANE UNIVERSITY: Micera Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII TWO JINN INC: Beltran Suit Removed to W.D. Washington UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY: Mouzon Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. UNITED HEALTH: Abramczyk Suit Removed to D. Minnesota UNITED HEALTH: Apex Physical Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Dov Wills Suit Removed to W.D. Washington UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Serenity Therapy Suit Removed to S.D. Iowa UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: UCF Suit Removed to S.D. Florida UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Drumm Files Suit in PA Ct. of Common Pleas US STANDARD PRODUCTS: Gorny Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida US TELEPACIFIC CORP: Leo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. US TIGER SECURITIES: Tillberry Files Suit in S.D. New York USG CEILING PLUS: Jean Suit Removed to C.D. California VIATAS GLOBAL: Wojciech Sues Over Unpaid Compensations VOICE SEARCH LOCAL: Nesbitt Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida WELLS FARGO BANK: Adimora-Nweke Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas WESTERN REFINING RETAIL: Black Suit Removed to C.D. California WESTPARK EQUITY GROUP: Redick Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California WINCO HOLDINGS: Martinez Suit Removed to E.D. California WINCO HOLDINGS: Thompson Suit Removed to C.D. California WW INTERNATIONAL: Stafford Suit Removed to W.D. Washington X.AI LLC: Skaggs Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy ZILLOW GROUP INC: Nour Suit Removed to D. Columbia ZSPACE INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over 2024 IPO ********* 106-108 CONVENT: Maddicks Counsel Must Produce Conflict Discovery ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Theresa Maddicks, et al., Respondents, v. 106-108 Convent BCR, LLC, et al., Appellants, Index No. 656345/16, Appeal No. 6487, Case No. 2025-07823 (N.Y. App. Div.), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, modified the Supreme Court, New York County, by granting the Defendants' motion to the extent of requiring the Plaintiffs' counsel to produce discovery concerning its prior representation for purposes of evaluating the alleged conflict of interest, and otherwise affirmed. On November 18, 2025, the Supreme Court, New York County issued an order denying the Defendants' motion to disqualify the Plaintiffs' counsel, compel discovery, and dismiss the complaint based on an alleged conflict of interest. On appeal, the order was unanimously modified to require the Plaintiffs' counsel to produce discovery related to the conflict issue, and otherwise affirmed. Costs were not awarded. The Appellate Division opined that the Defendants did not waive their right to move for disqualification of the Plaintiffs' counsel. The alleged conflict stemmed from the counsel's prior representation of several former property owners involved in rent regulatory matters. The Appellate Court found that the record did not show the Defendants knew or should have known about the conflict earlier, and there was no evidence that prior discovery requests would have uncovered it. Accordingly, waiver was not supported by the record. Because the full record of the Plaintiffs' counsel's prior representation had not been disclosed, the Appellate Division said it could not yet decide the conflict issue. It therefore held that the Defendants were entitled to discovery of the counsel's files related to that prior representation. This production was necessary to determine whether an actual conflict of interest exists that would justify disqualification or dismissal of the complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://sl1nk.com/95i5tez. Belkin, Burden, Goldman, LLP, New York (Matthew S. Brett -- mbrett@bbgllp.com -- of counsel), for appellants. Newman Ferrara LLP, New York (Lucas A. Ferrara -- lferrara@nfllp.com -- of counsel), for respondents. 7-ELEVEN INC: Rangel Files Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages -------------------------------------------------------------- RAY RANGEL, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. 7-ELEVEN, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-05295 (C.D. Cal., May 16, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for initiating telephone solicitations to telephone subscribers such as Plaintiff who registered their respective telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry. The complaint relates that to promote its goods, services, and/or properties, Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging and continues to text message consumers after they have opted out of Defendant's solicitations. Defendant also engages in telemarketing without the required policies and procedures, and training of its personnel engaged in telemarketing. Furthermore, to promote its goods, services, and/or properties, Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging to consumers that have registered their telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry. On February 5, 2026, Plaintiff requested to opt-out of Defendant's text messages. Overall, Defendant sent Plaintiff more than one marketing text message after Plaintiff's opt-out request. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the intrusion upon seclusion, invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of Plaintiff and members of the Classes. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Classes, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Defendant 7-Eleven, Inc. is an American convenience store chain, headquartered in Irving, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com AKSARAY INC: Badoglu Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------- Adem Badoglu, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. AKSARAY, INC., BAKI GUVEN, and YUSUF ALBARDAK, Case No. 1:26-cv-02945 (E.D.N.Y., May 18, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendant failure to pay overtime wages and illegally retained these service charges. The Defendants charged customers service charges. The Defendants illegally retained these service charges in their entirety and did not distribute them to service employees. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff any premium for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff New York's spread of hours premium for workdays that lasted longer than 10 hours, which would have included virtually every shift Plaintiff worked. The Defendants did not give Plaintiff New York's Notice and Acknowledgement of Pay Rate and Payday as required by New York Law. The required form would have included Plaintiff's overtime rate. If Plaintiff had such information, he would have raised with Defendants their failure to pay the overtime rate sooner. The Defendants did not give Plaintiff weekly paystubs containing his actual hours worked each week. If Plaintiff had such information, he would have sought redress for his unpaid wages sooner. The Defendants knowingly committed the foregoing acts against the Plaintiff, FLSA = Collective members, and members of the Class, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a server at the Restaurant from September 2022 through May 2024. Aksaray, Inc. is a New York corporation that owns and operates the restaurant known as Aksaray in Brooklyn, 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 ALTO PHARMACY: Class Certification Bid in Muhammad Due July 16 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AFIYFAH MUHAMMAD, et al., v. ALTO PHARMACY LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-11315-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Parker entered a scheduling order: On May 20, 2026, the parties filed a joint letter updating the Court on the status of discovery in the above-entitled action. The Court thanks the parties for the update. Separately, the parties filed an additional letter requesting that the discovery deadlines in this case be extended by 45 days. The Court notes that this action has been pending for nearly three years and that the Rule 23 briefing schedule was previously extended at the last Case Management Conference. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is now due July 16, 2026; the Defendant's opposition is now due Aug. 14, 2026; and the Plaintiffs' reply is now due Aug. 31, 2026. The Court is unlikely to grant further extensions. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 322. Alto operates as a pharmacy company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jPahRc at no extra charge.[CC] AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Website Uses Tracking Pixel, Yardley Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ERIC YARDLEY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-03161-BJC-VET (S.D. Cal., May 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for recording, decoding, or capturing Plaintiff's routing, addressing, or signaling information and aiding Meta Platforms, Inc. ("Meta") to do the same via a tracking pixel ("Meta Pixel") in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"). Defendant Ameriprise Financial, Inc. maintains the website https://www.ameriprise.com that provides insurance and financial services to consumers in California and other states. Countless Californians have visited the Website and without their knowledge, Defendant secretly collected their personal identifying information ("PII") consisting of their routing, addressing, or signaling information. The complaint relates that each time Plaintiff and Class Members visited the website, Defendant utilized various hidden trackers, including the Meta Pixel to collect their routing, addressing and signaling information, in addition to their IP addresses, unique identifiers, browsing information, and other personal information. Under CIPA, it is unlawful for any person to install or use a "pen register" or a "trap and trace device" without first obtaining a court order. A pen register records or decodes outgoing dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling information transmitted by an instrument or facility from which a wire or electronic communication is transmitted. According to the complaint, when Plaintiff and Class members visited Defendant's site, the Meta Pixel that Defendant has on its site installed the "_fbp" cookie on the computers of Plaintiff and class members. The _fbp cookie created a unique browser ID for each Class Member that visited Defendant's site. When those users logged into Facebook from their browser, Meta paired the _fbp cookie to each class members' Facebook account using the "c_user" cookie -- which it installed on their computers when they visited the Facebook site. Plaintiff confirmed this conduct occurred by downloading Plaintiff's "off-Facebook activity" ("OFBA") from Facebook. The OFBA reveals that Defendant systematically recorded, decoded and captured details of Plaintiff's interactions with Defendant's website. Defendant aided Meta to do the same. These records include unique identifiers associated with Plaintiff, timestamps, and descriptions of specific interactions (e.g., "Search" or "Page View" or "Content" etc). The Plaintiff brings this action in order to prevent Defendant from continuing to violate CIPA, and to recover statutory damages for Plaintiff and Class Members. Plaintiff Eric Yardley is a natural person and an adult citizen of the state of California, domiciled in San Diego County, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. Noah J. Larsh, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: 866-219-3343 E-mail: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com Noah@SwigartLawGroup.com - and - Daniel G. Shay, Esq. SHAY LEGAL, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: 619-222-7429 E-mail: Dan@ShayLegal.com AUDACIOUS BEAUTY: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Ortiz Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH ORTIZ, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. AUDACIOUS BEAUTY LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-1040 (W.D.N.Y., May 19, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.hearmeraw.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on January 2, 2026, he encountered multiple access barriers that denied him a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and visually-impaired consumers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the goods, and services Defendant offers to the public on its Website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff JOSEPH ORTIZ is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant AUDACIOUS BEAUTY LLC operates the Hear Me Raw online retail store, as well as the Hear Me Raw interactive Website that provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's: skincare products, as well as other types of goods, pricing, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and internet pricing specials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212-228-9795 Facsimile: 212-982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal AY MCDONALD: Class Certification Bid Filing Due March 15, 2027 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK STOKES individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. A.Y. MCDONALD INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-01002-LTS-MAR (N.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge Roberts entered scheduling order and discovery plan as follows: Initial disclosures: June 8, 2026 Motions to add parties: June 11, 2026 Motions to amend pleadings: June 11, 2026 Expert witness disclosures: The Plaintiff's disclosures: Dec. 11, 2026 The Defendant's disclosures: Feb. 8, 2027 Completion of discovery: April 1, 2027 Expert motions: April 5, 2027 Motion for class certification: March 15, 2027 Response to class certification motion: May 20, 2027 Dispositive motions: June 25, 2027 The Defendant is a manufacturer of water works brass, plumbing valves, pumps and water systems, and natural gas valves and meter bars. A copy of the Court's order dated May 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nhUGmD at no extra charge.[CC] BEACON MUTUAL: Faces Class Action Suit Over Alleged Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Tez Romero, writing for Insurance Business, reports that Rhode Island's leading workers' comp insurer is facing a proposed class action over a January data breach that allegedly exposed claimants' Social Security numbers and medical records. Kevin Malloy filed the suit against The Beacon Mutual Insurance Company on May 25, 2026, in the US District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The complaint says Beacon learned of unauthorized activity on its network on January 14, 2026, and an investigation determined an outsider had been inside its files for the previous week, copying records as they went. Beacon sent notice letters on May 18, 2026 -- four months later, according to the filing. The data at stake is the kind that makes claims professionals wince: names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, financial account information, health insurance details, and medical treatment information. Malloy's argument is that an insurer holding this much sensitive policyholder and claimant data owed a duty to lock it down, and didn't. The complaint says Beacon kept the information unencrypted and failed to use reasonable security procedures matched to its sensitivity. Beacon, per the filing, admits unauthorized individuals got into its system but has said little about how. To anchor the claim, Malloy points to widely accepted cybersecurity frameworks. The filing alleges Beacon fell short of the minimum standards of the NIST Cybersecurity Framework Version 1.1, listing specific controls covering access management, awareness training, data security, detection, and response. It also references the Center for Internet Security's Critical Security Controls. Federal Trade Commission guidance also features. The complaint cites the FTC's 2016 publication "Protecting Personal Information: A Guide for Business," which tells companies to inventory data they hold, dispose of what they no longer need, encrypt sensitive information on their networks, understand their vulnerabilities, and put policies in place to fix problems. Malloy says Beacon's alleged failure to do these things is an unfair business practice barred by Section 5 of the FTC Act. A separate section of the filing alleges Beacon violated HIPAA's privacy rules by failing to safeguard electronic protected health information. The causes of action are negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, and breach of confidence. Malloy is asking for class certification, damages, statutory penalties to the extent available, restitution, attorneys' fees, and a jury trial. The complaint says the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million and the proposed class includes more than 100 members. The allegations have not been tested in court. Beacon has not yet filed a response, and no court has ruled. [GN] BIOLOGICAL LABORATORY: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Salgado Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ PRECIOUS SALGADO, in a Representative capacity, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BIOLOGICAL LABORATORY, INC., a California Corporation doing business in California; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 26STCV15624 (Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Cal., May 15, 2026) is a class action seeking an award of statutory civil penalties for each underpaid employee of Defendant pursuant to the California Labor Code. The complaint relates that throughout the term of their employment, Plaintiff and all other aggrieved employees were, and currently are, denied the benefits and protections of the Labor Code due to Defendant's institutionalized pay practices, standard as to all of Defendant's California-based employees. Throughout their employment, Plaintiff and all other aggrieved employees were and are denied full and accurate compensation, including overtime compensation and are denied Meal and Rest Periods and Meal and Rest Period payments, in violation of the Labor Code. Moreover, the Defendant failed to furnish accurate itemized wage statements; failed to reimburse Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees for necessary business expenditures; and failed to provide all compensation due at termination of employment, in violation of the Labor Code. The Plaintiff brings this action on the grounds that she and other current and former aggrieved employees of Defendant were and are improperly denied the mandated wages resulting from the alleged violations. The Plaintiff also seeks an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Labor Code. Plaintiff Precious Salgado was employed as an employee for BIOLAB from May 12, 2025 through late June 2025. Defendant Biological Laboratory, Inc. operates as a medical and diagnostic laboratory.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric K. Yaeckel, Esq. Cody D. Archer, Esq. SULLIVAN & YAECKEL LAW GROUP, APC 2330 Third Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 702-6760 Facsimile: (619) 702-6761 E-mail: yaeckel@sullivanlawgroupapc.com codv@sullivanlawgroupapc.com - and - Orlando Villalba, Esq. Helga Hakimi, Esq. Daniel S. Jonathan, Esq. Jeffrey Jimenez, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1860 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Orlando.Villalba@capstonelawyers.com Helga.Hakimi@capstonelawvers.com Daniel.Jonathan@capstonelawyers.com Jeff.Jimenez@capstonelawyers.com BLUE ENTERPRISES: Faces Roth Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- JERIMIAH ROTH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE ENTERPRISES, LLC. d/b/a HOGAN TRANSPORTS, LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-00744 (E.D. Mo., May 13, 2026) is a class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information who were impacted in a data breach. On November 29, 2025, the Defendant discovered unusual activity affecting certain systems within its network. Upon detection, the Defendant initiated an investigation with the assistance of third-party cybersecurity specialists to determine the nature and scope of the incident. The investigation determined that unauthorized actors accessed Defendant's network at various periods of time between October 25, 2025 and November 29, 2025, and accessed or copied certain files during the incident. The Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the private information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. The Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the private information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons whose private information was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices, says the suit. Blue Enterprises, LLC is a transportation and trucking business that provides truck leasing, logistics, and freight transportation services throughout the United States. Defendant is headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Rosemergy, Esq. CAREY & DANIS LLC 8235 Forsyth, Suite 1100 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 725-7700 Facsimile: (314) 721-0905 E-mail: jrosemergy@careydanis.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. Tyler A. Litke, Esq. Melissa G. Meyer, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: mreich@zlk.com tlitke@zlk.com mmeyer@zlk.com BP EXPLORATION: 5th Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment in Breaux Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Caleb Breaux, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED; BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 25-30255 (5th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, affirms the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants. Breaux, who assisted in the clean-up after the Deepwater Horizon disaster, was diagnosed with lymphoma in 2020 and several associated conditions in 2023. In 2022, he sued the defendants pursuant to the Deepwater Horizon multi-district litigation's master settlement agreement, which allows certain clean-up workers to recover damages on medical conditions diagnosed after the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement, as Amended on May 1, 2012, at 63–70, In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon", 295 F.R.D. 112 (E.D. La. 2013) (No. 10-MD-02179), Dkt. No. 6427-1. Under the district court's first scheduling order, Breaux had until December 22, 2022, to provide any expert reports. Nearly two years later, he had not done so. After this generous extension, the district court declined to continue the deadline further. Instead, It ruled on the Defendants' motion for summary judgment, filed after the deadline for expert reports. Breaux's response to this motion relied solely on his arguments for a stay and offered no competent summary-judgment evidence. The district court therefore granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants. Breaux argues on appeal only that the stay should have been granted. He does not dispute that, absent a stay, summary judgment was proper. The parties dispute whether the Court of Appeals should review the decision to deny a stay de novo, as an interpretation of the settlement agreement, or for abuse of discretion, as a decision not to amend the scheduling order. The Court of Appeals holds that Breaux's arguments fail under either applicable standard of review. It finds no conflict between the district court's decision and the settlement agreement, noting that while the agreement provides procedures for asserting claims, it does not require indefinite delays in litigation. The district court properly managed its docket by granting Breaux significant additional time to locate an expert and setting a firm deadline, which Breaux failed to justify extending. The Appellate Court therefore upholds the denial of a further stay and finds no error in the district court's enforcement of its scheduling order or its decision to proceed to summary judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://l1nq.com/rafamw4 BUTTERBLU LLC: Court Sets Scheduling Conference in THC Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THE HONEST COMPANY, INC., v. BUTTERBLU, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00019-WLH-MBK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Hsu entered an order setting scheduling conference as follows: The case has been assigned to United States District Judge Wesley L. Hsu. This matters is set for a Scheduling Conference on the above date in Courtroom 9B of the First Street Courthouse, 350 West 1st Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012. If the plaintiff has not already served the operative complaint on all defendants, plaintiff shall do so promptly and shall file proofs of service of the summons and complaint within three (3) days thereafter. Lead trial counsel and any unrepresented parties must attend the scheduling conference, unless excused by the Court for good cause prior to the conference. For a putative class action, the Court will set a deadline for hearing the class certification motion. The motion must be filed sufficiently far in advance of the deadline to allow for: (i) at least three (3) weeks between the filing of the reply and the hearing; (ii) four (4) weeks for the opposition; and (iii) two (2) weeks for the reply. Butterblu offers baby and children's apparel. A copy of the Court's order dated May 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NOQGZl at no extra charge.[CC] BYOMA US INC: Perry Suit Removed to D. Arizona ---------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Rodneka Perry, individually and on behalf all those similarly situated v. BYOMA US INC., Case No. 2026 CH 02761 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for Northern District of Illinois on May 18, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-05765. On March 24, 2026, Plaintiff filed a putative Class Action Complaint alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"). In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant "operates an artificial intelligence ("AI") "Skin Analysis Tool" on its websites" and that "when Plaintiff and Class Members scanned their faces to obtain a personalized skin regimen via the Skin Analysis Tool, Defendant captured, collected, and stored scans of their facial geometry, which constitute biometric identifiers and/or biometric information under BIPA."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Brian H. Myers, Esq. Jennifer S. Stegmaier, Esq. WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN &DICKER LLP 161 N. Clark, Suite 4500 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: 312.704.0550 Fax: 312.704.1522 Email: Brian.Myers@wilsonelser.com Jennifer.Stegmaier@wilsonelser.com CANDY NATION: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Pelaez Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- JUDITH PELAEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Candy Nation LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-217 (N.D. Ind., May 15, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website https://www.candynation.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Pelaez and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Pelaez's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The complaint relates that Pelaez attempted to complete a purchase on the Website on December 11, 2025. However, she encountered multiple accessibility barriers that ultimately prevented her from completing the transaction. The Website contains access barriers that deny her full and equal access. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Pelaez and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations, and/or opportunities of the Website, says the suit. Plaintiff Judith Pelaez is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Candy Nation LLC provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a wide range of candies, including gummies, chocolate, hard and sour varieties, along with gum, seasonal treats, and nostalgic options.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason B. Marshall, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N, Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 E-mail: jmarshall@ealg.law CARNIVAL CORP: Faces Pottle Class Suit Over Alleged Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Zachary Pottle is suing Carnival Corp., the operator of Carnival Cruise Line. Why: Pottle claims Carnival failed to notify customers that their personally identifiable information (PII) was stolen in a data breach. Where: The Carnival class action lawsuit was filed in Florida federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Carnival Corp. -- which owns Carnival Cruise Line -- failed to notify its customers that their personally identifiable information was stolen in a data breach. Plaintiff Zachary Pottle filed the class action complaint against Carnival Corp. on April 22 in Florida federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the lawsuit, Carnival failed to notify its customers about a data breach that occurred on April 18, 2026. The breach allegedly involved the theft of more than 8.7 million records containing personally identifiable information by the ransomware group ShinyHunters. Pottle claims Carnival failed to provide timely notice to affected individuals, leaving them at risk of identity theft and fraud. He alleges Carnival failed to adopt reasonable security measures to protect its customers' PII despite benefiting economically from collecting this information. The class action lawsuit claims Carnival's alleged conduct amounts to negligence and violates federal and state statutes. Carnival Cruise data breach left customers at risk of identity theft, lawsuit alleges Pottle says that Carnival's failure to notify customers of the data breach has caused him to suffer injuries, including the loss of the value of his PII, out-of-pocket expenses related to identity theft prevention and recovery and increased risk of identity theft. Pottle is looking to represent anyone in the United States who was impacted by the data breach. He seeks certification of the class action, damages and a jury trial. Recently, Choice Hotels was sued for allegedly failing to properly safeguard and protect the personally identifiable information of its franchisees and franchise applicants. The plaintiff is represented by Mariya Weekes of Milberg PLLC. The Carnival Cruise class action lawsuit is Pottle v. Carnival Corp., Case No. 1:26-cv-22801, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. [GN] CASILLAS PETROLEUM: Class Cert Bid Filing Due March 26, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHLEEN REISS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. CASILLAS PETROLEUM RESOURCE PARTNERS, LLC, et al., Case No. 6:26-cv-00011-JFH-GLJ (E.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Jackson entered a Class I scheduling order as follows: Motions for leave to amend or add Aug. 5, 2026 additional Parties: The Plaintiff's deadline to file final Jan. 8, 2027 class certification witness list, serve rule 26(a)(2) expert disclosures, and produce any summaries of evidence on which it will rely in support of class certification: Class certification discovery cutoff: March 19, 2027 Daubert motions and class certification March 26, 2027 motion filed with all supporting evidence: Evidentiary hearing on the Plaintiffs' July 13, 2027, motion for class certification: at 10:00 AM. The Court FURTHER entered an order that following a decision on plaintiffs' motion for class certifications the Court will schedule a status conference for entry of a scheduling order, as it pertains to Class I, to control the remainder of the litigation, including expert disclosures for trial, dispositive motions, pretrial, and trial deadlines. Casillas is a privately held oil and gas exploration and production company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OLy257 at no extra charge.[CC] CHARLIE CONDON: Weathers Sues Over Unprotected Private Info ----------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM WEATHERS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHARLIE CONDON LAW FIRM, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2026CP1002543 (S.C. Com. Pl., 9th Judicial, Charleston Cty., May 14, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff William Weathers' and/or Class Members' personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network. A cyberattack was discovered by Defendant on May 4, 2026, by which cybercriminals infiltrated its network and accessed the private information which was being kept there including, without limitation, name, Social Security Numbers, driver's license number and state identification card number. However, the Defendant did not begin informing victims of the data breach until May 8, 2026, and failed to inform victims when or for how long the data breach occurred. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Charlie Condon Law Firm, LLC is a criminal defense law firm based in Mount Pleasant, SC. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com - and - Scott Edward Cole, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 E-mail: sec@colevannote.com CHESTNUT HEALTH: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Feb. 8, 2027 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Doe 1 et al., v. Chestnut Health Systems, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01475 (C.D. Ill., Filed Nov. 22, 2024), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered an order granting the parties' joint motion for extension of time to complete discovery. Accordingly, the Court adopts the deadlines set forth in the parties' Second Amended Discovery Plan, including the following: (1) fact discovery due on or by February 8, 2027; (2) the deadline to move for class certification is now Feb. 8, 2027; (3) the close of all discovery is now May 21, 2027; and (4) dispositive motions are due on or by May 21, 2027. All deadlines set forth in the Court's February 10, 2026 Text Order are vacated. The parties explain that delays in written discovery and settlement negotiations have made compliance with the current discovery schedule impractical. The suit alleges violation of the Diversity-Contract Default. The Defendant offers behavioral health and human services.[CC] COINBASE GLOBAL: Settlement Class Gets Certification ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kenneth Donovan et al v. Coinbase Global, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-08431-SDA (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Aaron entered a final order and judgment as follows: -- The Court affirms its determinations in the amended Preliminary Approval Order certifying a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the Settlement Class consisting of: "All persons who purchased or acquired GYEN in New York or California at a time when the GYEN was unpegged from the Japanese yen between Dec. 29, 2020 and Oct.10, 2025, inclusive, and lost money thereby." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) the Defendant; (ii) any person who was an officer, director, or controlling person of GMO Trust or any of Defendant's Releasees; (iii) any parents, subsidiaries, or affiliates of GMO Trust; (iv) any GYEN market makers or GYEN liquidity providers; (v) any person who was an officer, director, or controlling person of any GYEN market makers or GYEN liquidity providers; (vi) any parents, subsidiaries, or affiliates of any GYEN market makers or GYEN liquidity providers; (vii) any exchange on which GYEN was or is sold; (viii) any person who was an officer, director, or controlling person of any exchange on which GYEN was or is sold; (ix) any parents, subsidiaries, or affiliates of any exchange on which GYEN was or is sold; (x) any entity in which any such excluded party has, or had, a direct or indirect majority ownership interest; (xi) the Defendant's directors' and officers' liability insurance carriers, and any affiliates or subsidiaries thereof; and (xii) the legal representatives, heirs, successors-in-interest, or assigns of any such excluded persons or entities. -- The Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action settlement is granted. -- The Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and service awards is granted. Class Counsel is awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $2,250,000 (one third of the Settlement Fund), and $86,296.51 in payment of Class Counsel's litigation expenses, together with any interest earned thereon for the same time period and at the same rate as that earned on the Settlement Fund until paid, pursuant to the terms set forth in the Stipulation, which are incorporated herein. -- The Court awards Service Awards of $7,500 each to Plaintiffs Kenneth Donovan and Hussein Kassfy and to Non-Settling Plaintiff John Brambl. Coinbase is an American financial technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LEoCch at no extra charge.