260605.mbx

260605.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, June 5, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 112 Headlines AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Markland Suit Over Tariff Refund Process AMERICAN EXPRESS: Rivetti et al. Allege Breaches of Fiduciary Duty BASSETT FURNITURE: Hoke Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit BIMBO FOODS: Jurisdiction Over Out-of-State FLSA Plaintiffs Flipped BLACKBOX SERVICES: Sepulveda et al. Sue Over Discriminatory Hiring BRENTWOOD FOOD: Balcazar Files FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Wages BROWN UNIVERSITY: Amended Summary Order in Choh Fixes Counsel List COMPLETE PLAN: Faces Russell Suit Over Mandatory Junk Fees COSTAR GROUP: One Street Sues Over CRE Info Services Monopoly CRAIG BOYLAN: Settlement Deal in King Class Suit Gets Initial Nod DETMAR LOGISTICS: Stears Seeks to File King Declaration EDWARD D: Martin Files Racial Discrimination Class Action EQUIFAX INFO: Snyder Drops Class Suit EVERSOURCE ENERGY: Salley Files Suit in D. Massachusetts EXPRESS FREIGHT: Drake Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime FABLETICS LLC: Arrieta Suit Removed to C.D. California FAMILY HEALTH CENTERS: McIntire Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FASHION NOVA: Revenko Suit Removed to W.D. Washington FEDERAL EXPRESS: Masinas Suit Removed to E.D. California FITNESS 19 CA: Faces Stampler Suit Over TCPA Violations FIVE BELOW: Nabiyev Sues Over Illegal Tracking Technologies FLAGSTAR BANK: Bid for Class Cert in Solomon Extended to June 5 FORD MOTOR: Bid to Exclude Expert Kevin Caves' Opinions Tossed FORD MOTOR: Ortega Suit Transferred to E.D. Michigan FORTIVA FINANCIAL: Martin Sues Over Unlawful Collection Messages FREEDOM LENDING: Hines Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California FREEWAY INSURANCE: Reed Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California FRITANGA 505 INC: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property GARDAWORLD CASH: Solomon-Wallace Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida HANOVER COMPANY: Wade Sues Over Tenant Protection Law Violation HARBOR RAIL: Arbitration Order in Vela Unpaid Wages Suit Affirmed HEAR.COM LLC: Reichbart and Gartner Sue Over Privacy Law Breaches INTERNATIONALHR SERVICES: Arbitration Denial Affirmed in Calvillo J & R CENTURY: Brito Sues Over Facilities' Non-Compliance with ADA J.G. WENTWORTH: Secretly Installs Tracking Pixels, Johnson Says JENCAP GROUP: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, Yardley Says JR 300: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Parado Suit Says KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Nov. 13 KIA AMERICA: Case Management Order Entered in Doucette Suit LANMAN & KEMP: Ortiz Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users LIME LUSH: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Randolph Says LUMEXA IMAGING: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Lawrence Says LUMEXA IMAGING: Moreno Sues Over Inadequate Data Security Practices MARATHON PETROLEUM: Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: 9th Cir. Tosses Brown's Severance Order Appeal MASTER LOCK: Miller Balks at Mislabeled "Pick Resistant" Padlocks MATHIS HOLDING: Faces Cole Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MEDTRONIC INC: Riley Sues Over Inadequate Data Security Practices MICAH HAMILTON: Kovacs Balks at Toxic Consumer Products' Exposure MISS ELAINE: Walker Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC: Class Settlement in Thomas Gets Final Nod MOLTON BROWN: Battle Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OH: Class Cert Hearing Set for June 10 NATIONAL RURAL: Appeals Class Certification Order in Mullins Suit NEW YORK CITY HEALTH: O'Connor Files Suit Over Data Breach NEW YORK, NY: Brady Action Referred to Magistrate Judge NUTRIEN LTD: Unfairly Controls US Fertilizer Supply Chain, Ray Says OCMBC INC: Hudson-Bryant Bid for Class Certification Tossed PLAYDOG SOFT: Schramm Sues Over Illegal Gambling Game PROVIDENCE HOMEOWNERS: Oral Hearing on Continued to July 20 RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Curry Suit Seeks Class Certification RESEARCH TRIANGLE: Bid for Class Certification Due Oct. 1 ROBERT DAWSON: Sharif Seeks to Continue Hearing Deadline RYSE UP: Ruchman Files False Ad Suit Over Ryse Clear Protein Drink SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Bid for Class Certification Due Oct. 16 SELENE FINANCE: Endland Must File Class Cert Bid by July 10 SIMPLENURSING LLC: Benson Appeals Suit Dismissal to 3rd Circuit STANDARD INSURANCE: Livingston Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty SUPPLEMENT WAREHOUSE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, See Claims TALL TIMBERS: Smith Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action TCL NORTH: Rosenberg et al. Sue Over Invasion of Privacy TEXAS: Appeals Denied Motions to Strike & Dismiss in L.M.L. Suit THERMOS LLC: Faces Moynihan Suit Over Defective Jars & Bottles TORRID LLC: Filing of Joint Status Report in Perez Due June 12 TRINITY HEALTH: Discloses Patients' Personal Info, Lagrand Says U.S. NEWS: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, Tasker Says UNCLE ABIES: Pretrial Management Order Entered in Williams Suit UNITED STATES: Court Certifies Proposed 23(b)(3) Class UNITED STATES: Equal Means Equal Appeals Suit Dismissal to 1st Cir. UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs File Bid for Class Certification UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME: Loses Bid to Dismiss Suszka Suit US TIGER: Failed to Keep Private Information Secure, Shill Says VANGUARD PARKING: Tehan Sues Over Deceptive, Excessive Parking Fees VISA INC: Judgment in Interchange Fee Antitrust Class Suit Affirmed VISA INC: Judgment in Old Jericho Antitrust Class Suit Affirmed VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Behm Files Suit Over Hidden Vehicle Defects WASHINGTON: Breach of Contract & WLAD Dismissal Flipped in Simonton WEST PHARMACEUTICAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Martinez Says WEXFORD HEALTH: Certification of Damages Class in Spurlock Affirmed Asbestos Litigation ********* AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Markland Suit Over Tariff Refund Process -------------------------------------------------------------- LISA MARKLAND and MARI CARTAGENOVA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-01670 (W.D. Wash., May 15, 2026) seeks to force Amazon to return funds it collected from Plaintiffs and other consumers to cover International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs between February 2025 and February 2026. Amazon collected hundreds of millions of dollars in unlawful tariff costs from consumers by raising prices on imported goods while tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act were in effect. This suit arises from a fundamental inequity in the tariff refund process. Only the importer of record may seek a refund for an unlawfully assessed tariff -- but importers merely advance the tariff cost at the border and recoup all or some of it through higher consumer prices. In economic reality, the consumer pays the tariff. This inequity is compounded when, as here, a tariff is struck down by the courts. Consumers who bore the true economic burden have no direct avenue for redress -- they lack both a statutory cause of action in the Court of International Trade and standing to seek a refund, says the suit. The Plaintiffs seek a judgment that requires Amazon to return to Plaintiffs all IEEPA duties passed on to customers in the form of higher prices on products, with interest. The Plaintiffs also seek restitution of those tariff overcharges they paid, or a proportionate share of any tariff refunds Amazon recovers, together with interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs. Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational consumer goods and technology company that conducts business in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Sydney K. Thomas, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com sydney.thomas@hbsslaw.com - and - Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 920 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (213) 330-7150 E-mail: christopherp@hbsslaw.com - and - Dana Abelson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 455 N Cityfront Plaza Dr., Suite 2410 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (708) 628-4949 AMERICAN EXPRESS: Rivetti et al. Allege Breaches of Fiduciary Duty ------------------------------------------------------------------ MATTHEW RIVETTI, NATALIE FELIZ, and SHAMROZE MOOSA on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY; TAMMY YEE; THE RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN INVESTMENT COMMITTEE; and DOES 1-30, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-04082 (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2026), arises from protracted breaches of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, committed by the fiduciaries of the American Express Retirement Savings Plan, a defined contribution retirement 401(k) plan. During the Class Period, the Defendants selected and retained investment options in the Plan that persistently and substantially underperformed their benchmarks and comparable alternative investments available in the marketplace. The Defendants' failures caused Plan participants to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in retirement savings. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs, individually and as representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries of the Plans, bring this action on behalf of the Plan to enforce Defendants' personal liability to make good to the Plans all losses resulting from each breach of fiduciary duty and to restore to the Plans any profits made through Defendants' use of the Plan's assets. American Express Company is a multinational financial services corporation headquartered in New York, NY. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicole M. Cvercko, Esq. CHIRINOS LAW FIRM PLLC 11 Broadway, Suite 615 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 559-9952 E-mail: ncvercko@chirinoslawfirm.com - and - Ryan M. Tucker, Esq. Alexandr Rudenco, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 800 S. Gay St., Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 E-mail: rtucker@milberg.com arudenco@milberg.com - and - Tulio D. Chirinos, Esq. CHIRINOS LAW FIRM PLLC 20283 State Road 7, Suite 592 Boca Raton, FL 33498 Telephone: (561) 299-6334 E-mail: tchirinos@chirinoslawfirm.com - and - Charles J. Stiegler, Esq. STIEGLER LAW FIRM LLC 318 Harrison Ave., #104 New Orleans, LA 70124 Telephone: (504) 267-0777 E-mail: charles@stieglerlawfirm.com BASSETT FURNITURE: Hoke Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------- BARBARA ROSING HOKE is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing the lawsuit entitled Barbara Rosing Hoke, individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bassett Furniture Industries, Inc., et al., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-02037-JLS-AS, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The Plaintiff filed this suit against the Defendants for engaging in an unlawful false discount advertising scheme. On Apr. 24, 2026, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which Judge Josephine L. Staton granted on May 4, 2026. The Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice. The appellate case is captioned Hoke v. Bassett Furniture Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 26-3254, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 20, 2026. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on May 26, 2026; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on June 29, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on July 29, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant BARBARA ROSING HOKE, individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq. Daniel Hattis, Esq. HATTIS LUKACS & CORRINGTON 11711 SE 8th Street, Suite 120 Bellevue, WA 98005 Defendants-Appellees BASSETT FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC., et al. are represented by: Kevin James Minnick, Esq. SPERTUS, JOSEPHS & MINNICK, LLP 617 West 7th Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 BIMBO FOODS: Jurisdiction Over Out-of-State FLSA Plaintiffs Flipped ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ARTHUR PROVENCHER, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, MICHAEL McGUIRE, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BIMBO FOODS BAKERIES DISTRIBUTION LLC, BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC., Defendants-Appellants, Docket No. 24-3112-cv (2d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the district court's determination that it had personal jurisdiction over the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") claims of potential plaintiffs who resided outside Vermont, where the district court is located. Defendants-Appellants Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution LLC and Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. ("Bimbo") sell baked goods to retailers through delivery drivers, or distributors, like Plaintiffs-Appellees Arthur Provencher and Michael McGuire. The Plaintiffs sued Bimbo for alleged violations of the FLSA on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. Plaintiffs Provencher and McGuire reside in Vermont and deliver baked goods there for Bimbo. On a typical day, they arrive at Bimbo's Vermont warehouse, load their vehicles with Bimbo's products, drive to its Vermont retailers, and stock the shelves there with those products. They routinely work over 40 hours a week but do not receive overtime compensation because Bimbo classifies them as independent contractors, not as employees protected by the FLSA and Vermont employment law. On October 28, 2022, the Plaintiffs sued Bimbo in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, both individually and on behalf of other similarly situated distributors. Like many such actions, the suit proceeded in a "hybrid" manner, pursuing the FLSA claims as a putative collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and the Vermont state law claims as a putative class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Scott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 954 F.3d 502, 510 (2d Cir. 2020). On January 23, 2024, following other motion practice not relevant to the issue before us, plaintiffs moved to conditionally certify the FLSA collective action and to permit them to notify similarly situated distributors in Vermont, Connecticut, and New York about the action and the opportunity to opt into it. Bimbo opposed that motion. It argued, in relevant part, that the Supreme Court's decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 582 U.S. 255 (2017), prevented the district court from exercising personal jurisdiction over it with respect to any claims that distributors outside Vermont might assert against it. In response, the Plaintiffs distinguished Bristol-Myers, which concerned a state court's adjudication of state law claims, as inapplicable to the current action, which involved federal claims in a federal court. The district court agreed with the Plaintiffs. It held that Bimbo had sufficient contacts with Vermont to justify the court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over it. The assertion of personal jurisdiction did not run afoul of Bristol-Myers, the district court explained, because the primary concern motivating that decision–that a contrary rule would permit the plaintiffs to cherry-pick the laws of a state in which the defendant did not expect to litigate–was absent here. The Plaintiffs asserted claims under a federal statute, which applies nationwide, in a federal court located in Vermont, towards which Bimbo had purposefully directed its activities. After concluding that it could exercise personal jurisdiction over the claims of putative out-of-state plaintiffs, the district court accepted the Plaintiffs' initial showing that other distributors in Vermont, Connecticut, and New York were similarly situated, and authorized plaintiffs to notify those distributors. At Bimbo's request, the district court stayed its decision and certified the dispute over personal jurisdiction for an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b). The Second Circuit accepted the interlocutory appeal and now reversed. It said that the case concerns a district court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over out-of-state plaintiffs' FLSA claims against an out-of-state defendant that has been properly subject to the court's jurisdiction with respect to similar claims advanced by in-state plaintiffs. Joining the majority of its sister circuits that have confronted the issue, the Second Circuit held that the court's jurisdictional power does not reach that far. Among other things, the Second Circuit explained that the FLSA requires plaintiffs to bring their case in any Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction. In the absence of a federal statute specifically directing otherwise, the district court can exercise only as much personal jurisdiction as is granted to its state counterpart. For the reasons it stated in its Opinion, the Second Circuit joined the substantial majority of circuits that have considered the issue and hold that, before conditionally certifying an FLSA collective action and authorizing notification of potential plaintiffs who may opt in, a district court must ensure its personal jurisdiction over the defendant with regard to the claims of those to be notified. Because nothing in the record supports the district court's personal jurisdiction over the claims of the Connecticut and New York distributors against Bimbo, it reversed the district court's contrary ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://sl1nk.com/3ajl56j. JAMES D. NELSON -- james.nelson@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Washington D.C. (Randall M. Levine -- randall.levine@morganlewis.com -- Brendan J. Anderson -- brendan.anderson@morganlewis.com -- Washington D.C.; Joseph Bias, Los Angeles, CA, on the brief), for Defendants-Appellants. SCOTT MORIARITY -- scott@morilawoffice.net -- Wanta Thome PLC, Minneapolis, MN (Merrill E. Bent -- merrill@greenmtlaw.com -- Woolington, Campbell, Bent & Stasny, P.C., Manchester Center, VT, on the brief), for Plaintiffs-Appellees. Catherine K. Ruckelshaus -- cruckelshaus@nelp.org -- Edward Tuddenham -- etudden@prismnet.com -- National Employment Law Project, New York, NY, for Amicus Curiae National Employment Law Project, in support of Plaintiffs-Appellees. BLACKBOX SERVICES: Sepulveda et al. Sue Over Discriminatory Hiring ------------------------------------------------------------------ EMANUEL SEPULVEDA, JOHN HARRIS and CLIFFORD MILTON-STEWART, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BLACKBOX SERVICES, LLC, BLACKBOX CORPORATION, BLACKBOX SERVICES COMPANY d/b/a BLACK BOX NETWORK SERVICES, BBOX HOLDING COMPANY and NORSTAN COMMUNICATIONS d/b/a BLACK BOX SERVICES, ESSAR INTERNATIONAL, ACG NETWORKS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00928 (W.D. Pa., May 15, 2026) alleges systemic and class-wide violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 based on Defendants' discriminatory hiring practices. During the same period of time when Plaintiffs applied for employment and continuing to the present day, the Defendants have been systematically terminating non-Indian/South Asian employees and replacing them with Indian and South Asian employees in critical hiring related positions to further institutionalize Defendants' discriminatory hiring preferences. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from using race, ancestry, or ethnicity in recruiting, screening, interview-slate formation, interview selection, and hiring; requiring Defendants to cease any centralized demographic targeting, slate-composition mandates, or materially similar practices; requiring corrective notice, record preservation, training, monitoring, and compliance auditing; and requiring other prospective measures sufficient to eliminate the challenged practices and prevent recurrence. Blackbox Services, LLC provides digital infrastructure solutions, delivering network and system integration, managed services, and technology products. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Angeli Murthy, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 327-5369 Facsimile: (954) 327-3016 E-mail: amurthy@forthepeople.com - and - Marc R. Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 257-0572 E-mail: medelman@forthepeople.com - and - Gregory R. Schmitz, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Avenue, 15th Floor Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 204-2170 Facsimile: (407) 245-3401 E-mail: gschmitz@forthepeople.com BRENTWOOD FOOD: Balcazar Files FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- CLARA BALCAZAR, BLANCA MEJIA, JOSEFINA JURADO, and VICENTE JURADO, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BRENTWOOD FOOD INC. d/b/a LA ESTACION MELA RESTAURANT, and SHAHZAD HAROON, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-03109 (E.D.N.Y., May 22, 2026) is a class action to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), and the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations ("N.Y.C.R.R."), as well as for failure to pay minimum wages under the NYLL, failure to pay spread of hours compensation under the NYLL and N.Y.C.R.R., failure to furnish accurate wage statements for each pay period under NYLL, failure to provide a wage notice upon Plaintiffs' respective hires under NYLL, and any other claims. The complaint relates that the Plaintiffs and other FLSA Collective Action Plaintiffs are and have been similarly situated, have had substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, and are and have been subject to Defendants' decision, policy, plan and common policies, programs, practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and rules. The Defendants willfully failed and refused to pay them overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours each week. In addition, the Defendants willfully disregarded and purposefully evaded the record keeping requirements of the FLSA and the NYLL by failing to maintain accurate records of the hours worked by and wages paid to Plaintiffs, says the suit. The Plaintiffs were employees of Defendants' restaurant who handled products such as meat, fish, poultry, fruits, vegetables, breads, pots, pans, utensils, spatulas, grills, ovens, and other tools, equipment and products, many of which originated in states other than New York, and accepted payment from credit card machines and other moneys that originated from outside of New York State. Defendant Mela Restaurant operates a restaurant located at 22 First Avenue, Brentwood, New York 11717. Defendant Shahzad Haroon is an officer and owner of Mela Restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 BROWN UNIVERSITY: Amended Summary Order in Choh Fixes Counsel List ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, TAMENANG CHOH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, GRACE KIRK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BROWN UNIVERSITY, TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE, HARVARD UNIVERSITY, TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, YALE UNIVERSITY, COUNCIL OF IVY GROUP PRESIDENTS, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 24-2826 (2d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an Amended Summary Order to correct the counsel list and accurately identify each party's counsel at the time of argument. In the Summary Order, the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing the case. The two named Plaintiffs-Appellants in this putative class action played men's and women's basketball at Brown University. They brought this suit against the Defendants-Appellees (Ivy League), a group of eight member universities and a council of their respective presidents. The putative class included "all Ivy League athletes recruited to play a sport by one or more University Defendants, and who, within the class period, attended one of the University Defendant' undergraduate programs while playing a sport for that school." The Plaintiffs alleged that the University Defendants collectively agreed not to provide athletic scholarships to their Division I athletes and not to pay compensation or reimburse education-related expenses for athletic services provided to the universities. They asserted that this agreement (the "Ivy League Agreement") amounted to price-fixing in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1. The Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, and the district court granted the motion. It concluded that the facts alleged were legally insufficient to show an adverse effect on competition in a relevant market, as required to sustain a Sherman Act Section 1 claim. It also held that Choh's claim was barred by the statute of limitations. On appeal, the Plaintiffs challenged the district court's application of the rule of reason and its ruling on the timeliness of Choh's claim. The Second Circuit rejected the Plaintiffs' argument that allegations of direct anticompetitive harm excused them from pleading a relevant market. It held that the Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead a relevant market, and that this failure was fatal to both their direct and indirect theories of anticompetitive harm under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The court therefore affirmed the dismissal of the Plaintiffs' sole claim. Given this conclusion, the Second Circuit did not reach Choh's argument that the district court erred in finding his claim untimely. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. The Clerk's office is directed to amend the caption to conform to the Amended Summary Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Amended Summary Order is available at https://l1nq.com/9fc4ape. JOSHUA P. DAVIS -- jdavis@bergermontague.com --, Berger Montague PC, San Francisco, CA (F. Paul Bland, Robert E. Litan -- rlitan@bm.net -- Berger Montague PC, Washington, D.C.; Eric L. Cramer -- ecramer@bm.net -- Alan Cotler -- alancotler@gmail.com -- Berger Montague PC, Philadelphia, PA; Edward Normand -- tnormand@fnf.law -- Richard Cipolla, Freedman Normand Friedland LLP, New York, NY, on the brief). FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS. SETH P. WAXMAN -- seth.waxman@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, D.C. (David Gringer -- david.gringer@wilmerhale.com -- Alan Schoenfeld -- alan.schoenfeld@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, New York, NY, on the brief). FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE THE TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA. Noah J. Kaufman -- noah.kaufman@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Boston, MA; Jon R. Roellke, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Washington, D.C, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE BROWN UNIVERSITY. Karen Hoffman Lent -- karen.lent@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, New York, NY; Amy Van Gelder -- amy.vangelder@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Chicago, IL, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK. Norman Armstrong, Jr. -- norman.armstrong@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, D.C.; Emily T. Chen -- echen@mcdermottlaw.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE CORNELL UNIVERSITY. Ishan K. Bhabha, Douglas E. Litvack -- dlitvack@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, Washington, D.C, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE. Diane L. McGimsey -- mcgimseyd@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Los Angeles, CA, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE HARVARD UNIVERSITY. Juan A. Arteaga, Rosa Morales, Crowell & Moring LLP, New York, NY; Jordan Ludwig, Crowell & Moring LLP, Los Angeles, CA, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE PRINCETON UNIVERSITY. Charles A. Loughlin -- chuck.loughlin@hoganlovells.com -- Benjamin F. Holt -- benjamin.holt@hoganlovells.com -- Christopher M. Fitzpatrick -- chris.fitzpatrick@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, Washington, D.C, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE YALE UNIVERSITY. Derek Ludwin -- dludwin@cov.com -- Meaghan Ryan -- dludwin@cov.com -- Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, D.C, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE COUNCIL OF IVY GROUP PRESIDENTS. COMPLETE PLAN: Faces Russell Suit Over Mandatory Junk Fees ---------------------------------------------------------- KATE RUSSELL, MICHELLE HEINZ, HARMONY MARTIN, ASHLEY CALI, and JENNIFER COSTELLO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE COMPLETE PLAN, INC. d/b/a TEAM TRAVEL SOURCE, Defendant, Case No.3:26-cv-00360-CHB (W.D. Ky., May 15, 2026) seeks to challenge Defendant's deceptive, unconscionable, and unfair practice of charging mandatory junk fees for hotel reservations made in connection with "Stay-to-Play" youth sporting events and misrepresenting the nature of those junk fees. The Plaintiffs maintain that Defendant falsely tells consumers that they must book hotel stays via Defendant's platform in order for their children to participate in affiliated events and misrepresents the reason behind the "Stay-to-Play" policy, thereby leading consumers to believe that (a) they have no choice but to book via Defendant's platform, and (b) they benefit from a policy that in fact harms them. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs assert claims for unjust enrichment, and for violations the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, the California False Advertising Law, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, and the New York General Business Law. Headquartered in Louisville, KY, The Complete Plan, Inc. does business as Team Travel Source and provides tournament housing for youth sports. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Clark C. Johnson, Esq. Brian H. Meldrum, Esq. KAPLAN JOHNSON ABATE & BIRD LLP 710 W. Main St., 4th Floor Louisville, KY 40202 Telephone: (502) 416-1630 E-mail: cjohnson@kaplanjohnsonlaw.com bmeldrum@kaplanjohnsonlaw.com - and - Karen Dahlberg O’Connell, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP 157 Columbus Avenue, 4th Floor New York, NY 10023 Telephone: (347) 395-5666 E-mail: Karen@almeidalawgroup.com - and - Brandon M. Wise, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP One US Bank Plaza, Suite 1950 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 833-4827 E-mail: bwise@peifferwolf.com COSTAR GROUP: One Street Sues Over CRE Info Services Monopoly ------------------------------------------------------------- One Real Estate LLC, dba The ONE Street Company, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. CoStar Group, Inc., and CoStar Realty Information, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-01735 (D.C., May 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for their multipronged anticompetitive scheme to maintain their monopolies in the markets for commercial real estate ("CRE") Listing Services and CRE Information Services. The complaint relates that CoStar has pursued the anticompetitive Scheme with the intent and effect of denying competitors sufficient data to develop a viable CRE Listing Services or CRE Information Services database, and the Scheme has been successful. In order to be a viable competitor to CoStar, a rival provider of CRE Listing Services and CRE Information Services must secure enough data to create a database of sufficient scale. This plays out across two metrics. First, the service must have sufficient information and listings. Second, the service must be national in scope. CoStar's scheme has ensured that only its CRE Listing Service and CRE Information Service meet those criteria. CoStar has foreclosed access to necessary inputs, raised rivals' costs, erected and preserved barriers to entry, excluded competitors, and maintained its monopolies, asserts the complaint. Moreover, CoStar has caused and continues to cause antitrust injury to Plaintiff and the Class by charging supracompetitive prices, and by decreasing the variety and choice of services available to purchasers of CRE Listing Services and CRE Information Services, says the suit. This case seeks to recover on behalf of purchasers of CoStar's services, to correct the overcharges to which CoStar has subjected them, and to remedy CoStar's frustration of improvements in choice, quality, and innovation. The Plaintiff brings this antitrust class action lawsuit pursuant to the Clayton Act, to recover treble damages and the costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees, for the injuries sustained by Plaintiff and members of the Class; to enjoin Defendants' anticompetitive conduct; and for such other relief as is afforded under the laws of the United States for violations of the Sherman Act. Plaintiff, One Real Estate LLC, dba The ONE Street Company purchased CRE Listing Services and Information Services from CoStar during the Class Period. Defendant CoStar Group, Inc. rovides CRE Listing Services and Information Services. It is the leading provider of online CRE information. Defendant CoStar Realty Information, Inc. is the primary operating entity of CoStar Group.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Evelyn Y. Riley, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT FLANNERY & LADUCA, LLP 2445 M Street NW, Suite 740 Washington, D.C. 20037 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: evelyn@cuneolaw.com - and - Michael J. Flannery, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT FLANNERY & LADUCA, LLP Two CityPlace Drive St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 226-1015 E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com - and - Alexandra Klein, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT FLANNERY & LADUCA, LLP 222 Livingston Street, Unit 2 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: aklein@cuneolaw.com - and - Bruce E. Gerstein, Esq. Deborah A. Elman, Esq. David Rochelson, Esq. GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP 88 Pine Street, 28th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 398-0055 E-mail: bgerstein@garwingerstein.com delman@garwingerstein.com drochelson@garwingerstein.com - and - Heidi M. Silton, Esq. Jessica N. Servais, Esq. Joseph C. Bourne, Esq. Bryan L. Plaster, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: hmsilton@locklaw.com jnservais@locklaw.com jcbourne@locklaw.com blplaster@locklaw.com CRAIG BOYLAN: Settlement Deal in King Class Suit Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDALL KING, SCOTT BUTTERFIELD, ROBERT KOEHLER, MICHAEL MERX AND BRUCE WALDMAN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Boylan, et al., Case No. 4:26-cv-00813-HEA (Mo. Cir.), the Hon. Judge Boyer entered an order preliminary approving the settlement agreement. The Court finds that the requirements of Missouri Rules 52.08(a), 52.08(b)(3), and 52.08(e) have been satisfied for purposes of preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement, such that notice of the Settlement Agreement should be directed to Settlement Class Members and a Fairness Hearing should be set. Under Rule 52.08(e), in order to direct notice, the Court must find that it is likely to be able to certify the class for purposes of judgment on the proposed Settlement Agreement. To do so, the Court must find it likely that the Settlement Class and Subclasses meet the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements of Rule 52.08(a), the predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 52.08(b)(3), and are ascertainable. -- The Settlement Class consists of, only for purposes of the Settlement: "those U.S. Persons who, prior to the Settlement Date, have been exposed to one or more Roundup Products and who: (i) Applied any Roundup Products; (ii) purchased or paid for any Roundup Products or for the Application of any Roundup Products; (iii) participated in, directed, or saw the Application of any Roundup Products; or (iv) otherwise had reason to know of their Exposure." The Settlement Class also includes Derivative Claimants of the foregoing individuals. "Exposed" and "Exposure" mean contact with, inhalation of, ingestion of, or absorption of any Roundup Products in connection with the Application of any Roundup Product. For the avoidance of doubt, Exposure to Roundup Products requires exposure to the product itself and not only to the outside of its packaging. "Application" and "Applied" mean application, preparation, mixing, Handling or use, or any other steps associated with application, whether or not the Settlement Class Member performed the application, preparation, Handling, mixing, use, or other steps associated with application himself or herself. The following Persons are excluded from the Settlement Class: a. judicial officers and associated court staff assigned to this Lawsuit, and their immediate family members; b. past and present (as of the Settlement Date) officers, directors, and employees of the Defendant or any of its direct or indirect Subsidiaries; c. any Person who, prior to the Settlement Date, received consideration in exchange for a release of any Roundup Claims, or received a judgment on a Claim relating to a Roundup Product or a Roundup Claim, even if the judgment is on appeal; d. any Person who, as of the Settlement Date, has a claim pending in In re Roundup Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2741 (N.D. Cal.), provided, however, that any Person within this Paragraph 6(d) who would otherwise be a Settlement Class Member will be included in the Settlement Class upon (1) request and (2) dismissal of their pending claim in such MDL; e. any Person whose Roundup Claims have been dismissed with prejudice as of the Settlement Date, unless such dismissal is subject to appeal, in which case such Person shall be included in the Settlement Class; f. any Person who would be a Settlement Class Member solely because they saw the Application of a Roundup Product but, by the Settlement Date, neither they nor any of their Representative Claimants had reason to suspect that the Roundup Product in question was an herbicide; and g. all those Persons otherwise in the Settlement Class who timely and properly exclude themselves from the Settlement Class in the manner approved by the Court and set forth in the Settlement Class Notice. The Settlement Class consists of two Subclasses. "Subclass I" means Settlement Class Members who have been diagnosed with NHL as of the Preliminary Approval Date, and their Derivative Claimants. "Subclass 2" means Settlement Class Members who have not been diagnosed with NHL as of the Preliminary Approval Date, and their Derivative Claimants. -- Christopher A. Seeger of Seeger Weiss LLP, Joseph F. Rice of Motley Rice LLC, Peter A. Kraus of Waters Kraus Paul & Siegel, John Eddie Williams Jr. of Williams Hart & Boundas, LLP, Eric D. Holland of the Holland Law Firm, and Michael S. Ketchmark ofKetchmark & McCreight, P.C. are preliminarily appointed as Class Counsel under Rule 52. –- No later than 10 business days after entry of this Preliminary Approval Order, the Defendant shall make the payment into the Settlement Fund of $500 million as set forth in Section 4.1(b) of the Settlement Agreement, of which $22 million may be used before the entry of the Final Order and Judgment for Administration Costs, including to effectuate the Settlement Class Notice Plan. A copy of the Court's order dated May 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k8TTGg at no extra charge.[CC] DETMAR LOGISTICS: Stears Seeks to File King Declaration ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY STEARS, AMANDA WILSON, and JOSEPH GREEN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, v. DETMAR LOGISTICS LEASING, LLC and DETMAR LOGISTICS, LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-00593-HJB (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to file the declaration of Rebecca King in support of the Plaintiffs' class certification reply brief. On May 26th, the Plaintiffs' counsel realized that due to a clerical error, the King Declaration in support of the Plaintiffs' class certification reply brief was inadvertently not filed on the docket. The Plaintiffs' reply brief in support of class certification references information from the King Declaration. To avoid confusion and to provide the Court with context for the declaration statements cited in the reply brief, the Plaintiffs seek leave to file the King Declaration after the Court's May 8th deadline. Detmar is a transportation company that specializes in frac sand last mile logistics. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xLcTO6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rebecca King, Esq. Whitney Flanagan, Esq. GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN, PLLC 260 Fair Street Kingston, NY 12401 Telephone: (845) 255-9370 E-mail: rking@getmansweeney.com wflanagan@getmansweeney.com - and - Austin Kaplan, Esq. Caitlin Boehne, Esq. Andrew Eckhous, Esq. J. Bryan Wood, Esq. KAPLAN LAW FIRM, PLLC 2901 Bee Cave Road, Ste. G Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 553-9390 Facsimile: (512) 692-2788 E-mail: akaplan@kaplanlawatx.com cboehne@kaplanlawatx.com aeckhous@kaplanlawatx.com bwood@kaplanlawatx.com EDWARD D: Martin Files Racial Discrimination Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- ROLAND MARTIN, ELWIS JOHNSON, TREVOR EDWARDS, SHAWNA KNUTSON, SANTORIA TEXIDOR, AND ALONZO HINTON, Plaintiffs v. EDWARD D. JONES & CO. L.P., AND THE JONES FINANCIAL COMPANIES, L.L.L.P, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-00791 (E.D. Mo., May 19, 2026) is a class action concerning systemic race discrimination against Black employees in the financial services industry. The complaint relates that for many years, Edward Jones has knowingly paid its Black financial advisors ("FAs") less than similarly situated white peers. These pay disparities are primarily attributable to two centralized policies: (1) Edward Jones' client transfer policy ("CTP"), which disproportionately provides white FAs -- and not Black FAs -- with client accounts (or "assets") that enable them to meet performance expectations and earn commissions and bonuses; and (2) Edward Jones' Salary Assignment Policy ("SAP"), which sets starting salary based on the compensation FAs earned immediately prior to starting with Edward Jones, a practice that is well-understood to perpetuate market discrimination. As a result of these policies, Edward Jones' Black FAs receive less compensation, fewer promotions, and are terminated more frequently than their white peers. As a result of this intentional treatment, Edward Jones has discriminated, and continues to discriminate, against Plaintiffs and Black FAs through its CTP and SAP, asserts the complaint. Black FAs nationwide have been disproportionately terminated and denied equal compensation and business opportunities relative to their white counterparts. Edward Jones' conduct and omissions violate the Civil Rights Act of 1866; the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the California Unfair Competition Law; the New York Equal Pay Law; the New York State Human Rights Law; and the New York City Human Rights Law; and the Minnesota Human Rights Act, says the suit. Defendant Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., the primary wholly owned subsidiary of The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., is a retail brokerage that provides financial products, advice, and services to clients in the United States and Canada. Defendant The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. is a major financial services company incorporated in Missouri and doing business in the United States and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam T. Klein, Esq. Chauniqua D. Young, Esq. Michael Danna, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (646) 509-2005 E-mail: atk@outtengolden.com E-mail: cyoung@outtengolden.com E-mail: mdanna@outtengolden.com - and - Ryan C. Cowdin, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 1225 New York Ave NW, Suite 1200B Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 847-4400 Facsimile: (646) 952-9114 E-mail: rcowdin@outtengolden.com - and - Anne M. Weis, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1500 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 638-8800 Facsimile: (415) 638-8810 E-mail: aweis@outtengolden.com - and - George Hanson, Esq. Jordan Kane, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone.: 816-714-7100 E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com E-mail: kane@stuevesiegel.com EQUIFAX INFO: Snyder Drops Class Suit ------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH SNYDER, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00757-RCY (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Young entered a judgment granting the Defendant's consent motion to dismiss. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Consent Motion to Dismiss, wherein Plaintiffs, with Defendant's consent, move to voluntarily dismiss all of their individual claims against Defendant with prejudice. The Court is satisfied that the proposed settlement is neither tainted by collusion nor prejudicial to other putative class members. In an Order issued on Feb. 20, 2026, the Court deferred ruling on the motion to dismiss and instead directed the parties to brief the applicability of Shelton v. Pargo, Inc., in which the Fourth Circuit held that district courts must conduct a "proper inquiry" before approving pre-class-certification dismissal of claims originally asserted on behalf of a putative class. A careful inquiry into the consideration exchanged reveals an arms-length bargain, particularly considering the relative strengths of the parties' cases and the fact that the Plaintiffs' counsel represents that its 45% contingency fee is "its ordinary individual-case contingency, no more." Additionally, the parties represent that there are no side agreements, covenants, or other hidden consideration, and Plaintiffs' respective recovery is "lower than comparable individual FCRA resolutions, reflecting the limited damages profile of a post-bankruptcy inaccuracy case." Equifax is a primary consumer reporting agency. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated May 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qQROKp at no extra charge.[CC] EVERSOURCE ENERGY: Salley Files Suit in D. Massachusetts -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eversource Energy Service Company. The case is styled as Eric Salley, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. Eversource Energy Service Company, Case No. 1:26-cv-12398-LTS (D. Mass., May 27, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Eversource -- https://www.eversource.com/ -- is an energy provider serving customers in Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Hampshire.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Casondra R. Turner, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: cturner@milberg.com EXPRESS FREIGHT: Drake Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------- Justin Drake, and Andy Pensado, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. EXPRESS FREIGHT HANDLERS INC., a Foreign Profit Corporation, BRIAN SHEDLICK, an individual, and JAMES WISSING, an individual, Case No. 2:26-cv-00175-RWS (N.D. Ga., May 29, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees because of Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiffs, and other similarly situated employees, routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week as part of their regular job duties. In fact, Plaintiffs worked 70 to 80 hours per week for Defendants during his tenure. Despite working more than 40 hours per week, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs, and other similarly situated employees, overtime compensation at a rate of no less than time and one half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over forty in a workweek. The Plaintiffs and those similarly situated were eligible for overtime provided they worked more than 40 hours per week. As a result, Plaintiffs and those similarly situated, should have received compensation at time and one half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked beyond the 40 hours per week, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as forklift operators. Express Freight Handlers, Inc. is a Foreign Profit Corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York and registered to do business in the State of 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: cleach@theleachfirm.com jrose@theleachfirm.com ppalmer@theleachfirm.com FABLETICS LLC: Arrieta Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Carri Arrieta, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Fabletics LLC, Fabletics Inc., Fabletics GC LLC, Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV11391 was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 29, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-05796 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Fabletics -- https://www.fabletics.com/ -- offers affordable, high quality and stylish activewear for women & men.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Thomas John Tobin, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Ste. 4200 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 359-8000 Fax: (206) 359-9000 Email: ttobin@perkinscoie.com FAMILY HEALTH CENTERS: McIntire Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Family Health Centers of San Diego Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jessica McIntire, individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Family Health Centers of San Diego Inc., Does 1 through 100, Case No. 26CU028602C (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., May 27, 2026). Family Health Centers of San Diego -- https://www.fhcsd.org/ -- offers low-cost health services to the uninsured.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark D. Potter, Esq. James M. Treglio, Esq. Isabel Rose Masanque, Esq. Naomi Butler, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP 100 Pine St., Ste. 