---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, June 8, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 113

                            Headlines

ADT INC: Faces Class Suit Over Failure to Protect Consumer Data
AEROVIRONMENT INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
AJ RICHARD: Denial of Motion to Dismiss Harbord Partially Reversed
ALLIANCE CLOUD: Faces Suit Over Data Center's Noisy Operations
AMAZON WEB: Dismissal and Summary Judgment in McGoveran Affirmed

AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Court Sets Class Cert Deadline in "Hanson"
ARIZONA: Olmos Appeals Denied Bill of Costs & Judgment to 9th Cir.
AT WORLD PROPERTIES: $52.25M Class Settlement Gets Preliminary OK
ATTOM DATA: Paredes Sues Over Unauthorized Use of Identity Info
BAM! PIZZA: Files Petition for Writ of Mandamus to 10th Circuit

BANK OF AMERICA: Cantero Files Certiorari Petition to Supreme Court
BOSLEY INC: Sisti Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit
BOULDER, CO: Police Chief Faces Class Suit Over Surveillance
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: M&A Investigates Sale to Fertitta Gaming
CALIX INC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit

CARING PEOPLE: Court Compels Arbitration in "Ross" Suit
CASELY INC: Faces Class Suit Over Overheating Portable Power Pods
CFH BLONDELL: Granville Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hansen Says
CRAMERS INC: Violates FLSA & H-2A Program Regulations, Suit Says

DOLLAR GENERAL: Appeals Arbitration Order in Miller ERISA Suit
ELECTROLUX CONSUMER: Faces Kelly Suit Over Defective Gas Ranges
EMM LOANS: Deadline to Opt-Out Data Breach Suit Deal Set July 17
FEDEX SUPPLY: Flores Suit Removed from State Ct. to C.D. Cal.
FITNESS INTERNATIONAL: Taylor Sues Over Unwanted Text Messages

FORD MOTOR: Discovery Motion Denied in "Dolan" Class Suit
FORWARD AIR: Faces Class Action Suit Over Labor Law Violations
FRC BALANCE: Appeals Remand Order in Hook Labor Suit to 9th Circuit
GKN DRIVELINE: Appeal from Decertification Order in Mebane Tossed
GRAND JUNCTION, CO: Denial of Attorney Fees & Costs Reversed

GUZMAN Y GOMEZ: Employees Terminated Without Notice, Martinez Says
HAGERTY INSURANCE: All Discovery Must be Completed by Dec. 15
HEALTH VIA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Murphy Alleges
HEAVEN HILL: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Lunazul Tequila
HENDERSON & WALTON: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $900,000

HILSCHER-CLARKE: Initial Disclosures in Burson Suit Due June 26
HOMELAND SECURITY: Consent Decree Extension Upheld in Castanon-Nava
INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach
INVIDA FINANCIAL: Bland Allowed Leave to Serve Discovery
JND LEGAL: U.S. Judge Questions Bills Charged on Class Settlement

KARABETIAN IMPORT: Products Contain No Olive Oil, Hallak Alleges
LAKEVIEW HEALTH: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit
LEXINGTON COUNTY, CO: 4th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of AAC v. LCSD
LIVERAMP HOLDINGS: M&A Investigates Sale to Publicis Groupe
LONG BEACH, CA: Agrees to Settle Racial Bias Class Suit for $1.28MM

LUCID GROUP: Faces Eke Class Suit over Lucid's Stock Price Drop
LUEMME LLC: Echols Suit Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website
MARTIN JUGENBURG: Plaintiffs Win $22.5MM Verdict in Class Action
MDL 3074: Cornell & Montecalvo Wiretapping Suits Dismissal Reversed
MEDTRONIC INC: Faces Frost Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website

MICHIGAN: Denial of Motion to Dismiss Alzandani Class Suit Reversed
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Espinoza Says
MINNESOTA: Karsjens Files Certiorari Petition to Supreme Court
MISSOURI: Grant Appeals RICO Suit Dismissal to 8th Circuit
NATIONAL RAILROAD: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Reyes Says