[CC] COLUMBIA ORTHOPAEDIC: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the possible Columbia Orthopaedic Group data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including current and former Columbia Orthopaedic Group patients and affiliates. Possible Columbia Orthopaedic Group Security Incident: What Happened? Emerging reports suggest that Columbia Orthopaedic Group may have suffered a data breach. A May 26, 2026 post on dark web monitoring site Breachsense indicates that threat actor LockBit has claimed responsibility for a cyberattack at the healthcare provider. The nature of the information potentially compromised in the possible Columbia Orthopaedic Group data breach remains unclear. The medical provider, which operates a facility for surgical and non-surgical orthopedic treatment in Columbia, Missouri, has not yet confirmed any breach. What You Can Do After the Potential Columbia Orthopaedic Group Data Breach If your information was potentially exposed in the reported Columbia Orthopaedic Group cyberattack, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Columbia Orthopaedic Group to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] COMPLETE CARE: Dismissal of Jones Unpaid Wages Class Suit Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the cases, MICHELLE JONES, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated Individuals, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMPLETE CARE AT COURT HOUSE, LLC, Defendant-Respondent, Docket No. A-1243-24 (N.J. Super. App. Div.), the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirms the order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss the class action suit. Jones appeals from the Law Division's November 22, 2024, order dismissing her class action suit seeking wages under the New Jersey Wage Payment Law ("NJWPL"), N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.1 to -15. In June 2024, the Plaintiff, a Certified Nursing Assistant ("CNA"), filed a putative class action complaint alleging that the Defendant violated the NJWPL by deducting thirty minutes of pay for lunch breaks that she and other CNAs were unable to take due to understaffing. She asserts that she and other hourly employees were scheduled for these breaks but were often unable to take them because of their workloads. Nevertheless, the Defendant deducted thirty minutes from their paychecks. The collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") between the employer and Amalgamated Local 1931, Eastern States Joint Board sets the terms of employment for CNAs, including wages, hours, working conditions, and dispute resolution. It designates the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative for those terms. Article V governs scheduling, workweeks, and break periods, giving the employer authority to schedule lunch periods and adjust shifts as needed. Article XVII provides a grievance process for disputes involving the CBA's interpretation or application, with unresolved issues subject to binding arbitration upon timely request by either party. In pursuing her rights under the CBA, the Plaintiff did not follow this procedure. Rather, she sought relief directly in the Superior Court. Consequently, the Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 4:6-2(e), arguing the Plaintiff failed to exhaust the administrative remedies set forth in the CBA and her claim was preempted by federal law. The trial court granted the motion, finding that the claims implicated Article V of the CBA, which relates to breaks and employee scheduling. The court determined that any determination as to the Defendant's staffing practices or break policies and whether they violated the Plaintiff's rights requires analyzing the scope of the employer's rights and obligations under the CBA. The court concluded that the Plaintiff's claims were subject to the CBA's exclusive grievance and arbitration provisions and were also preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 185. This appeal followed. The Appellate Division concludes, as the motion judge did, the Plaintiff's complaint was properly dismissed. It searches the complaint in depth and with liberality to ascertain whether the fundament of a cause of action may be gleaned even from an obscure statement of claim, and gives the Plaintiff an opportunity to amend if necessary. The Plaintiff points to no compelling reason in law nor in equity that would allow her to seek relief under the NJWPL and subvert the well-established doctrine of the exhaustion of remedies. Because she cannot amend her complaint to articulate a legal basis entitling her to relief, it should remain dismissed with prejudice. The CBA requires that disputes involving interpretation, application, or terms and conditions of employment be resolved through its grievance and arbitration procedures. It also designates the union as the exclusive bargaining representative for employees' wages, hours, and working conditions and sets rules for work schedules, including break and lunch periods. Because the Plaintiff's claims fall within these employment-related provisions, the Appellate Division concludes they must be addressed through the CBA's grievance process. It also notes that allowing the claims to proceed in court would undermine the collective bargaining process and the strong policy favoring arbitration and internal resolution of labor disputes. The Appellate Division rejected the Plaintiff's claim that the motion court should have searched the complaint for a viable cause of action. It holds that the key issue was whether the dispute was governed by the CBA, not whether the complaint separately stated a cause of action. Because the wage dispute fell within the CBA's grievance procedure, it had to be resolved through arbitration. It therefore upholds dismissal of the case with prejudice. The Appellate Division states that any remaining arguments not specifically addressed in its Opinion were considered and found to lack sufficient merit to require further discussion. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://l1nq.com/np2tm21. Costello & Silverman, LLC, attorneys for appellant (Miriam S. Edelstein, of counsel and on the brief). Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, attorneys for respondent (Melissa J. Brown -- mjbrown@grsm.com -- Jonathan R. Stuckel -- jstuckel@grsm.com -- and Peyton M. Miller, on the brief). CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Sept. 28 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MITCHELL MINERALS LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. CONTINENTAL RESOURCES INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00218-KHR (D. Wyo.), the Hon. Judge Klosterman entered an order granting the joint motion to extend scheduling order deadlines. Event Deadline Deadline to complete deposition of the June 3, 2026 Defendant's corporate representative: Private mediation deadline: Jan. 8, 2027 The Plaintiff's class certification Sept. 28, 2026 motion: The Defendant's class certification Dec. 9, 2026 response: The Plaintiff's class certification Jan. 15, 2027 reply: In person class certification hearing: Feb. 4, 2027, at 2:00 p.m. Continental is a petroleum and natural gas exploration and production company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZuPFIE at no extra charge.[CC] COOPER HEALTH SYSTEM: Freeland Suit Removed to D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Siarah Freeland, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE COOPER HEALTH SYSTEM d/b/a THE COOPER HEALTH SYSTEM, COOPER UNIVERSITY HEALTH CARE, COOPER UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, and COOPER UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL CARE, Case No. CAM-L-1309-26 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, to the United States District Court for District of New Jersey on May 19, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-05693. The Complaint alleges that Cooper's "rounding/editing and time manipulation policies have violated and continue to violate United States Department of Labor regulations," and Plaintiff relies upon that alleged federal violation as a predicate for the asserted New Jersey statutory violations. The Complaint also alleges that "federal regulations require employers to make and keep payroll records showing specified categories of information under the United States Department of Labor regulations and the Fair Labor Standards Act, and then alleges Cooper transmitted post-edited, rounded, modified, and inaccurate and/or incomplete records to payroll.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Jessica Rado, Esq. KLAFTER LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Phone: (914) 934-9200 Email: seth@klafterlesser.com jessica.rado@klafterlesser.com - and - Michael A. Galpern, Esq. Amy Winters, Esq. JAVERBAUM WURGAFT HICKS KAHN WIKSTROM & SININS, P.C. Laurel Oak Corporate Center 1000 Haddonfield-Berlin Road - Suite 203 Voorhees, NJ 08043 Phone: (856) 596-4100 mgalpern@lawjw.com Email: mclark@lawjw.com - and - Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC Phone: (216) 912-2221 11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 310 Strongsville, Ohio 44136 Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com COREWELL HEALTH: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Debt Collection -------------------------------------------------------------- News From the States reports that Corewell Health, one of Michigan's largest healthcare systems with 21 medical facilities statewide -- encompassing more than 5,000 hospital beds and 60,000 employees -- is being sued along with Delaware-based debt collection agency DCM Services, LLC in federal district court for allegedly trying to collect millions of dollars in medical bills that were already paid through insurance and government programs. The lawsuit, a class-action suit filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Detroit, alleges that Corewell and DCM engaged in fraud and violated state debt collection and consumer protection laws, among other claims. That practice, which the complaint calls "balance billing," means that Corewell Health "submits claims for payment to insurers, group health plans, Medicare, or Medicaid and accepts reduced payments under negotiated agreements and governing law as payment in full for covered services." Legally, the complaint continues, after accepting those claims, Corewell "cannot bill, charge, collect from, seek compensation, remuneration or reimbursement from, or have any recourse against the patient for covered medical services." The complaint alleges balance billing is a "routine and systematic practice" of Corewell Health, listing 19 hospitals where the plaintiffs allege the practice is being used, ranging from Big Rapids in West Michigan to a number of hospitals in Wayne County. Neither Corewell Health nor DCM Services, LLC responded to requests for comment by the time of publication. The lawsuit was brought by Michelle Rzanca as a personal representative for the estate of Jordan Field, a Michigan resident who died after receiving emergency medical services at Corewell Health Butterworth Hospital in Grand Rapids in March 2024. Corewell billed over $61,600 for the medical services that he received before entering a payment contract with his insurer, Blue Cross Blue Shield PPO. Among the exhibits in the complaint is a copy of a billing statement from the hospital noting a payment of $19,448.92 listed as "Contractual Adjustment (Insurance)." Despite that payment, the complaint states that Corewell Health claimed that the Field Estate still owed it a debt of $42,160.70 for the remaining unpaid balance, referring that debt to DCM Services for collection. "The contract prohibited Defendant Corewell from holding a BCBS-insured patient liable for any payment or fees that were the legal obligation of BCBS. Defendant Corewell could not bill, charge, collect from, seek compensation, remuneration or reimbursement from, or have any recourse against an insured patient for a covered medical service," the complaint states. [GN] CORNERSTONE SERVICES: Govt Contractor Exemption Clarified in Thomas ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TIARA THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CORNERSTONE SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellant, Appeal No. 3-24-0568 (Ill. App.), the Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District, certifies two questions for review pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 308, arising from the interpretation of Section 25(e) of the Biometric Information Privacy Act and the scope of its government contractor exemption. Cornerstone is a corporation that provides services and support to individuals in Illinois with intellectual and developmental disabilities. It has a contractual relationship with the State of Illinois and receives funding from the Department of Human Services (DHS), a state agency. Thomas was employed at Cornerstone from 2020 to 2022. During her employment, Cornerstone allegedly tracked Thomas's time on the job through the use of a biometric time tracking system, i.e., a finger-scanning time clock. Thomas filed a putative class action against Cornerstone alleging violations of the Act based on the unauthorized disclosure of employee biometric data. The complaint alleged that Cornerstone collected and stored employees' fingerprints for timekeeping since around 2008 and required employees to sign a consent form regarding its biometric data policy. However, employees were not informed, and did not consent, to Cornerstone sharing their biometric identifiers with its payroll vendor, Automatic Data Processing (ADP). Thomas claimed this disclosure of fingerprint data to ADP violated Section 15(d) of the Act. Cornerstone filed a combined motion to dismiss under section 2-619.1, arguing in part that it was exempt from liability under the Act as a government contractor. It alleged that it received more than $23 million annually from the Illinois Department of Human Services for providing housing and support services to individuals with disabilities during the period of Thomas's employment. Based on this relationship, Cornerstone contended it was acting pursuant to a government contract and therefore fell within the Act's government contractor exemption for the relevant time period. Thomas sought leave to conduct limited discovery under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 191(b) and requested a stay of briefing on Cornerstone's motion to dismiss. She argued that determining whether the government contractor exemption applied required facts about when Cornerstone collected and handled biometric data in relation to its government contracts, and she claimed public information suggested Cornerstone may not have been a state contractor throughout the relevant period. Cornerstone opposed, arguing discovery was unnecessary because the exemption issue could be resolved on the pleadings and noting it also performed work and received revenue outside its state contracts. Thomas later moved to reconsider the court's denial of her discovery and stay request. On April 24, 2024, the circuit court held a hearing on the parties' pending motions and denied Cornerstone's motion to dismiss, questioning whether the government contractor exemption applies to conduct occurring outside the scope of a government contract. It also denied Thomas’s motion to reconsider the denial of her Rule 191(b) discovery request, ordered Cornerstone to answer the complaint, and directed the parties to proceed with discovery. Thereafter, the circuit court granted Cornerstone's motion to certify two questions for interlocutory appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 308(a). The appellate court initially denied Cornerstone’s application for leave to appeal, but the Illinois Supreme Court later issued a supervisory order vacating that decision, allowing the appeal, and directing the appellate court to answer the certified questions: "Does the exemption under Section 25(e) of BIPA declaring that BIPA shall not be construed to apply to a contractor, subcontractor, or agent of a State agency or local unit of government when working for that State agency or local unit of government’ apply to exempt from BIPA only those contractors or subcontractors who work exclusively for state agencies or local units of government," and "If the answer to the foregoing is 'no,' what is the meaning of the phrase 'when working for the State agency or local unit of government' as used in Section 25(e)?" The interlocutory appeal asks the court to clarify the scope of the Act’s government contractor exemption. That provision states that the Act does not apply to a contractor, subcontractor, or agent of a state or local government "when working for" that government entity. The dispute centers on the meaning of the phrase "when working for" in the Act's government contractor exemption. Cornerstone argues the phrase is unambiguous and purely temporal, meaning any contractor with an active government contract is categorically exempt from liability under the Act for the duration of that contract, regardless of whether the alleged violations occur within or outside the scope of the contracted work. Thomas, by contrast, contends the phrase is ambiguous and limits the exemption only to conduct occurring while the contractor is actually performing services under the government contract. Based on its plain language, the Appellate Court concludes that the government contractor exemption applies only to exempt a contractor from liability when acting within the scope of its government contract. It answers the first certified question in the negative and holds that the Act does not require an exclusive contractual relationship with a state agency or local unit of government for the exemption to apply. It answers the second certified question by concluding that the unambiguous construction of the phrase "when working for" is not merely temporal; rather, it also qualifies the conduct exempted such that a government contractor is immunized from liability under the Act only when its violation occurred when acting within the scope of its governmental contractual relationship. The Appellate Court remands the cause. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://sl1nk.com/eowua1v. Kristine R. Argentine -- kargentine@seyfarth.com -- Paul Yovanic Jr. -- pyovanic@seyfarth.com -- and Claire C. Kossmann -- ckossmann@seyfarth.com -- of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, of Chicago, for appellant. Pasha Vaziri, of Vaziri Law LLC, of Chicago, for appellee. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Class Suit Over Kirkland Tortellonis Label ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Sydney Turner is suing Costco Wholesale Corp. Why: Turner claims Costco falsely advertised its Kirkland Signature frozen pasta product as containing "no preservatives." Where: The Costco class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses Costco of falsely advertising its Kirkland Signature Five Cheese Tortelloni with Parmigiano Reggiano frozen pasta as containing "no preservatives." Plaintiff Sydney Turner filed the class action complaint against Costco Wholesale Corp. on April 29 in California federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the lawsuit, Costco manufactures, distributes, advertises and sells the frozen pasta food product with a "no preservatives" representation on the front label, causing consumers to believe it is free from artificial preservatives. However, the ingredient list on the back panel reveals the presence of manufactured citric acid, a preservative produced through industrial fermentation and chemical processing, the lawsuit alleges. Turner claims she was deceived by Costco's misrepresentation and seeks to represent a nationwide class of consumers who purchased the product, as well as subclasses of consumers in certain states. Class action claims Costco frozen pasta contains manufactured citric acid The lawsuit claims Costco's representation gives the impression that the product contains no artificial preservatives, when in fact it contains manufactured citric acid. Turner alleges she relied on the "no preservatives" claim when purchasing the frozen pasta product in December 2023 and would not have bought it or would have paid less if she had known it contained a preservative. The class action lawsuit argues manufactured citric acid is not natural and is produced using heavy chemical processing. The complaint cites studies and reports indicating that citric acid is manufactured using a type of black mold called Aspergillus niger, which is modified to increase citric acid production. The lawsuit also alleges the consumption of manufactured citric acid has been associated with adverse health events and that it is not commercially feasible to use natural citric acid extracted from fruits. Turner is suing for violations of California unfair competition, consumer legal remedy and false advertising laws, as well as breach of express and implied warranties, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and unjust enrichment. She is seeking certification of the Costco class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. In a separate lawsuit filed early this year, a Costco customer accused the company of violating California law by sending untimely and deficient membership renewal notices. The plaintiff is represented by Adrian Gucovschi and Nathaniel Haim Sari of Gucovschi Law Firm PLLC. The Costco class action lawsuit is Turner v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Case No. 8:26-cv-01013, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. [GN] DEANCO HEALTHCARE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $1.55-Mil. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that current and former patients and other individuals who received notice from Mission Community Hospital or a Deanco Healthcare affiliate on or around Nov. 21, 2023, stating a data breach may have compromised their personal information could be eligible to submit a claim for up to $5,100 plus other benefits from a class action settlement. Deanco Healthcare LLC, d/b/a Mission Community Hospital, agreed to pay $1,546,409.42 to settle a class action lawsuit. The plaintiffs claimed Deanco failed to adequately protect sensitive personal and medical information during a cybersecurity incident that occurred on May 1, 2023. The breach impacted 269,847 people. and breached information included dates of birth, Social Security numbers, financial account data and medical and health insurance records. Who can file a claim for a data breach payout? Class members are individuals who received a notice from Mission Community Hospital, Deanco Healthcare or a Deanco affiliate on or around Nov. 21, 2023, stating that the May 1, 2023, data breach may have compromised their personally identifying and protected health information. How much are settlement payments? Class members have the following benefit options: -- Documented loss payment: Class members can claim up to $5,000 in documented, unreimbursed losses that are fairly traceable to the data breach and incurred on or after May 1, 2023. This includes fees for freezing/unfreezing credit, costs for credit monitoring or credit reports, and other monetary losses due to identity theft or fraud. -- California statutory payment: Class members who were California residents at the time of the breach can submit a claim to receive a $100 cash payment. -- Residual cash payment: All class members can submit a claim to receive a residual cash payment from the remaining net settlement fund after the settlement administrator pays all other claims. The administrator will determine the payment amount by the total number of claims filed. -- Medical monitoring services: All class members can elect to receive two years of CyEx Medical Shield Complete, which includes single-bureau credit monitoring; health insurance plan ID, Medicare beneficiary identifier ID, medical record number, international classification of disease, national provider Identifier, health savings account, high-risk transaction and dark web monitoring; $1,000,000 identity theft insurance; real-time authentication alerts; security freeze assist; and access to identity theft recovery specialists. How to claim a class action rebate To receive a settlement payment, class members can file a claim online or print the PDF claim form to complete and mail to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Deanco Healthcare Data Security Incident Litigation, c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC, P.O. Box 5324, New York, NY 10150-5324 The claim deadline is Aug. 12, 2026. Required claim information and proof -- All class members must provide the class member ID from the settlement notice they received. -- Documented loss claims require supporting documentation, which may include bank or credit card statements showing unreimbursed fees or fraudulent charges, invoices, receipts or other proof of unreimbursed expenses or monetary losses related to the breach. Payout options -- Electronic payment (only available for online claims) -- Paper check mailed to the address provided Settlement fund breakdown The $1,546,409.42 settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: Up to $235,400 -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $541,243.30 -- Attorneys' expenses: Up to $50,000 -- Service awards to class representatives: Up to $2,000 each -- Medical monitoring services: Cost determined by number of claims filed -- Payments to approved claimants: Remaining settlement funds Important dates -- Deadline to opt out: July 13, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: Aug. 12, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: Sept. 9, 2026 When is the Deanco Healthcare settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments and medical monitoring information to approved claimants after it completes claim processing or 120 days after the court grants final approval of the settlement, whichever is later. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit claimed Deanco Healthcare experienced a cybersecurity attack on May 1, 2023, that compromised sensitive personal and medical information. The plaintiffs alleged Deanco failed to adequately protect information belonging to patients and other individuals. Deanco Healthcare denies any wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the uncertainty and costs of continued litigation. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Up to $5,100 plus medical monitoring and a residual cash payment Deadline: August 12, 2026 [GN] DEHEN JACKETS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Potrykus Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH POTRYKUS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DEHEN JACKETS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-867 (E.D. Wis., May 17, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://dehen1920.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Potrykus and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Potrykus' rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The complaint relates that Potrykus has made an attempt to complete a purchase on the Website on December 30, 2025. However, while attempting to purchase a Wool Knit Watch Cap, he encountered multiple accessibility barriers that hindered his ability to complete the purchase. The Website contains access barriers that deny full and equal access to Potrykus. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Potrykus and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of the Website n violation of the ADA and/or its implementing regulations, says the suit. Potrykus seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so 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. Plaintiff KENNETH POTRYKUS is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant DEHEN JACKETS, INC. 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 outerwear, including knitwear, jackets, coats, overshirts, sweaters, hoodies, along with wool knit caps, and scarves.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 718-554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law DELTA GALIL: Faces Sanchez Suit Over Fake Reference Prices ---------------------------------------------------------- MONICA SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DELTA GALIL USA, INC., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a WWW.7FORALLMANKIND.COM, Defendant, Case No. 26CU026415C (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., May 13, 2026) arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of California's False Advertising Law and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The Defendant, through its website, at https://www.7forallmankind.com offers products for sale to California consumers. The complaint alleges that Defendant advertises fictitious prices (and corresponding phantom discounts) on such products. This practice allows Defendant to fabricate a fake "reference" price, and present the actual price as "discounted," when it is not, says the suit. At the time of Plaintiff's purchase via the website, the Plaintiff did not see any disclaimer or notice on the website explaining that the strike-through reference price that Plaintiff saw was anything other than the former price or regular price at which Defendant itself sold such product to consumers. Any such disclaimer or notice, if any existed at such time (which is disputed), was not reasonably conspicuous to the reasonable prudent Internet user. The complaint contends that these pricing and advertising practices reflecting high-pressure fake sales are patently deceptive. They are intended to mislead customers into believing that they are getting a bargain by buying products from Defendant on sale and at a substantial and deep discount. The reference price is, therefore, an artificially inflated price. In turn, the advertised discounts are nothing more than phantom markdowns, says the suit. Delta Galil USA, Inc. sells intimates and activewear.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com DOLE FRESH: Albrigo and Amado Sue Over Unlawful Tariff Retention ---------------------------------------------------------------- LAURA WILLIS ALBRIGO and TARA AMADO, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiffs v. DOLE FRESH FRUIT COMPANY and DOLE PACKAGED FOODS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-03046-JES-JLB (S.D. Cal., May 14, 2026) seeks restitution and disgorgement of all tariff charges collected from the Plaintiffs and Class members. Beginning in February 2025, the Trump Administration imposed tariffs on a variety of imports, including the imported fruit products, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Although the IEEPA tariffs increased Dole's costs, Dole did not ultimately bear those costs, instead passing them on to consumers in the form of higher retail prices. Moreover, the Plaintiffs and Class members were subjected to tariff charges when they purchased the imported fruit products and suffered economic injury because these products were overpriced due to the unlawful tariff charge. On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States held the challenged IEEPA tariff orders exceeded the President's statutory authority and were therefore void. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs maintain that Dole cannot retain tariff charges collected to offset duties that were imposed without lawful authority. The Plaintiffs also assert that Dole cannot both pass the cost of an unlawful governmental exaction to consumers and retain the benefit of any reimbursement, credit, or avoidance of that exaction. Headquartered in Charlotte, NC, Dole Fresh Fruit Company imports and sells fresh and packaged fruit and fruit juice. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. Melanie R. Monroe, Esq. Trevor M. Flynn, Esq. Kaden Byron, Esq. Allison Ferraro, Esq. Daniel Sachs, Esq. FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN PC 2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 215-1741 E-mail: jfitzgerald@fmfpc.com mmonroe@fmfpc.com tflynn@fmfpc.com kbyron@fmfpc.com aferraro@fmfpc.com dsachs@fmfpc.com ELDERLY HOME: Lecleres Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Yamiel Khali Ortiz Lecleres, Saul Cruz Jr. individually, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. ELDERLY HOME MIS ABUELITOS, LLC; EMIGMARY ALICEA PÉREZ; ABC, Case No. 3:26-cv-01305 (D.P.R., May 19, 2026), is brought seeking to recover violations of the minimum wage, overtime, meal and rest period, and recordkeeping sections of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), comparable sections of the Puerto Rico Wage Payment Statute, the Puerto Rico Vacation and Sick Leave Act and under the Puerto Rico Christmas Bonus for the Employees of the Private Enterprise Act under the Act 148 of June 30, 1969, as amended. From at least August of 2024 to the present (the "relevant time period") (without prejudice that discovery and the joining of other claimants similarly situated might demonstrate otherwise), Defendants repeatedly and willfully violated the FLSA by failing to pay overtime premium to employees who worked more than 40 hours per workweek at Elderly Home. Defendants typically paid their employees the same hourly rate for all the hours worked during the workweek. Moreover, Defendants failed to pay daily overtime for daily work shifts in excess of 8 hours a day; allow its employees to enjoy the legal meal and rest periods; accrued vacation hours and enjoy vacation time; compensate employees for all hours worked during a workweek, and pay mandatory annual bonus, among others under applicable state laws, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants. The Defendants have been engaged in providing services as an elderly care facility in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Enrique J. Mendoza Mendez, Esq. Enrique J. Mendoza Sanchez, Esq. Gilberto J. Oliveras Maldonado, Esq. MENDOZA LAW OFFICES PO Box 9282 San Juan, PR 00908-0282 Phone: (787)722-5522 / 5530 Fax: (787) 723-7057 Email: mendozalo@yahoo.com ELEPHANT INSURANCE: Website Uses Tracking Tools, Yardley Says ------------------------------------------------------------- ERIC YARDLEY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. ELEPHANT INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-03155-RSH-MSB (S.D. Cal., May 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for recording, decoding, or capturing Plaintiff's routing, addressing, or signaling information and aiding Meta Platforms, Inc. ("Meta") to do the same via a tracking pixel ("Meta Pixel") in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"). Defendant Elephant Insurance Services, LLC maintains the website https://www.elephant.com that provides insurance and financial services to consumers in California and other states. Plaintiff Eric Yardley is an adult citizen of the state of California who visited Defendant's site. The complaint relates that countless Californians have visited the Website and without their knowledge, Defendant secretly collected their personal identifying information ("PII") consisting of their routing, addressing, or signaling information. Each time Plaintiff and Class Members visited the site, Defendant utilized various hidden trackers, including the Meta Pixel to collect their routing, addressing and signaling information, in addition to their IP addresses, unique identifiers, browsing information, and other personal information. Under CIPA, it is unlawful for any person to install or use a "pen register" or a "trap and trace device" without first obtaining a court order. A trap and trace device captures incoming dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling information reasonably likely to identify the source of a wire or electronic communication, but not the contents of a communication, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff brings this action in order to prevent Defendant from continuing to violate CIPA, and to recover statutory damages for Plaintiff and Class Members.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. Noah J. Larsh, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: 866-219-3343 E-mail: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com Noah@SwigartLawGroup.com - and - Daniel G. Shay, Esq. SHAY LEGAL, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: 619-222-7429 E-mail: Dan@ShayLegal.com EMERSON ELECTRIC: Underpays Company Employees, Cabrera Says ----------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM CABRERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., a Missouri Corporation and RIDGE TOOL COMPANY, an Ohio corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01176 (N.D. Ohio, May 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and common law by systematically failing to compensate Plaintiff and hourly employees for compensable work activities. The complaint relates that the Defendants employ and employed hundreds (if not thousands) of hourly workers, including Plaintiff, with job titles that include Furnace Operator to facilitate their operations. Defendants required Plaintiff and their Hourly Employees to wear company-issued or mandated uniforms and protective clothing during their work shifts to comply with company policies. The donning process took Plaintiff approximately five minutes to perform every shift and was compensable because Defendants required him and the Hourly Employees to don personal protective equipment ("PPE") at the worksite and wear it throughout their work shifts. Defendants, however, failed to compensate Plaintiff and their Hourly Employees for the time they spent donning the PPE every shift. As a result, the Plaintiff and the Hourly Employees not being paid for all overtime hours worked, overtime gap time when associated with unpaid overtime, and in non-overtime workweeks for regular hours, says the suit. The individuals Plaintiff seeks to represent in this action are current and former Hourly Employees who are similarly situated to each other in terms of their positions, job duties, pay structure, and claims regarding Defendants' violations of federal and state law. Plaintiff, William Cabrera is a resident of Elyria, Ohio and worked for Defendant Ridge Tool at its Elyria, Ohio facility as a non-exempt, hourly Furnace Operator from approximately July 2023 through October 2025. Defendant Emerson Electric Co. is a global industrial technology and software company that holds itself out as serving as a leader in industrial automation. Defendant Ridge Tool is a global manufacturer of professional-grade tools and provides specialized equipment primarily for plumbing, pipe fitting, construction, and HVAC trades.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason J. Thompson, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 415-3206 Facsimile: (248) 436-8453 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com EQUIFAX: 11th Circuit Reinstated Caraway Appeal as Timely --------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IRVIN E. CARAWAY, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EQUIFAX, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 25-12267, Non-Argument Calendar (11th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, sua sponte vacated its March 27, 2026, decision dismissing Caraway's appeal from the denial of his motion to transfer the case back to the Northern District of Ohio as untimely and held that the appeal is timely. In June 2018, Caraway filed a pro se complaint alleging Equifax violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act following the 2017 data breach. The case was transferred into multidistrict litigation in the Northern District of Georgia, where it was resolved through a 2020 class action settlement. In 2024, Caraway moved to transfer the case back to the Northern District of Ohio, but the district court denied the motion, explaining that only the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation had authority to order such a transfer. Caraway filed a timely notice of appeal on December 3, 2024. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit held it lacked jurisdiction to review the transfer order because it is not a final appealable order under 28 U.S.C. Section 1291 and therefore dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://l1nq.com/oyh5pxa F.E.G. HOLDINGS: Jones Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Niera Jones, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. F.E.G. HOLDINGS, L.L.C. d/b/a TOKYO VALENTINO LYFESTYLE CLUB, a Georgia Domestic Profit Corporation and MICHAEL MORRISON, an individual, Case No. 1:26-cv-02790-MLB (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 who worked at the Defendants' club. The Defendants operates an adult entertainment club, Tokyo Valentino located in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN] 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 Phone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 423-5864 Email: jrose@theleachfirm.com cleach@theleachfirm.com ppalmer@theleachfirm.com yhernandez@theleachfirm.com FACTOR75 LLC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FACTOR75, LLC,, Case No. 0:26-cv-02660 (D. Minn., May 19, 2026), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.factor75.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act ("MHRA"). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, the Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers prepared meals for sale including, but not limited to, keto meals, vegetarian meals, breakfast meals, high protein meals, low-calorie meals, smoothies, juices, snacks, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com FCA US: Agrees to $3.8-Mil. Wage and Hour Class Action Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that individuals who worked as hourly production employees for FCA US at any United States facility between Feb. 10, 2020, and May 12, 2025, may be eligible to receive a cash payment from a class action settlement. The settlement class includes approximately 68,000 current and former employees. FCA US LLC agreed to pay $3.8 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it failed to properly calculate and pay overtime wages to hourly production employees as required by federal and state wage laws. FCA manufactures vehicles under the Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep and Ram brands. Who are the class members? Class members are all current and former hourly production employees who worked for FCA US LLC in the United States at any time between Feb. 10, 2020, and May 12, 2025. How much are settlement payments? Pro rata cash payment: Eligible class members will receive a pro rata cash payment from the net settlement fund. The settlement administrator will determine payment amounts by comparing the number of weeks each individual worked during the qualifying period to the total number of weeks all class members worked. It will issue 50% of individual payment amounts as wages subject to withholding. No claim form required FCA US LLC agreed to pay $3.8 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it failed to properly calculate and pay overtime wages to hourly production employees as required by federal and state wage laws. FCA manufactures vehicles under the Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep and Ram brands. Who are the class members? Class members are all current and former hourly production employees who worked for FCA US LLC in the United States at any time between Feb. 10, 2020, and May 12, 2025. How much are settlement payments? Pro rata cash payment: Eligible class members will receive a pro rata cash payment from the net settlement fund. The settlement administrator will determine payment amounts by comparing the number of weeks each individual worked during the qualifying period to the total number of weeks all class members worked. It will issue 50% of individual payment amounts as wages subject to withholding. No claim form required Class members do not need to submit a claim to receive a payment. Those who wish to dispute their calculated workweeks must do so in writing by June 10, 2026. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Featherstone v. FCA US, c/o Atticus Administration, PO Box 64053, St. Paul, MN 55164 Payout options -- Paper check mailed to the address on file Settlement fund breakdown The $3,795,000 settlement fund will include: -- Settlement administration costs: Up to $196,000 -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $1,265,000 -- Attorneys' expenses: Up to $25,000 -- Service awards to class representatives: $10,000 for the lead plaintiff and $2,500 for each additional named plaintiff ($32,500 total) -- Payments to approved class members: Remaining settlement funds Important dates -- Deadline to dispute workweek calculation: June 10, 2026 -- Deadline to request exclusion: June 22, 2026 -- Fairness hearing: Aug. 25, 2026 When is the FCA US overtime settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will mail payments to eligible class members approximately 60 days after the court grants final approval of the settlement. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit alleged FCA US LLC failed to properly calculate and pay overtime wages for hourly production employees, violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and state wage laws in Illinois and Ohio. The plaintiffs claimed FCA did not include all required forms of compensation in the regular rate of pay when calculating overtime. FCA US denied the allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the risk and expense of further litigation and a possible trial. [GN] FITFLOP USA: Randolph Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- ERIKA RANDOLPH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Fitflop USA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05647 (N.D. Ill., May 15, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website https://fitflop.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The complaint relates that Plaintiff, Erika Randolph, has made an attempt to complete a purchase on Fitflop.com on March 27, 2026. However, while navigating the Website and attempting to complete her purchase, she encountered accessibility barriers that hindered her ability to finish the transaction. Fitflop.com contains access barriers which deny the full and equal access to Plaintiff. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Plaintiff and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of Fitflop.com in violation of the ADA and/or its implementing regulations, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Fitflop USA's policies, practices, and procedures so 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. Plaintiff Erika Randolph is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Fitflop USA LLC provides to the public a website known as Fitflop.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a diverse selection of footwear, including sandals, flip-flops, sneakers, slides, platform shoes, mules, and clogs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: +1 718-705-8706 Facsimile: +1 718-705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com FRONTWAVE CREDIT: Camargo Sues Over Private Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------- ANGEL VELARDECAMARGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRONTWAVE CREDIT UNION fka PACIFIC MARINE CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-03034-DMS-JLB (S.D. Cal., May 14, 2026), arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information, and its failure to exercise reasonable care in selecting, vetting, and overseeing the third-party service provider to which it entrusted Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII. On April 3, 2026, the Defendant received notification from one of its service providers regarding an inadvertent disclosure of non-public information. Recently, Defendant began sending individualized Notice of Data Breach letters informing victims of the data breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendant and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, and injunctive/declaratory relief. Headquartered in Oceanside, CA, Frontwave Credit Union provides personal checking, personal savings, mortgage loan, auto loan, and business checking services to clients. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW. P.A. 1925 Century Park E, #1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com GEICO INDEMNITY: Seeks to Seal Confidential Info in Shiloah Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RENATA SHILOAH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, Case No. 6:24-cv-06447-EAW-CDH (W.D.N.Y.), the Defendant will move the Court for an order granting motion to seal confidential information in briefing on the Plaintiff's motion seeking class certification and allowing portions of the briefing and exhibits to be submitted in support of the briefing on the Plaintiff's motion seeking class certification to be filed under seal and redacted from the public docket. The Defendant is a subsidiary of GEICO that provides private passenger auto insurance to millions of customers across the U.S. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RDS2RN at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Jennifer M. Schauerman, Esq. WOODS OVIATT GILMAN LLP 1900 Bausch & Lomb Place Rochester, NY 14604 Telephone: (585) 987-2800 Facsimile: (585) 445-2393 E-mail: JSchauerman@woodsoviatt.com - and - Dan W. Goldfine, Esq. Jamie L. Halavais, Esq. Claire E. F. Grimes, Esq. STINSON LLP 1850 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2100 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: (602) 279-1600 Facsimile: (602) 240-6925 E-mail: Dan.Goldfine@stinson.com Jamie.Halavais@stinson.com Claire.Grimes@stinson.com GET LIQUID: Settlement Deal in Brown Suit Gets Court OK ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BROWN et al v. GET LIQUID FUNDING, LLC, Case No. 9:26-cv-80170 (S.D. Fla., Filed Feb. 18, 2026), the Hon. Judge Ryon M Mccabe entered an order denying as moot motion to certify class in light of granting approval of joint settlement agreement. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendant is a financial services company, specializing in providing funding solutions to businesses of all sizes. [CC] GKN AEROSPACE: Faces Class Suit Over Chemical Plant Exposure Risks ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Law Offices of Rose Klein & Marias, LLP ("RKM") has filed a class action lawsuit for those impacted by the ongoing hazardous materials emergency surrounding the GKN Aerospace facility in Garden Grove seeking accountability for widespread disruption, evacuation-related losses, and alleged exposure risks stemming from an unstable methyl methacrylate ("MMA") storage tank. The complaint, filed in Federal Court - Central District of California, seeks damages for "all persons and entities who/which on May 21,2026, were residents of, present in, employed in, or maintained a place of business in the Evacuation Zone who sustained unreimbursed economic loss or loss of enjoyment/use of their property, excluding personal injury damages" according to the complaint. Christopher Ridout, the lead attorney for RKM, said "GKN Aerospace's negligence and failure to adequately maintain the storage tanks for the MMA, has led to real harm to those who live and work in and around the Evacuation Zone." Mr. Ridout noted that in 2021, GKN Aerospace paid nearly $1 million to settle numerous environmental violations, including failing to keep emission records and operating equipment without a permit. About Rose, Klein & Marias For over 90 years, the attorneys at RKM have successfully represented injured Californians in all matters of cases including workers' compensation and personal injury matters. In 1980, RKM became the first law firm in California to successfully sue the manufacturers of asbestos products (Richard Hogard v. Johns Manville Corp). In 2021, RKM attorneys settled a catastrophic traumatic brain injury case for $11,300,000, which, at that time, was the largest settlement in California Workers' Compensation history. RKM also pioneered NFL concussion litigation in both the workers' compensation and civil personal injury fields. Throughout the years, we have broken ground in countless practice areas and strive to find creative solutions to continue our tradition of innovation and enthusiastic advocacy in representing the injured. Media Contact Christopher P. Ridout, Esq. Law Offices of Rose, Klein & Marias, LLP (213) 626-0571 www.rkmlaw.net [GN] GOFUNDME INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Munoz Due May 4, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Munoz, v. GoFundMe Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-01217-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thompson entered a case management and scheduling order as follows: Trial date: June 12, 2028 Final pretrial conference: April 27, 2028 Expert discovery cut-off: Nov. 23, 2027 Fact discovery cut-off: Aug. 31, 2027 Motion for class certification: Hearing date: Aug. 03, 2027, 2:00 p.m. [in person] Reply Due: July 6, 2027 Oppositions Due: June 1, 2027 Motion Due: May 4, 2027 The Court further orders that parties and counsel refer to and comply with Judge Thompson’s Civil Standing Order and Civil Pretrial and Jury Trial Standing Order or Civil Pretrial and Bench Trial Standing Order located on the court’s website (https://cand.uscourts.gov/trina-lthompson/). The Defendant is an American for-profit crowdfunding platform that allows people to raise money for events. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yXX92V at no extra charge.[CC] GOLDEN HEAVEN: Agrees to Settle 2023 IPO Class Action for $1.7MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pluang reports that Golden Heaven Group Holdings Ltd. and several defendants have agreed to a $1.7 million settlement in a class action lawsuit related to the company's 2023 IPO and subsequent stock purchases. The settlement, approved by the New York Supreme Court, covers claims from investors who bought shares during the IPO or between April and December 2023. A fairness hearing is scheduled for September 24, 2026, to finalize the settlement and approve attorney fees and compensation plans. Investors affected must submit claims by September 3, 2026, to participate in the settlement fund distribution. [GN] HEALTH LINK: Assawasuksant Suit Removed to Cal. Super. ------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled YUPA ASSAWASUKSANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTH LINK, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; and DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE, Defendant, Case No. C26-00699, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Contra Costa to the Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco on April 28, 2026. The Superior Court of California for San Francisco County assigned Case No. CGC26636337 to the proceeding. The suit is brought over non-exempt complaints. A case management conference is set on September 30, 2026. Health Link, A California Corporation offers care at home, providing skilled nursing, therapy, and support for patients and families. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Liroff, H. Ann, Esq. FARBSTEIN & BLACKMAN APC 411 Borel Avenue Suite 600 SAN MATEO, CA 94402 Telephone: (650) 554-6200 Email: hal@farbstein.com HOMELAND SECURITY: Summary Judgment, Class Certification Upheld --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, REFUGEE AND IMMIGRANT CENTER FOR EDUCATION AND LEGAL SERVICES, ET AL., Appellees, v. MARKWAYNE MULLIN, SECRETARY OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, ET AL., Appellants, Case No. 25-5243 (D.C. App.), the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, affirms the district court's grant of summary judgment and class certification. More than a century of precedent assures that "over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete" than it is over the admission of foreign individuals. Exercising this broad power over naturalization and immigration, Congress enacted the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA), 8 U.S.C. Section 1101 et seq. The INA created a comprehensive and detailed scheme addressing all aspects of immigration. It articulates why and how foreign individuals may be admitted to the country and why and how they may be removed. In addition, federal law provides various forms of relief to foreign individuals who face persecution or torture if deported. Those protections include, as pertinent here, asylum, withholding of removal under the INA, and withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture. On Inauguration Day 2025, President Donald Trump issued Proclamation 10888 (Proclamation). The Proclamation declares that the current situation at the southern border qualifies as an invasion because the sheer number of foreign individuals entering the United States has overwhelmed the system and is preventing the Federal Government from obtaining operational control of the border. Invoking authority from various provisions of the INA, the Proclamation and subsequently issued agency guidance (Guidance) suspend the entry of any person who has crossed the southern border outside a designated port of entry, as well as any person crossing at a designated entry port anywhere without sufficient documentation. The Proclamation and Guidance also subject those individuals who have entered the country despite the entry ban to new summary removal procedures without the rights the INA provides to seek asylum or other removal protections. In February 2025, 13 individuals proceeding pseudonymously and three nonprofit organizations -- Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, and Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project—filed a putative class action challenging both the Proclamation and Guidance. The complaint names 15 Defendants: President Trump in his official capacity; the Departments of Homeland Security, State, and Justice; three components of the Department of Homeland Security (Customs and Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and USCIS); and multiple agency officials in their official capacities. Their complaint asserts that the summary removal provisions of the Proclamation and Guidance exceed the President's statutory authority under Sections 1182(f) and 1185(a) and violate the constitutional separation of powers by unilaterally countermanding acts of Congress. The complaint also alleges that the Proclamation and its implementation violate the INA's prescribed procedures for removal, asylum, and withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. Sections 1225(b)(1)(A)(i), 1229a, 1158, 1231(b)(3), as well as the Convention Against Torture, id. Section 1231 note, and its binding regulations, 8 C.F.R. Sections 208.16, 1208.16. Finally, the complaint claims that the Proclamation's implementation is contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, and procedurally improper under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 706. The district court certified a class of "all individuals who are or will be subject to the Proclamation and/or its implementation and who are now or will be present in the United States." It also vacated the Guidance implementing the Proclamation as contrary to law, see 5 U.S.C. Section 706, to the extent it purports to replace statutory removal with extra-statutory summary expulsion procedures. It entered a declaratory judgment against all the Defendants (except the President) holding that the Proclamation is unlawful insofar as it purports to suspend or restrict access to asylum, withholding of removal, or the existing regulatory processes for obtaining Convention Against Torture protection. Finally, the court permanently enjoined all defendants (other than the President) from implementing the Proclamation by adopting extra-statutory expulsion procedures, removing foreign individuals without complying with the statutorily mandated withholding procedures under the Convention Against Torture, and comprehensively barring applications for asylum. The Government appealed and simultaneously asked the Court of Appeals to stay the district court's order pending the resolution of its appeal. The Court of Appeals granted in part and denied in part the Government's motion for a stay. The stay panel first held that the Government was likely to succeed in part in challenging the class definition. The panel stayed the district court's class certification insofar as it applied beyond a class limited to: All individuals who (1) are present in the United States while Proclamation 10888 and/or its implementation is in effect, (2) are not statutorily ineligible for all forms of relief from removal listed in point (3), and (3) absent the Proclamation and/or its implementation, would seek asylum, 8 U.S.C. Section 1158, withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Section 1231(b), or withholding under the Convention Against Torture, see FARRA, Pub. L. No. 105-277, Section 2242, 112 Stat. 2681-822 (1998) (codified at 8 U.S.C. Section 1231 note). Second, the panel held that the Government was unlikely to succeed in establishing that Section 1182(f) or Section 1185(a)(1) authorizes the President to act outside of the INA's prescribed procedures to remove individuals already present in the United States. Third, the panel ruled that the Government was unlikely to succeed on its contention that the Proclamation and Guidance comply with the mandatory withholding of removal provisions under the INA and the Convention Against Torture. Fourth, acknowledging it was a close call, the stay panel thought that the Government had said enough at the very preliminary stay stage to make it likely to succeed in defending the Proclamation's categorical suspension of the statutory right of individuals to apply for asylum. Finally, the panel deemed the Government unlikely to succeed in showing that 8 U.S.C. Section 1252(f)(1) barred the district court from issuing class-wide injunctive relief. The Court of Appeals opines that this is a statutory interpretation case. Its task is to determine whether Congress has granted the Executive the authority to remove foreign individuals present in the United States without adhering to the removal procedures or providing the substantive removal protections that Congress prescribed in the INA. It concludes that the INA's text, structure, and history make clear that in supplying power to suspend entry by Presidential proclamation, Congress did not intend to grant the Executive the expansive removal authority it asserts. The INA does not allow the President to remove Plaintiffs under summary removal procedures of his own making. Nor does it allow the Executive to suspend the Plaintiffs' right to apply for asylum, deny their access to withholding of removal under the INA, or curtail mandatory procedures for adjudicating their Convention Against Torture claims. The Proclamation and Guidance are thus unlawful to the extent that they circumvent the INA's removal procedures and cast aside federal laws affording individuals the right to apply and be considered for asylum or withholding of removal protections. Accordingly, the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs is affirmed. The Court of Appeals also affirms the district court's class certification order, modifying the class definition as clarified by the stay panel and consistent with the Court of Appeals' Opinion. It holds that the district court's class-wide relief does not violate Article III or the INA's limit on injunctive relief under 8 U.S.C. Section 1252(f)(1). A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://sl1nk.com/nscnhfe. Drew C. Ensign, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were Brett A. Shumate, Assistant Attorney General, Yaakov M. Roth, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Benjamin Hayes, Special Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General, and David Kim and Katherine J. Shinners, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration and Litigation, General Litigation and Appeals Section. Christopher J. Hajec and Matt A. Crapo were on the brief for amicus curiae Federation for American Immigration Reform in support of appellants. Patrick M. McSweeney, William J. Olson, and Jeremiah L. Morgan -- jmorgan@lawandfreedom.com -- were on the brief for amicus curiae America's Future in support of appellants. Lee Gelernt argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Keren Zwick, Melissa Crow, Omar C. Jadwat, Morgan Russell, Cody Wofsy, Richard Caldarone, Arthur B. Spitzer, and Scott Michelman. Lindsay Harrison entered an appearance. Thomas A. Berry was on the brief for amicus curiae the Cato Institute in support of appellees. Elizabeth B. Wydra -- elizabeth@theusconstitution.org -- and Brianne J. Gorod were on the brief for amicus curiae Constitutional Accountability Center in support of appellees. Ian M. Kysel, Courtney Bell, Student Counsel, and Michael Garcia Bochenek were on the brief for amici curiae the Global Strategic Litigation Council, et al. in support of appellees. HP HOOD: Rubio Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENJAMIN RUBIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. HP HOOD, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company doing business in California; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-03621-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, at 10:00 a.m. on Oct. 14, 2026, will move the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, for an order: 1. Determining that a class action is proper as to the causes of action contained in the second amended complaint on the grounds that (1) the Classes are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law and fact common to the Classes, (3) the class representative's claims are typical of the claims of the Classes, and (4) the class representative will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Classes. 2. Determining that class treatment is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and certifying the following Classes: (a) the Wage Statement Class, defined as: "All nonexempt California employees who were provided wage statements that did not identify the rate of pay and corresponding hours worked for certain hourly wages, including, but not limited to "Premium OT and Additional Pay", at any time from Nov. 12, 2023, through the date of certification"; and (b) the Sick Pay Class, defined as: "All non-exempt California employees who were paid non-discretionary remuneration including, but not limited to, shift differential wages covering any period in which sick pay or PTO wages were paid to the employee by the Defendant and whose employment ended, either voluntarily or involuntarily, at any time during the period from Aug. 30, 2022, through the date of certification." 3. Finding the Plaintiff to be an adequate representative and certifying him as the class representative. 4. Finding the Plaintiff's counsel and their respective firms, namely Justin Lo and Jarrod Y. Nakano of Work Lawyers PC and Edward W. Choi of Law Offices of Choi and Associates, as adequate class counsel and certifying them as class counsel. On Nov. 12, 2024, the Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a Class Action and PAGA Complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, Case No. 24CV022987. On Feb. 18, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. HP Hood is an American dairy company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oMkdSF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Lo, Esq. Jarrod Y. Nakano, Esq. WORK LAWYERS PC 22939 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 300 Torrance, CA 90505 Telephone: (310) 248-2944 Facsimile: (424) 355-8335 E-mail: justin@caworklawyer.com jarrod@caworklawyer.com - and - Edward W. Choi, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 381-1515 Facsimile: (213) 465-4885 E-mail: edward.choi@choiandassociates.com HYPERSCALE DATA: Faces Class Suit Over Facility's Disruptive Noise ------------------------------------------------------------------ WNDU reports that a nationwide class action lawsuit has been filed against the Hyperscale Data Center in Dowagiac over constant, disruptive noise. The lawsuit was filed by Detroit-based law firm Liddle Sheets, P.C., which says it is the first of its kind in the country. According to the law firm, two residents filed the class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The lawsuit alleges that about 1,300 residential properties within one mile of the data center are impacted by noise from the facility. The complaint alleges that residents have lost their ability to use and enjoy their property and that loud noise from the data center is causing damage to property values. The Hyperscale Data Center provides artificial intelligence and high-performance computing services, including Bitcoin mining, colocation and hosting services. The data center, located on E. Prairie Ronde Street, began operating in early 2025. According to the complaint, the noise is not only excessive, but constant at all hours of the day, every day of the week. Residents said last month they hear white noise every time they step outside their homes or open their windows. Hyperscale announced in March it entered into an agreement to expand with an additional 48 and a half acres, more than doubling its current acreage in southwest Michigan. [GN] IBAN GLOBAL: Bids for Class Certification in Weingrad Due Dec. 17 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEON WEINGRAD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. IBAN GLOBAL LLC and LIVEFREE EMERGENCY RESPONSE, INC. d/b/a LIFEBEACON, Case No. 2:24-cv-04212-MKC (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Mary Kay Costello entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. All motions to amend the Complaint and to join or add additional parties shall be filed within 30 days of the date of this Order. 2. In the event all parties agree and so inform the Court, the Court will refer this case to the Honorable José R. Arteaga for a settlement conference. 3. Motions for class certification and any supporting expert reports shall be filed no later than Dec. 17, 2026. 4. Responses to motions for class certification and any supporting expert reports shall be filed no later than Jan. 15, 2027. 5. Replies, if any, shall be filed no later than Feb. 5, 2027. 6. The Court will hold a hearing on any motions for class certification on Feb. 18, 2027, at 2:00 p.m. 7. The parties shall complete all discovery by March 5, 2027. 8. Motions for summary judgment shall be filed no later than April 5, 2027. A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tZsqu6 at no extra charge.[CC] INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: Wins Dismissal of IIPR Investor Fraud Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Alain Giraudon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. GLR-25-182 (D. Md.), Chief United States District Judge George L. Russell, III of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. (IIPR) is a publicly traded real estate investment trust that invests in and rents properties to state-licensed cannabis companies. Via sale-leaseback transactions, IIPR purchases properties from these companies and leases them back, with tenants paying rent monthly. A portion of the rent proceeds, IIPR's primary source of income, flows to investors as dividends and stock buybacks. Lead Plaintiff City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System (Birmingham) brought this action individually and on behalf of all others who acquired IIPR securities during the Class Period. Birmingham alleged that four of IIPR's largest tenants, PharmaCann, Inc., 4Front Ventures Corp., Gold Flora, LLC, and Tilt Holdings, Inc. (collectively, the Defaulting Tenants), were struggling financially during the Class Period, and that Defendants misled investors into believing they were monitoring the situation closely. Before and during the Class Period, the Defaulting Tenants were failing to pay taxes and invoices, warning investors that they may not continue as going concerns, experiencing mounting expenses and limited cash flow, and struggling to raise capital. In March 2025, all four companies defaulted on their obligations to IIPR, and the price of IIPR's common stock plummeted as a result. Birmingham pointed to thirty-four statements made by Defendants in IIPR's SEC filings, press releases, and earnings calls as material misrepresentations or omissions, grouped into two categories: (a) statements regarding tenant oversight and due diligence; and (b) statements touting investments in the Defaulting Tenants and lease amendments. Upon careful examination of Count I, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, the Court found that Birmingham failed to allege facts sufficient to satisfy the elements of material misrepresentation or omission and scienter. As to the due diligence statements, the Court found that several constituted puffery or opinions not actionable under Section 10(b). As to the remaining statements, Birmingham relied on mere speculation to conclude that Defendants' due diligence did not meet the standards described. Unlike the comparator cases cited by Birmingham, Defendants here made no admission of deficient due diligence, and Birmingham cited no internal documents or testimony demonstrating falsity. The Court further found that the red flags Birmingham identified, including tax liens, unpaid invoices for over $1,000,000, and going-concern warnings, were available in the public record; their omission was therefore excusable because the information was made credibly available to the market by other sources. Additionally, Birmingham did not allege whether or when Defendants became aware of such red flags, and did not state what non-public financial information Defendants allegedly obtained from the Defaulting Tenants or when they received it. The Court also noted that IIPR's own SEC filings contained detailed and repeated risk warnings, including explicit acknowledgment that IIPR may be unable to monitor and evaluate tenant credit quality on an ongoing basis, and that tenants with significant debt obligations may be unable to make rent payments. Defendants also disclosed prior defaults by other tenants. Therefore, Birmingham failed to allege sufficient facts showing that Defendants' statements were either false or materially misleading. On the question of scienter, the Court applied the heightened pleading standard of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, which requires particularized facts giving rise to a strong inference of intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud, not merely a plausible one. Birmingham's argument rested on stacking inference upon inference: that Defendants held senior positions, that due diligence is a core IIPR operation, and that had sufficient monitoring occurred, Defendants would have known of the tenants' distress. The Court held that such stacking cannot satisfy the heightened standard, as professional position alone cannot impute factual knowledge. According to the Court: Defendants' regular disclosures of tenant struggles, swift announcement of PharmaCann's first default one day after it occurred, and resulting forfeiture of Performance Share Units by Gold, Smithers, and Hastings weighed against an inference of fraudulent intent. The more compelling inference was that Defendants believed they had adequately warned investors of inherent risks and that additional investments and lease amendments would help tenants continue paying rent. Accordingly, the Court dismissed Count I. Because Section 20(a) of the SEA requires a predicate violation of Section 10(b), and Birmingham failed to state such a claim, the Court also dismissed Count II, alleging control-person liability, as Birmingham could not satisfy its first element. The Court therefore granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint in its entirety. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MG9CJQ from PacerMonitor.com INSTRUCTURE INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Odom Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ AALIYAH ODOM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSTRUCTURE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00447-DBB (D. Utah, May 15, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members', personally identifiable information ("PII"), stored within Defendant's information network. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff's information was stored with Defendant as a result of their dealings with Defendant. On April 30, 2026, unauthorized third-party cybercriminals gained access to Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII as hosted with Defendant, with the intent of engaging in the misuse of the PII, including marketing and selling Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII. The Defendant breached its duties to Plaintiff and Class Members by failing to provide fair, reasonable, or adequate computer systems and data security practices to safeguard their PII, alleges the complaint. The Plaintiff has suffered imminent and impending injury arising from the substantially increased risk of fraud, identity theft, and misuse resulting from their PII, in combination with their name, being placed in the hands of unauthorized third parties/criminals, the complaint adds. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and members of the Class individually seek redress for the Defendant's alleged wrongful conduct. Plaintiff Aaliyah Odom is a victim of the Data Breach. Defendant Instructure, Inc. is a cloud-based education technology company best known for its Canvas learning management system, which schools and universities use to manage coursework, assignments, grading, and communication.