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (858) 375-7385 Fax: (888) 422-5191 Email: mark@potterhandy.com jimt@potterhandy.com classactions@potterhandy.com FASHION NOVA: Revenko Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Karina Revenko, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. FASHION NOVA, LLC d/b/a FASHION NOVA, Case No. 26-2-01468-06 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Clark, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on May 27, 2026, and assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05543. The Plaintiff contends that Defendant violated the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("CEMA"), Chapter 19.190.090 RCW, and the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("CPA"), Chapter 19.86.020 RCW, by sending "commercial electronic mail messages" to Washington residents containing "false or misleading information in the subject lines."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. Brandon P. Jack, Esq. EMERY REDDY, PC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Email: anderson@emeryreddy.com gregory@emeryreddy.com brandon@emeryreddy.com tim@emeryreddy.com - and - Leslie Pescia, Esq. Rachel Minder, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (212) 532-1091 Email: lpescia@sirillp.com rminder@sirillp.com - and - Alayne Gobeille, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20007 Phone: (929) 783-8436 Email: agobeille@sirillp.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael E. Chait, Esq. FENNEMORE CRAIG, P.C. 999 Third Avenue, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 206.749.0500 Facsimile: 206.749.0600 Email: mchait@fennemorelaw.com FEDERAL EXPRESS: Masinas Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Anthony Masinas, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0002898 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 26, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01938-CKD. The Plaintiff sues FedEx and Does 1-100 for the following causes of action: Unpaid Overtime; Unpaid Meal Period Premiums; Unpaid Rest Period Premiums; Unpaid Minimum Wages; Final Wages Not Timely Paid; Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment; Non-Compliant Wage Statements; Failure to Keep Requisite Payroll Records; Unreimbursed Business Expenses; all in Violation of Cal. Labor Codes and Violation of Cal. Business & Professions Code Section 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: Vincent S. Loh, Esq. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION 2601 Main Street, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: 949.862.4611 Facsimile: 901.492.5641 Email: Vincent.loh@fedex.com thomas.moran@fedex.com FITNESS 19 CA: Faces Stampler Suit Over TCPA Violations ------------------------------------------------------- MARTIN STAMPLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FITNESS 19 CA 283, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-05254 (C.D. Cal., May 15, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Defendant allegedly violated the TCPA by initiating, or causing to be initiated, telephone solicitations to persons such as Plaintiff and the class members who registered their respective residential telephone numbers with the Do-Not-Call Registry. In addition, the Plaintiff did not give Defendant prior express consent or permission to deliver, or cause to be delivered, advertisement or marketing voice messages or text messages to his personal residential telephone number, says the suit. Headquartered in Camarillo, Ventura County, California, Fitness 19 owns and operates a gym and offers memberships and fitness classes. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: rachel@kaufmanpa.com FIVE BELOW: Nabiyev Sues Over Illegal Tracking Technologies ----------------------------------------------------------- SARKHAN NABIYEV and JAYLA KNIGHT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FIVE BELOW, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-04764 (N.D. Cal., May 19, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for unlawfully using pen register devices to record and capture the electronic communications of users visiting Five Below's website, https://www.fivebelow.com/ including the routing, addressing, or signaling information transmitted between users' devices and the website operated by Five Below. According to the complaint, when users visit the Website, Five Below enables the installation of third-party tracking technologies, including those operated by Meta, Google (DoubleClick and Google Analytics Pixels), Yahoo, Snapchat, Pinterest, and TikTok (collectively, the "Trackers"), on visitors' internet browsers. The Trackers are operated by separate and distinct third parties: Meta, Google, Pinterest, Snapchat, TikTok, and Yahoo. Each Tracker collects the Internet Protocol addresses of website users and other device-identifier information, such as device type and browser type. Five Below, together with the third parties operating these Trackers, uses the collected information to monitor user activity, analyze traffic patterns, and support advertising and marketing efforts. Five Below violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA") by installing and using the Trackers without Plaintiffs' prior consent or a court order, says the suit. The Plaintiffs bring this action to prevent Five Below from further violating the privacy rights of individuals, and to recover statutory damages for Five Below's violation of the CIPA. Plaintiffs Sarkhan Nabiyev and Jayla Knight used their personal devices to access and interact with Defendant's Website while located within the State of California. Defendant Five Below Entertainment, Inc. owns and operates the website https://www.fivebelow.com/, an e-commerce platform through which it markets and sells a variety of consumer products, including toys, games, electronics, beauty products, and other merchandise.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DeMAY PLLC 19800 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 270 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (212) 946-9389 E-mail: tkashima@brysonpllc.com - and - Robert Jimenez, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DeMAY PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 206-7894 E-mail: rjimenez@brysonpllc.com FLAGSTAR BANK: Bid for Class Cert in Solomon Extended to June 5 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Solomon v. Flagstar Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:24-cv-24482 (S.D. Fla., Filed Nov. 13, 2024), the Hon. Judge Roy K. Altman entered an order granting the motion for extension of time. The Plaintiff must reply to the Motion for Class Certification by June 5, 2026. The nature of suit states Contract. Flagstar is an American regional financial institution.[CC] FORD MOTOR: Bid to Exclude Expert Kevin Caves' Opinions Tossed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID LYMAN, et al., v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 2:21-cv-10024-GAD-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Drain entered an order: -- denying Ford's motion to exclude the opinions of plaintiffs' expert Kevin W. Caves; -- granting in part and denying in part Ford's motion to exclude the opinions and testimony of Colin Jordan; -- granting in part and denying in part Ford's motion to exclude the opinions and testimony of Allise Wachs; -- granting Ford's motion to strike Allise Wachs's untimely supplemental report; -- denying Ford's motion to exclude the opinions and testimony of Edward Stockton; and -- granting the plaintiffs' motion to exclude certain testimony and opinions of Nathan Soderborg. The Court finds that Ford has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating the existence of a conflict of interest that would warrant disqualifying Dr. Caves from offering expert opinions and testimony for the Plaintiffs. The Court finds that Dr. Jordan may testify regarding the contents and technical significance of Ford's internal documents, but he may not opine on Ford’s knowledge. Permitting such testimony would improperly intrude upon the jury's factfinding role. The Plaintiffs bring claims against Ford based upon an alleged defect in Ford F-150 vehicles containing a 5.0L engine for model years 2018 through 2020 ("the Class Vehicles"). The Plaintiffs allege that the 5.0L engine's piston ring assembly and cylinder coating are defective, causing the engines to consume oil at an excessive rate. Ford is an American-based automaker. A copy of the Court's order dated May 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=X8Kjr0 at no extra charge.[CC] FORD MOTOR: Ortega Suit Transferred to E.D. Michigan ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Erika Ortega, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ford Motor Company, Camel Group USA Battery, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-02920 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on May 18, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-11617-FKB-EAS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Ford -- https://www.ford.com/ -- is the second-largest American-based automaker, behind General Motors, and the sixth-largest in the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leslie L. Pescia, Esq. Siri & Glimstad LLP 101 North Seventh Street, Ste #827 Louisville, KY 40202 Phone: (865) 247-0080 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: astraus@milberg.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW FIRM LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Phone: (215) 789-4462 Email: klaukaitis@ecf.courtdrive.com The Defendant is represented by: Fred J. Fresard, Esq. Ian Kennedy Edwards, Esq. KLEIN THOMAS LEE & FRESARD 89 Kercheval Ave. Grosse Pointe Farms, MI 48236 Phone: (248) 840-6314 Email: Fred.fresard@kleinthomaslaw.com ian.edwards@kleinthomaslaw.com FORTIVA FINANCIAL: Martin Sues Over Unlawful Collection Messages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bridgette Martin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FORTIVA FINANCIAL, LLC., Case No. 4:26-cv-04073 (S.D. Tex., May 21, 2026), is brought for damages resulting from Fortiva Financial, LLC's ("Fortiva" or "Defendant") placement of debt collection text messages to Plaintiff's cellular phone after Plaintiff notified Defendant in writing that she wished Defendant to cease further communications with Plaintiff, in violation of the Texas Debt Collection Act (the "TDCA"). As part of its debt collection operations, Defendant sends consumers multiple debt collection text messages in an attempt to collect alleged debts, even after consumers have communicated in writing that they do not wish to receive further communications. After receiving a series of debt collection messages from Defendant attempting to collect alleged debts, Plaintiff notified Defendant in writing that she wished Defendant to cease further debt collection text messages. Nonetheless, Defendant continued to send Plaintiff debt collection text messages after Plaintiff communicated her desire to cease further communications. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of Plaintiff and the Class members. Plaintiff also seeks actual damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an adult individual residing in Harris County, Texas and is a consumer. The Defendant is a nationwide creditor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Berman, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: 305-479-2299 Email: cberman@shamisgentile.com FREEDOM LENDING: Hines Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Freedom Lending LLC. The case is styled as Nicholas Hines, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Freedom Lending LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-03267-RBM-DEB (S.D. Cal., May 28, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Freedom Lending, LLC -- https://www.freedomlending.com/ -- is a mortgage broker company licensed in South Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vin Roy Venkatesh, Esq. PROPERTY LITIGATION GROUP PLLC 2750 SW 145th Avenue, Suite 509 Miramar, FL 33027 Phone: (786) 703-8810 Email: vv@plgdamage.com FREEWAY INSURANCE: Reed Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Freeway Insurance Services America, LLC. The case is styled as Alyssa Reed, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Freeway Insurance Services America, LLC doing business as: Cost-U-Less Insurance Center, Case No. 8:26-cv-01354 (C.D. Cal., May 28, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Freeway Insurance Services America, LLC -- https://www.freeway.com/ -- is an American insurance agency with over 650 retail locations in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Edelsberg, I, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park E, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com FRITANGA 505 INC: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property ------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. FRITANGA 505 INC. D/B/A FRITANGA 505, Case No. 1:26-cv-23538-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 19, 2026), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendants' Commercial Property being inaccessible to people who are disabled. Although over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendants' property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject commercial restaurant. The barriers to access at Defendant's commercial restaurant have denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the subject business and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff desires to visit the restaurant located therein, not only to avail himself of the goods and services available at the restaurant, but to assure himself that the restaurant is in compliance with the ADA, so that he and others similarly situated will have full and equal enjoyment of the restaurant without fear of discrimination. The Defendant have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the restaurant, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae down) and requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate. FRITANGA 505 INC. D/B/A FRITANGA 505, owns, operates and oversees a restaurant.[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 GARDAWORLD CASH: Solomon-Wallace Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kimberly Solomon-Wallace, Derek Miley, Kenya Green, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. GardaWorld Cash Services, Inc. doing business as: Gardaword Cash d/b/a GardaWorld Cash, Case No. 1:26-cv-02082 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on May 19, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:26-cv-80594-AMC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Labor E.R.I.S.A. for Breach of Fiduciary Duties. GardaWorld Corporation -- https://cash.garda.com/ -- is a Canadian private security firm, headquartered in Montreal, Quebec.[BN] HANOVER COMPANY: Wade Sues Over Tenant Protection Law Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- EMMA WADE, individually and for all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE HANOVER COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-05432 (C.D. Cal., May 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violating tenant protection laws. The complaint relates that the Defendant provides housing to residents of California. Plaintiff was thrilled when she first moved into the apartment that Defendant leased to her. She understands that Defendant is a business and needs to be profitable. But at the same time, it must follow the law while pursuing those profits. According to the complaint, the Defendant raises rent for its tenants without providing any notice. Tenants, like Plaintiff, are routinely surprised to learn that their rent suddenly increased from one month to the next. They usually discover the increase online when they go to pay their rent. But, in the case of Plaintiff, sometimes these rent increases go unnoticed for a while. Under California law, when a fixed-term lease expires, and a new fixed term lease is not executed prior to expiration, the tenancy automatically continues month-to-month. The problem is that when this happens, Defendant adds a fee for the month-to-month tenancy (the "month-to-month fee"). These fees are significant. When a tenant contests this new month-to-month fee, Defendant informs the tenant that they need to sign a new fixed-term lease in exchange for removing the fee. Further, Defendant charges other unlawful fees, such as non-descript charges titled "Resident Service Charge." The Resident Service Charge ("RSC") is a recurring monthly charge of $35. There is no explanation of this RSC fee in Defendant's standard lease. Not only were these actions taken in bad faith, but they were made with the intention to defraud unsuspecting tenants, like Plaintiff, and increase overall profitability of each rental unit. As a result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have been harmed and damaged in several ways, says the suit. The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, alleges claims for (1) breach of contract; (2) violations of the Tenant Protection Act of 2019; (3) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law; (4) violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; (5) Statutory Larceny; and (6) violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Plaintiff and the Class Members seek damages from Defendant, and to compel Defendant to follow California law regarding rent increases and fees for residential tenancies. Plaintiff Emma Wade is a tenant at an apartment complex in Los Angeles, California, which is owned and/or managed by Defendant. Defendant The Hanover Company is a multifamily property management company that operates numerous apartment communities throughout California, and many across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Shay, Esq. Harrison Lynch, Esq. SHAY LEGAL, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: 619-222-7429 E-mail: Dan@ShayLegal.com Harrison@ShayLegal.com - and - Joshua Swigart, 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 HARBOR RAIL: Arbitration Order in Vela Unpaid Wages Suit Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ARTURO VELA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HARBOR RAIL SERVICES OF CALIFORNIA, INC., Defendant and Respondent, Case No. B344723 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division One, affirmed the trial court's order compelling Vela to arbitrate claims relating to his employment. The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA; 9 U.S.C. Section 1 et seq.) exempts from its application "contracts of employment" of "railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce." Harbor hired Vela as a rail freight car repairman on May 19, 2021, and terminated him on October 11, 2021. On May 10, 2021, prior to Vela beginning work, the parties signed a mutual arbitration agreement requiring arbitration of all claims between them, whether related to employment or termination. The agreement also included a class and representative action waiver, barring class, collective, or representative claims in arbitration or otherwise, except for claims under the California Private Attorneys General Act or other claims that cannot be waived by law. Vela sued Harbor on October 5, 2023, asserting causes of action under the Labor Code for unpaid overtime (id., Sections 510, 1198), unpaid meal period premiums (id., Sections 226.7, 512, subd. (a)), unpaid rest period premiums (id., Section 226.7), unpaid minimum wages (id., Sections 1194, 1197), failure to timely pay final wages (id., Sections 201, 202), noncompliant wage statements (id., Section 226, subd. (a)), and failure to reimburse business expenses (id., Sections 2800, 2802), and a related claim under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, Section 17200 et seq.). Vela asserted these claims on his own behalf and also on behalf of a would-be class of current and former Harbor employees. He did not allege any representative claims under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (Lab. Code, Section 2698 et seq.). On March 6, 2024, Harbor filed a motion to compel Vela's individual claims to arbitration and to dismiss and strike his class claims. It relied on the mutual agreement to arbitrate which Vela had signed in connection with his employment. Vela opposed the motion to compel arbitration, arguing the agreement was exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act under Section 1 because he was a railroad worker engaged in interstate commerce. In support, he submitted a declaration stating he worked as a railcar repairman from May 2021 to October 2021, earned $19 per hour, and performed repairs in compliance with federal railroad regulations. He further argued that if the FAA did not apply, California law governed. Under California law, he claimed the class action waiver was unenforceable under Gentry v. Superior Court, and that Labor Code section 229 exempted some of his wage claims from arbitration. In May 2024, the trial court issued a tentative ruling finding that Harbor had established the existence of an arbitration agreement. It further concluded that the FAA's Section 1 exemption for transportation workers did not apply, because Vela had not shown the arbitration agreement was part of an employment contract rather than a standalone agreement. The court continued the hearing to allow Vela an opportunity to supplement the record on whether the agreement was part of an employment contract. The parties submitted additional evidence on January 3, 2025. On February 4, 2025, after hearing argument, the trial court granted Harbor's motion to compel Vela's claims to arbitration and to dismiss and strike his class claims. Vela timely appealed. Vela claimed the trial court erred in compelling him to arbitrate claims relating to his employment because he falls within this exemption. He also claimed that, because the FAA exempts him, the trial court erred in enforcing a waiver of class claims contained in his agreement to arbitrate. Under state law, Vela's waiver is potentially unenforceable. If federal law applies, it preempts such state law and the waiver is enforceable. The Court of Appeals found no error and affirmed, saying the FAA applies to the parties' agreement to arbitrate and does not exempt Vela. It explained that Section 1 exemption does not apply because Vela is neither a railroad employee nor a transportation worker. Among other things, the Court of Appeals found that Vela did not have any contract with PHL and the contract between PHL and Harbor cannot constitute a "contract of employment" within the meaning of the section 1 exemption. Even if it's assumed Congress intended this same definition of "railroad employee" to apply to another title elsewhere in the United States Code (namely section 1), Vela does not qualify as being "in the service of" PHL. It is undisputed he had no direct employment relationship with PHL and there is no evidence that PHL had or exercised any authority to supervise or direct his work. Because the FAA applies and Vela does not fall within the exemption set forth in section 1, the trial court did not err in dismissing and striking Vela's class claims. Accordingly, the order dismissing and striking Vela's class claims is affirmed. The appeal of the order compelling arbitration is dismissed as a non-appealable order. Deeming that portion of the appeal as a petition for writ of mandate, the petition is denied. Harbor is awarded its costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://l1nq.com/75qzlwo. Justice Law Corporation, Douglas Han -- dhan@justicelawcorp.com -- Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh and Talia Lux -- tlux@justicelawcorp.com -- for Plaintiff and Appellant. Fox Rothschild LLP and Steven Gallagher -- stevengallagher@foxrothschild.com -- for Defendant and Respondent. HEAR.COM LLC: Reichbart and Gartner Sue Over Privacy Law Breaches ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARC ALAN REICHBART and MICHAEL B. GARTNER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HEAR.COM LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-23441-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 15, 2026) arises from Defendant's collection and disclosure of website visitors' sensitive personal health and financial information and electronic communications to Google LLC, TikTok, Inc. and ByteDance Ltd, Microsoft Corporation, and X Corp. without prior notice and consent, through tracking mechanisms embedded in Defendant's website, www.hear.com. When website visitors complete a questionnaire, take the online hearing test, browse hearing-loss information, or otherwise interact with health-related content, Hear.com procures these third-party recipients to intercept those electronic communications without consent. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs assert claims for violations of the Florida Security of Communications Act, Florida Statutes and the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Hear.com LLC is a direct-to-consumer hearing care platform that operates a network of hearing care professionals in the world. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq. SCHWARTZBAUM 14 NE 1st Ave Ste 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (786) 453-8485 E-mail: adam@schwartzbaum.com admin@schwartzbaum.com INTERNATIONALHR SERVICES: Arbitration Denial Affirmed in Calvillo ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PABLO CALVILLO, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. INTERNATIONALHR SERVICES LLC et al., Defendants and Appellants, Case Nos. G064575, G064580 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division Three, affirmed the trial court's order denying the motions to compel arbitration. Calvillo filed a putative wage and hour class action and a Private Attorney General Act representative action against his former employers, which in turn filed motions to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motions, finding the parties' arbitration agreement was unconscionable. Titanium Industries, Inc., a global metal supplier, used InternationalHR Services LLC (IHRS), a staffing company, to supply temporary employees for its California operations. IHRS hired Calvillo in 2021 and assigned him to work at Titanium, where he inspected material and assisted with quality assurance. When Calvillo was hired, IHRS required him to sign a one-page arbitration agreement. The agreement provided that, except for on-the-job injury and workers' compensation claims, all disputes arising from his employment with IHRS or a client company would be resolved through arbitration. It also stated that arbitration was the exclusive remedy for employment-related disputes. The agreement set out a multi-step dispute resolution process requiring IHRS and Calvillo to first attempt direct negotiation before pursuing any court or administrative action. If unresolved, the complaining party had to file a grievance with Human Resources within two weeks of the incident, followed by mediation if the dispute remained unresolved after three weeks. If mediation failed, the dispute would proceed to binding arbitration. It further required arbitration under the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association. The arbitrator was authorized to award remedies including back pay, severance compensation, disciplinary relief, and reimbursement of costs and attorneys' fees, along with interest. Unless otherwise directed, the employer was responsible for the primary costs of the process. The agreement included two signature options: one indicating consent to the arbitration policy and another indicating refusal. Calvillo signed the consent line, agreeing to be bound by the arbitration agreement. In 2022, Calvillo filed a putative class action against IHRS and Titanium alleging wage-and-hour violations, including unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, and missed meal and rest breaks. In 2023, he filed a separate PAGA action against both defendants seeking civil penalties based on the same alleged violations. The PAGA case was later related to the class action and assigned to the same judge. IHRS and Titanium moved to compel arbitration of Calvillo's individual claims and to dismiss his class and PAGA claims. Although the agreement referenced the AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules, the defendants argued arbitration should proceed under the AAA Employment Arbitration Rules, which they described as "self-correcting." Calvillo opposed, arguing the arbitration agreement was procedurally and substantively unconscionable and unenforceable, but he submitted no declaration or supporting evidence. The trial court denied the motions in a 12-page order, finding the agreement's dispute resolution provisions were conflicting and inconsistent, and concluding the arbitration agreement was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. The Court of Appeals opined that the record shows some procedural unconscionability in the arbitration agreement. Calvillo was not shown to have been pressured or denied time to review the document, and the agreement even included an option to refuse arbitration. However, it also emphasized in bold that accepting at-will employment meant agreeing to arbitration as the sole remedy for employment disputes, suggesting limited practical ability to opt out. The agreement was also a standardized form drafted by the employer and presented alongside other onboarding documents, indicating some degree of oppression. In addition, the agreement referenced but did not include the applicable AAA rules, which increased the element of surprise and further contributed to procedural unconscionability. In addition, the Court of Appeals noted that the Supreme Court has set out five minimum requirements for arbitration of nonwaivable statutory workplace rights, including that employees cannot be required to pay unreasonable arbitration costs or arbitrators' fees as a condition of accessing the forum. It found that the agreement at issue did not meet this requirement. Finally, the Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion by the trial court. It agreed that the arbitration agreement was substantively unconscionable because it could require employees to bear arbitration costs, imposed a short two-week deadline to file grievances that could deter claims, and allowed IHRS early insight into employees' claims. Because the agreement was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable, the Court of Appeals held the motions to compel arbitration were properly denied and affirmed the order. Calvillo was awarded his costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://l1nq.com/o7ox3ig. Hill, Farrer & Burrill, Michael S. Turner -- mturner@hillfarrer.com -- E. Sean McLoughlin -- smcloughlin@hillfarrer.com -- and Charles G. Bakaly -- cbakaly@hillfarrer.com -- for Defendants and Appellants. Bibiyan Law Group, David D. Bibiyan and Henry G. Glitz for Plaintiff and Respondent. J & R CENTURY: Brito Sues Over Facilities' Non-Compliance with ADA ------------------------------------------------------------------ CARLOS BRITO, Plaintiff v. ROSARIO INVESTMENTS CORP, and J & R CENTURY LLC D/B/A CENTURY SUPERMARKET, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-23438-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 15, 2026) is a class action alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Allegedly, 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. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject commercial property, and commercial supermarket. Rosario Investments Corp owns, operates, and oversees the commercial property at 3395 NW 32nd Avenue, Miami, FL. [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 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com jr@ajperezlawgroup.com, mds@ajperezlawgroup.com J.G. WENTWORTH: Secretly Installs Tracking Pixels, Johnson Says --------------------------------------------------------------- KYLE JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE J.G. WENTWORTH COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, d/b/a JGWENTWORTH.COM, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-4776 (N.D. Cal., May 19, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for unlawful spamming and invasion of privacy. The complaint relates that the 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. Both the spam and the surveillance are illegal under California law. Earlier this year, Plaintiff received a spam e-mail from Defendant that appeared to be from his credit card company relating to his credit card bill. The spam directly caused Plaintiff's interaction with Defendant's site, which was the intended result of the deceptive campaign. After receiving the deceptive spam, Plaintiff visited the Website to investigate and was unaware of the secret spyware being used to surveil her and other visitors and monetize their personal information. The Plaintiff seeks judgment against Defendant for all available declaratory, legal, and equitable relief including injunctive relief; for statutory damages; for punitive damages; for attorneys' fees and costs as allowed by law; and for any and all other relief at law or equity that may be appropriate. Plaintiff is a California citizen and is the owner of the e-mail address kylejohnson499@yahoo.com. He has received countless misleading spam e-mails that contain forged headers, spoofed domains, and deceptive subject lines. Defendant JG WENTWORTH is a debt resolution company incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania.[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 JENCAP GROUP: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, Yardley Says -------------------------------------------------------------- ERIC YARDLEY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. JENCAP GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-03149-TWR-GC (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"). The complaint relates that the Defendant maintains the website https://www.eventsured.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. 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 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. 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. The Meta Pixel Defendant has on its site recorded and decoded its outgoing routing, addressing, or signaling information that it transmitted to Class Members computers from its servers, in violation of the CIPA. 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), says the suit. Against this backdrop, the Plaintiff and the Class seek injunctive relief, nominal damages, and all other relief authorized by law. Plaintiff Eric Yardley is an adult citizen of the state of California, domiciled in San Diego County, California. Plaintiff visited Defendant's website. Defendant Jencap Group, LLC owns and operates the Website https://www.eventsured.com [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 JR 300: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Parado Suit Says --------------------------------------------------- VICTOR MANUEL SOSA PARADO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JR 300 ON THE ROAD LLC d/b/a COLLECTIVE ACTION & 300 SLICES PIZZERIA, and JUAN PALMA, JR., Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-05580 (D.N.J., May 15, 2026) seeks damages and equitable relief for Defendants' alleged failure to pay overtime compensation as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law. The Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt restaurant employee at Defendants’ pizzeria from on or about January 1, 2024 through on or about February 13, 2025. The Plaintiff regularly worked approximately 72 hours per week--six days per week, 12 hours per day, from approximately 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. However, the Plaintiff did not receive overtime premium compensation. In addition, the Defendants did not require Plaintiff to punch in or out, did not maintain accurate records of the hours he worked, did not issue itemized wage statements with each payment of wages, and did not post the wage-and-hour notices required by federal and New Jersey law, says the suit. Headquartered in Lodi, NJ, JR 300 On The Road LLC owns and operates the pizzeria known as "300 Slices Pizzeria." [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina F. Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 832-1000 Website: www.stillmanlegalpc.com E-mail: lina@stillmanlegalpc.com KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Nov. 13 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WALDISA DE ALVARENGA BARBOSA, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-05633-CH (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Henry entered an order on discovery and pre-trial briefing as follows: 1. By June 30, 2026, Epiq will send the approved Notice and opt-in forms to the last known addresses of the 64 individuals from the Accurate Background portal that KBS produced to the Plaintiffs on April 16, 2026 and will set up a website regarding this matter that will include information on the definition of the Collective and provide Collective Members an opportunity to fill out an opt-in form. 2. In advance of June 30, 2026, the Plaintiffs will propose a targeted advertising notice (via social media) designed to reach the other potential Collective Members. The targeted advertising notice will begin on June 30, 2026. 3. Any individual who wishes to opt-in to the Collective will be required to submit an opt-in form to Epiq. 4. Individuals will have 60-days from June 30, 2026 (the date of mailing of Notice and commencement of the targeted social media notice) to opt-in to the Collective or by Aug. 29, 2026. 5. Following the status conference with the Court, the parties met and conferred regarding the remaining schedule for this matter. The parties propose the following: Litigation Event Date All remaining discovery shall be Oct. 30, 2026 completed on or before: The Plaintiffs' anticipated motion Nov. 13, 2026 for Rule 23 class certification must be filed on or before: The parties will engage in expert discovery between June 3, 2027 and July 10, 2027. Kellermeyer is a privately held facility services provider in North America. A copy of the Court's order dated May 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8lW4o4 at no extra charge.[CC] KIA AMERICA: Case Management Order Entered in Doucette Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Amy Doucette, et al., v. Kia America Inc. et al., Case No. 8:24-cv-00731-DMG-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Gee entered an amended scheduling and case management order as follows: Matter Date Trial (Jury): Sept. 14, 2027 at 8:30 a.m. The Plaintiffs' class certification Nov. 2, 2026 motion and class expert reports: Class certification motion hearing: March 19, 2027 at 10:00 a.m. Expert discovery cut-off (includes July 27, 2027 hearing of discovery motions): Motions in limine filing deadline: July 27, 2027 Kia operates as an automobile dealer. A copy of the Court's order dated May 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cjYZxo at no extra charge.[CC] LANMAN & KEMP: Ortiz Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH ORTIZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LANMAN & KEMP - BARCLAY & CO. INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01004 (W.D.N.Y., May 15, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.floridawater.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on January 2, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Florida Water - Plastic from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. He was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Lanman & Kemp - Barclay & Co. Incorporated operates the website that offers citrus-floral cologne and wellness tonic.[BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 LIME LUSH: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Randolph Says ------------------------------------------------------------- ERIKA RANDOLPH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lime Lush Boutique, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05648 (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://www.limelush.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On March 20, 2026, while searching online for women's apparel, the Plaintiff discovered Defendant's website and decided to explore it more with the intention of making a purchase. However, she encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented her from completing her order. Specifically, the submenus within the navigation bar expanded automatically upon receiving focus, requiring Randolph to navigate through each item within the expanded sections. The website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, unclear or inaccessible labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit. Lime Lush Boutique, LLC operates the website that offers women's clothing and accessories, such as dresses, tops, bottoms, rompers and outerwear.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com LUMEXA IMAGING: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Lawrence Says -------------------------------------------------------------- PAULETTE LAWRENCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LUMEXA IMAGING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:26-CV-339 (E.D.N.C., May 19, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The complaint relates that Plaintiff and Class Members provided their Private Information to Defendant with the reasonable expectation and on the mutual understanding that Defendant would comply with its obligations to keep such information confidential and secure from unauthorized access. On April 9, 2026, Defendant was notified by one of its vendors about suspicious activity within a portion of its network dedicated to Defendant's affiliated radiology practices and imaging centers. On April 15, 2026, Defendant learned that an unauthorized person may have viewed or obtained copies of documents containing its affiliated radiology practices and imaging centers' patient information from the vendor's system. The following types of Private Information were compromised as a result of the Data Breach: name, date of birth, address, phone number, Social Security number, and/or patient account number; insurance information; and clinical information including visit dates, diagnoses, or other health information. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information, says the suit. The Plaintiff, therefore, brings this action individually and on behalf of a Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for: negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract. Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Defendant Lumexa Imaging, Inc. is one of the largest outpatient medical imaging providers in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott C. Harris, Esq. S. Michael Dunn, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS, SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 E-mail: sharris@brysonpllc.com mdunn@brysonpllc.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com LUMEXA IMAGING: Moreno Sues Over Inadequate Data Security Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------- JASON MORENO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LUMEXA IMAGING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-00341-BO (E.D.N.C., May 19, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The complaint relates that the Defendant made promises and representations to individuals', including Plaintiff and Class Members, that the Private Information collected from them would be kept safe and confidential, and that the privacy of that information would be maintained. But the Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' Private Information secure when Defendant was notified on April 9, 2026, by one of its vendors about suspicious activity within a portion of its network dedicated to Defendant's affiliated radiology practices and imaging centers. On April 15, 2026, Defendant learned that an unauthorized person may have viewed or obtained copies of documents containing its affiliated radiology practices and imaging centers' patient information from the vendor's system. The following types of Private Information were compromised as a result of the Data Breach: name, date of birth, address, phone number, Social Security number, and/or patient account number; insurance information; and clinical information including visit dates, diagnoses, or other health information. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose Private Information was compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to: (i) adequately protect the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members; (ii) warn Plaintiff and Class Members of Defendant's inadequate information security practices; (iii) effectively secure hardware containing protected Private Information using reasonable and adequate security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents; and (iv) timely notify Plaintiff and Class Members of the Data Breach. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for: negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract. Plaintiff Jason Moreno is a citizen and resident of Lake Worth, Texas. Defendant Lumexa Imaging, Inc. is one of the nation's largest providers of outpatient diagnostic imaging services.{BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott C. Harris, Esq. S. Michael Dunn, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS, SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 E-mail: sharris@brysonpllc.com mdunn@brysonpllc.com - and - James E. Cecchi, Esq. Jason H. Alperstein, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com jalperstein@carellabyrne.com MARATHON PETROLEUM: Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STELLA JOHNSON, EDWENNIA PETTIGREW and SHAWN R. MOTON, V. MARATHON PETROLEUM CORPORATION and MARATHON PETROLEUM COMPANY LP, Case No. 2:23-cv-04573-DJP-JVM (E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting Duhe Plaintiffs' ex parte/consent motion to join in Johnson Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs, Rachel Duhe and Kimeyan Alexander, individually and on behalf of a class of all of those similarly situated (the "Duhe Plaintiffs") move to join the motion for class certification filed by the Plaintiffs Stella Johnson, Edwennia Pettigrew, and Shawn R. Moton (the "Johnson Plaintiffs") and adopt their arguments as their own because the arguments in the Johnson Plaintiffs' motion apply equally to the Duhe Plaintiffs. Marathon is an American petroleum refining, marketing, and transportation company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=472amK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kerry J. Miller, Esq. Paul C. Thibodeaux, Esq. Daniel J. Dysart, Esq. C. Hogan Paschal, Esq. Brennan F. O'Keefe, Esq. MILLER THIBODEAUX DYSART VEITH & PASCHAL, LLC 643 Magazine Street, Suite 405 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 586-5252 Facsimile: (504) 586-5250 E-mail: kmiller@mtdvp.com pthibodeax@mtdvp.com ddysart@mtdvp.com hpaschal@mtdvp.com bokeefe@mtdvp.com - and - Hugh Lambert, Esq. Brian Mersman, Esq. LAMBERT ZAINEY SMITH & SOSO, APLC 701 Magazine Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 581-1750 Facsimile: (504) 529-2931 E-mail: hlambert@lambertzainey.com bmersman@lambertzainey.com - and - Cayce C. Peterson, Esq. Joseph B. Marino, III, Esq. Jeffrey P. Green, Esq. JJC LAW LLC 111 Veterans Memorial Blvd. Heritage Plaza, Suite 810 Metairie, LA 70005 Telephone: (504) 513-8820 Facsimile: (504) 513-8824 E-mail: cayce@jjclaw.com josh@jjclaw.com jeff@jjclaw.com - and - Sylvia Elaine Taylor, Esq. Alicia McDowell, Esq. TAYLOR & MCDOWELL LAW 1935 W. Airline Hwy LaPlace, LA 70068 Telephone: (985) 359-9100 Facsimile: (985) 359-9109 E-mail: sylvia@taymclaw.com alicia@taymclaw.com MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: 9th Cir. Tosses Brown's Severance Order Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PATRICE E. BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE; AMANDA M. PARKER; B. NOELLE JENSEN; ANDREA L. KEVER; COUNTY OF MARICOPA; STATE OF ARIZONA; JOSEPH KREAMER; TIMOTHY J. RYAN; CHRISTOPHER J. O'NEIL; RENEE T. BENNETT; GARY J. COHEN; JOHN R. HANNAH; JAY ADLEMAN; MICHAEL C. BLAIR; Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 23-15141 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed Brown's appeal of the district court's order severing a class action for lack of jurisdiction. Brown, proceeding pro se, appealed the district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motion, which challenged the order severing a class action in which he was the lead plaintiff. The Ninth Circuit held that a severance order is not a final judgment because it creates a new and independent case. Accordingly, it concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal and dismissed it. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://sl1nk.com/s6gfy8b MASTER LOCK: Miller Balks at Mislabeled "Pick Resistant" Padlocks ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES MILLER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MASTER LOCK COMPANY LLC and FORTUNE BRANDS INNOVATIONS, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-03081-JO-SBC (S.D. Cal., May 15, 2026) is a putative class action complaint on behalf of Plaintiff and other similarly situated consumers who purchased Defendants' Master Lock 140 line of "pick resistant" padlocks pursuant to the California's Unfair Competition Act, the California's False Advertising Law, and the California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act. According to the complaint, each product within the line is accompanied by a score on the left side of the packaging indicating how pick-resistant the product is, from one to ten, with each of the products being listed as a 4 out of 10. On websites like Amazon, and on the product packaging, the Defendants affirmatively claim the products are "pick resistant" and contain a "4-pin cylinder" which "prevents picking." The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants' products have zero pick-resistance and are shockingly easy to pick. In other words, Defendants' products are not pick resistant in the slightest, and Defendants' claims to consumers to the contrary are objectively false and misleading. By any reasonable metric, the Defendants' products provide zero resistance to picking, says the Plaintiff. Master Lock Company LLC is an American company that sells padlocks, combination locks, safes, and related security products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Luke W. Sironski-White, Esq. Joshua B. Glatt, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com lsironski@bursor.com jglatt@bursor.com MATHIS HOLDING: Faces Cole Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- MORGAN COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mathis Holding, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-04125-SLD-RLH (C.