NETLINE CORP: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach
NEW YORK, NY: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Khan Says
NISSAN NORTH: Proudfoot Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit
NUCOR CORPORATION: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $200,000
ON INC: Norberg Suit Seeks IEEPA Tariff Refunds

OVERSEAS FOOD: Product Contains No Olive Oil, Hallak Says
OXY USA: Denial of Class Certification in Rider Suit Reversed
PLEASURES NOW: Bennett Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Unscented Deodorant
R. W. SELBY & CO: Tejera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

RADARIS LLC: Exploits Cellular Telephone Numbers, Larancuent Says
RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES: Adair Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES: Cason Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
RAMSEY EXPRESS: Duran Suit Removed to E.D. California
REAL PHOTO BY FREDDY'S: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Wages

RED ROCK: Fails to Secure Customers' Personal Info, Geiner Says
RED VIOLET INC: Barrow Suit Transferred to D. Colorado
REDDIT INC: First Amended LevelFields Class Suit Dismissal Upheld
REDWOOD TOXICOLOGY: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Toothman Affirmed
RETAIL SERVICES WIS: Smith Files Suit in N.D. Texas

RETAIL SERVICES: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Obercom Says
RIDOC: Paiva Files Suit in D. Rhode Island
RIVER ROAD FEE OWNER: Jaklovsky Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
ROSLYN HOSPITALITY: Orgera Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
RREM INC: Archuleta Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

RTX CORP: Dismissal of Grace Class Suit as Untimely Affirmed
RUAN TRANSPORT: Uno Mas Co. Files Suit in N.D. Mississippi
RUNWAY AI INC: Gardner Files Suit in S.D. New York
SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: Abrego Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT: Robles Suit Removed to C.D. California

SALES-AHOLIC INC: Burgess Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SALIDA HOSPITAL: Young Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SEASONAL FOOD: Harrison Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SECURIAN FINANCIAL: Wurst Files Suit in D. Minnesota
SEMPER HOME LOANS: Polland Files TCPA Suit in D. Maryland

SENDERO PROVISIONS: Evans Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
SHAKERAG FARMS HOMEOWNERS: Shah Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct.
SOLID & STRIPED: Ford Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
SOMBRERO MEXICAN FOOD: Mcneeley Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
SOUTHERN NEW HAMPSHIRE: Rudoy Suit Removed to S.D. Florida

ST. LUKE'S HEALTH: Monka Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
STA MANAGEMENT: Appeals Court Order in Barker Suit to Mich. Court
STAR CREATIONS: Rudenko Sues Over False and Deceptive Pricing
STOCKTON CARDIOLOGY MEDICAL: Bravo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
STRAINE DENTAL MANAGEMENT: Love Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

STS OPERATING INC: Baker Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
SUB-ZERO INC: Must Face Cost-of-Living Pay Rate Claims in "Wagner"
SUNRISE CREDIT SERVICES: Reyes Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
SUPER MICRO: Writ of Mandamus Bid in Securities Class Suit Denied
T-MOBILE USA: Kaidi Suit Removed from State Ct. to N.D. Cal.

TARGET CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Mislabeled Yogurt Snacks Labels
TEXAS: Appeals Motions to Strike & Dismiss Order in L.M.L. Suit
UNITED STATES: Appeals Court Order in Advocates Suit to 8th Circuit
UNITED STATES: Appeals Preliminary Injunction Order in Kingdom Suit
USHEALTH ADVISORS: Arbitration Denial in Sessoms TCPA Suit Flipped

VERITONE INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Set July 20
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: 11th Cir. Affirms Burt Class Suit Dismissal
WELLS FARGO: 8th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Matula ERISA Class Suit
WHALECO INC: Hussein Suit Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website
YOUTH AND SHELTER: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Class Suit

ZOETIS INC: Faces Class Action for Misleading Investors

                            *********

ADT INC: Faces Class Suit Over Failure to Protect Consumer Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Latonia James filed a
class action lawsuit against ADT Inc.

Why: James alleges ADT failed to protect customer data, exposing
millions of records to hackers.

Where: The ADT class action lawsuit was filed in Florida federal
court.

A new class action lawsuit claims ADT, a home security and smart
automation provider, failed to protect the personally identifiable
information (PII) of millions of customers, leaving them at risk of
identity theft and fraud.