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent O. Hatch, Esq. Adam M. Pace, Esq. HATCH LAW GROUP, PC 22 East 100 South, Suite 400 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 869-1919 E-mail: hatch@hatchpc.com pace@hatchpc.com - and - James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. Lauren KW Brennan, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 3510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com JACOBS ENTERTAINMENT: Shanesy Balks at Inadequate Data Security --------------------------------------------------------------- JODI LUAN SHANESY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JACOBS ENTERTAINMENT, INC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02062 (D. Colo., May 13, 2026) seeks to redress Defendant's unlawful, willful and wanton failure to protect the personal identifiable information of likely thousands of individuals that was exposed in a major data breach of Defendant's network in violation of its legal obligations. The Plaintiff and members of the class are current or former employees and/or beneficiaries of said employees of JEI. In order to obtain Defendant's services, Defendant required Plaintiff and the Class Members to provide their PII, including their names, dates of birth, email addresses, addresses, Social Security numbers, financial account information, and other personal information. On or around January 6, 2025, the Defendant discovered that an unauthorized third party obtained access and exfiltrated data from its servers containing private information. Due to the Defendant's negligence, cybercriminals obtained everything they needed to commit identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives of thousands of individuals. The Defendant betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and the other Class Members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their personal identifiable information and thereby enabling cybercriminals to steal such valuable and sensitive information. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of the Class, seeking remedies including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, injunctive relief, reasonable attorney fees and costs, and other remedies this Court deems proper. Jacobs Entertainment, Inc. is a developer, owner, and operator of gaming and entertainment facilities throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com jaw@federmanlaw.com JOHN KRUMME: Minshew Seeks to Amend Phase I Scheduling Order ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as GERALYN MINSHEW, et al., v. JOHN W. KRUMME, MD, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02467-DDC-ADM (D. Kan.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to amend the Phase I Scheduling Order, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A), to allow for new co-counsel. The Defendants will not be prejudiced if the scheduling order is amended to allow for new co-counsel as they have already blocked dates for depositions of the Plaintiffs in late June and written discovery is ongoing. The Defendants have not yet offered names or dates for corporate representatives for class certification issues. On Dec. 17, 2025, a Phase I Scheduling Order was entered. On May 4, 2026, all parties participated in mediation with no resolution. On May 14, 2026, an email thread was started that resulted in all parties' agreement to hold June 23 – 26 for depositions of named Plaintiffs. John Krumme, MD is a board certified orthopedic surgeon in Albuquerque, New Mexico. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Y4btZm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gerald Lee Cross, Jr., Esq. Elizabeth J. McKinney, Esq. CROSS LAW FIRM, LLC 7930 Santa Fe Drive, 1st Floor Overland Park, KS 66204 Telephone: (816) 454-5297 Facsimile: (913) 904-1650 E-mail: lcross@cross-lawfirm.com ejmckinney@cross-lawfirm.com JOHNSB INC: Faces Crawford Suit in Cal. Sup., San Bernardino Cty. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Johnsb Inc. captioned as DAVID CRAWFORD, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSB INC.; JOHNSV INC.; SKD CORP.; JOHNUP, INC.; JOHNCOM, INC.; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CIVSB2612799 (Cal. Sup., San Bernardino Cty., April 28, 2026). The case is assigned to Judge Michael A. Dauber. Johnsb Inc. offers air heating and air conditioning equipment and supplies. [BN] KING COUNTY, WA: Court Extends Pretrial Deadlines in Rogers ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAY CLARENCE ROGERS, v. King County et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-01034-DGE-GJL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Leupold entered an order granting motion to extend pretrial deadlines and denying miscellaneous motions. 1. Counsel for the Defendants is directed to meet and confer with the Plaintiff in good faith regarding the issues raised in the Plaintiff's motions and other disputed discovery matters within 30 days of the date of this Order. 2. Counsel for the Defendants shall file a declaration demonstrating compliance with the above directive not later than June 26, 2026. 3. The Plaintiff's motion to extend pretrial deadlines is granted, and the Court's pretrial scheduling order is amended as follows: a. All discovery shall be completed by Aug. 17, 2026. b. Any discovery motion shall be filed no later than July 27, 2026. c. Any dispositive motion shall be filed and served no later than Sept. 16, 2026. 4. The Plaintiff's other pending Motions are denied without prejudice and may be refiled following the Parties' meet-and-confer efforts. Because the Plaintiff represents that Defense Counsel has refused to meet and confer regarding the issues raised in the pending Motions, the Court finds the Plaintiff's requests for Court intervention premature until that requirement is satisfied. The Court finds good cause to extend the current pretrial scheduling deadlines as the parties attempt to resolve their discovery disputes. King County is home to 39 incorporated cities and towns, ranging from bustling urban centers like Seattle to small, quiet suburban communities. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ITDRgH at no extra charge.[CC] KNOWBE4 INC: Bid to Impound Confidential Exhibits OK'd ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned re KnowBe4, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:25-cv-22574-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga entered an order that: 1. The Defendants' motion to impound certain confidential and highly confidential exhibits to the Plaintiffs' reply in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted. 2. Within five days of this Order, the Plaintiffs shall file the Plaintiffs' unredacted reply and accompanying exhibits under seal. The Clerk shall maintain the Plaintiffs' unredacted reply and accompanying exhibits under seal until May 22, 2027. KnowBe4 provides software security solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uSuVxR at no extra charge.[CC] KRISPY KREME: Deadline to File Breach Settlement Claim Set June 22 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Chase DiBenedetto, writing for Mashable, reports that Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation employees affected by a Nov. 2024 company data breach can still claim their portion of a $1.6 million pie. The class action lawsuit was brought forth by impacted individuals after their personal information -- including names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, biometric data, and financial account credentials -- was exposed in a 2024 cyberattack targeting the company's employee data. Krispy Kreme disclosed the breach in December 2024 and settled the class action case in March. But the June deadline to claim your money is fast approaching. Who is eligible? The data breach impacted 161,000 current and former Krispy Kreme employees; individuals whose information was exposed should have received a notice from the company via email. If you believe you were affected but didn't receive an alert, you can contact the settlement administrator at (877) 239-1879. How do I claim my money? The deadline to file a claim online or by mail is June 22. Settlement class members can either submit an itemized claim form for up to $3,500 in losses, or accept a $75 single time payment. If you want to opt out of the settlement, you have until June 6 to decline either online or by mail. [GN] LOCKHEED MARTIN: Patrick Files Suit in E.D. Kentucky ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lockheed Martin Corporation. The case is styled as Susan Patrick, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Lockheed Martin Corporation, Case No. 5:26-cv-00184-KKC (E.D. Ky., May 19, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. The Lockheed Martin Corporation -- https://www.lockheedmartin.com/ -- is an American defense and aerospace manufacturer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jerome Park Prather, Esq. GARMER & PRATHER, PLLC 141 N. Broadway Lexington, KY 40507 Phone: (859) 254-9352 Fax: (859) 233-9769 Email: jprather@garmerprather.com - and - Thomas K. Herren, Esq. HERREN LAW, PLLC 148 N. Broadway Lexington, KY 40507 Phone: (859) 254-0024 Fax: (859) 254-5991 Email: tom.herren@herrenadams.com LONG ISLAND CITY VETERINARY: Miner Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Long Island City Veterinary Center PLLC. The case is styled as Chassidi Miner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Long Island City Veterinary Center PLLC doing business as: The Veterinarians at Court Square, Case No. 1:26-cv-04271 (E.D.N.Y., May 21, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Long Island City Veterinary Center is a full-service animal hospital staffed with compassionate veterinarians and board-certified specialists.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (813) 340-8838 Email: zane@jibraellaw.com LOREX CORPORATION: Hill Files Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lorex Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Sean Hill, Howard Portman, Vishal Shah, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lorex Corporation, Lorex Technology, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-04390 (S.D.N.Y., May 26, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Lorex -- https://www.lorex.com/ -- is committed to safeguarding what matters most with DIY security cameras.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark Samuel Reich, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Email: mreich@zlk.com LOVE YOUR BATH: Daniel Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Love Your Bath LLC. The case is styled as Timothy Daniel, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Love Your Bath LLC, Case No. 8:26-cv-01607 (M.D. Fla., May 29, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Love Your Bath -- https://www.loveyourbath.com/ -- is a trusted bathroom remodeling company.[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 LUXURBAN HOTELS: Reaches $3MM Settlement in Investors Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pluang reports that LuxUrban Hotels Inc. has reached a $3 million settlement in a class action lawsuit approved by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The settlement covers purchasers of LuxUrban's common and preferred stock between May 9, 2023, and August 20, 2024, who were allegedly harmed. A court hearing is scheduled for September 8, 2026, to finalize the settlement and approve attorneys' fees. Eligible investors must submit claims by August 10, 2026, to receive compensation, while those wishing to opt out must do so by August 18, 2026. [GN] MACH ONE TRANSPORTS: Redick Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mach One Transports Inc. The case is styled as William Redick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mach One Transports Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-03977-EGC (E.D. Cal., May 26, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Mach One Transports Inc. -- https://machonetransports.com/ -- is a premier heavy hauling & industrial logistics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com MACY'S INC: Allen Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Macy's, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Cheryl Allen, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Macy's, Inc., Macy's Corporate Services, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0003885 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May 26, 2026). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Macy's, Inc. -- https://www.macys.com/ -- is an American holding company of department stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER LLP 31365 Oak Crest Dr., Ste. 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Phone: 805-270-7100 Fax: 805-270-7589 Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com MAJOR HOSPITAL: Mitchell Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation --------------------------------------------------------------- Angela E. Mitchell and Agnieszka Mardis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MAJOR HOSPITAL d/b/a MAJOR HEALTH PARTNERS, Case No. 1:26-cv-01006-JRS-TAB (S.D. Ind., May 18, 2026), is brought challenges policies and practices of Defendant that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Indiana Wage Payment Statute ("IWPS") as a result of unpaid overtime compensation. The Plaintiffs' IWPS class action claims focus upon Defendant's failure to pay wages in full and on time based upon Defendant's unlawful and non-neutral time clock punch rounding schemes, including the rounding of time clock punches in at the beginning of a shift, time clock punches out at the end of a work shift, and the application of an automatically deducted meal break period of a certain duration (generally, 30 minutes) when meal break durations (time out and time back in) were not recorded and Defendant routinely took automatically deducted time from Plaintiff's time recorded on the time clock whether or not a Plaintiff took a meal break at all, whether or not a Plaintiff entered data to advise the Defendant that the Plaintiff's meal break was missed or interrupted, and regardless of the duration of the meal break (e.g., less than 30 minutes in length), says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant as a phlebotomist From March 2024 to the present. The Defendant provides healthcare services at a hospital and other health center locations in Shelby County, Indiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq. HASSLER KONDRAS LLP 100 Cherry St. Terre Haute, IN 47807 Phone: 812-232-9691 Facsimile: 812-234-2881 Email: kondras@hklawfirmllp.com - and - Robert J. Hunt, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. HUNT, LLC 1905 South New Market Street, Ste 168 Carmel, IN 46032 Phone: (317) 743-0614 Facsimile: (317) 743-0615 Email: rob@indianawagelaw.com MARINA HOSPITALITY: Shobuj Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Talukder Shobuj, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Marina Hospitality LLC, d/b/a WORLDS FAIR MARINA RESTAURANT & BANQUET, Vishal Sharma, and Pankaj Bhatara, Case No. 1:26-cv-03241 (E.D.N.Y., May 29, 2026), is brought for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), and the supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations, including the Hospitality Industry Wage Order, arising from Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to, the failure to pay proper overtime compensation and spread-of-hours premiums, and the failure to provide statutory wage notices and accurate wage statements. During Plaintiff's employment period, Plaintiff consistently worked over 40 hours per week, frequently reaching 65 to 85 hours per week. The Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff the mandatory overtime premium (1.5x) for hours worked in excess of 40 per week. The Defendants did not provide a time clock, sign in sheet, or any other method for employees to track their time worked, thus failed to keep full and accurate records of Plaintiff's respective hours and wages. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff any overtime premium for the 47 overtime hours worked during this specific week, resulting in a direct and concrete financial injury to Plaintiff. This practice of paying a flat rate regardless of overtime hours was uniformly applied throughout Plaintiff's employment, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as an executive chef by the Defendants. Marina Hospitality LLC. is a domestic business corporation organization and existing under the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shan Zhu, Esq. 38-08 Union Street 9A Flushing, NY 11354 Phone: 347-470-7008 Email: shan.zhulaw@gmail.com MARMALADE LLC: Maldonado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marmalade LLC. The case is styled as Wilton Velasquez Maldonado, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Marmalade LLC d/b/a Marmalade Cafe, Case No. 26STCV16696 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 27, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Marmalade Café -- https://www.marmaladecafe.com/ -- is a warm and comfortable spot, perfect for a quick bite or a full meal offering fresh, high quality, eclectic, California-inspired food.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Miriam Schimmel, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 310-622-4278 Fax: 855-786-6356 Email: mschimmel@blackstonepc.com MARTINELLI CO.: Class Cert Bid Filing in Ramirez Due Sept. 7 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOLY RAMIREZ, and others, v. S. MARTINELLI & COMPANY, Case No. 5:25-cv-07569-NC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cousins entered an order approving the original schedule proposed by the parties and denying motion to extend jointly proposed case schedule. The substitution of counsel does not establish good cause for a substantial case delay. Next Case Management Conference: Sept. 16, 2026 10:00 a.m., by Zoom video, with joint updated case statement due Sept. 9, 2026. The Court is not persuaded by the Defendant's request to bifurcate discovery, as class certification determinations require inquiry into the merits and bifurcation can require some discovery steps to be taken twice. Deadline to add Parties and amend pleadings June 30, 2026 without leave of court: Deadline to complete fact discovery: Apr. 2, 2027 Deadline to disclose experts and expert Sept. 7, 2026 reports in support of class certification; and for the Plaintiff to file class certification motion: Deadline for hearing on class certification: Jan. 20, 2027 The Defendant sells various beverages containing apple juice. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8AievG at no extra charge.[CC] MCGEE AIR SERVICES: Torrey Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------- DUSTIN TORREY, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MCGEE AIR SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01638 (W.D. Wash., May 14, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages from Defendant McGee Air Services, Inc. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a ramp supervisor from approximately July 2022 through February 2026. Throughout his employment, the Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek. However, Defendant subjected Plaintiff to its auto-deduct policy in which the Defendant automatically deducts 30 minutes a day from Plaintiff's recorded hours for meal breaks, regardless of whether they actually receive a bona fide meal break. In addition, the Defendant deprived Plaintiff overtime wages of at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay for overtime hours worked, says the suit. Based in Renton, WA, McGee Air Services, Inc. provides ground operations aircraft support services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael C. Subit, Esq. FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS, LLP 705 Second Ave., Suite 1200 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 682-6711 E-mail: msubit@frankfreed.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 5847 San Felipe, Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 5847 San Felipe, Suite 2400 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com MCKESSON CORP: Second Renewed Bid for Class Certification Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRUE HEALTH CHIROPRACTIC INC, et al., v. MCKESSON CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 4:13-cv-02219-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order denying the second renewed motion for class certification. The Court further sets a case management conference on June 23, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. The hearing will be held by Public Zoom Webinar. All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/hsg. All attorneys and pro se litigants appearing for the case management conference are required to join at least 15 minutes before the hearing to check in with the courtroom deputy and test internet, video, and audio capabilities. The Court directs the parties to meet and confer and file a joint case management statement addressing next steps by June 16, 2026. The Court agrees that stretching the definition of a "telephone facsimile machine" to include a cloud-based system of devices that theoretically can print because they have an Internet connection does not constitute a "fair reading" of the TCPA. Because the Court concludes that an "online fax service" does not qualify as a "telephone facsimile machine," and the parties do not dispute that there is no class-wide mechanism to disaggregate class members who received the allegedly unsolicited faxes via online fax services, individualized issues predominate, and class action treatment is not the superior method of adjudication. Accordingly, the Court denies the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs filed their operative putative class action complaint on July 18, 2014, alleging that the Defendants sent unsolicited advertisements by facsimile in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). McKesson distributes pharmaceuticals and provides health information technology, medical supplies, and health management tools. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2ACDXx at no extra charge.[CC] MEDTRONIC INC: Qualley Files Suit in D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medtronic, Inc. The case is styled as Shanon Qualley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Medtronic, Inc., Case No. 0:26-cv-02652-DWF-DLM (D. Minn., May 18, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Medtronic, Inc. -- https://www.medtronic.com/en-us/index.html -- manufactures and sells device-based medical therapies worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Madison Demaris, Esq. Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. ZIMMERMAN & REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 S 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 341-0400 Email: madison.demaris@zimmreed.com brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com META PLATFORMS: Dismissal of Rohingya Violence Class Suit Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JANE DOE 1; JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. META PLATFORMS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 24-1672 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the district court's dismissal of the Plaintiffs' putative class action against Meta. For decades, the Rohingya have faced discrimination and violence in Myanmar. After Facebook was introduced there in 2011, anti-Rohingya content spread on the platform. The Plaintiffs allege that this content incited violence against them and their villages. They argue that Meta designed Facebook to encourage this bad content and that Meta should be held responsible. The Plaintiffs are members of the Rohingya community—a largely Muslim ethnic minority population indigenous to Western Myanmar—who were displaced from their homes following attacks by military and civilian forces. The Rohingya have long been violently persecuted in Myanmar. The Plaintiffs allege that the persecution has worsened in the last decade, resulting in genocide at the hands of the Burman ethnic majority and the government. This action centers on the allegation that Meta is to blame for fomenting the increased, pervasive violence against the Rohingya. The Plaintiffs allege that Meta, through its social media platform Facebook, played a role in the Rohingya genocide. When Facebook was introduced in Myanmar in 2011, Meta partnered with telecommunications companies to pre-load Facebook onto mobile devices sold in the country, thereby allowing tens of millions of Myanmar people to access the social media platform. The Plaintiffs allege that Meta's operations in Myanmar heightened the risk that Facebook would be used to incite violence. They claim the platform lacked a Burmese-language interface and terms of service, which limited users' ability to report harmful content like misinformation, hate speech, or calls for violence. They also argue that Meta failed to adequately monitor activity in Myanmar, partly due to insufficient Burmese-speaking content moderators. The Plaintiffs further allege that Facebook's design worsened the harm by encouraging violent content. They claim that since 2009, Facebook's algorithm prioritized "toxic posts" because such content generated more user engagement. They argue that negative posts draw more attention by triggering strong emotions, and that Meta designed its system to amplify this type of content to increase user time on the platform and advertising revenue. According to the complaint, this engagement also reinforced user behavior through notifications and other "social rewards," encouraging users to post more negative or hateful content. The Plaintiffs do not allege that Facebook's 2009 algorithm boosted certain posts specifically because of the company's content preferences. Under their theory, Facebook's algorithm promoted toxic content to all users to drive up engagement, reflecting the "universal human instincts" for hatred and divisiveness. Jane Doe 1 filed a putative class action in California state court claiming strict products liability and negligence and seeking "at least $150 billion." Meta removed the case to the Northern District of California and moved to dismiss. It argued that the Plaintiffs' claims were untimely, barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and failed on the merits. The district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, identifying general pleading deficiencies related to timeliness and the merits. The Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint, adding claims for negligent product design and aiding and abetting other torts. Meta moved to dismiss the amended complaint on timeliness, Section 230, and merits grounds. The district court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice on timeliness grounds. The Plaintiffs appealed. Meta argued that the Plaintiffs' claims could be dismissed under that provision. Because the district court dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims as untimely, it did not reach the Section 230 issue. But Meta renews its Section 230 arguments on appeal and asserts that the district court can be affirmed on the ground that Section 230 bars the Plaintiffs' claims. The Ninth Circuit affirms the district court's dismissal of the Plaintiffs' putative class action against Meta, alleging that anti-Rohingya content spread on Facebook incited violence against them and their villages in Myanmar and that Meta designed Facebook to encourage this bad content. It holds that the Plaintiff's claims were barred by the immunity Congress granted to online companies under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects Meta from claims that seek to treat it as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. First, the Ninth Circuit holds that Section 230 applied to the Plaintiffs' claims under California's choice-of-law rules in this diversity case. Assuming California's choice-of-law rules could demand application of Myanmar's rules of decision rather than Section 230, the panel concluded that the Plaintiffs failed to carry their burden to show that foreign law applies. Myanmar's interest in protecting its citizens from harmful attacks and misinformation on Facebook was insufficiently incorporated into the positive law of the country, and therefore Myanmar's interest did not predominate. Section 230 immunizes from liability (1) a provider or user of an interactive computer service (2) whom a plaintiff seeks to treat, under a state law cause of action, as a publisher or speaker (3) of information provided by another information content provider. At step one, the parties agreed Meta was the provider of an interactive computer service. At step two, each of the Plaintiffs' claims sought to hold Meta responsible in its capacity as a publisher of third-party content. At step three, Meta did not make a material contribution to or develop the third-party content at issue. Accordingly, Section 230 barred the Plaintiffs' claims. Concurring, Judge Marsha Berzon, joined by Judge William A. Fletcher, state that the Court's precedent has unduly expanded the scope of section 230 immunity, and has stretched the term "publisher" in section 230 past the point of recognition. She urges this Court to reconsider en banc precedent extending section 230 immunity to recommendation of content and connections to users. Concurring, Judge Ryan D. Nelson writes separately to address two issues. First, the Ninth Circuit has over-read Section 230, straying from the original public meaning of the statutory text and creating an all-purpose liability shield for internet platforms. Second, state choice-of-law rules can never direct application of a rule of decision contrary to federal law. Because Section 230 is supreme to state law, it controls even if California's choice-of-law rules point to a conflicting foreign rule. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://l1nq.com/36xudb1. Roger J. Perlstadt (argued) -- rperlstadt@edelson.com -- and Ryan D. Andrews -- randrews@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Chicago, Illinois, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Kristin A. Linsley (argued) -- klinsley@gibsondunn.com -- Wesley Sze -- wsze@gibsondunn.com -- and Rosemarie T. Ring -- rring@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, San Francisco, California; Patrick J. Fuster -- pfuster@gibsondunn.com -- and Perlette M. Jura -- pjura@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles, California; Jacob T. Spencer -- jspencer@gibsondunn.com -- and Christian Dibblee -- cdibblee@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, D.C.; for Defendant-Appellee. METROPOLITAN MARINE: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the MMMCA data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the MMMCA data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. MMMCA Security Incident: What Happened? The Metropolitan Marine Maintenance Contractors' Association (MMMCA), which represents marine maintenance contractors working in New York and New Jersey harbors, has disclosed a breach impacting 25,528 people. A sample notification letter (pictured below) states that on April 7, 2026, MMMCA and the Metro-ILA Pension Fund, Fringe Benefit Fund, and Individual Account Retirement Fund, which provide employee benefits to MMMCA members, detected unauthorized network activity. An investigation revealed that a threat actor accessed the Funds' and MMMCA's environment via one of their virtual private networks. The information that may have been compromised in the Metropolitan Marine Maintenance Contractors’ Association data breach includes Social Security numbers, dates of birth, phone numbers, and addresses. Those potentially affected by the MMMCA data breach were notified beginning on May 22, 2026. What You Can Do After the MMMCA Data Breach If your information was exposed in the MMMCA data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force MMMCA to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] MIAMI OFF CENTER: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property --------------------------------------------------------- Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. MIAMI OFF CENTER ASSOCIATES LLP, Case No. 1:26-cv-23702-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 26, 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 Defendant's discrimination 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 Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA. Although over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendant has 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, Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who is disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant's property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff f found the commercial plaza property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial plaza property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises and the business(es) located within the commercial plaza property. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that is in violation of the ADA at the subject commercial plaza property. The barriers to access at Defendant's commercial plaza property has each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial plaza property and its tenants therein, and in addition has endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Defendants 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 property, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. MIAMI OFF CENTER ASSOCIATES LLP, owns, operates and/or oversees the subject commercial plaza and inclusive property parcels which make up the commercial plaza.[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 MISSOURI: Dismissal of Ramirez Unjust Enrichment Claim Affirmed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BENJAMIN CURTIS RAMIREZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ET AL., Appellant-Respondent, v. MISSOURI PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS AND CIRCUIT ATTORNEYS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, ET AL., Respondent-Appellant, Case No. WD88010, Consolidated with No. WD88014 (Mo. App.), Judge Lisa White Hardwick of the Court of Appeals of Missouri, Western District: 1) affirms the judgment dismissing Ramirez's unjust enrichment claim on the pleading; 2) vacates the summary judgment finding Section 56.807 unconstitutional; and 3) denies the motion to transfer the case to the Supreme Court. Ramirez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, appeals the judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Missouri Prosecuting Attorneys and Circuit Attorneys' Retirement System Fund ("PACARS") on his unjust enrichment claim. He contends the circuit court erred in finding a motion to retax costs is the proper mechanism to recover statutory costs the court ruled unconstitutional in a prior partial summary judgment. PACARS filed a cross-appeal that is contingent on the reversal of the judgment on the pleadings. In the cross-appeal, PACARS argues the circuit court erred in finding the costs unconstitutional and requests we transfer the case to the Missouri Supreme Court to review that decision. In 1989, the legislature created the "Prosecuting Attorneys and Circuit Attorneys' Retirement Fund." PACARS's board of trustees manages the fund. Beginning in 2003, the legislature required court clerks to collect a $4 surcharge in all criminal cases from any person who pleads guilty to a criminal or traffic offense, and the clerks are to disburse the funds to PACARS. No PACARS surcharge is collected when the costs are waived or the defendant is dismissed. In 2018 and 2019, Ramirez pled guilty to criminal charges filed against him in Jackson County. He was assessed and paid mandatory court surcharges, including Section 56.807.7's PACARS surcharge. In June 2021, Ramirez filed a putative class action petition in the Jackson County Circuit Court against PACARS, the Director of Revenue, and the Treasurer, arguing the PACARS surcharge and seven other statutory surcharges he was assessed violate the Missouri Constitution. Ramirez's petition asserted unjust enrichment and conversion claims, seeking reimbursement of the surcharges Ramirez and other similarly-situated individuals had paid. He later voluntarily dismissed the conversion claim. In February 2023, the court certified two classes, one comprised of Missouri citizens who were assessed and paid the PACARS surcharge and another comprised of Missouri citizens who were assessed and paid the Seven State Funds surcharges. Ramirez filed a motion for partial summary judgment against PACARS on the constitutionality of Section 56.807. On August 4, 2023, the court granted Ramirez's motion. The court found the PACARS surcharge was not reasonably related to the expense of the administration of justice and, therefore, Section 56.807 violated Article I, Section 14 of the Missouri Constitution. The Director and Treasurer moved for summary judgment on Ramirez's unjust enrichment claim. They asserted the claim against them was barred by sovereign immunity and the statutes authorizing the Seven State Funds surcharges did not violate the Missouri Constitution. The circuit court granted the Director and Treasurer's motion after finding the statutes authorizing the Seven State Funds surcharges were constitutional. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the Director and Treasurer, finding Ramirez's claims against them were barred by sovereign immunity. Meanwhile, PACARS, the only remaining defendant in the lawsuit, moved for judgment on the pleadings on the only remaining claim of unjust enrichment. PACARS argued Ramirez could not assert a claim for the equitable remedy of unjust enrichment to recover the PACARS surcharge because a statutory remedy, specifically, a motion to retax costs under Section 514.270, exists. The circuit court agreed and entered judgment on the pleadings in favor of PACARS. Ramirez appeals. PACARS cross-appeals, challenging the circuit court's determination that Section 56.807 is unconstitutional. After PACARS filed its notice of appeal, Ramirez filed a motion to transfer the case to the Supreme Court on the basis the Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the issues raised in PACARS's cross-appeal under Article V, Section 3 of the Missouri Constitution. In the jurisdictional statement of its brief, PACARS asserts the Court of Appeals need not reach its cross-appeal if it affirms the judgment on the pleadings. If it reverses the judgment on the pleadings and reaches the cross-appeal, however, PACARS requests the Court of Appeals transfers the case to the Supreme Court. Judge Hardwick opines that the circuit court's judgment on the pleadings in favor of PACARS must be affirmed, as the unjust enrichment claim of Ramirez and the class members is precluded by virtue of an exclusive statutory remedy. She says Ramirez and the class members must contest the PACARS surcharge by way of a Section 514.270 motion to retax costs proceeding. In any such proceeding, the Appellate Court will not be bound by the circuit court's substantive legal conclusion in this case that Section 56.807 is unconstitutional. Therefore, the partial summary judgment in favor of Ramirez is vacated as Section 56.807 is unconstitutional because the circuit court erred in reaching the merits, which must be examined in accordance with Section 514.270. Ramirez's point is denied. For these reasons, Judge Hardwick affirms the judgment on the pleadings, vacates the prior partial summary judgment, and finds PACARS's cross-appeal moot. She denies the motion to transfer the case to the Supreme Court. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://sl1nk.com/nvy45n5 MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Singley Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages -------------------------------------------------------------- Jodisue Singley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Molina Healthcare, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 26CV3016 JES MSB (S.D. Cal., May 14, 2026) arises from Defendant's violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") regulations. The complaint relates that to advertise and promote its goods and services, Defendant transmitted, or caused to be transmitted, unsolicited telemarketing text messages to Plaintiff and other consumers, including multiple messages initiated before 8:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. local time at the called party's location. The Plaintiff did not provide Defendant with prior express invitation or permission--written or otherwise--to send her telemarketing or solicitation text messages. Plaintiff had no established business relationship with Defendant within the meaning of TCPA at the time of the messages at issue. She had not purchased from Defendant within the 18 months preceding the challenged texts, had not made any inquiry or application regarding Defendant's goods or services within the three months preceding the challenged texts, and, to the extent any prior relationship ever existed, it had been terminated before the messages at issue were initiated, says the suit. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, treble damages for willful or knowing violations, costs, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff Jodisue Singley is the regular user and subscriber of the wireless telephone number ending in 9293. Defendant Molina Healthcare, Inc. is an American managed care company that is authorized to do business in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Faythe Gutierrez, Esq. PLG DAMAGE ATTORNEYS 2750 Sw 145th Avenue #509 Miramar, FL 33027 E-mail: service@plgdamage.com MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Walsh Sues Over Unlawful Increased Pricing ------------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Walsh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL, INC., MONDELEZ GLOBAL LLC, and MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-06000 (N.D. Ill., May 21, 2026), is brought to halt and remedy the Defendants' retention of windfall proceeds tied to tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economy Powers Act ("IEEPA"), which the Defendants passed onto consumers in the form of increased pricing and which the Defendants now seeks to recover from the federal government through court-ordered refunds. Despite the Supreme Court's invalidation of IEEPA-based tariffs, the persons who actually bore the tariff burden— Mondelez's customers—have no direct recourse in the Court of International Trade ("CIT"), where Mondelez, as importer of record, is positioned to recoup all such duties. Companies, even those which passed the entirety of their tariff burdens onto their customers, nonetheless remain fully empowered to recover a complete refund for any unlawful tariffs paid. Thousands of companies, including Mondelez, have pursued tariff related refunds in the CIT, despite having already recouped such costs from their customers via elevated prices. Because U.S. customers are paying an estimated two-thirds of tariff-related costs, companies, including Defendant, stand to obtain an improper double recovery, absent restitution to their customers. This lawsuit seeks to prevent Mondelez from double recovery. Mondelez has made no commitment to return any portion of anticipated tariff refunds to the consumers who ultimately paid such costs. The Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Mondelez to disgorge and return to Plaintiff and the Classes all IEEPA-related costs embedded in elevated consumer prices with interest. The Plaintiff and the Classes are entitled to restitution of the tariff-related overcharges they paid or a proportionate share of any tariff refunds Mondelez recovers, along with interest and attorneys' fees and costs, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a customer of Defendants and, during the Relevant Time Period, defined infra, purchased merchandise that was imported from countries subject to IEEPA tariffs and sold at prices inflated by Defendants' tariff pass-through scheme. Mondelez is "an American multinational confectionery, food, and beverage company based in Illinois which employs approximately 80,000 individuals around the world."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Devall, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: (310) 474-9111 Fax: (310) 474-8585 Email: bdevall@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Robert Ahdoot, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Phone: (310) 474-9111 Fax: (310) 474-8585 Email: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Bradley K. King, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Phone: (917) 336-0171 Fax: (917) 336-0177 Email: bking@ahdootwolfson.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Sharlin Suit Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Joshua Sharlin, and on behalf of other similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Bayer A.G., Case No. 1:26-cv-01713 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on May 28, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05043-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marta Batiste, Esq. GDH LAW 4200 Parliament Place , Suite 510 Lanham, MD 20706 Phone: (301) 769-6835 Email: mbatiste@gdhlawfirm.com MORRISON INDUSTRIAL: Mertka Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- Louis Mertka, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MORRISON INDUSTRIAL, LLC, and TRIAD SERVICE CENTER, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-01622 (W.D. Mich., May 18, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"). Although Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members have routinely continue to work) in excess of 40 hours per workweek, Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members were not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. During the relevant time period, Defendants knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours each workweek. Specifically, Defendants' regular practice--including during weeks when Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members worked and recorded hours in excess of 40--was (and is) to misclassify Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members as exempt employees and to pay them a salary but no overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours. The Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members were not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a Trainer in New York, Illinois, Massachusets, Pennsylvania and New Jersey during the relevant time period(s). The Defendants are a business-to-business material-handling equipment dealer for its clients throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer L. McManus, Esq. FAGAN MCMANUS, P.C. 25892 Woodward Avenue Royal Oak, MI 48067-0910 Phone: (248) 542-6300 Email: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: (361) 452-1279 Fax: (361) 452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Slater Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., et al. The case is styled as India D. Slater, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated former and current homeowners of New York State v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Case No. Index not Assigned: Pre-RJI (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., May 29, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Torts (Labor & Employment) Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. -- https://www.mersinc.org/ -- is an American privately held corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Earl Dubois Raynor, Esq. CIVIL RIGHTS CONSORTIUM 5306 3rd Ave. Brooklyn, NY, 11220-2601 MSC CRUISES: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Ortiz Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH ORTIZ, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. MSC CRUISES (USA) LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-1003 (W.D.N.Y. May 15, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.msccruisesusa.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on January 2, 2026, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and visually-impaired consumers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the goods, and services Defendant offers to the public on its Website, says the suit. The Plaintiff, therefore, seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff JOSEPH ORTIZ is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant MSC CRUISES (USA) LLC, operates the MSC Cruises USA online retail store, as well as the MSC Cruises USA interactive Website that provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's: cruise vacations and trips, as well as other types of goods, pricing, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and internet pricing specials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212-228-9795 Facsimile: 212-982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal MUENSTER MILLING: Rendon Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Isabel Rendon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MUENSTER MILLING COMPANY, LLC, a Texas limited liability company, d/b/a WWW.MUENSTERPET.COM, a Texas limited liability company, Case No. 26STCV12853 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on May 28, 2026, and assigned Case No. 8:26-cv-01376. The Plaintiff alleges that Company is noncompliant with purported "strike-through" pricing with sale items on its website. Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the alleged amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Where, as here, a plaintiff does not expressly plead a specific amount of damages, a defendant is only required to show that the amount in controversy is more likely than not to exceed the $75,000 jurisdictional requirement.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com The Defendants are represented by: Theresa C. Becerra, Esq. SPENCER FANE LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 550 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: 424.217.1830 Facsimile: 424.217.1854 Email: tbecerra@spencerfane.com MUNSON HEALTHCARE: Robinson Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Laureen Robinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Munson Healthcare, Case No. 1:26-cv-01080 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on May 29, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-00463-BP to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Munson Medical Center -- https://www.munsonhealthcare.org/ -- is the largest of nine Munson Healthcare system hospitals located throughout northern Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew P. Abood, Esq. ABOOD LAW FIRM (E LANSING) 246 E Saginaw St., Ste. 100 East Lansing, MI 48823 Phone: (517) 332-5900 Email: andrew@aboodlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Elizabeth Anne Scully, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1050 Connecticut Ave., Ste 1100 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 861-1698 Fax: (202) 861-1783 Email: escully@bakerlaw.com MURATA ELECTRONICS: Haynes Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Murata Electronics North America, Inc. The case is styled as Yolunda Haynes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Murata Electronics North America, Inc., Case No. 26CV007244 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton Cty., May 18, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Tort/Negligence. Murata Americas -- https://www.murata.com/ -- is the organization responsible for the regional management of the Murata companies located in North and South America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq. GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 4279 Roswell Road, Suite 208-108 Atlanta, GA 30342 Phone: (678) 642-2503 Email: marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com MY FOOT: Blind Users Face Barriers to Website Access, Bowman Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- TANISIA BOWMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. My Foot Shop LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-5856 (N.D. Ill., May 20, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://www.myfootshop.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Bowman and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Bowman's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint relates that Bowman has attempted to complete a purchase on the Website on April 23, 2026. However, while navigating the Website using her screen reader software, Bowman encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from completing the order. The Website contains access barriers that deny Bowman full and equal access. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Bowman and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of the Website in violation of ADA and/or its implementing regulations, says the suit. Bowman seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so 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. Plaintiff Tanisia Bowman is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant My Foot Shop LLC provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a specialized selection of professional foot and leg care products, including orthotics, toe and forefoot stabilizers, skin and nail treatments and tools, and compression solutions, complemented by specialized pain management devices and trauma care supplies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 716-281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law MY GOALS SOLUTIONS: DeWolf Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against My Goals Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Janell L. DeWolf, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. My Goals Solutions, Inc. doing business as: Goals Plastic Surgery, Case No. 4:26-cv-04211 (S.D. Tex., May 27, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. My Goals Solutions, Inc. doing business as Goals Plastic Surgery -- https://goalsplasticsurgery.com/ -- is a leading multi-location cosmetic surgery practice specializing in body contouring, aesthetic surgery, and confidence-driven transformation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD 2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com MYGRANT GLASS: Kowalczyk Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mygrant Glass Company, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Nickolas Kowalczyk, all others similarly situated v. Mygrant Glass Company, Inc., a California corporation, Does 1-50, Case No. 26CV012688 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 26, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Mygrant Glass -- https://www.mygrantglass.com/ -- is one of the largest independent wholesale distributors of auto replacement glass in the nation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Keledjian, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Blvd., Ste. 840 Glendale, CA 91203-2920 Phone: 818-962-6465 Email: d.keledjian@d.law NATIONAL AUTOMATIC: Kaiser Suit Removed to D. Maryland ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Kody Kaiser, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NATIONAL AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER LOCAL 669 UA EDUCATION FUND, Case No. C-13-cv-26-000206 was removed from the Circuit Court for Howard County, Maryland, to the United States District Court for District of Maryland on May 22, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-02027-BAH. The Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges state law claims against the Education Fund for negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff's claims relate to the Education Fund's alleged collection and storage of participants' data in order to administer authorized benefits and a subsequent data breach of the participants' data in May 2024.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Shaun A. Gates, Esq. Lars C. Golumbic, Esq. Samuel I. Levin, Esq. Benjamin J. Koenigsfeld, Esq. GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1200 Washington, D.C. 20006 Phone: 202-857-0620 Fax: 202-659-4503 Email: sgates@groom.com lgolumbic@groom.com slevin@groom.com bkoenigsfeld@groom.com NATIONAL DEBT RELIEF: Voegtli Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Debt Relief, LLC. The case is styled as Austin Voegtli, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Debt Relief, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-04141 (S.D.N.Y., May 18, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. National Debt Relief LLC -- https://www.nationaldebtrelief.com/ -- operates as a debt settlement company and provides debt settlement, relief, and calculator services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna Alexis Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Avenue-Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com NELNET SERVICING: Judge OKs $10M Deal, Payments to Take Months -------------------------------------------------------------- Melanie Love Salazar, writing for MYSA, reports that a $10 million settlement involving Nelnet, the nation's most popular student loan servicer, has just received a major update. Payments are one step closer to going out to those in Texas and beyond after a judge reviewed the class action lawsuit on Thursday, May 21. The settlement comes after a high-profile data breach in 2022 that revealed sensitive details about student loan borrowers. Is the Nelnet settlement legitimate? Yes. A legal notice from the U.S. District Court in Nebraska shows 23 complaints were filed not only against Nelnet but also against Edfinancial and the Oklahoma Student Loan Authority (OSLA), which Nelnet services. These complaints, filed starting August 30, 2022, list plaintiffs from several states, including Texas, New Mexico, Utah and other states. Since this is a class action lawsuit, the plaintiffs represent themselves and others in similar positions. These people would be those impacted by the allegations they bring, which surround a data security breach that occurred between early June and late July 2022, according to Nelnet. In a statement, the company said that approximately 2.5 million borrowers had their names, addresses, email addresses, phone numbers and Social Security numbers accessible by an unknown party at times during the aforementioned summer period. The lawsuits claim that Nelnet "failed to implement reasonable data security measures to protect consumers' personally identifiable information," per the settlement website. As a result, some of the plaintiffs allege they "have experienced or have been exposed to fraud and identity theft and have otherwise been injured." Senior U.S. District Judge John M. Gerrard approved the terms of the class action settlement on Thursday, May 21, according to the court's memorandum and order. Approved class action members are entitled to two years of a credit monitoring and identity theft protection product and cash payments based on funds available after it is used to pay any court-approved disbursements, per the settlement website. Nelnet settlement claim form The deadline to file a claim was last month. As of Monday, May 4, of this year, 1,035,674 claim forms were filed, but only 308,531 forms were "verified" as submitted by eligible class members, according to the court memorandum. "Late claim submissions -- whether submitted minutes or months after the deadlines -- were rejected, but the claimants advised that they may contest the determination by submitting a request for review to this court," the document states. It may take a year for folks to receive their money, because an appeal could be filed. If folks think they made a mistake on their claim form, they will be able to fix it via a portal on the settlement website soon, according to an announcement. Fairness hearing A fairness hearing was scheduled for Tuesday, May 5. There, court officials discussed the settlement's reasonableness and requests for awards of attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and plaintiff service awards. [GN] NESTLE USA INC: Hohl Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Melissa G. Hohl, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Nestle USA, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-00947 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on May 21, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-01182-SO to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as E.R.I.S.A. Labor for Breach of Fiduciary Duties. Nestle -- https://www.nestle.com/ -- is the world's largest food & beverage company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Williams, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD - NEW YORK 745 5th Avenue, Ste. 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (929) 581-0187 The Defendant is represented by: Anna M. McKenzie, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER - WASHINGTON 1700 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 955-8205 - and - Ashley E. Johnson, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER-DALLAS 2001 Ross Avenue, Ste. 2100 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 698-3100 Fax: (214) 571-2900 - and - Jennafer M. Tryck, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER-IRVINE 3161 Michelson Drive Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: (949) 451-3800 Email: jtryck@gibsondunn.com NETWORKING TECHNOLOGY: Simpson Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ SHANA SIMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NETWORKING TECHNOLOGY, INC., d/b/a/ RXNT, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01887-JRR (D. Md., May 13, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals personally identifying information and protected health information. The Plaintiff and Class members are individuals whose private information was provided to Defendant in the regular course of business. By collecting, storing, and maintaining Plaintiff's and Class members' private information, the Defendant has a resulting duty to secure, maintain, protect, and safeguard the private information that it collects and stores against unauthorized access and disclosure through reasonable and adequate data security measures. Despite Defendant's duty to safeguard the private information of Plaintiff and Class Members, upon information and belief, the Private Information in Defendant's possession was compromised when an unauthorized party gained access to RXNT's cloud storage platform and exfiltrated sensitive data stored therein on or about March 1, 2026. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failure to implement and follow basic security procedures, upon information and belief, Plaintiff's and Class members' private information is now in the hands of cybercriminals, says the suit. Networking Technology, Inc., d/b/a RXNT, is a cloud-based healthcare software platform that offers electronic prescribing, electronic health records, and practice management tools to a diverse range of clients across the healthcare ecosystem.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William N. Sinclair, Esq. SILVERMAN THOMPSON SLUTKIN & WHITE, LLC 400 E. Pratt St., Suite 900 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 385-2225 Facsimile: (410) 547-2432 E-mail: bsinclair@silvermanthompson.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Stephen E. Connolly, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 609-6910 Facsimile: (267) 609-6955 E-mail: jerry@lcllp.com steve@lcllp.com NEW YORK CITY HEALTH: Brady Files Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against New York City Health And Hospitals Corporation. The case is styled as Marisol Brady, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. New York City Health And Hospitals Corporation, Case No. 1:26-cv-04265 (S.D.N.Y., May 21, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. NYC Health + Hospitals -- https://www.nychealthandhospitals.org/ -- is the largest municipal health care system in the US.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: Gary@lcllp.com NHB HOLDINGS: Walls Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Jawonna Walls, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. NHB HOLDINGS, LLC, NEW HORIZONS BAKING COMPANY, LLC, GENESIS BAKING COMPANY, LLC, AND NEW HORIZONS FOOD SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-01191 (N.D. Ohio, May 22, 2026), is brought for Defendants' willful failure to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees overtime wages as well as its willful failure to comply with all other requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended ("FLSA"), the Ohio Prompt Pay Act ("OPPA"). The Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours in one or more workweek(s). The Defendants were aware that the Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective, and the State Law Class worked overtime hours, but Defendants did not fully and properly pay them in accordance with the minimum requirements of the FLSA and State Law for all of their compensable overtime hours worked due at the correct overtime rates as a result of the companywide policies/practices. The Defendants' policy or practice states that team members are "encouraged to arrive for work 15 minutes prior to their designated starting time" because it will allow adequate time to perform their preparatory job duties. Despite being required to perform such work, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated production/manufacturing employees were not fully and properly paid for all overtime wages and other compensation during their employment with Defendant. Instead, Defendants maintained a policy of rounding its employees' hours worked down in Defendant's favor or otherwise not paying for employees' total hours worked (hereinafter the "Timekeeping Policy"), says the complaint. The Plaintiff has worked as an hourly, non-exempt manufacturing/production employee for Defendant. NHB Holdings, LLC is a privately held, family-owned holding company that oversees several subsidiaries in the food production industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel I. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL LLC 4400 N. High St., Suite 310 Columbus, Ohio 43214 Phone: (614) 704-0546 Facsimile: (614) 573-9826 Email: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com - and - Esther E Bryant, Esq. Matthew B. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL LLC 3131 Executive Parkway, Suite 106 Toledo, OH 43606 Phone: (419) 824-4439 Facsimile: (419) 932-6719 Email: ebryant@bryantlegalllc.com NILES DENTAL CARE: Johnson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Niles Dental Care PC. The case is styled as Lana Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Niles Dental Care PC., Case No. 1:26-cv-06116 (N.D. Ill., May 26, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Niles Dental Care PC -- https://www.nilesdentalcare.org/ -- is a trusted dental practice in Niles, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Berman, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (865) 603-7365 Email: cberman@shamisgentile.com NPAS INC: Cox Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against NPAS, Inc. The case is styled as Briana Cox, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. NPAS, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-23726-KMM (S.D. Fla., May 27, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. NPAS, Inc. -- https://npas.com/ -- specializes in manufacturing products that meet precise US Government and prime contractor specifications, including critical application replacement parts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Talal Rashid, Esq. PATTI ZABALETA LAW GROUP 110 SE 6th St., Fl. 17 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (305) 332-6201 Email: talal@pzlg.legal - and - Thomas John Patti, III, Esq. PATTI ZABALETA LAW GROUP 3325 Northwest 55th Street Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 Phone: (561) 542-8550 Email: Tom@pzlg.legal NY UMIYA INC: Cano Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation --------------------------------------------------------- Felipe Portillo Cano, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. NY UMIYA INC. and CHANDRA PURNAMA, Case No. 1:26-cv-03174 (E.D.N.Y., May 27, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), to recover from Defendants unpaid overtime compensation, misappropriated tips, unpaid "kickbacks" and unlawful withholdings and deductions, liquidated and statutory damages pursuant to the New York Labor Law and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. Throughout his employment, Plaintiff was paid, by check, at the rate of $140 per day straight time for all hours worked and worked approximately 72 hours per week, and sometimes in excess thereof. Work performed in excess of 40 hours per week was not paid at the statutory rate of time and one-half as required by state and federal law. In addition to failing to pay Plaintiff proper overtime compensation, Defendants also unlawfully withheld wages from Plaintiff. More specifically, Defendants misrepresented to Plaintiff that Defendants were paying taxes on his behalf when, in fact, they did not. Defendants unlawfully deducted money from Plaintiffs wages for alleged federal and state tax withholdings. The Defendants failed to pay federal, state, or city taxes or other proper and lawful withholdings as part of Plaintiffs wages for worked performed for Defendants. Thus, Defendants' improper withholdings was an unlawful and improper deduction from Plaintiffs wages and constitutes wage theft, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants until April 30, 2026. NY UMIY A INC., owns and operates a restaurant doing business as "Umiya Sushi."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 60 East Street – 40th Floor New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 209-3933 Fax: (212) 209-7102 Email: info@jcpclaw.com OCTAPHARMA PLASMA: Watkins Alleges FLSA Breaches ------------------------------------------------ MICHELLE WATKINS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OCTAPHARMA PLASMA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00559-UNA (D. Del., May 14, 2026) seeks all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a plasma center employee from October 2024 to December 2024. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated plasma center employees worked more than 40 hours in one or more workweek. However, the Defendant automatically deducted time from their recorded work hours for a daily meal break despite they took a shortened meal break, had their meal break interrupted with substantive job duties, or did not take any meal break due to staffing shortages, says the suit. Octapharma Plasma, Inc. for-profit domestic corporation that collects, processes, and distributes plasma donations from paid donors nationwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, Esq. 919 N. Market St., 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 777-0300 Facsimile: (302) 777-0301 E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com - and - Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd, Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com sdraher@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com OLIPHANT FINANCIAL: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Response ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THELMA ROPER, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, v. OLIPHANT FINANCIAL, LLC, & STILLMAN, P.C. (d/b/a STILLMAN LAW FIRM), Case No. 8:23-cv-02112-BAH (D. Md.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting them leave to file a response to the Plaintiff's motion to certify class that does not exceed 40 pages. The Defendants have not yet fully drafted their Response. However, given the direction that legal research has taken in preparation for drafting of the Response brief, the Defendants' counsel believes more than 30 pages may be necessary to fully and adequately argue against class certification. The Plaintiff filed her motion to certify class on May 15, 2026. Oliphant is a debt purchasing organization. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Uh71rb at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Eugene Xerxes Martin, IV, Esq. MARTIN GOLDEN LYONS WATTS MORGAN PLLC 8750 N. Central Expwy. Suite 1850 Dallas, TX 75231 Telephone: (214) 346-2630 Facsimile: (214) 346-2631 E-mail: xmartin@mgl.law ONSITE MAMMOGRAPHY: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $2.53MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that current and former patients who received written notice that the October 2024 Onsite Mammography data breach may have affected their private information could be eligible to submit a claim for up to $5,000 plus a pro rata payment and credit monitoring from a class action settlement. The cybersecurity incident compromised 357,265 individuals. Onsite Mammography LLC, d/b/a Onsite Women's Health, agreed to pay $2.53 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging Onsite failed to adequately protect personal and health information. Who can file a claim for a data breach payout? Class members are individuals residing in the United States who received written notice from Onsite Mammography stating the October 2024 data breach may have impacted their personally identifiable and/or protected health information. How much are settlement payments? Class members have the following benefit options: -- Reimbursement for out-of-pocket losses: Class members can claim up to $5,000 in documented, unreimbursed losses resulting from the data breach. This includes credit report fees, costs for freezing/unfreezing credit reports, credit monitoring or mitigation expenses, and postage for contacting financial institutions. -- Pro rata cash payment: All class members can submit a claim to receive a pro rata cash payment from the net settlement fund after the settlement administrator pays all other approved claims. The settlement administrator will determine the payment amount by the total number of claims filed. -- Credit and medical/health data monitoring: All class members can elect to receive three years of credit and medical/health data monitoring. Services include three-bureau credit monitoring and $1 million in identity theft insurance. How to claim a class action rebate To receive a settlement payment, class members can file a claim online or print the PDF claim form to complete and mail to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Onsite Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 3868, Baton Rouge, LA 70821 The claim deadline is Aug. 11, 2026. Required proof and claim information -- To submit a claim online, class members must provide the settlement claim ID from the notice they received. -- Out-of-pocket loss reimbursement claims require supporting documentation, such as receipts, invoices, bank or credit card statements showing unreimbursed fees or fraudulent charges, and other proof of identity theft or fraud. Payout options -- PayPal -- Venmo -- Zelle -- Paper check mailed to the address Settlement fund breakdown The $2,525,000 settlement fund will include: Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $841,666.67 -- Attorneys' expenses: Up to $30,000 -- Service awards to class representatives: $3,500 each -- Credit and medical/health data monitoring: Cost determined by the number of claims filed -- Payments to approved claimants: Remaining settlement funds Important dates -- Exclusion deadline: July 13, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: Aug. 11, 2026 -- Fairness hearing: Sept. 9, 2026 When is the Onsite Mammography data breach settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments after the court grants final approval of the settlement. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit alleged Onsite Mammography LLC was responsible for a cybersecurity incident in October 2024, when an unauthorized third party gained access to an employee's email account. The plaintiffs claimed the company failed to adequately protect personal and health information, claiming negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, invasion of privacy and unjust enrichment. Onsite Mammography denies any wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the expense and risk of continued litigation and a possible trial. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Up to $5,000 plus a pro rata payment and data monitoring Deadline: August 11, 2026 [GN] OPTION CARE: Lewis Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Anita Lewis, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OPTION CARE ENTERPRISES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV10850 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on May 18, 2026, and assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-04700. On April 3, 2026, Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint against Option Care, which set forth the following eight causes of action: failure to pay minimum wages for all hours worked, 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 pay wages of discharged employees—waiting time penalties, failure to provide and maintain accurate and compliant wage records, and violation of California Business & Professions Code Sections 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Saman M. Rejali, Esq. Abigail Wilson, Esq. Megan Moran, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 424.285.8330 Facsimile: 424.204.9093 Email: srejali@shb.com ajwilson@shb.com mmoran@shb.com OWENS-BROCKWAY: Denial of Lemus' Bid to Intervene in Aguilar Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the cases, PRISCILLA AGUILAR et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. OWENS-BROCKWAY GLASS CONTAINER, INC., Defendant; LUCIO LEMUS, JR., Movant and Appellant. PRISCILLA AGUILAR et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. OWENS-BROCKWAY GLASS CONTAINER, INC., Defendant and Respondent; LUCIO LEMUS, JR., Movant and Appellant, Case Nos. B341875, B343959 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Two, affirms the trial court's denial of Appellant Lemus' motion to intervene and motion to vacate the judgment. Respondents Priscilla Aguilar, Julian Haro, Richard Nunez, and Juan Madera worked for Owens. In 2021, they sued Owens for labor law violations. Respondents notified the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) that they sought civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). The Respondents negotiated a settlement with Owens. Owens denied violating labor laws but settled to avoid further litigation. The $3.7 million settlement encompassed class and PAGA claims. The LWDA received $225,000 of the PAGA penalty; aggrieved employees received $75,000. The Respondents requested court approval of the Settlement. The court granted preliminary approval in December 2023, finding the Settlement fair, adequate, and reasonable. The Respondents then notified 1,106 class members, none of whom objected to the Settlement. In July 2024, Appellant Lemus Jr. moved to intervene in the Respondents' lawsuit, claiming "an interest in enforcing rights and remedies under PAGA arising out of conduct that is the subject" of the Respondents' lawsuit. As the basis for his request, Lemus Jr. pointed to his own lawsuit, Lemus v. Owens-Brockway Glass Container, Inc. (Super. Ct. L.A. County (2024) No. 20STCV44110). He argued that intervention is mandatory because the Lemus Action will be materially and adversely affected by the Settlement. Alternatively, he sought permissive intervention because the Respondents unilaterally and without consideration extended the PAGA release period. The Lemus Action was filed by Owens employee Lucio Lemus, Sr., who alleged labor law violations and a PAGA claim. The Appellant was appointed successor in interest after his father's death in 2021. The Lemus Action is currently before the Court of Appeals on appeal from an order granting Owens's motion for summary judgment, Lemus v. Owens-Brockway Glass Container, Inc. (B341878). The Respondents opposed intervention. They argued that the Appellant's motion is untimely; he lacks standing because he is not an "aggrieved employee"; he did not exhaust administrative remedies; and he has no direct or immediate interest in the Respondents' lawsuit. The Appellant replied that he is entitled to prosecute his father's PAGA claim. He clarified that he seeks intervention to protect Lemus Sr.'s personal interest in his own, individual, PAGA claim. He argued that the motion is timely; the Respondents do not adequately represent his interests; and intervention would not enlarge the issues raised in their suit. The trial court denied intervention, holding that the Appellant seeks intervention because the PAGA claim in the Aguilar Action overlaps with the PAGA claim in the Lemus Action. Recent case authority holds that a PAGA plaintiff cannot intervene in a settlement reached by another PAGA plaintiff. As to the Appellant's claim of protecting his father's personal interest, the court ruled (1) there is no personal interest in a PAGA claim, and (2) even if there is a personal interest, the Appellant lacks standing—he was not an Owens employee and cannot pursue his father's claim. The court denied his motion. He appealed. In September 2024, the court granted final approval of the Settlement. The Respondents served notice of entry of order and judgment on September 30, 2024, though notice was not served on the Appellant. On December 11, 2024, the Appellant gave notice of his motion to vacate the judgment, arguing that the judgment improperly extended the PAGA period for five months without new consideration. Expansion of the PAGA period impaired his personal interest in recovering 25 percent of the PAGA proceeds. He is aggrieved by the judgment, which "will directly and adversely impact his own PAGA case (as successor in interest to Lemus Sr.) against the Defendant," which covers a longer period. The judgment in the Respondents' case will have a res judicata effect on the Lemus Action. In opposition, the Respondents argued that the Appellant is not aggrieved by the judgment. He lacks standing to pursue Lemus Sr.'s PAGA claims; he forfeited his right to object to the Settlement by opting out of it; his motion to vacate was untimely; and the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the motion while appellant appealed the denial of his motion to intervene. The Appellant responded that his motion is timely because no one served notice of entry of judgment upon him. He is entitled to pursue his personal interest in Lemus Sr.'s PAGA claim. The court had jurisdiction because his pending appeal was from the order denying his motion to intervene, not the judgment. He asserted that the Respondents' case adversely impacted his own PAGA case, as Lemus Sr.'s successor in interest. The court denied the motion to vacate. It first ruled that it could not entertain the motion. An automatic stay suspending its jurisdiction was in place during the pendency of the Appellant's appeal of the order denying intervention. Assuming it had jurisdiction, the court ruled that appellant lacked standing to vacate the judgment. The Appellant opted out of the class action portion of the Settlement and is not bound by it. As to the PAGA portion of the judgment, the Appellant is not an aggrieved party. Recent case law forbids multiple people with PAGA claims against a common employer from seeking to vacate a settlement by one of them. Appellant has no "personal interest" in a PAGA claim belonging to the state's labor law enforcement agencies. Finally, Lemus Sr.'s PAGA claim did not survive his death and appellant cannot pursue it. Lemus Jr. appealed. The Court of Appeals opines that because a PAGA claim belongs to the state, the Appellant did not inherit it. PAGA does not create property rights or any other substantive rights. Nor does it impose any legal obligations. It is simply a procedural statute allowing an aggrieved employee to recover civil penalties—for Labor Code violations—that otherwise would be sought by state labor law enforcement agencies. Aggrieved employees' ability to file a PAGA claim does not convert the state's interest into their own or render them real parties in interest. Hence, the Appellant cannot intervene in a representative capacity. Nor can he intervene to pursue his father's individual PAGA claim. The Appellant cannot prove Lemus Sr. suffered any Labor Code violations. Therefore, the motion to intervene was properly denied. Regarding the denial of the Appellant's motion to vacate the judgment, the Court of Appeals opines that he had no right to intervene and his motion was properly denied. Absent a right to vacate the Settlement, the Appellant is not aggrieved and has no standing to appeal the denial of his motion to vacate. Even if he has standing to appeal, his claims cannot succeed. He has no personal interest in PAGA penalties and cannot pursue his father's claims. For these reasons, the orders in B341875 and B343959 are affirmed. The Respondents are entitled to recover their costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://sl1nk.com/6jkuyho. Matern Law Group, Matthew J. Matern -- mmatern@maternlawgroup.com -- Mikael H. Stahle -- mstahle@maternlawgroup.com -- Debra J. Tauger -- dtauger@maternlawgroup.com; Altshuler Berzon and Michael Rubin -- mrubin@altber.com for Movant and Appellant. James Hawkins -- james@jameshawkinsaplc.com -- James R. Hawkins, Christina M. Lucio -- christina@jameshawkinsaplc.com -- Mitchell J. Murray -- mitchell@emplawllp.com -- and Samantha A. Jones -- samantha@emplawllp.com -- for Plaintiffs and Respondents. Seyfarth Shaw, Candace Bertoldi -- cbertoldi@seyfarth.com -- Elizabeth J. MacGregor -- emacgregor@seyfarth.com -- Robin E. Devaux -- rdevaux@seyfarth.com -- and Brian P. Long -- bplong@seyfarth.com -- for Defendant and Respondent. PATHWAYS LA: Oscal Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pathways LA. The case is styled as Angie Oscal, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Pathways LA, Case No. 26STCV16544 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 26, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Pathways LA -- https://pathwaysla.org/ -- supports LA families with child care resources, referrals, and early learning programs that help children thrive from birth to age five.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Miriam Schimmel, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 310-622-4278 Fax: 855-786-6356 Email: mschimmel@blackstonepc.com PB PLUMBING: Cissney Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------- George Cissney, Dennis Soule, and Terry Gravelle, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PB PLUMBING, LLC d/b/a TITAN PLUMBING GROUP, a Michigan Limited Liability Company, and GREGORY M. JOHNSON, as an individual, Case No. 5:26-cv-11740-BRM-APP (E.D. Mich., May 28, 2026), is brought for unpaid overtime wages, lost wages, non-economic damages, compensatory damages, and all other available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"). The Defendants maintained a common unlawful policy of failing to pay its plumbers for overtime premiums, as required by the FLSA. More specifically, Defendants misclassified their plumbers as being exempt from the overtime protections of the FLSA. In December 2025, Plaintiffs lodged a complaint with the United States Department of Labor and otherwise confronted Defendants regarding their failure to pay overtime premiums to plumbers. In response, Defendants unlawfully retaliated against Plaintiffs by terminating their employment and took other retaliatory actions designed to punish, harass, and embarrass Plaintiffs. As a direct and proximate cause of this clearly unlawful retaliation, Plaintiffs sustained significant non-economic losses including, but not limited to, embarrassment, humiliation, mental distress, anxiety, and damage to their reputation. In addition to their unpaid overtime wages, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover for the significant non economic damage they sustained because of Defendants' unlawful retaliation, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are all former non-exempt plumbers that Defendants jointly employed within the past three years. The Defendants operates the plumbing business located in Howell, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq. 43000 W. 9 Mile Rd., Ste. 301 Novi, MI 48375 Phone: (734) 234-5583 Email: cash@nationalwagelaw.com PERF OPCO LLC: Bennett Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Malika Bennett, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. PERF OPCO, LLC d/b/a PERFUMANIA, Case No. 26-2-13919-9 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 27, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01822. The Complaint seeks relief for purported violations of the Washington Commercial Email Marketing Act ("CEMA"), and the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("CPA"). The Plaintiff alleges that Perfumania violated CEMA and CPA by sending marketing emails with purportedly misleading or deceptive subject lines.[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 - Gerard J. Stranch, IV, Esq. Michael C. Tackeff, Esq. Andrew K. Murray, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: 615-254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com mtackeff@stranchlaw.com amurray@stranchlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Patrick Jordan, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 701 5th Avenue, Suite 2100 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 695-5100 Email: pjordan@grsm.com PERFORMRX LLC: Friendly Pharmacy Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Friendly Pharmacy Inc. and Samuel J. Robinson Pharmacy Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PERFORMRX, LLC and AMERIHEALTH CARITAS HEALTH PLAN, Case No. 260403665 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 19, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-03397. This Action involves the alleged practice of charging pharmacies transmission fees without disclosing same at the time of adjudication, which according to Plaintiffs occurs when a pharmacy dispenses a prescription drug to a patient. The Plaintiffs allege Defendant PerformRx engaged in the provision and administration of pharmacy benefits manager services, and that ACHP owned and/or exercised direct control and supervision over PerformRx. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege Defendant PerformRx did not disclose when adjudicating a prescription drug claim that it would charge a transmission fee.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Sean P. Fahey (PA Bar No. 73305) Daniel J. Boland (PA Bar No. 91263) Christopher M. Brolley (PA Bar No. 322851) Rebecca E. Younker (PA Bar No. 330496) TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP 3000 Two Logan Square Eighteenth and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 981-4000 PERPLEXITY AI: Faces Doe Suit Over Data Privacy Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PERPLEXITY AI, INC.; META PLATFORMS, INC.; and GOOGLE, LLC, Case No. CGC-26-636392 (Cal. Sup., San Francisco Cty., April 28, 2026) alleges violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, in addition to the content of the processing requests and results, Perplexity also shared identifiers, including their email address and other data that is personally identifiable, such as cookies and IP address. For people who use Perplexity without formally signing up for an account (i.e., "Guest Users"), Perplexity shares all of their information without asking for consent or providing notice that it was doing so in any fashion. Indeed, unlikely nearly every other sophisticated website and in violation of California law, Perplexity historically has not even maintained a Privacy Policy that be found from its home page, says the suit. Perplexity AI, Inc. operates as a software company. The Company offers AI-powered application that delivers web search engine that processes user queries and responses for researchers, business leaders, marketers, and developers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter K. Stris, Esq. John Stokes, Esq. STRIS & MAHER LLP 17785 Center Court Drive N. Suite 600 Cerritos, CA 90703 Telephone: (213) 995-6800 Facsimile: (213) 261-0299 Email: pstris@stris.com jstokes@stris.com PERRIGO COMPANY: Andree Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII ---------------------------------------------------------- Kurtis Andree, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PERRIGO COMPANY, Case No. 1:26-cv-01724-HYJ-RSK (W.D. Mich., May 29, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information ("PII") of Plaintiff and the Class members, including, without limitation: name and Social Security number. In the course of its business, Defendant is entrusted with an extensive amount of Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from Plaintiff's and Class members' PII, Defendant assumed non-delegable legal and equitable duties to Plaintiff and the Class members. On or about March 4, 2026, an intruder gained entry to Defendant's database, accessed Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII, and exfiltrated information (the "Data Breach Incident"). The Defendant did not notify Plaintiff and the Class members of the incident until about May 19, 2026. Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII that was acquired in the Data Breach Incident can be sold on the dark web. Hackers can access and then offer for sale the unencrypted, unredacted PII to criminals. Plaintiff and the Class members face a lifetime risk of identity theft, which is heightened here by the loss of Social Security numbers. The Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII was compromised due to Defendant's negligent acts and omissions and the failure to protect Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII.' The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and the Class members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure their PII was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent an unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, the PII of Plaintiff and Class members was compromised through access to and exfiltration by an unknown and unauthorized third party, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant whose PII was compromised. The Defendant manufactures consumer self-care products for distribution across the United States and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO PA 246 Shore Ct Lauderdale By The Sea, FL 33308 Phone: 954.400.4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Rachel Nicole Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. New York Bar No. 4995130 156W56th St #902 New York, NY 10019 Phone: (917) 456-9603 Email: rachel@dapeer.com PFIZER INC: Simonis Files Suit in N.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pfizer, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Crystal Lynn Simonis, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pfizer, Inc., Pharmacia and Upjohn Company LLC, Pharmacia LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00248-MCR-HTC (N.D. Fla., May 18, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability. Pfizer, Inc. -- https://www.pfizer.com/ -- is an American multinational pharmaceutical and biotechnology corporation headquartered on 42nd Street in Manhattan, New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica Halley Glitz, Esq. JOHNSON LAW GROUP - HOUSTON TX 2925 Richmond Avenue, Suite 1700 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713) 626-9336 Email: jglitz@johnsonlawgroup.com PIPESTONE HOLDINGS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Scotting Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- NATALIE SCOTTING, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PIPESTONE HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-02610 (D. Minn., May 13, 2026) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated victims as a result of a recent cyberattack and data breach involving personally identifiable information suffered by Defendant, which Defendant publicly reported on May 7, 2026. On May 7, 2026, the Defendant began sending notice letters to Plaintiff and Class Members informing them that their private information was exfiltrated in the data breach. The complaint alleges that the Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information––and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted private information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect individuals' sensitive data. Through this Complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals whose private information was accessed during the data breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant seeking redress for its unlawful conduct and asserting claims for: (i) negligence and negligence per se, (ii) breach of implied contract, and (iii) unjust enrichment. Pipestone Holdings, LLC is a Minnesota-based limited liability company that provides solution based services to farmers and embarks upon farmer-owned partnership.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com PM PEDIATRICS: Haroutunian Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Gayane Haroutunian, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. PM PEDIATRICS OF CALIFORNIA, a California corporation; PM PEDIATRICS MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 25, Inclusive, Case No. 26STCV10270 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 22, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-05579. The Complaint is a putative class action alleging the following causes of action: Unpaid Overtime; Failure to Provide Meal Breaks; Failure to Provide Rest Breaks; Unpaid Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Wages Upon Termination; 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 Sections 17200 (Unfair Business Practices).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Marissa Alguire, Esq. Damien P. Delaney, Esq. Diana M. Martinez, Esq. AKERMAN LLP 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 6400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 688-9500 Facsimile: (213) 627-6342 Email: marissa.alguire@akerman.com damien.delaney@akerman.com diana.martinez@akerman.com PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Miller Suit Removed to D. New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Latonya Miller, Randa A. Husain, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, John Does 1 to 10, Case No. ESX-L-009897-21 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on May 27, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-06065-CCC-LDW to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (PRA Group, Inc.) -- https://www.portfoliorecovery.com/ -- is a publicly traded global debt buyer based in Norfolk, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Ave., Suite 701 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 273-7117 Fax: (201) 273-7117 Email: ykim@kimlf.com The Defendants are represented by: Philip Andrew Goldstein, Esq. MCGUIRE WOODS LLP 1251 Avenue Of The Americas, 20th Floor New York, NY 10020 Phone: (212) 548-2167 Email: pagoldstein@mcguirewoods.com PRECISION HEATING: Picon Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARVIN PICON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PRECISION HEATING & AIR, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-05507-WMR (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- certifying a class action on behalf of: "all persons who worked for the Defendant as install technicians and/or service technicians at any time within four years prior to the commencement of this action who claim they were not paid all wages the Defendant promised, including wages for the time spent traveling between jobsites, in trainings or meetings, and performing work at Defendant's facility, and/or the full amount of earned commissions (the "Class"), -- certifying Plaintiff as Class representative, and -- appointing the Plaintiff's attorney as Class counsel. The Defendant is a locally owned and operated Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W4nNtU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dane Steffenson, Esq. DANE LAW, LLC 3575 Piedmont Rd. NE, Suite L120 Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 919-9719 E-mail: Dane@TheDaneLawFirm.com PRETTYLITTLETHING.COM: McLean Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kelly McLean, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. PRETTYLITTLETHING.COM USA INC., d/b/a PRETTYLITTLETHING, Case No. 1:26-cv-04518 (S.D.N.Y., May 29, 2026), is brought for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), arising from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its ecommerce website, www.prettylittlething.com, in a manner that is accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Despite multiple attempts across these three dates, Plaintiff was unable to independently complete her objectives due to pervasive access barriers. SortSite automated accessibility audits of www.prettylittlething.com, scanning 2,427 pages and files across the Website--a scan that was halted partway through, with 1,404 additional pages remaining unchecked--identified accessibility violations across 2,250 pages of the site, including Level A WCAG 2.1 failures--the most severe category--on the homepage, product pages, category pages, account and login pages, and informational pages, confirming systemic inaccessibility throughout the Website Plaintiff attempted to navigate. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to revise its corporate policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that www.prettylittlething.com becomes and remains accessible to blind and visually impaired users. Without remediation, Plaintiff and other blind consumers remain excluded from equal participation in Defendant's online marketplace, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is permanently disabled due to Bietti's Crystalline Dystrophy, a rare inherited retinal degenerative disorder that causes progressive loss of retinal function and severe decline in visual acuity. PrettyLittleThing is one of the largest and most prominently marketed online women's fashion retailers in the United States, maintaining an extensive and continuously refreshed catalog across dozens of categories--dresses, tops, shoes, accessories, swimwear, and beauty--and aggressively advertises to a nationwide consumer base through social media, influencer partnerships, and digital promotions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 227-5700 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Class Cert Opposition in Barton Due June 10 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALLISON BARTON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, a Delaware company, Case No. 3:24-cv-01332-GPC-SBC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Curiel entered an order setting briefing schedule for motion for class certification and motion to seal as follows: -- Any opposition shall be filed on or before June 10, 2026. -- Any reply shall be filed on or before June 24, 2026. -- A hearing on this matter is scheduled for July 31, 2026 at 1:30 PM in Courtroom 12A. The Defendant is an American multinational consumer goods corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AbqD1d at no extra charge.[CC] PROEDGE INVESTORS: Jefferson Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Proedge Investors LLC, et al. The case is styled as Robin Jefferson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Proedge Investors LLC also known as: SmartytheRealtor; Smarty the Realtor, LLC; Exp Realty LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-03654-JDW (E.D. Pa., May 28, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Proedge Investors LLC also known as SmartytheRealtor -- https://smartytherealtor.com/ -- is a real estate agent in Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC 23586 Calabasas Rd., Suite 105 Calabasas, CA 91302 Phone: (323) 306-4234 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com PROJECT 1920: Hussein Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- SUMAYA HUSSEIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Project 1920, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-5703 (N.D. Ill., May 15, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://www.senreve.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Hussein and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Hussein's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The complaint relates that Hussein attempted to complete a purchase on the Website on October 9, 2025. However, while navigating the Website using a screen reader and keyboard, she encountered multiple accessibility barriers that hindered her ability to complete the purchase independently. The Website contains access barriers that deny full and equal access to Hussein. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Hussein and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of the Website in violation of the ADA and/or its implementing regulations, says the suit. Hussein seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so 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. Plaintiff Sumaya Hussein is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Project 1920, Inc. 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 luxury handbags and related accessories, including backpacks, belt bags, crossbody bags, travel bags, work bags, straps and chains, small leather goods, scarves, hats, and pet 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 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law PROPERTY RECEIVABLES: Simmons Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Property Receivables, Corp. The case is styled as Gina Simmons, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Property Receivables, Corp., Case No. 1:26-cv-04046-EPG (E.D. Cal., May 27, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Property Receivables, Corp. -- https://propertyreceivables.com/ -- is a debt collector attempting to collect a debt and any information obtained will be used for that purpose.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com PROPPMOVERS LLC: Spece Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Proppmovers, LLC. The case is styled as James Spece, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Proppmovers, LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-00546-ALM (E.D. Tex., May 21, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Proppmovers, LLC -- https://proppmovers.com/ -- are a real estate solutions company that provides win-win solutions to help homeowners get out of difficult situations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (813) 340-8838 Email: zane@jibraellaw.com PRYSMIAN CABLES: Perez FLSA Class Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as JUSTINO PEREZ; individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated; Plaintiff v. PRYSMIAN CABLES AND SYSTEMS USA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CIVRS2602860, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on May 20, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-02739 to the proceeding. This complaint alleges two causes of action for violation of Fair Labor Standards Act over: (1)Unpaid Overtime; and (2) Unpaid Minimum Wages. Prysmian Cables & Systems USA, LLC manufactures telecommunication equipment. The Defendant is represented by: Karin M. Cogbill, Esq. Omar Mustafa, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 160 W. Santa Clara, Suite 400 San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 579-0404 Facsimile: (408) 454-0290 E-mail: Karin.Cogbill@jacksonlewis.com E-mail: Omar.Mustafa@jacksonlewis.coms PYXIS SOLUTIONS: Class Cert Bid in Wilson Due March 1, 2027 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wilson v. Pyxis Solutions, Case No. 6:26-cv-00344 (D. Or., Filed Feb. 22, 2026), the Hon. Judge Ann L. Aiken entered an order adopting deadlines on Parties' Joint Rule 26(f) Report and Discovery Plan as follows: -- Amended Complaint is due July 2, 2026. -- Exchange of Expert Witness Statements must be completed by Nov. 2, 2026. -- Rebuttal Expert Deadline is set for Dec. 7, 2026. -- Discovery is to be completed by Jan. 11, 2027. -- Dispositive Motions/Class Certification are due by March 1, 2027. The suit alleges violatio of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Pyxis is financial support and debt collection agency.[CC] QUEEN TRANSPORTATION: Class Cert Opposition Brief Due Feb. 19, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW ROSS, v. QUEEN TRANSPORTATION, LLC, Case No. 5:26-cv-00010-SCR-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Keesler entered a pretrial order and case management plan as follows: Rule 26 Disclosures: June 22, 2026 Amendment of the pleadings: Sept. 18, 2026 Joinder of other Parties: Sept. 18, 2026 Completion of class certification Nov. 20, 2026 discovery: Class certification brief: Jan. 22, 2027 Class certification opposition brief: Feb. 19, 2027 Class certification reply brief: Mar. 5, 2027 The Defendant is a transportation/trucking/railroad company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DgHL1q at no extra charge.[CC] RAW ELEMENTS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Hussein Says --------------------------------------------------------------- SUMAYA HUSSEIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Raw Elements CA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-5705 (N.D. Ill., May 15, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://www.rawelementsusa.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Hussein and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Hussein's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The complaint relates that Hussein attempted to complete a purchase on the Website on September 26, 2025. However, while navigating the Website using a screen reader and keyboard, Hussein encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from independently completing the purchase. The Website contains access barriers that deny full and equal access to Hussein. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Hussein and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of the Website in violation of the ADA and/or its implementing regulations, says the suit. Hussein seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so 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. Plaintiff Sumaya Hussein is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Raw Elements CA LLC 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 skincare and sun care products, including mineral-based sunscreens, tinted face products, sunscreen sticks, SPF lip products, moisturizers, baby and kids sunscreen, and product bundles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N, Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 929-442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law RICKY DIXON: Wilson Seeks to Reaffirm Certification of Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DWAYNE WILSON, TYRONE HARRIS, and GARY WHEELER, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. RICKY DIXON, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Corrections, FRANCISCO ACOSTA, in his official capacity as Warden of Dade Correctional Institution, and FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, an agency of the State of Florida, Case No. 1:24-cv-24253-KMW (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Reaffirming the certification of a class action with the following general class definition: "All current or future prisoners who are or will be incarcerated at Dade Correctional Institution." 2. Re-Certify two Subclasses with the following definitions: a. The Heat Sensitive Subclass: "members of the general class who either: 1) have a physiological condition that places them at increased risk of heat-related illness, injury, or death (including, but not limited to, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, psychiatric conditions, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cystic fibrosis, asthma, sweat gland dysfunction, and thyroid dysfunction); or 2) are prescribed an anticonvulsant, anticholinergic, antipsychotic, antihistamine, antidepressant, beta blocker, or diuretic; or 3) are over age 65." b. The Disability Subclass: "members of the general class who have a disability that substantially limits one or more of their major life activities and who are at increased risk of heat-related illness, injury, or death due to their disability or any medical treatment necessary to treat their disability." 3. Re-appoint Dwayne Wilson, Gary Wheeler, and Tyrone Harris as class representatives; and 4. Re-appoint the Florida Justice Institute, and appoint Bilzin Sumberg and Udelsman Law, as Class Counsel. This is a civil rights case challenging an unconstitutional prison practice that can be remedied on a classwide basis, the suit says. The Plaintiff Dwayne Wilson has been incarcerated at Dade CI since March 2023. He is 66 years old. He has hypertension and an enlarged prostate, and takes medication for both of those conditions. The Plaintiff Gary Wheeler has been incarcerated at Dade CI since July 2023. He is 65 years old. He suffers from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that requires use of an inhaler, and sleep apnea. The Plaintiffs filed this case on Oct. 31, 2024, and moved for class certification two days later. The Defendant is A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 25, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lfVIXx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dante P. Trevisani, Esq. Ray Taseff, Esq. Erica Downs, Esq. FLORIDA JUSTICE INSTITUTE 40 NW 3rd Street Suite 200 Miami, FL 33128 Telephone: (305) 358-2081 Facsimile: (305) 358-0910 E-mail: dtrevisani@fji.law rtaseff@fji.law edowns@fji.law - and - Andrew Udelsman, Esq. UDELSMAN LAW PLLC Miami, FL 33255 Telephone: (786) 390 -2698 E-mail: andy@udelsman.law - and - Adrian K. Felix, Esq. Brandon Storm, Esq. BILZIN SUMBERG BAENA PRICE & AXELROD LLP 1450 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2300 Miami, FL 33131-3456 Telephone: (305) 350-7234 Facsimile: (305) 351-2195 E-mail: afelix@bilzin.com bstorm@bilzin.com RM MED CA: Faces Prater Suit Over Paramedics' Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN PRATER, BRENDA ROBINSON, STEPHANIE VALDIVIA, and MATTHEW YARBROUGH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RM MED CA, LLC dba ROCKY MOUNTAIN MEDICAL CLINIC, a Utah limited liability company; and ALLAN GARCIA, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-03697-HBK (E.D. Cal., May 13, 2026) is an action brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated against the Defendants under the Fair labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code, and the California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiffs work or have worked as full- or part-time, non-exempt paramedics for Defendants at the Borax Mine medical clinic in Boron, California. The Defendants scheduled Plaintiffs to work 24-hour shifts and paid Plaintiffs flat, daily rates for each shift. According to the complaint, from July 2022 to January 17, 2026, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs any daily or weekly overtime wages whatsoever, even though they worked continuous 24-hour shifts multiple times every workweek. The Defendants required Plaintiffs to be ready and available to treat patients at any time during their shifts and to respond to patients or emergency calls immediately and at all times. During the relevant time, the Defendants did not provide Plaintiffs with off-duty meal or rest periods, nor did Defendants pay meal or rest period premiums for days when Plaintiffs were not able to take meal or rest periods. The Defendants' time sheets also did not include a place to track whether meal and rest breaks were taken or when they began and ended. The wage statements furnished by Defendants from July 2022 to January 17, 2026, were also inaccurate or incomplete, says the suit. The Defendants operate a medical clinic at the Borax Mine located in Boron, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hunter Pyle, Esq. Bradan M. Litzinger, Esq. HUNTER PYLE LAW, PC 505 14th Street, Suite 600 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 444-4400 Facsimile: (510) 444-4410 E-mail: hunter@hunterpylelaw.com blitzinger@hunterpylelaw.com ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Omnibus Bid to Seal Class Cert Briefing OK'd --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dey v. Robinhood Markets, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-07442-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lin entered an order granting the omnibus motion to seal class certification briefing. The Parties shall file an omnibus motion to seal all confidential material filed under seal and in support of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, Robinhood's forthcoming opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, and the Plaintiff's forthcoming reply in support of his motion for class certification, by Sept. 8, 2026, and any response thereto shall be filed by Sept. 15, 2026. Robinhood is an American financial services company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xV8a75 at no extra charge.