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://mathishome.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by PLaintiff Cole and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On November 17, 2025, the Plaintiff was searching for home furnishings when he discovered the Defendant's website. To learn more, Cole reviewed customer feedback and decided to explore the available offerings. After browsing, he became interested in rugs and attempted to make a purchase. However, while navigating the Website using his screen reader, Plaintiff Cole encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented him from completing his purchase. According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff Cole and visually impaired individuals using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading hierarchy, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. Plaintiff Cole seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Mathis Holding, Inc. operates the website that offers a range of home and furniture items, including sofas, recliners, dining tables, beds, mattresses, outdoor patio sets, rugs, lighting, home décor, bedding, bath items, kitchenware, and kids furniture.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (718) 554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law MEDTRONIC INC: Riley Sues Over Inadequate Data Security Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- LISA RILEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDTRONIC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-02663 (D. Minn., May 19, 2026) is a class action involving the unauthorized access and exfiltration of highly sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively "Private Information") belonging to nine million individuals, including Plaintiff and Class Members. The complaint relates that during the ordinary course of business, Defendant receives and stores the PII and PHI of its patients, customers, and employees, including Plaintiff and Class Members, on its computers and networks. On April 24, 2026, Defendant announced that cybercriminals had exploited critical vulnerabilities in its data security, resulting in a ransomware attack which allowed for unauthorized data access and exfiltration. Defendant publicly acknowledged the Data Breach but has not provided any notice of the Data Breach to affected individuals. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff has suffered numerous injuries, including invasion of privacy, lost time and expenses mitigating the risk of data misuse, the diminution in value of her Private Information, and loss of the benefit of her bargain with Defendant. Plaintiff and Class Members are additionally exposed to a significant and continued risk of future harm, including fraud and identity theft, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action to hold Defendant accountable for its data security failures, to enjoin Defendant's continued failure to implement basic and fundamental data security practices, and to recover damages and all other relief available at law on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals. Plaintiff Lisa Riley resides in Sherburne County, Minnesota, and she is a patient of Defendant. Defendant Medtronic, Inc. is the world's largest medical technology company, serving more than 79 million patients worldwide each year.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Michelle Drake, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Telephone: 612-594-5933 Facsimile: 612-584-4470 E-mail: emdrake@bergermontague.com - and - James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1200 17th Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Facsimile: (202) 540-7201 E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com MICAH HAMILTON: Kovacs Balks at Toxic Consumer Products' Exposure ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER KOVACS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MICAH HAMILTON CHIROPRACTIC INC., d/b/a SOUTH OC CHIROPRACTIC, Defendants, Case No. 8:26-cv-01222 (C.D. Cal., May 15, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, the False Advertising Act, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and the Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiff brings this class action against Defendant Micah Hamilton Chiropractic seeking remedies for Defendant's practice of employing fragrance in it facilities -- despite Defendant's knowledge of the discriminatory effect of these practices. The Defendant claims to offer medical facilities to the general public, including Representative Plaintiff, and markets its facilities as being available equally to all members of that public, and yet, engages in practices that prohibit a substantial segment of that public (i.e., chemically sensitive disabled individuals) from the same benefits and opportunities of those facilities afforded to other individuals. Despite actual or constructive knowledge of the toxic properties of Synthetic fragranced consumer products, the Defendant flooded its common and private areas with said products, thereby showering unsuspecting customers, employees, guests and/or patrons with substances known to cause respiratory problems, headaches, skin irritation, and adverse gastrointestinal, cardiovascular and cognitive reactions. Representative Plaintiff asserts Defendant had, and continues to have, a consistent policy of releasing Synthetic fragranced consumer products upon individuals as they enter Defendant's facilities. Allegedly, by the time these unsuspecting customers, employees, guests and/or patrons are aware of the pervasive scents/toxins, it is simply too late as the toxins are ingested, have landed upon the skin, have entered the lungs and, thus, entered these victims' bloodstreams and targeted various organs/systems, alleges the suit. Micah Hamilton Chiropractic Inc. is a business that maintains medical facilities open to the public.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edward Cole, Esq. Laura G. Van Note, Esq. Mark T. Freeman, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 Facsimile: (510) 891-7030 E-mail: sec@colevannote.com lvn@colevannote.com mtf@colevannote.com MISS ELAINE: Walker Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- LEAH WALKER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Miss Elaine, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-5902 (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://misselaine.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Walker and other blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Walker's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The complaint relates that Walker has made an attempt to complete a purchase on the Website on April 24, 2026. However, Walker encountered multiple accessibility barriers while browsing the website. The Website contains access barriers that deny full and equal access to Walker. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against Walker 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. Walker 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 Leah Walker is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant Miss Elaine, 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 women's sleepwear and loungewear, including nightgowns, pajama sets, and robes, complemented by various styles and fabrications.[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 MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC: Class Settlement in Thomas Gets Final Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON THOMAS, et al., v. MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC AUTOMOTIVE AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00422-DRC (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Cole entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of class action settlement, and accepting the proposed settlement agreement. The Court GRANTS the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for attorneys' fees, expenses, and class representative service awards. Specifically, the Court awards class counsel attorneys' fees of $171,666.67 and $9,218.81 in costs and expenses, and awards $10,000 to Jason Thomas and $2,500 to Joseph Horner as service awards. The Court directs the Clerk to enter judgment and to terminate this case on its docket. The Plaintiffs allege that Mitsubishi employed a rounding policy where the system would round the time an employee clocked in or out to the official start or end time of that employee's shift. For settlement purposes, the parties agreed to a class consisting of: "All Mason, Ohio Settlement Class Employees and Maysville, Kentucky Settlement Class Employees." Those groups are further defined as: "All non-exempt employees of Mitsubishi who worked at its facility in Mason, Ohio at any point from Oct. 24, 2021 to May 11, 2024," or who likewise worked at the Maysville, Kentucky plant during the same period." The Court conditionally certified that class when it preliminarily approved the settlement. The Defendant is a large manufacturer of automobile parts and systems. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Icoi8s at no extra charge.[CC] MOLTON BROWN: Battle Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users --------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE BATTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Molton Brown USA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05650 (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://www.moltonbrown.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On April 16, 2026, Plaintiff Battle searched online for a men's eau de parfum. While searching for brands, he discovered the Defendant's website, reviewed customer feedback from customers, and decided to explore the available fragrance offerings. However, while navigating the website using his assistive technology, Battle encountered multiple accessibility barriers that prevented him from completing his intended purchase. The website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy, inadequate focus order, changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Molton Brown USA LLC operates the website that offers fragrance products, as well as bath, body, and personal care products, and related home fragrance items.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OH: Class Cert Hearing Set for June 10 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUMMIT SUN INVESTMENTS, LLC, v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Case No. 3:24-cv-00031-MJN (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Michael J. Newman entered an order setting the deadlines and hearing date as follows: Event Deadline Parties to exchange proposed joint May 29, 2026 exhibits: Parties to exchange proposed May 29, 2026 stipulations of fact: Parties to submit to the Court joint June 3, 2026 exhibits, individual exhibits (as necessary) and joint and individual (as necessary) stipulations of fact: Hearing on class certification: June 10, 2026 at 9:30 A.M. The Defendant serves as the executive and legislative authority for the county. A copy of the Court's order dated May 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YfSTZ5 at no extra charge.[CC] NATIONAL RURAL: Appeals Class Certification Order in Mullins Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- NATIONAL RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled John Mullins, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00994-MSN-IDD, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act including breach of duties of loyalty and prudence, prohibited transactions with a party in interest, prohibited transactions with a fiduciary, failure to monitor fiduciaries, and co-fiduciary liability. On Jan. 29, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff granted on May 1, 2026. The Court certifies the following class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3): All participants and beneficiaries of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association 401(k) Pension Plan who were charged administrative fees from August 1, 2020, through the date of judgment. The appellate case is captioned as National Rural Electric Cooperative Association v. John Mullins, Case No. 26-165, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on May 18, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents JOHN MULLINS, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Sterling Cluff, Esq. Kelsey Elling, Esq. David Fernandes, Esq. Isaac Miller, Esq. Roland Tellis, Esq. BARON & BUDD, PC 15910 Ventura Boulevard Encino, CA 91436 - and - Noah Matthew Rich, Esq. BARON & BUDD, PC 2600 Virginia Avenue NW Washington, DC 20037 Defendants-Petitioners NATIONAL RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, et al. are represented by: James Fleckner, Esq. Jesse Aaron Lempel, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP 100 Northern Avenue Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 570-1000 (617) 570-1508 - and - Jaime Ann Santos, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP 1900 N. Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 346-4000 NEW YORK CITY HEALTH: O'Connor Files Suit Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- DENEICE O'CONNOR, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 26-4191 (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected health information and personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network, including, without limitation, Health insurance information, Medical information, Biometric information, Billing, Social Security numbers, etc. (collectively referred to as "protected health information" or "PHI" and "personally identifiable information" or "PII"). The complaint relates that as a condition of receiving health care services from NYCHHC, Plaintiff Deneice O'Connor was required to provide her Private Information to Defendant, including her name, social security number, and full health and financial information. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals. While Defendant claims to have discovered a breach on its system as early as February 2, 2026, Defendant did not inform victims of the Data Breach until March 24, 2026. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff suffered lost time, annoyance, interference, and inconvenience and has anxiety and increased concerns for the loss of privacy, as well as anxiety over the impact of cybercriminals accessing, using, and selling Representative Plaintiff's PHI/PII. Plaintiff suffered imminent and impending injury arising from the substantially increased risk of fraud, identity theft, and misuse resulting from their PHI/PII, in combination with her names, being placed in the hands of unauthorized third parties/criminals. The Plaintiff, therefore, seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause Plaintiff and, at least, 1.8 million other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack. Plaintiff Deneice O'Connor is a former patient of Defendant. Defendant New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (NYCHHC) is the largest public health system in the United States and provides healthcare to over a million New Yorkers, the majority of whom are uninsured or receive state healthcare benefits, such as Medicaid.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Dapeer, Esq. 156 W 56th St #902 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (917) 456-9603 E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com - and - Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N Camden Dr, Ste 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com - and - M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. Brandon P. Jack, Esq. EMERY REDDY BERRY, PC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: 916-823-6955 Facsimile: 206-441-9711 E-mail: anderson@emeryreddy.com gregory@emeryreddy.com brandon@emeryreddy.com NEW YORK, NY: Brady Action Referred to Magistrate Judge ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brady v. New York City Health And Hospitals Corporation, Case No. 1:26-cv-04265-DEH-OTW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ho entered an order referring the action to the assigned Magistrate Judge for the following purpose(s): -- General Pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pre-trial motions, and settlement). -- Specific Non-dispositive motion/dispute: Class certification The Defendant operates the public hospitals and clinics in New York City as a public benefit corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated May 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qbFVqz at no extra charge.[CC] NUTRIEN LTD: Unfairly Controls US Fertilizer Supply Chain, Ray Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- STEVE RAY, JEFF MCGREW and PATTY MCGREW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NUTRIEN LTD.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC.; THE MOSAIC COMPANY; MOSAIC FERTILIZER, LLC; MOSAIC CANADA CROP NUTRITION, LP; CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES NITROGEN, LLC; CF INDUSTRIES INC.; KOCH AG & ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER WEVER, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER BEATRICE, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER DODGE CITY, LLC; KOCH FERTILIZER CANADA, ULC; YARA INTERNATIONAL ASA; YARA NORTH AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1–20, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02300 (D. Kan., May 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for collectively controlling the American fertilizer supply chain. The complaint relates that beginning in 2021 and continuing through the present, Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix, raise, and maintain fertilizer prices at supracompetitive levels and to restrict supply in order to sustain those prices. The result was predictable and documented: fertilizer prices tripled, quadrupled, and in some products quintupled from their 2020 baseline, generating record profits for each Defendant while imposing catastrophic input cost increases on American farmers. The overcharges suffered by Plaintiffs and the proposed Class are paradigmatic antitrust injury--i.e., injury of the type that federal antitrust laws were meant to redress, adds the complaint. This case seeks to hold Defendants accountable for the billions of dollars they unlawfully extracted from American agriculture, and to restore for the farmers the benefits of the competitive market conditions to which they are entitled under federal law. The Plaintiffs and members of the Class seek treble damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs are the class of American farmers and agricultural purchasers who directly purchased Fertilizer Products manufactured by Defendants at artificially inflated prices from January 1, 2021 through the present (the "Class Period"). Each Defendant is engaged in the manufacture and commercialization of nitrogenous fertilizers, offering overlapping product lines to farmers throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Terrence J. Campbell, Esq. BARBER EMERSON, L.C. 1211 Massachusetts Street P.O. Box 667 Lawrence, KS 66044 Telephone: (785) 843-6600 Facsimile: (785) 843-8405 E-mail: tcampbell@barberemerson.com - and - Christopher M. Burke, Esq. BURKE LLP 402 West Broadway, Suite 1890 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 369-8244 E-mail: cburke@burke.law - and - Patrick McGahan, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 156 S Main Street P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Telephone: (860) 537-5537 Facsimile: (860) 537-4432 E-mail: pmcgahan@scott-scott.com - and - Vincent Briganti, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com OCMBC INC: Hudson-Bryant Bid for Class Certification Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kimberly Hudson-Bryant v. OCMBC Inc., Case No. 8:24-cv-00067-FWS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Accordingly, the hearing set for June 18, 2026, is vacated and off calendar. The court finds Plaintiff has not carried her burden to show that she is typical of the class she seeks to represent under Rule 23(a)(3) or that she can adequately protect the classes' interests under Rule 23(a)(4) because the major focus of the trial in this case will be on issues, defenses, and evidence unique to the Plaintiff, to the class's detriment. Because the Court finds that the Plaintiff's claims are not typical of the class's claims and that [she] cannot adequately represent the class, the court need not determine whether the other Rule 23(a) and (b) requirements are met. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following class: "All persons in the United States who, from August 2021 through June 2022, (1) were on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days, (2) and who received more than one telephone call from the LoanStream calling campaign, as evidenced in the calling data produced by LizDev in this lawsuit, (3) within any 12-month period (4) as identified in the Expert Report of Aaron Woolfson." Ocmbc provides mortgage services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PCPcAU at no extra charge.[CC] PLAYDOG SOFT: Schramm Sues Over Illegal Gambling Game ----------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA SCHRAMM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PLAYDOG SOFT CO., LTD., a foreign corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-05514 (W.D. Wash., May 15, 2026) seeks to obtain redress for Defendant's operation of illegal gambling game and unfair competition. After losing his initial allocation of free coins, the Plaintiff began purchasing coins from Defendant for use in Vegas Live Slots Casino. The made multiple purchases in Vegas Live Slots Casino from Washington, which Defendant accepted. The Plaintiff lost the coins he purchased from Defendant by wagering them in the casino games in Vegas Live Slots. By operating Vegas Live Slots Casino, the Defendant has violated Washington and other states' laws and illegally profited from thousands of consumers. Accordingly, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and a Class of similarly situated individuals, brings this lawsuit to recover their losses. Headquartered in South Korea, PlayDog Soft Co., Ltd. develops, operates, and publishes Vegas Live Slots, including activities related to the slot machines and sale of virtual coins. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Omer Salik, Esq. CARTER ARNETT PLLC 8150 N. Central Expressway, Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (214) 550-8183 E-mail: osalik@carterarnett.com PROVIDENCE HOMEOWNERS: Oral Hearing on Continued to July 20 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEWANNA JOHNSON ET AL., v. PROVIDENCE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, FIRSTSERVICE RESIDENTIAL TEXAS, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00418-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the Parties' motion for continuance of oral hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The oral hearing scheduled for June 8, 2026, on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is continued to Monday, July 20, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in the Paul Brown United States Courthouse, 101 E. Pecan, Sherman, Texas 75090. Providence governs over 2,250 homes in the town of Providence Village, a suburb about an hour north of Dallas. A copy of the Court's order dated May 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vBINQd at no extra charge.[CC] RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Curry Suit Seeks Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Timmieo Curry, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Raytheon Bargaining Retirement Plan; Raytheon Technologies Corporation, Case No. 4:22-cv-00129-JAS (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion for class certification and motion for leave to amend complaint to conform to class definition. The Plaintiff moves to certify the following class of similarly situated participants in the Raytheon Bargaining Retirement Plan ("Plan"): "All vested participants under the contributory part of the Plan and, if deceased, their surviving spouses or beneficiaries, who incurred a separation from service under the Plan prior to retirement, withdrew their employee contributions following their separation from service prior to retirement, and did not repay their withdrawn contributions." The Plaintiff seeks certification of this class for purposes of the claims challenging the Defendants' imposition of offsets and reduction of benefits with respect to the Plaintiff and putative class members' withdrawn contributions as asserted in Counts I, II, III and IV of the First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). The Plaintiff further moves to be appointed as class representative and for the law firm of Martin & Bonnett, P.L.L.C. to be appointed as class counsel. Because the Plaintiff's proposed Class is slightly different than the class identified in the FAC, the Plaintiff is also seeking to amend the Complaint to conform to the class definition. There is no deadline for amending the complaint and accordingly, Rule 15's liberal amendment rules are applicable. Raytheon is an American multinational aerospace and defense conglomerate. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fOtrKJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Susan Martin, Esq. Jennifer Kroll, Esq. Michael M. Licata, Esq. MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C. 4647 N. 32nd Street, Suite 185 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Telephone: (602) 240-6900 E-mail: smartin@martinbonnett.com jkroll@martinbonnett.com mlicata@martinbonnett.com RESEARCH TRIANGLE: Bid for Class Certification Due Oct. 1 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PHILIP SCHWAB, v. RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE, d/b/a RTI International, Case No. 1:25-cv-00481-LAF-JEP (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Peake entered an order modifying the Parties' Rule 26(f) Reports with a deadline of Aug. 31, 2026, for the close of Phase I discovery, and a deadline of Aug. 31, 2026, for mediation. If the Parties do not notify the Court of their selection of a mediator by June 4, 2026, the Clerk's Office will select a mediator. The Court further entered an order that the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and the Defendant's motion for summary judgment on site-of-employment issues will be due on Oct. 1, 2026, with responses due on Nov. 2, 2026, and replies due of Nov. 16, 2026. The Parties must file a Supplemental Rule 26(f) Report regarding Phase II of discovery within 14 days after a ruling on the Motion for Class Certification and Motion for Discovery. The Court adopts the Parties' Local Rule 5.5 Report. The case is set for a status conference on July 23, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. The Parties shall file a Joint Status Report by July 16, 2026. RTI provides research and technical services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BRN9Xp at no extra charge.[CC] ROBERT DAWSON: Sharif Seeks to Continue Hearing Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN SHARIF, as an individual and derivatively on behalf of INTREPID STUDIOS, INC., v. ROBERT DAWSON, RYAN OGDEN, THERESA FETTE, AARON BARTELS, TFE GAMES HOLDING LLC, and JASON CARAMANIS, Case No. 3:26-cv-00965-LL-MMP (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court ex parte for an Order continuing the hearing and briefing deadlines on the parties' Receiver Motions as follows, or on such dates as are convenient for the Court: 1. On or before June 25, 2026, the Plaintiff shall file his consolidated reply to the Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for receiver and opposition to the Defendants' counter-motion for appointment of limited receiver in a combined brief no longer than 25 pages; 2. On or before July 2, 2026, the Defendants shall file their reply to the Plaintiff's opposition to the Defendant's counter-motion for appointment of limited receiver in a brief no longer than 10 pages. 3. The hearing date for the motion and counter-motion shall be July 9, 2026. Good cause exists to continue the hearing and related briefing deadlines on the Motions. The Motions may be mooted if the parties are able to resolve their disputes during the ENE, which is scheduled for June 12, 2026—the day after the June 11, 2026 hearing date for the Motions. On April 14, 2026, the Plaintiff filed his motion for receiver and an ex parte motion to shorten time for consideration of his motion for receiver. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0GrtVv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica Nall, Esq. Leslie Evans, Esq. Jordan W. Garman, Esq. WITHERS BERGMAN LLP 909 Montgomery Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94133 Telephone: (415) 872-3200 E-mail: Jessica.Nall@withersworldwide.com Leslie.Evans@withersworldwide.com Jordan.Garman@withersworldwide.com RYSE UP: Ruchman Files False Ad Suit Over Ryse Clear Protein Drink ------------------------------------------------------------------ DANIEL RUCHMAN, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RYSE UP SPORTS NUTRITION LLC, a Texas limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-05434 (C.D. Cal., May 21, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant alleging that its Ryse Clear Protein Drinks, which are manufactured, packaged, labeled, advertised, distributed, and sold by Defendant, are misbranded and falsely advertised because the Products contain less grams of protein than is claimed on the Products' labels. The complaint relates the the Plaintiff consumes protein supplements to ensure he gets enough protein in his diet, in order to maintain his weight and meet fitness goals. Plaintiff reviewed the front label and Nutrition Facts panel on the Defendant's Products prior to his purchase, and reviewed the statements regarding protein being made there. Consumers such as Plaintiff who viewed the Products' labels reasonably understood the Products to contain 22 grams of protein per drink. However, these representations were false. Consumers including Plaintiff reasonably relied on these label statements such that they would not have purchased the Products from Defendant if the truth about the Products was known, or would have only been willing to pay a substantially reduced price for the Products had they known that Defendant's representations were false and misleading. In the alternative, because of its deceptive and false labeling statements, Defendant charged a premium for the Products relative to key competitors' products, or relative to the average price charged in the marketplace. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff suffered economic injury by Defendant's fraudulent and deceptive conduct, and there is a causal nexus between Defendant's deceptive conduct and Plaintiff's injuries. The Plaintiff seeks disgorgement of Defendant's ill-gotten gains and restitution of Defendant's wrongful profits, revenue, and benefits, to the extent, and in the amount, deemed appropriate by the Court, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper to remedy Defendant's unjust enrichment. Plaintiff Daniel Ruchman is a citizen of the state of California domiciled in Ventura, California. He purchased the Defendant's product on January 8, 2026 from a Vitamin Shoppe store in Thousand Oaks, California. Defendant Ryse Up Sports Nutrition LLC has its principal place of business in Prosper, Texas. All decisions regarding formulation, labeling, and advertising of the Products are made at this principal place of business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles C. Weller, Esq. CHARLES C. WELLER, APC 11412 Corley Court San Diego, CA 92126 Telephone: 858-414-7465 Facsimile: 858-300-5137 E-mail: legal@cweller.com SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Bid for Class Certification Due Oct. 16 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement System, v. The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-03132-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Vascura entered a preliminary pretrial order as follows: -- The parties have agreed to make initial disclosures by May 22, 2026. -- Motions or stipulations addressing the parties or pleadings, if any, must be filed no later than Feb. 5, 2027. -- The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification must be filed no later than Oct. 16, 2026. The Defendants' opposition brief must be filed no later than Jan. 13, 2027. The Plaintiffs' reply brief must be filed no later than Feb. 24, 2027. -- Primary expert reports, if any, must be produced by Oct. 13, 2027. Rebuttal expert reports, if any, must be produced by Dec. 15, 2028. Expert depositions must be completed by Feb. 1, 2028. -- Case dispositive motions must be filed by March 10, 2028. The case alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and is brought on behalf of a proposed class of: "All purchasers or acquirors of Scotts Miracle-Gro Company common stock between May 5, 2021 and Aug. 1, 2023, inclusive, who were damaged thereby (the "Class")." Scotts is a manufacturer of lawn-and garden-care products. A copy of the Court's order dated May 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2LVA18 at no extra charge.[CC] SELENE FINANCE: Endland Must File Class Cert Bid by July 10 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTEL ENGLAND, KAREN MEYERS, and ANGELA JOYNER-PERRY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. SELENE FINANCE, LP, Case No. 1:23-cv-00847-TDS-JEP (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Peake entered an order extending the time to file motion for class certification as follows: -- All other deadlines remain as previously set, including the discovery deadline of Sept. 4, 2026. -- The dispositive motion deadline of Oct. 2, 2026. -- The Plaintiffs shall have up to and including July 10, 2026, to file motion for class certification. All other deadlines remain as previously set. Selene operates as a residential mortgage company. A copy of the Court's order dated May 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4zlmUz at no extra charge.[CC] SIMPLENURSING LLC: Benson Appeals Suit Dismissal to 3rd Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- FAITH BENSON is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her lawsuit entitled Faith Benson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SimpleNursing LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01118, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought to redress the Defendant's practices of knowingly disclosing the Plaintiff's and its other customers' identities and their purchases of subscriptions to access prerecorded video content to Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc., in violation of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act. On Jan. 17, 2025, the Plaintiff filed first amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim on Feb. 14, 2025. On Apr. 17, 2026, Judge Gregory B. Williams entered an Order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice. The Court concludes that SimpleNursing's disclosures to Meta and TikTok of its customers' subscription purchases do not violate the VPPA. The appellate case is styled as Faith Benson v. SimpleNursing LLC, Case No. 26-2246, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on May 20, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant FAITH BENSON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: Robert G. Dick, IV, Esq. Kevin D. Levitsky, Esq. Dean R. Roland, Esq. COOCH & TAYLOR 1000 N. West Street, Suite 1500 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 984-3867 (302) 984-3851 Defendant-Appellee SIMPLENURSING LLC is represented by: Michael C. Heyden, Jr., Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI 824 N. Market Street, Suite 200 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 992-8954 STANDARD INSURANCE: Livingston Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty ----------------------------------------------------------------- DERYCK LIVINGSTON, Plaintiff v. STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY and RHODE ISLAND SCHOOL OF DESIGN, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-00309-MRD-PAS (D.R.I., May 15, 2026) is brought by the Plaintiff asserting a breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act against Defendants as a beneficiary of an individual participant of the ERISA statutory scheme (the "Plan") and on behalf of all other similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the plans. On January 29, 2025, Plaintiff's wife, Serena Livingston, passed away from Glioblastoma, an extremely aggressive form of brain cancer. Prior to her death, Serena was employed by Rhode Island School of Design as its Director of Gift Administration and Recording Secretary. Serena was insured under the Plans and Defendants were responsible for the administration and handling of Plaintiff's claim for benefits under the Plan. While the Plan was in full force and effect, Decedent Serena Livingston died and Plaintiff became entitled to receive life insurance benefits under the Plan. Standard Insurance, however, refuses and continues to refuse to make payment to Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has appealed this denial and exhausted administrative remedies. The Defendants' refusal to pay Plaintiff violates the terms of the Plan and applicable law. The Defendants are liable for all benefits due under the Plan which have been improperly withheld from Plaintiff. As a proximate result of Defendants' actions, the Plaintiff has been deprived of life insurance benefits to which he was and is entitled, and has suffered damages, says the suit. Standard Insurance Company is an American insurance and financial company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles S. Beal, Esq. BEAL LAW, LLC 57 Narragansett Avenue Jamestown, RI 02835 Telephone: (401) 270-6200 E-mail: cbeal@beallawllc.com SUPPLEMENT WAREHOUSE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, See Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- AARON SEE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Supplement Warehouse LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01005-MPB-KMB (S.D. Ind., May 15, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://supplementwarehouse.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. Despite readily available accessible technology, the Defendant has chosen to rely on an exclusively visual interface that provides no meaningful accommodations for Screen reader-users such as Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Based in Bolingbrook, IL, Supplement Warehouse LLC owns and operates the website which sells sports nutrition and health supplements, including protein powders, pre-workout formulas, creatine products, vitamins and minerals, and meal replacement formulas. [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 TALL TIMBERS: Smith Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stacie Smith, v. Tall Timbers Pizza Hut, Inc., Case No. 6:24-cv-00349-JCB-JDL (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge J. Campbell Barker entered an order certifying a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Specifically, plaintiff asks the court to (1) order defendant to turn over the contact information for the proposed collective, (2) "certify" that the proposed collective is similarly situated, and (3) approve the notice that plaintiff intends to send to the proposed class. Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion for preapproval of the plaintiff's communications to potential coplaintiffs and discovery into their identity is denied. Instead, the court will manage the opt-in process by setting a deadline for any putative coplaintiffs to opt into this case. That deadline is set as Aug. 10, 2026. Furthermore, the court defers ruling on whether the proposed collective is similarly situated until the opt-in deadline has passed and the identity of putative coplaintiffs, if any, is known. So ordered by the court on May 26, 2026. The Plaintiff has not convinced the court why it should exercise its discretion to take an active role in notifying potential plaintiffs of this action. As such, the plaintiff's request for the court to send notice to potential plaintiffs is denied. Finally, the plaintiff's request for discovery is denied. The Plaintiff admits that she intends to use the requested information to recruit new litigants rather than prove her own claims. The Plaintiff, a former pizza delivery driver, alleges that the defendant failed to pay her and other employees the federally mandated minimum wage. Tall is a local franchise of Pizza Hut. A copy of the Court's order dated May 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qF4dwC at no extra charge.[CC] TCL NORTH: Rosenberg et al. Sue Over Invasion of Privacy -------------------------------------------------------- DAVID ROSENBERG, MAE MOORE, HOLLY WINSTON, SHELBY COOPER, SHARI ETCHEBARREN, and INDIA PRICE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TCL NORTH AMERICA INC, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-04629 (N.D. Cal., May 15, 2026), seeks to redress Defendant's invasion of Plaintiffs' privacy and Defendant's interception, disclosure, and monetization of Plaintiffs' communications and personal information without informed consent. The case concerns Defendant's use of Automatic Content Recognition technology in its TCL Smart TV. The viewing data and persistent identifiers Defendant captures from each TCL Smart TV are transmitted in real time and near-real time to a network of corporate recipients including Roku, Inc.; Google LLC, Amazon.com Services LLC and Amazon Advertising LLC, and SpringServe, LLC. Each of these recipients independently captures, processes, and uses Plaintiffs' and Class Members' intercepted communications and identifiers to construct cross-device household identity graphs, target individual consumers across devices for advertising, and resell the resulting audience products to advertisers, agencies, data brokers, and identity-resolution providers. In addition, the same data is, or can be, transferred to or accessed by TCL's parents and affiliates in the People's Republic of China, which under Chinese law can be compelled to deliver that data to the Chinese government and the Chinese Communist Party on demand. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek to remedy these harms and to assert claims against Defendant for invasion of privacy (intrusion upon seclusion and public disclosure of private facts), invasion of privacy in violation of the California Constitution, violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, violation of the Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act, common-law negligence, common-law breach of implied contract, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, common-law unjust enrichment, and prospective injunctive and declaratory relief. TCL North America, Inc. is the United States operating arm of TCL Technology Group Corporation, a Chinese state-linked consumer-electronics conglomerate headquartered in Huizhou, Guangdong Province in the People's Republic of China. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Melisa A. Rosadini-Knott, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE LLP 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90010-1923 Telephone: (323) 982-4109 E-mail: mrosadini@peifferwolf.com TEXAS: Appeals Denied Motions to Strike & Dismiss in L.M.L. Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- FREEMAN F. MARTIN is taking an appeal from a court order denying his motion to strike and motion to dismiss in the lawsuit entitled L.M.L., et al., on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Freeman F. Martin, in his official capacity as Director of the State of Texas Department of Public Safety, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-1170, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The Plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated on May 4, 2026, to enjoin certain provisions of Senate Bill 4 (SB 4) on preemption grounds. On May 4, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction and a motion to certify class. On May 8, 2026, the Defendant filed a motion to strike the Plaintiffs' motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction declarations and a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. On May 12, 2026, the Defendant filed a motion to strike the Declaration of Talia Romo and exhibits thereto. On May 14, 2026, Judge David A. Ezra entered an Order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, granting in part and held in abeyance in part the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class, and denying the Defendants' motions to strike and motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs and provisional class members are at risk of suffering grave, irreparable harm were SB 4 to take effect in the form of arrests, prosecutions, and removals under a likely unlawful statute. The balance of equities thus unequivocally weighs in favor of denying the stay pending appeal. The appellate case is styled as L.M.L. v. Martin, Case No. 26-50418, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on May 20, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees L.M.L., et al., on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, are represented by: Cody Wofsy, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 425 California Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 343-0785 Defendant-Appellant FREEMAN F. MARTIN, in his official capacity as Director of the State of Texas Department of Public Safety, is represented by: Daniel Ortner, Esq. Monroe David Bryant, Jr., Esq. OFFICE OF THE TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL P.O. Box 12548 Austin, TX 78711 THERMOS LLC: Faces Moynihan Suit Over Defective Jars & Bottles -------------------------------------------------------------- Linda Moynihan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Thermos, L.L.C., Case No. 1:26-cv-06129 (N.D. Ill., May 26, 2026) is a class action arising from a dangerous design defect in certain Thermos-branded vacuum-insulated food jars and beverage bottles, including the Thermos Stainless King Food Jars and the Thermos Sportsman Food & Beverage Bottles. The Defendant designed, marketed, distributed, and sold the Products with a stopper that lacks an adequate pressure-relief mechanism, permitting internal pressure to build during ordinary and foreseeable use and causing the stopper to forcefully eject when the container is opened, posing a serious risk of impact injuries, lacerations, and eye injuries to consumers, the suit contends. On April 30, 2026, the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), together with Thermos, announced a recall of approximately 8.2 million Products -- approximately 5.8 million Stainless King Food Jars and approximately 2.3 million Sportsman Food & Beverage Bottles -- sold at major retailers nationwide, including Amazon, Target, and Walmart, and through Thermos.com, from approximately March 2008 through July 2024 for approximately $30 per unit. As of the Recall Notice, the Defendant had received at least 27 reports of incidents in which the stopper forcefully ejected from a Product and struck a consumer, including injuries requiring medical attention and reports of permanent vision loss. Per the Recall Notice, the Defendant offered only a single remedy: a free replacement lid. No cash refund -- partial or otherwise -- is available, even though the Defendant priced these Products at a substantial premium based on representations of durability, safety, and suitability for everyday consumer use. Moreover, the Defendant tucked its Recall Notice away in a remote corner of its website that few consumers are likely to encounter. The Recall is inadequate because it fails to offer any monetary relief whatsoever to Plaintiff and Class Members who purchased the defective Products, the suit adds. Ms. Moynihan is and was a resident and citizen of Wappingers Falls, New York, who purchased a recalled Product. Thermos or its subsidiaries are engaged in the design, manufacture, marketing, sale, and distribution of the recalled Products throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. Andreas E. Moffett, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, No. 10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 599-6072 E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com amoffett@laukaitislaw.com - and - Mason A. Barney, Esq. Leslie Pescia, Esq SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Ave., Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: mbarney@sirillp.com lpescia@sirillp.com TORRID LLC: Filing of Joint Status Report in Perez Due June 12 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Perez, et al., v. Torrid LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-06020 (W.D. Wash., Filed Nov. 14, 2025), the Hon. Judge David G. Estudillo entered an order directing the Parties to file a Joint Status Report with a briefing schedule as to Class Certification by June 12, 2026. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. Torrid is a direct-to-consumer retailer specializing in trendy plus-size women's fashion, intimates, and accessories.[CC] TRINITY HEALTH: Discloses Patients' Personal Info, Lagrand Says --------------------------------------------------------------- RAINA LAGRAND, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRINITY HEALTH MICHIGAN, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-11605-SKD-DRG (E.D. Mich., May 15, 2026) is a class action lawsuit arising from Defendant's collection and disclosure of members' and patients' sensitive health information and personal data to Google without prior written notice and informed consent, through tracking mechanisms embedded in its website, www.trinityhealth.org. Unbeknownst to website users, Trinity Health has knowingly implemented tracking technologies such as Google Analytics throughout its website. When website visitors research medical conditions, search for doctors or medical specialists, and research treatment locations, Trinity Health allows Google to collect sensitive personal health information, including automated, computer accessible records of members' medical interests, treatment-seeking behavior, and healthcare service inquiries. Google then utilizes the collected personal data to enhance its advertising technology and potentially target individuals with marketing based on their sensitive health information and website interactions, says the suit. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and bring causes of action to hold Trinity Health accountable for these privacy violations, to obtain appropriate remedies for affected individuals, and to prevent the continued unauthorized disclosure of records containing personal data through the hospital's website. Trinity Health is a faith-based health care provider with a network of health care centers providing health services throughout the state of Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David H. Fink, Esq. Nathan J. Fink, Esq. FINK BRESSACK 38500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 350 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (248) 971-2500 E-mail: dfink@finkbressack.com nfink@finkbressack.com - and - Katrina Carroll, Esq. Kyle Shamberg, Esq. CARROLL SHAMBERG LLC 200 N. LaSalle, Suite 1650 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (872) 215-6205 E-mail: katrina@csclassactions.com kyle@csclassactions.com - and - Don Bivens, Esq. DON BIVENS, PLLC 15169 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 205 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (602) 762-2661 E-mail: don@donbivens.com teresita@donbivens.com U.S. NEWS: Website Uses Tracking Technologies, Tasker Says ---------------------------------------------------------- JOHN TASKER, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-02736 (C.D. Cal., May 20, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for surreptitiously embedding and operating third-party tracking technologies on the website www.usnews.com that intercept the contents of users' electronic communications, including the page URLs reflecting what users are browsing, in real time and without notice or consent. The complaint relates that the Defendant intentionally deploys the technologies to accomplish its commercial objectives, including identity resolution, cross-session behavioral profiling, audience segmentation, and the monetization of users' browsing activity through targeted advertising and real-time bidding, in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"). During Plaintiff's use of the Website, Plaintiff navigated to multiple pages on the Website, unaware that Defendant was causing and permitting Third Parties to intercept the content of his communications and reveal his personal searches and content interests. The Defendant did not obtain express prior consent for the interception and transmission of the contents of users' communications for advertising, analytics, or monetization purposes, says the suit. For this reason, the Plaintiff and the Class seek injunctive relief, nominal damages, and all other relief authorized by law. Plaintiff JOHN TASKER was in California when he visited the Website, which occurred during the class period including on April 28, 2026. Defendant U.S. News & World Report, L.P. is a Delaware limited partnership that owns, operates, and controls the Website, an online news, education, health, and consumer-information platform through which U.S. News & World Report publishes news reporting, ranking and best-of guides for colleges and graduate schools, hospital and healthcare quality information, consumer rankings of automobiles, financial products, and travel destinations, and editorial coverage of national news, politics, and consumer interest topics for readers nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC P.O. Box 1989 #305 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Office: (562) 612-1708 E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com - and - Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Office: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com UNCLE ABIES: Pretrial Management Order Entered in Williams Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFERY WILLIAMS, v. UNCLE ABIES DELI ON FIRST INC., et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-03667-PAE-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management. All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. Parties and counsel are cautioned: Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court proceeding (including a telephonic court conference), or to extend a deadline, must be made in writing and in compliance with section 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Telephone requests for adjournments or extensions will not be entertained. The Defendant is A copy of the Court's order dated May 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g8NdsY at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Court Certifies Proposed 23(b)(3) Class ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHASE BOURQUE, et al., v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF STATE, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-06994-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Chen entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class as to the proposed 23(b)(3) class but denying as to the proposed 23(b)(2) class. The Department's motion to exclude Mr. McDonald's declaration is denied. The Plaintiffs may avoid paying the expedited passport fee in the future simply by submitting their renewal in advance of the expiration date. The Plaintiffs thus cannot show, beyond speculation, that they will need expedited passport processing in the future. Without this showing, they do not satisfy injunctive standing. Because the Plaintiffs lack injunctive standing, their motion to certify a class under 23(b)(2) is denied. The Plaintiffs have made an adequate showing that their damages are capable of calculation on a class wide basis. This is true with or without Mr. McDonald's declaration. The Department's motion to exclude the declaration of Plaintiffs' damages expert for purposes of Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify a Class is denied. The Plaintiffs allege that the U.S. Department of State has overcharged 37 million Americans for expedited passport fees in violation of the Little Tucker Act, and the Administrative Procedures Act. The Plaintiffs move to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(3) and (b)(2) of: "All persons who paid the expedited passport processing fee from Oct. 4, 2018 through the date of final judgment in this matter." US is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the nation’s presence into the Pacific Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated May 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8UtUJE at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Equal Means Equal Appeals Suit Dismissal to 1st Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- EQUAL MEANS EQUAL, d/b/a Heroica Foundation, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing the lawsuit entitled Equal Means Equal, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Donald J. Trump, in the official capacity as President of the United States, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-10806-WGY, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged civil rights violations. On June 17, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, which Judge William G. Young granted on Apr. 21, 2026. The Court rules that Equal Means Equal has not demonstrated associational standing as required by First Circuit precedent. Jacqueline Fenore has demonstrated individual standing on the basis of a stigmatic injury. The motion to dismiss as to Count I was allowed at the hearing. The motion to dismiss as to Count II is allowed as to Equal Means Equal due to its lack of standing, and allowed as to Plaintiff Fenore due to binding Supreme Court precedent foreclosing an equal protection claim against the Selective Service Act. The appellate case is styled as Equal Means Equal, et al. v. Trump, et al., Case No. 26-1596, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on May 20, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants EQUAL MEANS EQUAL, d/b/a Heroica Foundation, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Wendy J. Murphy, Esq. CHERYL A. JACQUES LAW OFFICE 717 Northampton St., Unit 72 Holyoke, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 699-3531 Defendants-Appellees DONALD J. TRUMP, in the official capacity as President of the United States, et al. are represented by: Abraham R. George, Esq. Donald Campbell Lockhart, Esq. U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 1 Courthouse Way, Ste. 9200 Boston, MA 02210 - and - Liam Holland, Esq. U.S. DEPT. OF JUSTICE P.O. Box 883 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Telephone: (202) 514-4964 UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs File Bid for Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.Z., et al., v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-01510-AHA (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the following class under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: "All noncitizens (i) who are or will be in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security; (ii) who have or will have pending applications for immigration relief within the exclusive or initial jurisdiction of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"); and (iii) for whom USCIS has not accepted or will not accept biometrics." In the alternative, the Plaintiffs move for provisional class certification for purposes of a stay under Section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act and a preliminary injunction. The Department of Homeland Security is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for public security. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GQb2og at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jennie L. Kneedler, Esq. Sean Ouellette, Esq. Alethea Anne Swift, Esq. Paul R.Q. Wolfson, Esq. Elena Goldstein, Esq. DEMOCRACY FORWARD FOUNDATION Washington, DC 20043 Telephone: (202) 322-1959 E-mail: jkneedler@democracyforward.org souellette@democracyforward.org aswift@democracyforward.org pwolfson@democracyforward.org egoldstein@democracyforward.org - and - Mary Georgevich, Esq. Keren Zwick, Esq. Richard Caldarone, Esq. Gerardo Romo, Esq. Nicole May, Esq. NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER 111 W. Jackson Blvd. Suite 800 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 660-1364 E-mail: mgeorgevich@immigrantjustice.org kzwick@immigrantjustice.org rcaldarone@immigrantjustice.org gromo@immigrantjustice.org nmay@immigrantjustice.org - and - Michelle N. Mendez, Esq. NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT 1763 Columbia Road NW Suite 175 #896645 Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (410) 929-4720 E-mail: michelle@nipnlg.org UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME: Loses Bid to Dismiss Suszka Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JIMMY SUSZKA, v. UNIVERSITY of NOTRE DAME DU LAC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00626-CCB-SJF (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Cristal C. Brisco entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss, and motion to strike class allegations from the complaint. Mr. Suszka does make specific allegations: that "by assessing and accepting the tuition and fees for the Spring semester, the University agreed to provide an in-person and on-campus education services" and that, by "retain[ing] the benefits of the amount of tuition and fees that Plaintiff and Class members have provided," Notre Dame was unjustly enriched. Dismissal of Mr. Suszka's unjust enrichment claim is not proper. On July 18, 2025, the Plaintiff Jimmy Suszka filed a class action lawsuit against the Defendant, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment resulting from the University's transition to remote education during the Spring 2020 semester. The Plaintiff Jimmy Suszka was a full-time undergraduate student enrolled at the Defendant Notre Dame Du Lac who registered for the Spring 2020 semester and paid the associated tuition and fees to attend. The Defendant is a private Catholic research university in Notre Dame, Indiana. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hzxytN at no extra charge.[CC] US TIGER: Failed to Keep Private Information Secure, Shill Says --------------------------------------------------------------- TAYLOR SHILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. US TIGER SECURITIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04241 (S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2026) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII" or "Private Information") that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and Class Members provided their Private Information to Defendant with the reasonable expectation and on the mutual understanding that Defendant would comply with its obligations to keep such information confidential and secure from unauthorized access. However, Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' Private Information secure. On May 15, 2026, Defendant sent Plaintiff a Notice of Data Breach. The Data Breach occurred during a cyberattack in July 2025. The following types of Private Information belonging to Plaintiff and Class Members: name and Social Security number. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals, the complaint alleges. Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information, says the suit. Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for: negligence; negligence per se; breach of implied contract; and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of herself, and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. Plaintiff Taylor Shill is a Data Breach victim residing in Blaine, Minnesota. Defendant US Tiger Securities, Inc. is a New York-based financial institution regulated by the SEC and FINRA that provides investment banking and brokerage services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Courtney Maccarone, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite. 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: maccarone@kolawyers.com VANGUARD PARKING: Tehan Sues Over Deceptive, Excessive Parking Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------- George Tehan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Vanguard Parking Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2026-CAB-003397 (Super. Ct., D.C., May 19, 2026) is a class action challenging Defendant's practice of issuing parking fines of over $90 to consumers who fail to register their vehicle information through a QR code -- a fine that was never disclosed to consumers and is disproportionate and excessive. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff and his wife resides in Maryland, but regularly visit the District to run errands, including shopping for groceries and household items. On January 29, 2026, they parked their vehicle in an underground parking garage managed by Vanguard in order to run errands at a nearby retail store. The Garage's entrance did not have a parking gate, nor did it include conspicuous signage providing notice regarding parking fees, conditions of parking (such as vehicle registration by QR code), or fines for failing to meet those conditions. Due to the lack of a parking gate and conspicuous signage, they entered the Garage believing no fees were required for parking. This confusing configuration has the effect of leading reasonable consumers to believe the parking garage is free of charge. Vanguard's configuration also fails to adequately disclose to reasonable consumers, the technical requirement of registering their vehicle using a QR code as a condition of parking, notes the complaint. Vanguard takes advantage of the resulting consumer confusion caused by this novel configuration by implementing an automated ticketing system to generate additional revenue in the form of parking fines. In February 2026, Plaintiff received from Vanguard a mailed parking ticket dated February 1, 2026, that imposed a fine of $90.10 for "failing to follow the contract terms set by the parking facility at the Garage." The Parking Ticket provided that the fine would increase to $125 after a due date set for a little over two weeks later on February 16, 2026. The Parking Ticket demonstrates that Vanguard uses automated cameras that records the time of entry and exit of consumers who use the Garage. The Plaintiff challenges such practices as unfair, deceptive, and unlawful under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act, says the suit. Plaintiff George Tehan and his wife are co-owners of a 2008 Kia Sedona. Defendant Vanguard Parking Solutions, Inc. transacts business in the District by managing parking lots and garages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randolph T. Chen, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street NE Washington DC 20002 Office: (202) 470-3520 Facsimile: (202) 800-2730 E-mail: rchen@classlawdc.com jrathod@classlawdc.com nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com VISA INC: Judgment in Interchange Fee Antitrust Class Suit Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. 803 KAVA LLC, CRYOSERVICES, INC. D/B/A ANDERSON CRYOTHERAPY D/B/A ATHLETIC RECOVERY CENTER; DELL FOX JEWELRY LLC; MAUREEN ROXBERRY; HAYLEY LANNING; SBG DESIGNS, LLC D/B/A GOLDFINE JEWELRY; SHEN SHU ACUPUNCTURE, PLLC; CAMP GROUNDS COFFEE, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JACK RABBIT, LLC, Objector-Appellant, v. VISA, INC., MASTERCARD INCORPORATED, Defendants-Appellees, Docket Nos. 24-1653(L), 24-1808(CON) (2d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court for the Defendants on the Old Jericho Plaintiffs' claims. After nearly 15 years of litigation, Defendants Visa and Mastercard agreed to settle a federal antitrust class action by paying over $5.6 billion for allegedly supra-competitive interchange fees. In exchange, the class members agreed to release all claims arising out of or relating to the alleged conduct to the fullest extent permitted by federal law. The Settlement Agreement defines the class as "all persons, businesses, and other entities that have accepted any Visa-Branded Cards and/or Mastercard-Branded Cards in the United States at any time from January 1, 2004 to the Settlement Preliminary Approval Date January 24, 2019," with certain exceptions not relevant here. The district court approved this settlement in 2019 and the Second Circuit affirmed in 2023. The Appellants did not opt out of the Settlement Agreement. But a year later they filed their own putative class action complaint asserting state-law antitrust claims and seeking damages for the same allegedly supra-competitive interchange fees based on the same alleged antitrust violations. They contend that their gasoline suppliers are the direct payors of the challenged fees and the appropriate class members. In a typical credit card transaction, a merchant sends payment information to its acquiring bank, which routes the transaction through a card network such as Visa or Mastercard to the cardholder's issuing bank. The issuing bank transfers funds back through the network to the acquiring bank, less an interchange fee. The acquiring bank then pays the merchant the purchase amount minus a merchant discount fee, which includes the interchange fee and the acquiring bank's compensation. The class action alleged federal antitrust violations arising from the Defendants' interchange fees. The Old Jericho Plaintiffs, branded gasoline retailers in states that permit indirect purchaser antitrust claims, purchased card acceptance services through fuel suppliers such as BP, Chevron, and Shell. In credit card transactions, the suppliers acted as intermediaries by transmitting payment data to acquiring banks and later receiving funds from those banks before remitting payment to the retailers, less applicable fees and fuel costs. The Old Jericho Plaintiffs did not opt out of the Settlement Agreement. But in May 2020, after the opt-out period expired, they filed their own putative class action complaint asserting state-law indirect-purchaser antitrust claims seeking damages for the same allegedly supra-competitive interchange fees based on the same alleged antitrust violations by the Defendants. The Defendants raised an affirmative defense that the Settlement Agreement bars the Old Jericho Plaintiffs' claims. The Old Jericho Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on whether they are bound by the release in the Settlement Agreement. In a memorandum and order signed September 5, 2024, the district court concluded that the Old Jericho Plaintiffs are members of the settlement class and bound by the release. So, the court entered judgment for the Defendants on the Old Jericho Plaintiffs' claims. This appeal followed. The Old Jericho Plaintiffs argued that the district court was not free to conduct its own inquiry into the settling parties' intentions and that the Second Circuit's opinion in Wholesale, Inc. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 62 F.4th 704 (2d Cir. 2023), required the district court "to use 'federal antitrust standards' to 'identify the direct payor or payors in any given transaction' and deem that party the Settlement class member." So, they ask the Second Circuit to review de novo whether the district court complied with its mandate in Fikes. First, the Second Circuit rejected the Old Jericho Plaintiffs' contention that its prior decision in Fikes requires the district court to determine class membership solely by identifying the "direct payor" of the challenged fees. Fikes does not require the district court to use a "direct payor" test to determine class membership. The district court did not clearly err in determining that the settling parties intended to include the Old Jericho Plaintiffs in the settlement class. Second, the Second Circuit concluded that the Old Jericho Plaintiffs' claims were validly released because they were adequately represented in the Settlement Agreement and rest on the same factual predicate as the other released claims. The district court did not clearly err in finding that the parties intended the Old Jericho Plaintiffs, not their Suppliers, to be members of the settlement class. For these reasons, the judgment of the district court was affirmed. The Clerk of Court was directed to amend the caption accordingly. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://l1nq.com/t9odv76. MARK C. RIFKIN -- rifkin@whafh.com -- (Thomas H. Burt -- burt@whafh.com -- on the brief), Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, New York, NY, FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS. N. ALBERT BACHARACH, JR. -- n.a.bacharach@att.net -- N. Albert Bacharach, Jr., P.A., Gainesville, FL; Paul S. Rothstein -- contact@rothsteinforjustice.com -- Attorney Paul S. Rothstein, P.A., Gainesville, FL, FOR OBJECTOR-APPELLANT. ROSEMARY SZANYI -- rosemary.szanyi@arnoldporter.com -- (Matthew A. Eisenstein -- matthew.eisenstein@arnoldporter.com -- R. Stanton Jones -- stanton.jones@arnoldporter.com -- on the brief), Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Washington, DC; Michael S. Shuster -- mshuster@hsgllp.com -- Demian A. Ordway -- dordway@hsgllp.com -- Jayme Jonat -- jjonat@hsgllp.com -- Holwell Shuster & Goldberg LLP, New York, NY, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE VISA, INC. Kenneth A. Gallo -- kgallo@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP, Washington, DC; Brette Tannenbaum -- -- btannenbaum@paulweiss.com -- Nina Kovalenko -- nkovalenko@paulweiss.com -- Gary Carney -- gcarney@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE MASTERCARD INCORPORATED. Marc L. Greenwald -- marcgreenwald@quinnemanuel.com -- Steig D. Olson -- steigolson@quinnemanuel.com -- Manisha M. Sheth -- manishasheth@quinnemanuel.com -- David M. Cooper -- davidcooper@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY; Adam B. Wolfson -- adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Justin T. Reinheimer -- justinreinheimer@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, San Francisco, CA. FOR AMICI CURIAE INTUIT INC.; INTUIT PAYMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC; BLOCK, INC. F/K/A SQUARE, INC.; AND ACI PAYMENTS, INC., IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS. VISA INC: Judgment in Old Jericho Antitrust Class Suit Affirmed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, OLD JERICHO ENTERPRISE, INC., 32T, LLC, BUCKS, INC., CHANDLER OIL-1 CORPORATION, COFFEE CUP FUEL STOP, INC., H&H ENTERPRISES, INC., HEINZ ENTERPRISES, INC., KOEHNENS STANDARD SERVICE, INC., MINERAL SPRING AVENUE GETTY, INC., MOX LLC, OKY LLC, PIT ROW, INC., POINTE SERVICE CENTER LLC, RED EAGLE, INC., VICTORY ENERGY, LLC, VILLAGE CENTER AUTO CARE, INC., W.L.F. AUTOMOTIVE, INC., WESCO, INC., ZARCO USA, INC., ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. VISA, INC., MASTERCARD, INC., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 24-2678 (2d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court for the Defendants on the Old Jericho Plaintiffs' claims. After nearly 15 years of litigation, Defendants Visa and Mastercard agreed to settle a federal antitrust class action by paying over $5.6 billion for allegedly supra-competitive interchange fees. In exchange, the class members agreed to release all claims arising out of or relating to the alleged conduct to the fullest extent permitted by federal law. The Settlement Agreement defines the class as "all persons, businesses, and other entities that have accepted any Visa-Branded Cards and/or Mastercard-Branded Cards in the United States at any time from January 1, 2004 to the Settlement Preliminary Approval Date January 24, 2019," with certain exceptions not relevant here. The district court approved this settlement in 2019 and the Second Circuit affirmed in 2023. The Appellants did not opt out of the Settlement Agreement. But a year later they filed their own putative class action complaint asserting state-law antitrust claims and seeking damages for the same allegedly supra-competitive interchange fees based on the same alleged antitrust violations. They contend that their gasoline suppliers are the direct payors of the challenged fees and the appropriate class members. In a typical credit card transaction, when a customer gives a payment card to a merchant, the merchant transmits data to its bank (the acquiring bank), which forwards that information to the appropriate network (Visa or Mastercard), which relays the information to the bank that issued the customer's card (the issuing bank). The issuing bank then provides funds through the appropriate network to the acquiring bank, minus the interchange fee that the Defendants charge. The acquiring bank in turn pays the merchant the purchase price minus a "merchant discount fee" that covers the interchange fee and an additional amount to compensate the acquiring bank. The class action complaint principally asserted antitrust claims under federal law on behalf of merchants who claimed to be injured by the Defendants' interchange fees. The Old Jericho Plaintiffs are branded gasoline retailers operating in states that allow indirect purchasers to bring antitrust claims. They contract with large gas brands such as BP, Cenex, Chevron, and Shell ("Suppliers") for both gasoline and card acceptance services. When a customer uses a credit card to purchase gas, the Supplier acts as an intermediary between the Old Jericho Plaintiffs and the acquiring bank. On the front end, the Old Jericho Plaintiffs transmit data to the Suppliers, which then relay that information to the acquiring banks. And on the back end, the acquiring banks transfer funds to the Suppliers, which then remit the funds to the Old Jericho Plaintiffs after deducting fees that may include credit card processing fees and the wholesale price of fuel. The Old Jericho Plaintiffs did not opt out of the Settlement Agreement. But in May 2020, after the opt-out period expired, they filed their own putative class action complaint asserting state-law indirect-purchaser antitrust claims seeking damages for the same allegedly supra-competitive interchange fees based on the same alleged antitrust violations by the Defendants. The Defendants raised an affirmative defense that the Settlement Agreement bars the Old Jericho Plaintiffs' claims. The Old Jericho Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on whether they are bound by the release in the Settlement Agreement. In a memorandum and order signed September 5, 2024, the district court concluded that the Old Jericho Plaintiffs are members of the settlement class and bound by the release. So, the court entered judgment for the Defendants on the Old Jericho Plaintiffs' claims. This appeal followed. The Old Jericho Plaintiffs argued that the district court was not free to conduct its own inquiry into the settling parties' intentions and that the Second Circuit's opinion in Wholesale, Inc. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 62 F.4th 704 (2d Cir. 2023), required the district court "to use 'federal antitrust standards' to 'identify the direct payor or payors in any given transaction' and deem that party the Settlement class member." So, they ask the Second Circuit to review de novo whether the district court complied with its mandate in Fikes. First, the Second Circuit rejected the Old Jericho Plaintiffs' contention that its prior decision in Fikes requires the district court to determine class membership solely by identifying the "direct payor" of the challenged fees. Fikes does not require the district court to use a "direct payor" test to determine class membership. The district court did not clearly err in determining that the settling parties intended to include the Old Jericho Plaintiffs in the settlement class. Second, the Second Circuit concluded that the Old Jericho Plaintiffs' claims were validly released because they were adequately represented in the Settlement Agreement and rest on the same factual predicate as the other released claims. The district court did not clearly err in finding that the parties intended the Old Jericho Plaintiffs, not their Suppliers, to be members of the settlement class. For these reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://sl1nk.com/ps7aqub. CHRISTOPHER BATEMAN -- cbateman@cohenmilstein.com -- (Daniel Gifford -- dgifford@cohenmilstein.com -- on the brief), Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, New York, NY; Manuel J. Dominguez -- jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Palm Beach Gardens, FL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. KANNON K. SHANMUGAM -- kannon.shanmugam@davispolk.com -- (Kenneth A. Gallo -- kgallo@paulweiss.com -- on the brief), Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Washington, DC; Brette Tannenbaum -- btannenbaum@paulweiss.com -- Nina Kovalenko -- nkovalenko@paulweiss.com -- Gary R. Carney -- gcarney@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee Mastercard Incorporated. Michael S. Shuster -- mshuster@hsgllp.com -- Demian A. Ordway -- dordway@hsgllp.com -- Jayme Jonat -- jjonat@hsgllp.com -- Gregory J. Dubinsky -- gdubinsky@hsgllp.com -- Holwell Shuster & Goldberg LLP, New York, NY; Matthew A. Eisenstein -- matthew.eisenstein@arnoldporter.com -- Rosemary Szanyi -- rosemary.szanyi@arnoldporter.com -- R. Stanton Jones -- stanton.jones@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee Visa Inc. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Behm Files Suit Over Hidden Vehicle Defects ------------------------------------------------------------- MITCHELL BEHM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., a New Jersey corporation, d/b/a AUDI OF AMERICA, INC., AUDI AG, a German corporation, and VOLKSWAGEN AG, a German corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-05907 (D.N.J., May 22, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for failing to disclose defects of vehicles to purchasers and lessees in owner-facing materials. The complaint relates that the Defendants manufactured, marketed, distributed, warranted, and sold 2009–2017 Audi Q5 and SQ5 vehicles (the "Class Vehicles") equipped with a defective subframe system. The system is defective because plastic coverings on the subframes of Audi Q5s and SQ5s trap moisture and other elements, causing the subframe to rust, rot, and corrode undetected, which creates a dangerous safety hazard, the existence and extent of which is concealed by the plastic coverings. This results in a myriad of negative consequences for the Class Vehicles and their safe and reliable operation. The Defendants sold, directly or indirectly, through their agent dealers and other retail outlets, the Class Vehicles throughout the United States, without disclosing that the Class Vehicles' subframes were equipped with plastic coverings that trapped moisture and other elements, causing the subframe to rust and corrode. According to the complaint, prior to the purchase of his vehicle, Plaintiff Behm did not know about the Defect. Had Defendants disclosed the Defect, Plaintiff Behm would have been aware and would not have purchased his vehicle or would have paid less for it. As a result, Plaintiff Behm lost the benefit of his bargain, overpaid for his vehicle, paid for repeated repairs, lost use of his vehicle, and lost confidence in the ability of his vehicle to provide safe and reliable transportation. Furthermore, Plaintiff Behm will be unable to rely on Audi's advertising or labeling in the future, and so will not purchase or lease another Class Vehicle, although he would like to do so if he could rely on Audi's representations about the vehicles. The Defendants breached its express warranties by selling, leasing, distributing, and warranting Class Vehicles equipped with defective subframe components; by failing to repair or replace defective subframe components when Plaintiff presented his vehicle for repair during the applicable warranty period or under applicable warranty coverage; by providing ineffective, incomplete, stopgap, or piecemeal repairs that failed to remedy the Defect; and/or by refusing to cover repairs for subframe components that failed as a result of the Defect, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks equitable relief, injunctive relief, legal remedies. Plaintiff Mitchell Behm purchased a 2015 Audi Q5 from Alexandria Volkswagen, located in Alexandria, Virginia on April 2018. Defendant VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. d/b/a AUDI OF AMERICA, INC. (VWGoA), through its various entities, markets, distributes, warranties, and sells Audi-branded automobiles and parts for those automobiles, including the Class Vehicles, in multiple locations across the United States, including Maryland and Virginia. Defendant Audi AG designs, engineers, manufactures, tests, markets, supplies, sells and distributes Audi-branded vehicles and parts for those vehicles worldwide, including in the United States. Defendant VOLKSWAGEN AG (VWAG) is the parent corporation of VWGoA and Audi AG, which are each wholly owned subsidiaries that provide all the technical information for the purpose of manufacturing, servicing, and repairing the Class Vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell D. Paul, Esq. Amey J. Park, Esq. Natalie Lesser, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: rpaul@bergermontague.com apark@bergermontague.com nlesser@bergermontague.com - and - Anna C. Haac, Esq. HAAC LAW, LLC 11810 Grand Park Ave., Suite 500 North Bethesda, MD 20852 Telephone: (240) 389-0199 Facsimile: (701) 829-3249 E-mail: anna@haaclaw.com WASHINGTON: Breach of Contract & WLAD Dismissal Flipped in Simonton ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JEANNETTE SIMONTON and RYAN KELSO, each on their own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated others, Appellants, v. WASHINGTON STATE HEALTH CARE AUTHORITY; and SUE BIRCH, director of the Washington State Health Care Authority and chair of the Public Employees Benefits Board and School Employees Benefit Board, in her official capacity, Respondents, Case No. 86988-4-I (Wash. App.), the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, reversed the superior court's dismissal of the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim under CR 12(b)(6) and WLAD claim under CR 12(c). Simonton and Kelso were state employees and enrollees in the Washington State Health Care Authority (HCA)'s health benefit plan(s) in the State of Washington," here the Uniform Medical Plan (UMP). The HCA's "2023 UMP Classic Public Employees Benefits Board (PEBB) Certificate of Coverage," lists "excluded drugs and products," which include, but are not limited to, prescription drugs for obesity (or weight loss). This exclusion applies even if the services are medically necessary. Some obesity treatments are covered in certain circumstances, such as bariatric surgery or nutrition counseling and therapy, but the plan excludes any drugs for weight control, weight loss, or obesity treatment. Simonton and Kelso allege they each were diagnosed with obesity by a treating physician and received a prescription for medication to treat the diagnosis of obesity. Simonton was informed that medications used for weight loss are in a category of medications that are not covered under your prescription benefit and was provided no other basis for the denial such as a determination that the treatment was not medical necessity or experimental/investigational. Kelso similarly submitted a request for preauthorization to the HCA, which was denied based solely on the exclusion. Simonton and Kelso filed a putative class action complaint against the HCA. They say the obesity exclusion is a form of benefit-design discrimination targeted at disabled individuals with obesity. Under RCW 48.43.0128(1)(a), a health carrier may not, in its benefit design or implementation, discriminate against individuals because of their present or predicted disability. And under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), ch. 49.60 RCW, obesity is recognized as a disability. Simonton and Kelso argue that excluding coverage for prescription medication to treat obesity is prohibited discrimination on the basis of disability. They asserted claims for breach of contract and violation of the WLAD. The superior court dismissed the breach of contract claim under CR 12(b)(6), and later dismissed the WLAD claim under CR 12(c). Interpreting WAC 284-43-5642 as specifically authorizing health plans to exclude prescription drugs for the treatment of obesity, the court reasoned that, as something that is expressly allowed, excluding treatment for obesity is not illegal discrimination. In addition, as to the WLAD claim, the superior court ruled that Simonton and Kelso had not alleged disparate treatment because of disability, because they did not allege that the plan covered prescription drugs for weight loss for some persons, but not those within the protected class. To hold otherwise, the court reasoned, would require health plans to cover every treatment for every impairment that meets the WLAD's broad definition of disability. Simonton and Kelso appealed. The Court of Appeals opined that the regulation only establishes minimum benefits that plans must offer, and does not address whether the plan benefit design is discriminatory. It explained that the regulation does not defeat as a matter of law Simonton and Kelso's claims that the plan benefit design was discriminatory in violation of RCW 48.43.0128(1)(a). It therefore reversed dismissal of their claims. It did not hold that Washington plans must cover prescription drugs to treat obesity, but only that discovery may proceed and Simonton and Kelso may attempt to show through evidence that the UMP's exclusion of coverage was discriminatory. An exclusion is not discriminatory if it is based on "appropriately utilizing reasonable medical management techniques," or if it excluded "a service that is not medically necessary." For these reasons, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with its Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://sl1nk.com/1vtmba5. Eleanor Hamburger -- ehamburger@sylaw.com -- Sirianni Youtz Spoonemore Hamburger PLLC, 3101 Western Ave Ste 350, Seattle, WA, 98121-3871, Richard E. Spoonemore -- rspoonemore@sylaw.com -- Sirianni Youtz Spoonemore Hamburger PLLC, 3101 Western Ave Ste 350, Seattle, WA, 98121-3871, Daniel S. Gross, Sirianni Youtz Spoonemore Hamburger PLLC, 3101 Western Ave Ste 350, Seattle, WA, 98121-3871, Counsel for Appellant(s). Katy Anne Hatfield -- katy.hatfield@atg.wa.gov -- WA State Attorney General's Office, Po Box 40124, Olympia, WA, 98504-0124, Michael Reid Tunick -- MichaelT4@atg.wa.gov -- Attorney at Law, 7141 Cleanwater Dr Sw, Olympia, WA, 98501-6503, Soc & Hlth Svc A.g. Office, Attorney at Law, 7141 Cleanwater Lane Sw, P O Box 40124, Olympia, WA, 98504-0124, Counsel for Respondent(s). WEST PHARMACEUTICAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Martinez Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MIGUEL MARTINEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WEST PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-03444 (E.D. Pa., May 19, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. The complaint relates that as part of its business, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") about its employees. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach on May 4, 2026. The following types of PII may have been compromised: Name; Date of birth; Social Security number; Address; Financial information; and Driver's license number. Currently, the precise number of persons injured is unclear. The Defendant has yet to send individualized notice letters to victims of the Data Breach, and does not have mailing information for all individuals who are victims of the Data Breach, notes the complaint. The complaint alleges that in the aftermath of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff suffered from a spike in spam and scam texts and phone calls. Plaintiff suffered actual injury from the exposure and theft of his PII--which violates his rights to privacy. Plaintiff suffered imminent and impending injury arising from the substantially increased risk of fraud, misuse, and identity theft, the complaint contends. For this reason, the Plaintiff and Class Members seek compensatory, consequential, and nominal damages suffered as a result of the Data Breach. Plaintiff Miguel Martinez is a former employee of Defendant from 2022 to 2026. Defendant West Pharmaceutical Services, Inc. is a global manufacturer in the design and production of technologically advanced, high-quality, integrated containment and delivery solutions for injectable medicines, and a trusted partner to the world's top pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. 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: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com WEXFORD HEALTH: Certification of Damages Class in Spurlock Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LAUREN SPURLOCK; HEATHER SMITH; and SHAWN ZMUDZINSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 25-2038 (4th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (i) affirmed the district court's order certifying the class seeking damages and (ii) remanded for the district court to consider whether Spurlock, Smith, and Zmudzinski have standing to represent the class seeking injunctive relief. In 2002, the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) first approved the current medically accepted treatment protocol for OUD, known as medications for opioid use disorder or MOUD. Wexford is a private medical corporation that contracts with nearly one hundred jails and prisons around the country to provide comprehensive medical care services to detained and incarcerated individuals. Wexford's Corporate Addiction Program Manager estimates that at least thirty-five percent of the individuals incarcerated at Wexford contracted institutions meet the criteria to receive MOUD. Named Plaintiffs Spurlock, Smith, and Zmudzinski suffer from opioid use disorder and allege that they were denied access to medical screening and treatment for opioid dependence while incarcerated. They seek to represent two classes of similarly situated individuals in this class action lawsuit against Wexford. The Plaintiffs allege that Wexford violated their rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by failing to screen for and treat opioid dependence. They assert that Wexford maintains a policy exempting medical care for opioid dependence from the otherwise comprehensive medical care it provides to incarcerated individuals. As a result, individuals who suffer from opioid dependence are forced to undergo painful opioid withdrawal. The allegations in the operative complaint cover the time period beginning in July 2021 and continue to the present. The district court certified two classes of plaintiffs: 1. Damages Class: All individuals who were confined at a Listed Facility during the applicable Relevant Time Period, who (1) (a) had a diagnosis of Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) at the time of intake and reported that diagnosis during intake or were diagnosed during such incarceration; (b) had a prescription for FDA-approved Medication for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD) at the time of intake; or (c) were monitored for opioid withdrawal during such incarceration; and (2) who were not continued on MOUD, if already prescribed MOUD, or screened for MOUD induction; and (3) who were thereafter released from the Listed Facility. 2. Injunctive Relief Class: All persons who are currently, or will in the future, be confined at a carceral facility for which Wexford provides comprehensive medical and/or healthcare services, who have a diagnosis of Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) at the time of intake and report that diagnosis during intake, or are diagnosed during such incarceration, test positive for opioids during such incarceration, or are monitored for opioid withdrawal during such incarceration. The first class seeks a court order requiring Wexford to provide screening and treatment to individuals with opioid use disorder who are incarcerated in institutions where Wexford provides comprehensive medical care. The second class seeks damages for Wexford's past failure to provide this screening and treatment. Wexford timely appealed, and the Fourth Circuit granted Wexford's interlocutory petition to appeal class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). First, Wexford argued, for the first time on appeal, that the Named Plaintiffs lack standing to represent the Injunctive Relief Class and that therefore there is no federal court jurisdiction over their injunctive relief claim. The Fourth Circuit found that because standing was raised for the first time on appeal, the district court had no opportunity to address these arguments or to find relevant facts, including the Named Plaintiffs' likelihood of again being subjected to Wexford’s policy. It therefore remanded to the district court to consider whether the Named Plaintiffs possess standing to represent the Injunctive Relief Class. Next, Wexford argued that the district court abused its discretion in finding that the Damages Class satisfies this Court's ascertainability requirement; the commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements of Rule 23(a); and both Rule 23(b)(3)'s requirements. The Fourth Circuit concluded that (i) the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the common questions of fact and law to be sufficient for class certification under Rule 23(a); (ii) the Named Plaintiffs are sufficiently typical of the class; (iii) and there's no abuse of discretion in the district court's determination that the Named Plaintiffs adequately represent the class members and that their interests do not conflict. The Fourth Circuit also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the Damages Class satisfied Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance and superiority requirements. It concluded that the damages model was sufficiently tied to the Named Plaintiffs' theory of liability at this stage. It further agreed that class treatment would promote judicial efficiency and reduce litigation costs, noting that denying certification could lead to hundreds of separate lawsuits over the same alleged policy and injury. Lastly, the Fourth Circuit found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to certify the Damages Class. The district court reviewed extensive evidence to assess whether the requirements of Rule 23 were met and indicated that it could later modify or reconsider the class definition after discovery. The court noted that class certification decisions are not final and may be altered as the case develops under Rule 23. For these reasons, the Fourth Circuit remanded for the district court to consider, in the first instance, whether the Named Plaintiffs have standing to represent the Injunctive Relief Class and affirmed the district court's certification of the Damages Class. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://l1nq.com/grdlezn. ARGUED: Michael James Bentley -- mbentley@bradley.com -- BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP, Jackson, Mississippi, for Appellant. William J. Forbes -- Bill@WJForbeslaw.com -- FORBES LAW OFFICES, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Jordan K. Herrick -- jherrick@baileywyant.com -- Justin C. Taylor -- jtaylor@baileywyant.com -- Harrison M. Cyrus, BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia; Erin Saltaformaggio, P. Garner Vance, BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP, Jackson, Mississippi, for Appellant. Hassan A. Zavareei -- hzavareei@tzlegal.com -- Glenn E. Chappell -- gchappell@tzlegal.com -- Gemma Seidita -- gseidita@tzlegal.com -- TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP, Washington, D.C.; F. Paul Bland, Jr. -- pbland@bm.net -- Julie S. Selesnick -- jselesnick@bm.net -- Washington, D.C., Natalie Lesser -- nlesser@bergermontague.com -- Philadelphia, PA, BERGER MONTAGUE PC; Jennifer N. Taylor -- Jennifer@jtaylor-law.com -- FORBES LAW OFFICES, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia; L. Danté diTrapano -- lditrapano@cldlaw.com -- David Carriger -- dcarriger@cldlaw.com -- CALWELL LUCE DITRAPANO PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees. Asbestos Litigation ********* 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 ***