Plaintiff Latonia James filed the class action lawsuit against ADT
after a hacker infiltrated the company's network on or about April
20, 2026, and exfiltrated sensitive customer data.

The stolen information includes names, phone numbers, addresses,
dates of birth, last four digits of Social Security numbers, and
tax IDs.

James alleges ADT maintained customer PII on systems it knew were
vulnerable to cyberattack and failed to implement reasonable data
security measures consistent with the Federal Trade Commission's
guidelines.

The complaint further alleges ADT failed to disclose the breach's
full scope to affected individuals, regulatory authorities and the
public, leaving victims without information needed to protect
themselves.

ADT publicly acknowledged the breach, stating it had directly
notified all impacted individuals and would offer complimentary
identity protection services.

James disputes this, alleging the company has failed to provide
meaningful identity theft monitoring to her and many class
members.

She further argues that even where services have been offered,
their duration and scope are wholly inadequate given that breach
victims commonly face multiple years of ongoing identity theft and
financial fraud.

ShinyHunters allegedly threatened to leak 10M records unless ADT
paid ransom

The class action lawsuit alleges a cybercriminal using the online
moniker "ShinyHunters" posted on a dark web extortion site claiming
to have stolen more than 10 million customer records.

The post issued a "Pay or Leak" ultimatum, demanding ADT respond by
April 27, 2026, and threatened additional "digital problems" if the
company refused to comply.

James alleges ADT's systems represented a known and attractive
target for cybercriminals yet the company failed to take adequate
preventive measures to protect the data stored on them.

"Plaintiff and class members are now at a significantly increased
and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft, intrusion of
their privacy and similar forms of criminal mischief, risks which
may last for the rest of their lives," the ADT class action lawsuit
states.

The lawsuit seeks at least 10 years of credit monitoring for all
class members, along with damages and a declaratory judgment that
ADT continues to breach its legal duty to protect customer data.

Meanwhile, Pennsylvania State Education Association agreed to pay
$2.5 million to resolve claims stemming from a 2024 data breach
that exposed sensitive member information.

James is represented by Nicholas A. Colella and Stephen E. Connolly
of Lynch Carpenter LLP.

The ADT class action lawsuit is James v. ADT Inc., Case No.
9:26-cv-80546, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida. [GN]

AEROVIRONMENT INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP informs stockholders that a class action was filed on
behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
AeroVironment, Inc. (NASDAQ: AVAV) securities between June 25, 2025
and March 10, 2026. AeroVironment operates as a defense technology
provider delivering integrated capabilities across air, land, sea,
space, and cyber.

For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas,
Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003.

The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that
AeroVironment, Inc. (AVA) Misled Investors Regarding the Viability
and Profitability of its Involvement in the SCAR Program

According to the complaint, on May 1, 2025, AeroVironment announced
it had completed the acquisition of BlueHalo, LLC. Three years
earlier, BlueHalo had been awarded a $1.4 billion contract to
deliver BADGER phased array antenna systems (a type of advanced
ground-terminal system used to track satellites), to support the
U.S. Space Force's Satellite Communication Augmentation Resource
("SCAR") program.

Plaintiff alleges that during the class period defendants
consistently assured investors that the SCAR program would drive
revenue growth for AeroVironment moving forward. Defendants stated
that the SCAR program represented a "tremendous growth
opportunity," that AeroVironment's work pursuant to the contract
was "very much on track," that the customer was "asking for more
[BADGER systems]," and that the Company stood "ready to build
more."

Plaintiff further alleges that during the class period defendants
failed to disclose that the Company understated the likelihood that
it would imminently face competition from other vendors for the
work it performed in connection with the SCAR program and the U.S.
Space Force's ongoing efforts to modernize the SCN and overstated
it business and financial prospects.

On January 20, 2026, AeroVironment announced that the U.S.
government had issued a stop work order on the Company's agreement
to deliver BADGER systems to the SCAR program. On this news,
AeroVironment's stock price fell $61.97 per share, or over 15%, to
close at $330.89 per share on January 20, 2026.