[CC] RODD & GUNN: Nonato Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE NONATO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Rodd & Gunn USA Retail, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-5706 (N.D. Ill., May 15, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://www.roddandgunn.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Nonato and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Nonato's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The complaint relates that Nonato has made an attempt to complete a purchase on the Website on April 27, 2026. However, Nonato encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented him from completing the transaction. The Website contains access barriers that deny full and equal access to Nonato. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Nonato and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of the Website in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and/or its implementing regulations, says the suit. Nonato seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff Jose Nonato is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Rodd & Gunn USA Retail, Inc. 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 premium men's apparel, footwear, and accessories, including shirts, polos, t-shirts, knitwear, jackets, coats, pants, jeans, shorts, shoes, belts, bags, and hats.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 929-442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law RUGSUSA LLC: Seeks Live Cross-Examination of Experts ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEIRA McCARRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RUGSUSA, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00454-AB (D. Or.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for live cross-examination of experts at the class certification hearing. RugsUSA requests that the Court permit live cross-examination and redirect of the Plaintiff experts, Bruce G. Silverman, Colin B. Weir, and J. Michael Dennis at the class certification hearing. Should the Plaintiff wish to cross-examine RugsUSA's expert, Dr. Keith R. Ugone, RugsUSA will make Dr. Ugone available at the same hearing and requests that it be permitted to conduct a redirect. The case presents precisely the circumstances in which an evidentiary hearing is warranted. The parties' experts are sharply divided on issues central to class certification, and the Court's rigorous analysis demands more than a review of competing paper reports. As in Somers, live cross-examination will expose the strengths and weaknesses of each expert's methodology and conclusions in a way that written submissions simply cannot. The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of Oregon consumers who purchased RugsUSA products advertised at a discount on RugsUSA's website during the proposed class period. The Defendant markets and sells rugs online through its website. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 22, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A4uXlB at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: P. Craig Cardon, Esq. Kevin M. Murphy, Esq. Rana Salem, Esq. Abby H. Meyer, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 228-3700 Facsimile: (310) 228-3701 E-mail: ccardon@sheppard.com kemurphy@sheppard.com rsalem@sheppard.com ameyer@sheppard.com - and - Timothy W. Snider, Esq. Nicholas R. Bottcher, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP 760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000 Portland, OR 97205 Telephone: (503) 224-3380 E-mail: timothy.snider@stoel.com nicholas.bottcher@stoel.com SAN JOSE WATER: Court Narrows Claims in BHS Law Suit ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BHS LAW LLP, v. SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY, et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-10541-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wise entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss and to strike as follows: 1. ThePlaintiff's section 1983 and Bane Act claims are dismissed with leave to amend. 2. The Defendants' motion to dismiss the state law claims is otherwise denied without prejudice. 3. The Defendants' motion to strike the class allegations is denied without prejudice. 4. The Defendants' motion for a more definite statement is denied as moot. The Plaintiff's second amended complaint, should it choose to file one, is due by June 12, 2026. The Defendants' response shall be due June 26, 2026. The Defendants' request—to strike class allegations for failure to satisfy Rule 23's requirements— does not fall into the category of "an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." The Court thus denies the Defendants' motion to strike the class allegations without prejudice. If the factual record, once fully developed, supports the Defendants refiling a motion to strike class allegations, the Defendants may do so. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants improperly shut off the water to the Plaintiff's commercial building. The Plaintiff brings the claims on behalf of: "all San Jose Water Company customers whose water service was threatened with termination or terminated under SJWC's Cross-Connection Control Program during the applicable limitations period." The Plaintiff also proposes three subclasses: (1) an "Extension/Promise Reliance Subclass," defined as: "all customers who were granted extensions or compliance accommodations but whose water service was nevertheless terminated or threatened"; (2) a "Standardized Regulatory Misrepresentation Subclass," defined as: "all customers who received SJWC notices citing Title 17 as authority after its repeal"; and (3) a "Commercial Properties Subclass," defined as: "All non-residential customers required to install Reduced Pressure ('RP') assemblies under SJWC's Cross-Connection Control Program." The Plaintiff is a law office that owns the commercial property located at 2559 South Bascom Avenue in Campbell, California. San Jose Water is a privately owned, investor-owned public utility regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission and the State Water Resources Control Board. A copy of the Court's order dated May 23, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QlfmVt at no extra charge.[CC] SARAH BUSH: Stallings Files Wage-and-Hour Suit in Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------- SHAWDA D. STALLINGS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. SARAH BUSH LINCOLN HEALTH CENTER, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-2141 (C.D. Ill., May 14, 2026) is a class action to address class-wide wage and hour violations committed by Sarah Bush Lincoln against its hourly-paid employees. According to the complaint, Sarah Bush Lincoln violates the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"), by failing to record Stallings' and all hourly paid employees' time spent in locker rooms and locker room travel related to Sarah Bush Lincoln's work rule that requires employees to wear hospital-provided scrubs, change in locker rooms, and clock in after changing coupled with travel time to and from employee entrances and work areas. Stallings and the Plaintiff Class seek all available damages, including unpaid wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, payment of reasonable attorney's fees, costs and expenses, and any and all other damages to which they may be entitled. Plaintiff Shawda D. Stallings worked for Sarah Bush Lincoln as a Surgical Receptionist at its Outpatient Surgery Clinic in Mattoon, Illinois from late May or June 2024. She was involuntarily terminated on August 19, 2024 after Defendant refused to provide her accommodations for her pregnancy that she requested with the assistance of her physician. Defendant Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Center is a growing, two-hospital healthcare system serving a 10-county region and employing more than 3,000 people who live throughout the region.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq. HASSLER KONDRAS LLP 100 Cherry Street Terre Haute, IN 47807 Telephone: (812) 232-9691 Facsimile: (812) 234-2881 E-mail: kondras@hklawfirmllp.com SAVVY SMART: Faces Castrillo Suit Over Illegal Spam Mails --------------------------------------------------------- JASMINE CASTRILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAVVY SMART ECOMM LTD, a Delaware corporation, d/b/a CARDIANSAFECARD.COM, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-02994-JLS-MSB (S.D. Cal., May 13, 2026) arises from the Defendant's violations of the California Business and Professions Code and the California Trap and Trace Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant uses a marketing company called THE WISDOM COMPANIES LLC to blanket Californians with illegal spam. First, the e-mail claims to be from the "Department of Veterans Affairs" and claims that the recipients' service records have been "audited." Second, the e-mail instructs recipients that they must access a secure portal to update their official records, and, if they do not, their "benefits" will be suspended. Third, the link embedded in the e-mail takes recipients to what purports to be an official U.S. government website (veterandiscounts.live) that contains yet another official-looking link to Defendant's website at CARDIANSAFECARD.COM, where Defendant secretly installs a web of illegal tracking pixels on every visitor's device. Those tracking technologies enable Defendant and its partners to follow visitors' behavior across the Internet, converting a single deceptive email into ongoing digital surveillance. Further, the Defendant intentionally intruded upon the private affairs, concerns, and seclusion of Plaintiff by improperly accessing Plaintiff's personal information and using it for improper purposes, including by partnering with multiple data brokers to sell Plaintiff's and class members' private information to the highest bidder and them with behavioral advertising, says the suit. Savvy Smart Ecomm Ltd., d/b/a CARDIANSAFECARD.COM, is a digital security company incorporated in the United Kingdom with an office in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com SEISUKE KNIFE: Booker Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARTRELL DESAMONTA BOOKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Seisuke Knife Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-5858 (N.D. Ill., May 20, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://us.seisukeknife.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Booker and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Booker's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint relates that Booker wanted to purchase Japanese knives for home meal preparation, as he knew they are appreciated for their sharpness, durability, and precise craftsmanship. On April 21, 2026, during an online search, he discovered the Defendant's Website among the top search results and explored the Website with the intent to make a purchase. However, he encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented him from completing the purchase. The Website contains access barriers that deny full and equal access to Booker. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Booker and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of the Website in violation of the ADA and/or its implementing regulations, says the suit. Booker seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so 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. Plaintiff Martrell Desamonta Booker is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. Defendant Seisuke Knife Inc. 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 premium Japanese knives and culinary tools, including chef's knives, sushi knives, utility knives, and sharpening accessories, crafted with exceptional precision and traditional techniques.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 716-281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law SHELDON PIZZA: Cost Provision Severed, Arbitration Ordered ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Jarrod Brass, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Sheldon Pizza, LLC d/b/a Domino's Pizza, Port Pizza, LLC d/b/a Domino's Pizza, and Sheldon Port, Individually, Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:25-CV-01611 (M.D. Pa.), Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted the defendant's motion to dismiss and compel arbitration and granted plaintiff's request to sever an invalid cost provision from the arbitration agreement. Defendants operate numerous Domino's pizza shops throughout Pennsylvania and employ delivery drivers who use their personal vehicles to deliver food to customers. Defendants reimbursed these drivers for vehicle expenses at a set mileage rate. Plaintiff Jarrod Brass, employed as a delivery driver at one of Defendants' stores since 2023, alleged that Defendants used a flawed methodology to determine reimbursement rates rather than the methods recommended by the Internal Revenue Service and reputable travel agencies. Brass further alleged that this under-reimbursement caused his wages, and those of similarly situated drivers, to fall below the federal and Pennsylvania minimum wage during some or all workweeks, placing Defendants in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. In January 2026, Defendants moved to dismiss and compel arbitration, citing an agreement Brass had signed upon hiring that required binding arbitration for any dispute arising directly or indirectly out of, or relating to, his employment. The agreement contained a provision stating that neither party would be required to pay the costs or attorneys fees of the other. In February 2026, Brass responded and asked the court to sever that cost provision. The court first found the arbitration agreement enforceable. Under E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co. v. Rhone Poulenc Fiber and Resin Intermediates, S.A.S., 269 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2001), a court may compel arbitration where a valid arbitration agreement exists. Because the dispute arose out of Brass's employment and no allegation challenged the validity of the agreement itself, the court held it was required to enforce the agreement. The court next examined the cost provision. Under Spinetti v. Service Corp. Inter., 324 F.3d 212 (3d Cir. 2003), the Third Circuit held that arbitration provisions preventing employees from vindicating their full statutory rights are unenforceable. The court noted that under Section 216(b) of the FLSA, a defendant is required to pay a prevailing employee's attorneys fees -- a mandatory right, as opposed to the discretionary fee awards available under Title VII. Accordingly, the cost provision, if left intact, would prevent Brass from fully vindicating his statutory rights under the FLSA and was therefore invalid. The court then determined whether the provision could be severed. The Third Circuit in Spinetti also held that invalid cost and fee provisions may be severed from an arbitration agreement where the provision is not essential to the agreement and its removal will not defeat the agreement's primary purpose. Here, the dispute concerned wages and mileage reimbursement, not attorneys fees. The cost provision was therefore not essential, and its removal did not defeat the agreement's primary purpose. Accordingly, the court granted Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and granted Plaintiff's request to sever the cost provision, striking it from the agreement. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ly14AN from PacerMonitor.com SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Agrees to $55MM Securities Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------- Simply Wall St reports that in May 2026, Pomerantz LLP announced a proposed US$55,000,000 class action settlement for SolarEdge Technologies investors who bought shares between February 13, 2023 and October 19, 2023, with a court hearing scheduled for August 24, 2026 to consider approval. This proposed settlement, if approved, would remove a major securities lawsuit overhang while still binding most affected shareholders to the court's final decision. We'll now examine how resolving a US$55,000,000 securities lawsuit overhang could influence SolarEdge's existing investment narrative and risk profile. We've uncovered the 10 dividend fortresses yielding 5%+ that don't just survive market storms, but thrive in them. SolarEdge Technologies Investment Narrative Recap To own SolarEdge today, you need to believe it can turn unprofitable operations and a relatively new leadership team into a more stable, cash‑generating solar and storage platform. The proposed US$55,000,000 class action settlement, if approved, may clear a legal overhang but does not change that the key near term catalyst is margin and cash flow improvement, while the biggest risk remains continued losses and operational execution. Against this backdrop, SolarEdge's Q1 2026 results and Q2 revenue guidance of US$325–355 million are particularly relevant. They frame how a one‑time settlement could interact with an already loss‑making profile, where any additional cash outflows or constraints might influence the pace of margin recovery and investment in new offerings like Nexis and higher capacity storage systems. Yet behind the potential lawsuit resolution, investors should be aware of the ongoing risk that persistent losses and operational challenges could . . . SolarEdge Technologies' narrative projects $1.7 billion revenue and $84.0 million earnings by 2029. Some of the most optimistic analysts saw SolarEdge reaching about US$2.5 billion revenue and US$188 million earnings by 2029, but the class action settlement and ongoing margin pressures underline how far apart views can be, and why you should weigh both the upside story and the risk of product obsolescence before deciding which narrative feels more realistic. Explore 8 other fair value estimates on SolarEdge Technologies -- why the stock might be worth less than half the current price! Form Your Own Verdict Don't just follow the ticker -- dig into the data and build a conviction that's truly your own. A great starting point for your SolarEdge Technologies research is our analysis highlighting 2 key rewards and 1 important warning sign that could impact your investment decision. Our free SolarEdge Technologies research report provides a comprehensive fundamental analysis summarized in a single visual - the Snowflake - making it easy to evaluate SolarEdge Technologies' overall financial health at a glance. Looking For Alternative Opportunities? These stocks are moving -- our analysis flagged them today. Act fast before the price catches up: -- Rare earth metals are an input to most high-tech devices, military and defence systems and electric vehicles. The global race is on to secure supply of these critical minerals. Beat the pack to uncover the 27 best rare earth metal stocks of the very few that mine this essential strategic resource. -- AI is about to change healthcare. These 34 stocks are working on everything from early diagnostics to drug discovery. The best part - they are all under $10b in market cap - there's still time to get in early. -- Outshine the giants: these 15 early-stage AI stocks could fund your retirement. [GN] SPORTRADAR GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Short Seller Reports -------------------------------------------------------------- Rob Schaefer, writing for SBJ, reports that with its stock price still reeling from short-seller reports that alleged it works with illegal gambling operators, Sportradar Group AG has been hit with a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that seeks a jury trial and compensatory damages. The suit was filed May 18 by plaintiff James Anthony Smale, who is being represented by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, and names Sportradar, its Founder/CEO Carsten Koerl, and CFO Craig Felenstein as defendants. It alleges that Sportradar "made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts" about its business -- specifically, by misrepresenting or failing to disclose that it worked with black-market gambling operators and overstating the robustness of its compliance processes. The suit includes investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Sportradar stock between Nov. 7, 2024, and April 21, 2026. Short sellers Callisto Research and Muddy Waters initially published their reports alleging improper practices on April 22; Sportradar's stock plunged 22% that day and as of May 26 ($12.99) is down 45% from the start of the year. Sportradar responded to the reports with a statement that claimed, in part, that the reports contained "several factual inaccuracies," and that Sportradar "works exclusively with licensed operators." Koerl followed with a letter to shareholders posted to his LinkedIn that called the reports unfounded and defended Sportradar's compliance processes. Sportradar declined to comment on the class action suit. [GN] STATE FARM: Class Certification Order in Clippinger Suit Reversed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JESSICA CLIPPINGER, nka Jessica Pyron, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STATE FARM AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 24-5421 (6th Cir.), Judge Eric E. Murphy of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reverses the district court's class-certification order and remands for proceedings. Class-action suits brought against automobile insurers in many courts from around the country have asked the same question. Suppose an insurer promises to pay the "actual cash value" of an insured's vehicle if the vehicle gets destroyed in an accident. Suppose further that the insurer uses the same formula to calculate actual cash value. If car owners believe that this general formula includes an improper reduction, may they pursue a class action? Five circuit courts have now said "no" because individual issues about the unique value of each used car will dominate all other matters. This case asks the same question. State Farm uses a standard-form insurance policy to insure the vehicles of its Tennessee customers. The policy allows State Farm to pay for damaged cars in different ways. As relevant now, State Farm may pay the actual cash value of the covered vehicle minus any applicable deductible. Yet State Farm's policy does not define the key phrase: "actual cash value." Instead, it identifies the process that State Farm and an insured should use to calculate this value. The policy requires the vehicle owner and State Farm to first try to agree on the vehicle's actual cash value. If they cannot agree, either party may request an appraisal. Each side selects an appraiser, and those appraisers choose a third appraiser, or a court appoints one if necessary. The appraisers' role is limited to determining the vehicle's actual cash value, and if any two appraisers agree on a written appraisal with an explanation, that valuation is binding on both parties. Each side pays for its own appraiser and shares the cost of the third appraiser. Separately, a Tennessee regulation outlines how insurers may determine the actual cash value of a totaled vehicle when making a cash settlement. Insurers may use comparable vehicle prices from local or nearby markets, obtain quotes from local dealers if comparable vehicles are unavailable, or rely on a recognized valuation source that primarily reflects local market values and maintains a broad vehicle database. The regulation also allows insurers to use a different method if they document the vehicle's condition and fully explain the alternative valuation approach to the policyholder. During the period at issue, State Farm used a third-party valuation database maintained by Audatex to determine the actual cash value of totaled vehicles in Tennessee. After a customer reported a loss, a State Farm estimator inspected the vehicle, gathered information about its pre-accident condition, and entered that information into Audatex's database, which contained data on millions of advertised and recently sold vehicles. Audatex used vehicle comparison data to generate an Autosource Report estimating a totaled vehicle's fair market value. When the report relied on advertised prices for comparable vehicles, it typically applied a "negotiation adjustment" based on the assumption that buyers usually pay less than the listed price. Although this adjustment was generally not supposed to apply when actual sales prices or no-haggle dealers were involved, there was evidence it may have been used in some no-haggle transactions. State Farm claims handlers reviewed the report, made any needed adjustments, discussed the valuation with the customer, and documented any agreement reached on the vehicle's value. In May 2019, Clippinger's 2017 Dodge minivan was totaled in an accident, and she filed a claim with State Farm. State Farm deemed the vehicle a total loss and obtained an Autosource Report using comparable Tennessee minivan listings priced between $15,800 and $18,803. The report applied a "typical negotiation" reduction to those prices, then made further adjustments for mileage and feature differences. After averaging the adjusted values, it set the vehicle's actual cash value at $14,490. State Farm and Clippinger agreed on this amount, and State Farm paid her and her lender that sum. Within a year of the accident, Clippinger challenged State Farm's use of the "typical-negotiation" adjustment and filed a putative class action alleging breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. She argued that modern used-car markets are largely transparent and non-negotiable, and that State Farm relied on flawed data that overstated discounts from advertised prices, resulting in undervaluation of vehicles by the amount of that adjustment. She did not dispute the rest of State Farm's appraisal process. After the lawsuit was filed, State Farm invoked the policy's appraisal procedure. Each side selected an appraiser and a third was appointed by the court. The appraisers initially disagreed, with valuations ranging from $14,432 to $18,476.13. Clippinger's appraiser ultimately agreed with the third appraiser's valuation of $18,476, which became binding under the policy. State Farm then paid Clippinger more than $4,000 in additional compensation, along with additional taxes, based on the higher valuation. State Farm moved to dismiss the case as moot after paying Clippinger the higher appraisal amount, arguing that the appraisal had finally determined the van's actual cash value and eliminated any injury. The district court rejected that argument, finding the case was not moot. It reasoned that the "typical-negotiation" adjustment could still be challenged because it allegedly forced insureds to accept undervalued payouts or incur appraisal costs to recover full value. The court also held that a jury could find Clippinger was harmed by having to go through the appraisal process to obtain the correct valuation. Clippinger moved to certify a class, and the district court granted the motion. It found her claims were typical of the class and that she could adequately represent it. The court also accepted a common question for the class: whether State Farm's "typical-negotiation" adjustment artificially reduced actual cash value by failing to reflect how used cars are actually priced and sold. The court rejected State Farm's argument that individual issues would overwhelm common ones. State Farm argued that determining whether it paid actual cash value would require individualized, vehicle-specific evidence for each class member. The district court rejected that approach, agreeing with Clippinger that damages could be calculated through a uniform method. If a jury found the "typical-negotiation" adjustment improper, each class member's damages could be determined by simply recalculating the Autosource Reports without applying that adjustment. The district court agreed and certified a class of State Farm customers whose vehicle payouts were based on Autosource Reports that reduced actual cash value using the "typical-negotiation" adjustment. A divided appellate panel initially affirmed that decision, but the en banc court later vacated the panel ruling and agreed to rehear the case. The Court of Appeals reviews class certification decisions for abuse of discretion, which can occur if the district court makes a legal error. State Farm argues the district court made several such errors here. It contends the class violates Article III because it includes uninjured members, that Clippinger does not meet Rule 23(a)'s typicality and adequacy requirements because her alleged injury differs from those of other class members, and that Rule 23(b)(3) is not satisfied because individualized issues predominate and the appraisal process would be a more efficient way to resolve claims. Judge Murphy opines that when calculating the "actual cash value" of destroyed vehicles, State Farm often relies on the advertised prices of comparable used vehicles. It then imposes a "typical negotiation" adjustment that reduces the estimated value of these comparators to account for negotiations that lower their final sales prices. Clippinger brought a class-action challenge to this typical-negotiation adjustment, claiming that it generally undervalues the comparator vehicles. Even if Clippinger were correct, though, the Court of Appeals agrees with the other circuit courts that she cannot pursue this theory on a class-wide basis. To determine whether State Farm paid "actual cash value" for the 90,000 used vehicles in the class, a jury would have to consider unique evidence about each vehicle's value. And this individual valuation will "predominate" over all other questions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). To be sure, the district court tried to avoid the need for case-by-case evidence by holding that it could estimate every class member's damages using a simple calculation that would refund the amount of the typical-negotiation adjustment. But this proposed solution would wrongly read Rule 23 to eliminate State Farm's "substantive right" to present unique evidence that it paid fair market value to a specific class member despite its use of the adjustment. Judge Muphy concludes that the class's common contract claims will require "mini trials as to each" class member. So individualized questions will predominate over common ones. That fact renders a class action an inappropriate vehicle to manage the litigation. Thus, the district court's class-certification order is reversed and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with the Court of Appeals' opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://l1nq.com/6ucz49b. ARGUED EN BANC: Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. -- tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Appellant. Jacob L. Phillips -- jacob@jacobsonphillips.com -- JACOBSON PHILLIPS PLLC, Winter Park, Florida, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Bradley J. Hamburger -- bhamburger@gibsondunn.com -- Daniel R. Adler -- dadler@gibsondunn.com -- Matt Aidan Getz -- mgetz@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, Los Angeles, California, Jeffrey B. Wall -- jwall@gibsondunn.com -- Judson O. Littleton -- jwall@gibsondunn.com -- SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP, Washington, D.C., Christopher L. Vescovo -- cvescovo@lewisthomason.com -- LEWIS THOMASON, Memphis, Tennessee, Peter W. Herzog III -- pherzog@wtotrial.com -- WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP, St. Louis, Missouri, Eric L. Robertson -- robertson@wtotrial.com -- WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP, Denver, Colorado, for Appellant. Jacob L. Phillips, JACOBSON PHILLIPS PLLC, Winter Park, Florida, Hank Bates -- hbates@cbplaw.com -- Lee Lowther -- llowther@cbplaw.com -- CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC, Little Rock, Arkansas for Appellee. Adam G. Unikowsky -- aunikowsky@jenner.com -- JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae. STILA STYLES: Faces Lewis Suit Over FTSA Violations --------------------------------------------------- ADAM LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STILA STYLES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. CACE-26-008130 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., May 14, 2026) seeks for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for violations of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated FTSA's Caller ID Rules when it transmitted to the recipients' caller identification services a telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks liquidated damages for each violation and injunctive relief to ensure Defendant complies with FTSA. Stila Styles, LLC is a personal care product manufacturing company headquartered in Glendale, CA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Telephone: (202) 709-5744 Facsimile: (866) 893-0416 E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com SUBARU OF AMERICA: Consumers Sue Over Defective Electrical System ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that four consumers filed a class action lawsuit against Subaru of America Inc. and Subaru Corp. Why: The plaintiffs claim Subaru sold vehicles with a defective electrical system. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in New Jersey federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Subaru sold certain vehicles with a defective electrical system that caused the battery to fail prematurely. Lead plaintiff Christina Taylor claims Subaru sold vehicles with a defect that prevents one or more electronic control modules from entering or maintaining a proper low-power sleep state, resulting in excessive parasitic battery drain. The plaintiffs argue Subaru has been aware of the alleged defect since at least 2014, as evidenced by a series of technical service bulletins to its dealerships and service technicians, and "large numbers" of consumer complaints. "Despite knowing of the defect, Subaru has not successfully remedied it," the Subaru class action lawsuit says. The vehicles named in the class action lawsuit are model year 2021-2022 Subaru Outback, 2021-2024 Subaru Forester, 2021-2023 Subaru Legacy, 2021-2023 Subaru WRX, 2021-2022 Subaru Ascent, 2019-2023 Subaru Crosstrek, 2019-2024 Subaru Crosstrek Hybrid, 2022-2025 Subaru Forester Wilderness and 2019-2023 Subaru Impreza vehicles. The plaintiffs want to represent a nationwide class of all current and former owners and lessees of the Subaru vehicles named in the class action lawsuit. Subaru failed to disclose or remedy electrical defect, class action says The class action lawsuit argues Subaru failed to disclose the electrical system defect to consumers prior to purchase and has not successfully remedied the problem despite knowing about it for years. "While Subaru provides a three-year/36,000 mile warranty with each class vehicle and sells extended warranties of up to 10 years, Subaru engages in a pattern and practice of avoiding its warranty obligations with respect to the defect," the Subaru class action lawsuit says. The plaintiffs claim Subaru is guilty of breach of implied and express warranty, unjust enrichment and fraudulent concealment as well as violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and state consumer protection laws. They demand a jury trial and request declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of actual, consequential, statutory and punitive damages for themselves and all class members. A consumer filed a separate class action lawsuit against Subaru in September 2024 over claims the automaker knowingly sold vehicles with defective side mirrors. The plaintiffs are represented by Bruce D. Greenberg of Lite DePalma Greenberg & Afanador LLC and Matthew D. Schelkopf and Joseph B. Kenney of Sauder Schelkopf LLC. The Subaru class action lawsuit is Taylor, et al. v. Subaru of America Inc., et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-04935, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. [GN] SYNOPSYS INC: Faces Class, Derivative Suits in California --------------------------------------------------------- Synopsys Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending April 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 27, 2026, that it is facing shareholder class actions and derivative suits filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On October 31, 2025, a shareholder class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California captioned "Kim v. Synopsys, Inc., et al." (Case No. 25-cv-09410) against the company and certain of its officers. The complaint brings claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and alleges that certain material misstatements or omissions related to the performance of our Design IP segment were made in violation of federal securities laws. On November 25, 2025, a shareholder class action complaint was filed in the same court captioned "New England Teamsters Pension Fund v. Synopsys, Inc., et al." (Case No. 25-cv-10201) against the same respondents. The complaint raises similar allegations to the abovementioned action but also brings claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended on behalf of stockholders who received its stock in exchange for their shares of common stock of Ansys, Inc. as part of the Ansys Merger. On July 17, 2025, the company acquired ANSYS, Inc., a provider of broad engineering simulation and analysis software and services for $199.91 in cash and 0.3399 of a share of Synopsis common stock in exchange for each ordinary share of Ansys for a total consideration of $34.9 billion. On December 30, 2025, a shareholder class action was filed in the same court captioned "City of Sterling Heights Police & Fire Retirement System v. Synopsys, Inc., et al." (Case No. 5:25-cv-11059) against the same respodents. The complaint raises similar allegations. The plaintiffs in the Class Actions are seeking unspecified monetary damages and an award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys fees and expert fees. Related shareholder derivative litigation has also been initiated in connection with these matters. On February 15, 2026, a purported shareholder, derivatively on behalf of the company, filed a complaint in the Northern District of California againstb the same respondents. The derivative complaint generally alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties, were unjustly enriched, and violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act by causing or permitting the same alleged misstatements and omissions at issue in the Class Actions. The derivative plaintiff seeks, among other relief, damages purportedly sustained by the company, corporate governance reforms, restitution, and an award of attorneys fees and costs. The derivative action has not yet been consolidated with, but may be coordinated with, the class actions for purposes of discovery and other pretrial proceedings. Synopsys Inc. is a leading provider of electronic design automation software, silicon IP, and related services used to design and verify advanced semiconductor chips and systems. The company also offers solutions for software quality, security testing, and silicon lifecycle management to customers worldwide. TLCS INC: Borger Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TLCS, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Samantha Borger, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. TLCS, Inc., Does 1-25, Case No. 26CV012094 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 18, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." TLCS Inc is a private non-profit organization offering outpatient treatment in Sacramento, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Barbara Duvan-Clarke, Esq. BLACKSTONE PC 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 310-361-0599 Email: BDC@blackstonepc.com TOP TIER SOLAR: Bustamente Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Top Tier Solar Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Valerie Bustamente, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Top Tier Solar Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-23754-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 28, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Top Tier Solar Solutions -- https://www.toptiersolarsolutions.com/ -- is a family-owned, full-service residential solar sales and installation company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Eric Berman, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 1650 SE 17th, Street 100 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Phone: (865) 603-7365 Email: cberman@shamisgentile.com TOPO DESIGNS LLC: Erwin Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Melissa Erwin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Topo Designs LLC, Case No. 26-00002-04058-31 was removed from the Snohomish County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on May 26, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01800-RSM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Topo Design -- https://topodesigns.com/ -- offers durable, stylish outdoor gear and apparel.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N Michigan Ave., Ste 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com The Defendants are represented by: Blair Carral Carter, Esq. TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER (COLORADO SPRINGS) 90 S Cascade Ave., Ste 1500 Colorado Springs, CO 80903 Phone: (719) 448-4012 Email: bcarter@taftlaw.com TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Pierre Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections ------------------------------------------------------------ NATASHA PIERRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-04520 (C.D. Cal., April 28, 2026) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Transworld Systems Inc. provides receivables collection and management services. The Company focuses on commercial, education, financial, government, healthcare, and other industries in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald Donald Lane, Jr. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com TRUBRIDGE INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of TruBridge, Inc. (NASDAQ: TBRG) resulting from allegations that TruBridge, Inc. may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased TruBridge, Inc. securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=56548 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On March 17, 2026, TruBridge filed a Notification of Late Filing on Form 12b-25, in which it stated that TruBridge was unable to file its Annual Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025. The report stated its inability to file was a result of "the identification of out-of-period errors of previously issued financial statements and the consequential need to complete certain related analyses." In addition, the report stated that "the Company's management identified errors in the Company's previously issued consolidated financial statements, including for the years ended December 31, 2024 and December 31, 2023, as well as out-of-period errors in the condensed financial statements for the quarters ended March 31, June 30, and September 30, 2025. These errors relate to revenue recognition and related contract cost, stock-based compensation expense, and capitalized software development expense. As a result, the Company is required to make revisions to its previously issued consolidated financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2024 and December 31, 2023, filed with its Annual Reports on Form 10-K for the years then ended, in order to recognize certain of such revenues, costs and expenses in the appropriate fiscal year." On this news, TruBridge's stock price fell $1.84 per share, or 10.5%, to close at $15.75 per share on March 17, 2026. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] TULANE UNIVERSITY: Micera Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII ------------------------------------------------------------ Liliana Micera and Migel Devezin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ADMINISTRATORS OF THE TULANE EDUCATIONAL FUND D/B/A THE TULANE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA, Case No. 2:26-cv-01096 (E.D. La., May 21, 2026), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information that Tulane's employees entrusted to it, including, without limitation, individuals' names, Social Security numbers, and direct deposit and banking information (collectively, "personally identifiable information" or "PII"). On August 10, 2025, Tulane experienced a data breach, during which cybercriminals accessed or acquired the above-referenced PII (the "Data Breach"). Nearly eight months later, Tulane disclosed to the Oregon Attorney General that the Data Breach exposed the data of over 80,000 individuals. Prior to and through August 10, 2025, Tulane obtained Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII, and stored that PII in an Internet-accessible environment on Tulane's network. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII, Tulane assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. The PII was compromised due to Tulane's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its failure to protect Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII. In addition to Tulane's failure to prevent the Data Breach, Tulane has not disclosed sufficient details regarding the Data Breach to Plaintiffs and Class Members. Tulane has also purposefully withheld the specific vulnerabilities and root causes of the Data Breach and has not disclosed that information to Plaintiffs and Class Members. As a result of this delayed response, Plaintiffs and Class Members had no idea their PII had been compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs relied on Tulane to keep their PII confidential and securely maintained. Tulane is a private research university in New Orleans, Louisiana.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jennifer J. Greene, Esq. BEY & ASSOCIATES 650 Poydras Street, Suite 2610 New Orleans, LA, 70130 Phone: (504) 323-5280 Email: jgreene@beyandassociates.com - and - Bart D. Cohen, Esq. Panida A. Anderson, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 463-2101 Email: tmathews@baileyglasser.com bcohen@baileyglasser.com panderson@baileyglasser.com - and - David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Younjin (Jennifer) Lee, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: (310) 438-5555 Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com jlee@tomorrowlaw.com TWO JINN INC: Beltran Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Noemy Beltran, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TWO JINN, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 26-00002-13708-1-KNT 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 27, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01818. The Plaintiff, former employee of Defendant, on behalf of herself and other putative class members, allege that Defendant violated Washington State wage and hour laws, including failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to properly pay sick leave, and failure to pay regular and overtime hours worked. The Plaintiff asserts eight causes of action: violations of Wash. Rev. Code Section 49.46.090 for payment of wages less than entitled (Count 1); violations of Wash. Rev. Code Section 49.46.130 for failure to pay overtime wages (Count 2); violations of Wash. Admin. Code Section 296- 126-092 for failure to provide rest breaks (Count 3); violations of Wash. Admin. Code Section 296- 126-092 for failure to provide meal periods (Count 4); violations of Wash. Admin. Code Section 296-128-620 for failure to provide and pay sick leave (Count 5); violations of Wash. Rev. Code Section 49.48.010 for failure to pay all wages due at separation (Count 6); violations of Wash. Rev. Code Section 49.52.050 for willful refusal to pay wages (Count 7); and violations of Wash. Rev. Code Section 49.62 et seq. for unlawful noncompetition covenant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas J. Ferraro, Esq. Lauren N. Vega, Esq. 3333 Camino del Rio South, Suite 300 San Diego, California 92108 Phone: (619) 693-7727 Facsimile: (619) 350-6855 Email: nick@ferrarovega.com lauren@ferrarovega.com The Defendants are represented by: Emily J. Harris, Esq. Kristen F. Barnhart, Esq. CORR CRONIN LLP 1015 Second Avenue | Floor 10 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 625-8600 Fax: (206) 625-0900 Email: eharris@corrcronin.com kbarnhart@corrcronin.com UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY: Mouzon Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Cerebral Palsy of Queens Inc. The case is styled as Danielle Mouzon, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated v. United Cerebral Palsy of Queens Inc. d/b/a Queens Centers for Progress, Case No. 714854/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., May 18, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Torts (Labor & Employment) United Cerebral Palsy of Queens Inc. doing business as Queens Centers for Progress -- https://www.queenscp.org/ -- is committed to providing person-centered services and supports to children and adults who have developmental disabilitie.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sabine Jean, Esq. Breanna Jocelyn Small, Esq. Joanna Ghosh, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE P.C. 217 Broadway, Suite 511 New York, NY 10007 Phone: +1 516 587 8423 UNITED HEALTH: Abramczyk Suit Removed to D. Minnesota ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Autumn Abramczyk, et al., individually and on behalf of all themselves and all others similarly situated v. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, Change Healthcare Inc., Change Healthcare Pharmacy Solutions, Inc., Change Healthcare Operations, LLC, Change Healthcare Holdings, Inc., Optum, Inc., Optum Pay, Optum Bank, Inc., Change Healthcare Solutions, LLC, United Healthcare Services, Inc., Change Healthcare Technologies, LLC, Optum Financial, Inc., OptumInsight, Inc., Case No. 27-CV-26-2844 was removed from the Hennepin Cnty Judicial District Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on May 26, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-02757-DWF-DJF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated -- https://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/ -- is an American multinational health insurance and services company based in Minnetonka, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian C Gudmundson, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 341-0400 Fax: (612) 341-0844 Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com - and - Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-7300 Fax: (612) 336-2940 Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Ave S Ste 2200 Mpls, MN 55401-2179 Phone: (612) 339-6900 Fax: (612) 339-0981 Email: Khriebel@locklaw.com kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Alicia Paller, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 637-6404 Email: alicia.paller@hoganlovells.com - and - Anthony Ufkin, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (202) 230-8758 Email: tony.ufkin@hoganlovells.com - and - Peter H. Walsh, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 80 South 8th Street, Ste 1225 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 402-3017 Email: peter.walsh@hoganlovells.com UNITED HEALTH: Apex Physical Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Apex Physical Rehabilitation & Wellness PLLC, Body Mind & Spine Chiropractic, Crom Rehabilitation LLC doing business as: Elation Physical Therapy, Dr. Jorge Pinera doing business as: Sensitive Dental, M. P. Counseling Services, PLLC, and all others similarly situated v. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, Change Healthcare Inc., Change Healthcare Pharmacy Solutions, Inc., Change Healthcare Operations, LLC, Change Healthcare Holdings, Inc., Optum, Inc., Optum Pay, Optum Bank, Inc., Change Healthcare Solutions, LLC, United Healthcare Services, Inc., Change Healthcare Technologies, LLC, Optum Financial, Inc., OptumInsight, Inc., Case No. 4:26-cv-03547 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on May 26, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-02728-DWF-DJF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated -- https://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/ -- is an American multinational health insurance and services company based in Minnetonka, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Warren T. Burns, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 900 Jackson Street, Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75202 Phone: (469) 904-4550 Email: wburns@burnscharest.com The Defendants are represented by: Catherine Bratic, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 609 Main Street, Suite 4200 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713) 410-7636 Email: catherine.bratic@hoganlovells.com UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Dov Wills Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Dov Wills, PLLC, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, UNITEDHEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., OPTUM INSIGHT, INC., 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. 26-2-08678-8 SEA was removed from the King County Superior Court, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on May 21, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01754. 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 "as a result of Change Healthcare Defendants' decision to disconnect from the Change Platform, Plaintiff was unable to submit claims, receive ERAs, and receive payment for its medical care to patients" which caused its business to be disrupted.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Barbara J. Duffy, Esq. Aaron Schaer, Esq. Dailey Koga, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2800 Seattle, WA 98101-3808 Phone: 206.223.7000 Facsimile: 206.223.7107 Email: duffyb@ballardspahr.com schaera@ballardspahr.com kogad@ballardspahr.com UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Serenity Therapy Suit Removed to S.D. Iowa -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as SERENITY THERAPY LLC, CARRIE LEAF THERAPY, LLC (DBA Balanced Life Counseling Solutions, LLC), PAULA S. GORDY LISW LLC, and THERAPEUTIC INNOVATIONS, PLLC, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC., CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC., et. al., Defendants, Case No. CVCV070631, was removed from the Iowa District Court in and for Polk County, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa on May 20, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-00219-SHL-SBJ to the proceeding. Defendants are health care companies specializing in health insurance and health care services. The Complaint alleges that "providers did not timely receive billions of dollars in earned reimbursements." [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Joshua D. Hughes, Esq. DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 801 Grand Avenue, Suite 4100 Des Moines, IA 50309 Telephone: (515) 283-1000 Facsimile: (515) 598-7704 E-mail: hughes.josh@dorsey.com UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: UCF Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Urological Consultants of Florida, VIP Physicians Consulting LLC, and John D. Mackenney DPM P.A. d/b/a Space Coast Foot and Ankle Center, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, UNITEDHEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., OPTUMINSIGHT, INC., 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. CACE-26-002645 was removed from the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, to the United States District Court for Southern District of Florida on May 20, 2026, and assigned Case No. 0:26-cv-61506-XXXX. 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 were unable to receive payment for its medical care to patients, was unable to submit claims nor receive ERAs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Streisfield, Esq. Jeff Ostrow, Esq, KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT 1 West Las Olas Boulevard, 5th Floor Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com streisfeld@kolawyers.com The Defendants are represented by: Daniel Balmori, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 459-6500 Facsimile: (305) 459-6550 Email: daniel.balmori@hoganlovells.com UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Drumm Files Suit in PA Ct. of Common Pleas ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Universal Protection Service, LLC. The case is styled as Walter Drumm, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Universal Protection Service, LLC d/b/a Allied Universal Security Services, Case No. 260503515 (Philadelphia Ct. of Common Pleas, May 27, 2026). Universal Protection Service, LLC doing business as Allied Universal -- https://www.aus.com/ -- provides integrated security services that combine security personnel, technology, and a variety of professional services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Goodley, Esq. GOODLEY MCCARTHY LLC 1650 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 394-0541 Email: james@gmlaborlaw.com US STANDARD PRODUCTS: Gorny Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against U.S. Standard Products Corp. The case is styled as Thomas Gorny, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. U.S. Standard Products Corp., Case No. 3:26-cv-01372 (M.D. Fla., May 26, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. U.S. Standard Products -- https://usstandardproducts.com/ -- is a provider of industrial safety, industrial chemicals, and cleaners.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN, PLLC 18117 Biscayne Blvd-Ste 4152 Miami, FL 33160 Phone: (877) 333-9427 Email: law@stefancoleman.com US TELEPACIFIC CORP: Leo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against U.S. Telepacific Corp. The case is styled as David Di Leo, on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. U.S. Telepacific Corp., Does 1-100, Case No. 26CV012343 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 21, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." U.S. TELEPACIFIC CORP. doing business as TPx -- https://www.tpx.com/ -- is a privately held leading national provider of managed services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arby Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 Arden Ave., Ste. 20 Glendale, CA 91203-4007 Phone: 818-265-1020 Fax: 818-265-1021 Email: arby@calljustice.com US TIGER SECURITIES: Tillberry Files Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against US Tiger Securities Inc. The case is styled as Christopher Tillberry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. US Tiger Securities Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-04223 (S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. US Tiger Securities, Inc. is regulated by the US SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) and the US CFTC (Commodity Futures Trading Commission).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tyler Litke, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 33 Whitehall St., 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 Email: tlitke@zlk.com USG CEILING PLUS: Jean Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Rivel Jean, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. USG CEILING PLUS, LLC., a Delaware limited liability company; USG CORPORATION, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV10398 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on May 29, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-05807. The Plaintiff's Complaint states only two causes of action, both of which arise exclusively under federal law. Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and unpaid minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). These FLSA claims are the only claims asserted in the Complaint.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: John E. Fitzsimmons, Esq. Michael P. Witczak, Esq. BARNES & THORNBURG LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 284-3880 Facsimile: (310) 284-3894 Email: john.fitzsimmons@btlaw.com michael.witczak@btlaw.com VIATAS GLOBAL: Wojciech Sues Over Unpaid Compensations ------------------------------------------------------ Karwas Wojciech, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated plaintiffs, known and unknown v. VIATAS GLOBAL CHAUFFEURED TRANSPORTATION, DIMITRE SAREV, individually, Case No. 1:26-cv-05780 (N.D. Ill., May 18, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL), and Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IMWL") as a result of unpaid compensations. The Plaintiff's employment was he, or similarly situated members of the Plaintiff class, paid for their work hours over 40 per work week at an overtime rate of pay. The job duties and compensation structure utilized by Defendants to pay Plaintiff, and members of the Plaintiff class, did not qualify under any of the overtime exemptions established by the FLSA or the IMWL and Plaintiff and members of the Plaintiff Class should have been paid time and one-half their regular hourly rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former limo and transport driver who, at various times, was employed by Defendants transporting individuals. VIATAS GLOBAL CHAUFFEURED TRANSPORTATION describes its services as providing "exceptional limo and black car services" throughout the Chicagoland area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John W. Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1137 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: 312-853-1450 Email: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com VOICE SEARCH LOCAL: Nesbitt Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Voice Search Local LLC, et al. The case is styled as Akaela Nesbitt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Voice Search Local LLC, Internet Listing Solutions LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-14192-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 28, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Voice Search Local -- https://vsslocal.com/ -- is a digital marketing agency specializing in services for small to medium-sized businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN, PLLC 18117 Biscayne Blvd-Ste 4152 Miami, FL 33160 Phone: (877) 333-9427 Email: law@stefancoleman.com WELLS FARGO BANK: Adimora-Nweke Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Mr. Ernest Adimora-Nweke, Adimora Law Firm, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, Does 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 3:26-cv-01376 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on May 27, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-04189 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. Wells Fargo & Company -- http://www.wellsfargo.com/-- is an American multinational financial services company with a significant global presence.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ernest Chukwunenye Adimora-Nweke, Esq. District Court Information 3050 Post Oak Blvd., Ste. 510 Houston, TX 77056 Phone: (281) 940-5170 Email: ernest@adimoralaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Todd Joseph Dressel, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP Two Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 844-1965 Fax: (415) 844-1934 - and - Heather Britton Chaney, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 1750 Tysons Boulevard, Suite 1800 Tysons, VA 22102 Phone: (703) 712-5015 Fax: (703) 712-5236 WESTERN REFINING RETAIL: Black Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Tabitha Black, on behalf of herself and all other current and former non-exempt employees v. WESTERN REFINING RETAIL, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; QUICKBITES, INC., a California Stock Corporation; OLIVIA [Last name unknown], an individual; JOHN D., [Last name unknown], an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV11599 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on May 28, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-05752. The First through Fifth, Twelfth, and Thirteenth Causes of Action in the Complaint assert claims on behalf of Plaintiff alone, including: sex discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"); sexual harassment in violation of FEHA; retaliation in violation of FEHA; failure to prevent discrimination and harassment in violation of FEHA; violation of California Labor Code Section 1102.5 (whistleblower retaliation); wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Sixth through Eleventh and Fourteenth Causes of Action in the Complaint allege, on behalf of Plaintiff and the putative classes, various violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business & Professions Code. Those alleged violations include: failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to pay hourly wages; failure to indemnify; failure to provide accurate written wage statements; failure to timely pay all final wages; and violations of the Unfair Competition Law (the "UCL"). Causes of Action Six through Eleven and Fourteen. More specifically, Plaintiff alleges violations of California Labor Codes and California Business & Professions Code sections 17200.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arby Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC 450 North Brand Blvd., Suite 900 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (818) 265-1020 Fax: (818) 265-1021 Email: aa@calljustice.com The Defendants are represented by: Julie R. Trotter, Esq. Mireya A.R. Llaurado, Esq. Madeleine K. Lee, Esq. Pamela McElroy, Esq. CALL & JENSEN A Professional Corporation 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 717-3000 Email: jtrotter@calljensen.com mllaurado@calljensen.com mlee@calljensen.com pmcelroy@calljensen.com WESTPARK EQUITY GROUP: Redick Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against WestPark Equity Group, Inc. The case is styled as William Redick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WestPark Equity Group, Inc. doing business as: West Park Loans, Case No. 1:26-cv-03953-JLT-EGC (S.D. Cal., May 22, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. WestPark Equity Group, Inc. doing business as West Park Loans -- https://westparkloans.com/ -- is a full-service California mortgage brokerage specializing in investor and alternative income financing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com WINCO HOLDINGS: Martinez Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kristopher Martinez, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WINCO HOLDINGS, INC., an Idaho corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0002444 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Joaquin, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on May 27, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01948-DAD-CSK. The Complaint alleges the following eight causes of action: unpaid overtime; unpaid minimum wages; unpaid meal period premiums; unpaid rest period premiums; non-compliant wage statements; waiting time penalties; unreimbursed business expenses; and unfair business practices under California Business & Professions Code section 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael Kopp, Esq. Phillip J. Ebsworth, Esq. Kyle W. Owen, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2300 Sacramento, CA 95814-4428 Phone: (916) 448-0159 Facsimile: (916) 558-4839 Email: mkopp@seyfarth.com pebsworth@seyfarth.com kowen@seyfarth.com WINCO HOLDINGS: Thompson Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as David Thompson; individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. WINCO HOLDINGS, INC., an Idaho corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV07192 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on May 29, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-05775. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts two collective action claims for unpaid overtime wages and unpaid minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael Kopp, Esq. Phillip J. Ebsworth, Esq. Kyle W. Owen, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2300 Sacramento, CA 95814-4428 Phone: (916) 448-0159 Facsimile: (916) 558-4839 Email: mkopp@seyfarth.com pebsworth@seyfarth.com kowen@seyfarth.com WW INTERNATIONAL: Stafford Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jennifer Stafford, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WW INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 26-2-13507-0 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of King, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on May 27, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01811. The Complaint in this action alleges that WeightWatchers has violated Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("CEMA") and Consumer Protection Act ("CPA"). Included in the putative class are "all Washington residents who received promotional emails from Weight Watchers with subject lines advertising time-limited sales or discounts on Weight Watchers Products, during the applicable statute of limitations period." The Complaint alleges this putative class has "at least thousands of Class members in Washington." The Plaintiff alleges that WeightWatchers' "false and misleading emails result in actual and substantive injury to Plaintiff."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cody Hoesly, Esq. BARG SINGER HOESLY PC 121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97204 Phone: (503) 241-3311 Email: choesly@bargsinger.com - and - Simon Franzini, Esq. Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: (310) 656-7066 Email: simon@dovel.com jonas@dovel.com The Defendants are represented by: Robert J. Guite, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4109 Phone: 415.434.9100 Facsimile: 415.434.3947 Email: rguite@sheppard.com - and - P. Craig Cardon, Esq. Chloe G. Chung, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6017 Phone: 310.228.3700 Facsimile: 310.228.3701 Email: ccardon@sheppard.com cchung@sheppard.com - and - Abby H. Meyer, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP 650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993 Phone: 714.513.5100 Facsimile: 714.513.5130 Email: ameyer@sheppard.com X.AI LLC: Skaggs Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy --------------------------------------------------- AUSTIN SKAGGS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. X.AI, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-04550 (N.D. Cal., May 14, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for aiding, agreeing with, and conspiring with Google to track and intercept Plaintiff's and Class Members' internet communications while using the website https://Grok.com The complaint relates that throughout 2025 and 2026, including as recently as May 2026, Plaintiff visited the Website and entered queries related to sensitive information about finances, investment strategy, private health conditions, business projects, and other private information. Plaintiff has had an active Facebook account for several years. He routinely accesses Facebook on his computer using the same browser he used to access the Website Grok.com Plaintiff also has had an active Google account for several years and is routinely logged into that account while using the same browser they used to access the Website. According to the complaint, the Defendant aided and assisted Google with intercepting Plaintiff's communications, including those that contained personally identifiable information ("PII"), and related confidential information. Defendant aided and assisted these interceptions without Plaintiff's knowledge, consent, or express written authorization. By failing to receive the requisite consent, Defendant breached its duties of confidentiality and unlawfully disclosed Plaintiff's PII and confidential communication, says the suit. Accordingly, Plaintiff and Class Members seek all relief available for invasion of privacy claims under California's Constitution and common law. Plaintiff Austin Skaggs is a citizen of California, residing in Modesto, California. Defendant X.AI, LLC owns and operates Grok, an AI chatbot service designed to provide answers to almost any question a user asks, including queries regarding sensitive and personal topics like the user's finances, health, and legal issues.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 874-0708 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Max S. Roberts, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: mroberts@bursor.com - and - Joshua R. Wilner, Esq. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: jwilner@bursor.com ZILLOW GROUP INC: Nour Suit Removed to D. Columbia -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Sara Nour, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC., Case No. 2026-CAB-002718 was removed from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, to the United States District Court for District of Columbia on May 29, 2026, and assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-01885. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of not only herself but also a putative "Nationwide Class" of "all persons who were charged a Transaction Fee by Defendant when making a rent payment." The Plaintiff has asserted five claims against Zillow: violation of the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act; violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act; breach of additional, unspecified consumer-protection statutes; tortious interference with contract; and unjust enrichment.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Anthony F. Jankoski, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 1500 K Street, N.W., Ste. 1100 Washington, DC 20005, USA Phone: (202) 230-5000 Fax: (202) 842-8465 Email: anthony.jankoski@faegredrinker.com ZSPACE INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over 2024 IPO ---------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP reminds stockholders that a class action was filed on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired zSpace, Inc. (NASDAQ: ZSPC) securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's December 2024 initial public offering ("IPO"). zSpace purports to be a leading provider of augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) educational technology solutions. [GN] ********* 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 ***