Then, on March 10, 2026, AeroVironment announced disappointing
financial results for the third quarter of fiscal year 2026. These
financial results reflected the impact of a $151.3 million goodwill
impairment in the Company's space division after the stop work
order on the Company's BADGER systems built for the SCAR program.
AeroVironment also reported that the U.S. Space Force had
terminated the Company's contract concerning the SCAR program, and
as a result, it would have to "recompete" for the SCAR program. On
this news, AeroVironment's stock price fell $13.84 per share, or
6.24%, to close at $207.73 per share on March 11, 2026.

What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against AeroVironment, Inc. Shareholders who wish to serve as lead
plaintiff for the class should contact Robbins LLP. The lead
plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to
participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you
choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member.
For more information, click https://robbinsllp.com/aerovironment/

All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.

About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights
litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been
dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate
governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for
their wrongdoing since 2002.

To be notified if a class action against AeroVironment, Inc.
settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage
in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today.

Contacts

     Aaron Dumas, Jr., Esq.
     Robbins LLP
     5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
     San Diego, CA 92122
     (800) 350-6003
     adumas@robbinsllp.com
     www.robbinsllp.com [GN]

AJ RICHARD: Denial of Motion to Dismiss Harbord Partially Reversed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Melissa Harbord, et al., respondents, v. A.J. Richard
& Sons, Inc., et al., appellants, Case No. 2023-09752, Index No.
529120/21 (N.Y. App. Div.), the Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court of New York, Second Department, modified the order denying
the Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

In a putative class action, inter alia, to recover damages for
fraudulent inducement, the Defendants appeal from an order of the
Supreme Court, Kings County (Richard Velasquez, J.), dated October
12, 2023. The order denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to
dismiss the amended complaint.

The Appellate Division modified the order by deleting the provision
thereof denying those branches of the Defendants' motion which were
pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the causes of action alleging
unjust enrichment and breach of an express warranty, and
substituting therefor a provision granting those branches of the
motion. As so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or
disbursements.

In 2021, the Plaintiffs commenced this putative class action
against the Defendants, alleging, among other things, that the
Defendants falsely represented that installations of gas appliances
they purchased from "P.C. Richard" were performed by "certified"
installers, which induced them to purchase gas appliances and
installation services from the Defendants. Subsequently, the
Plaintiffs amended their complaint to allege, inter alia, that the
term "certified," as used by the Defendants, "was false and
misleading," on the ground that the installers did not perform the
requisite installations "in accordance with New York City law."

The Defendants moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) to dismiss
the amended complaint. In an order dated October 12, 2023, the
Supreme Court denied the Defendants' motion. The Defendants
appealed.

Contrary to the Defendants' contention, the Appellate Division
found that they failed to demonstrate their entitlement to
dismissal of the causes of action alleging violations of General
Business Law Sections 349 and 350. The amended complaint
sufficiently alleged that the Defendants engaged in
consumer-oriented conduct that is materially misleading and that
the Plaintiffs suffered injury as a result of the Defendants'
allegedly deceptive act or practice.

Moreover, the Defendants failed to establish their entitlement to
dismissal of the cause of action alleging fraud. the Appellate
Division said assuming the facts alleged in the amended complaint
to be true and according the Plaintiffs the benefit of every
favorable inference, the amended complaint sufficiently alleged
that the Defendants made false representations of fact that they
knew to be false for the purpose of inducing the Plaintiffs to
enter into sales contracts for the purchase and installation of
certain gas appliances and that the Plaintiffs justifiably relied
on the Defendants' representations and suffered injury as a
result.

The Defendants also failed to establish their entitlement to
dismissal of the cause of action alleging breach of contract. The
amended complaint sufficiently alleged that the Defendants breached
the sales contracts with the Plaintiffs by failing to perform
"certified" installations pursuant to the contracts.

However, the Appellate Division held that the Supreme Court should
have granted that branch of the Defendants' motion which was
pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the cause of action alleging
unjust enrichment. It also should have granted that branch of the
Defendants' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss
the cause of action alleging breach of an express warranty. The
amended complaint failed to allege that the Plaintiffs provided the
requisite notice to the Defendants pursuant to UCC 2-607.

The parties' remaining contentions either are without merit or need
not be considered in light of the Appellate Division's
determination.

A full-text copy of the Court's Decision & Order is available at
https://sl1nk.com/i5k1dpv

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, New York, NY (William S. Gyves --
wgyves@kelleydrye.com -- Randall L. Morrison, Jr. --
rmorrison@kelleydrye.com -- and Edwin A. Herod --
therod@kelleydrye.com -- of counsel), for appellants.

Avallone & Bellistri, LLP, Lake Success, NY (Rocco G. Avallone --
ravallone@lawyersab.com -- Christopher F. Bellistri --
cbellistri@lawversah.com -- and Adam R. Gonnelli --
adam@arglawoffice.comadam@arglawoffice.com -- of counsel), for
respondents.

ALLIANCE CLOUD: Faces Suit Over Data Center's Noisy Operations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Davidson of Michigan Advance reports that as a Las Vegas-based
company plans to expand its data center operations in Michigan,
residents living near its current facility are taking them to
court, citing constant, noisy operations.

Liddle Sheets P.C., a law firm based in Detroit, announced a
federal class-action lawsuit against Alliance Cloud Services LLC on
Tuesday, May 26, with the firm representing residents living within
one mile of the company's data center in Dowagiac, Mich.

The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Michigan, argues these residents have been unable to
use and enjoy their property due to the noise the facility
generates 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

"My husband and I have been unable to use our yard since this
facility began operating," Lindy Valenzuela, one of the named
plaintiffs, said in the complaint. "It is impossible to stay
outside for longer than 10 minutes at a time before succumbing to
headaches. The noise also penetrates the inside of our house even
with the windows closed."

The complaint said Alliance Cloud Services has "failed to implement
adequate soundproofing equipment at its Data Center that properly
absorbs, captures, and/or prevents the escape of noise, thereby
resulting in the offsite emission of excessive noise beyond its
property" arguing that a properly constructed and maintained
facility would have taken steps to reduce the noise.

"These people had no say in the introduction of this large and loud
data center into their otherwise peaceful community," Laura Sheets,
the lead lawyer on the case, said in a statement.  "This community
just wants to be able to enjoy their homes, and they want the data
center to deal with the noise and be a better neighbor."

Alliance Cloud Services' parent company, Hyperscale Data, Inc., did
not respond to a request for comment.

While the facility was initially used to mine Bitcoin, Hyperscale
Data announced in 2024 that it intended to shift those operations
to another facility in Montana, while expanding the capacity of the
Michigan facility to support artificial intelligence development.

At the end of March, the company said it secured an agreement to
purchase 48.5 acres of land -- more than doubling the amount of
land it owns in Dowagiac.

In an open letter to Hyperscale Data Inc. CEO Will Horne dated
April 1, Dowagiac Mayor Patrick Bakeman saying the company had
neither applied, nor received any approvals needed to facilitate
its expansion.

On May 11, the company said in a statement that it had prospective
customers showing strong interest in its Michigan data center, and
that they expected to enter into one or more power and
infrastructure lease agreements in the coming weeks and months.
[GN]


AMAZON WEB: Dismissal and Summary Judgment in McGoveran Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTINE McGOVERAN; JOSEPH VALENTINE; AMELIA
RODRIGUEZ; RICHARD DRESSER; FRED SPAGAT; DONNA WINANDY; MICHELLE
WHALEN; STEVEN TALMONTAS; ALIKI MARINOS; JEFFREY WHALEN; TRACI
THOMPSON; ROBERT RITTER, on behalf of themselves and all other
persons similarly situated, known and unknown, Appellants, v.
AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.; PINDROP SECURITY, INC., Case No. 24-3215
(3d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed
the District Court's resolution of several dispositive motions,
discovery motions, and a voluntary dismissal motion.

The Plaintiffs are Illinois citizens who called the financial
services company John Hancock, which routed their calls through
Amazon Connect, a product of Amazon Web Services. Pindrop Security
then used cloud-based biometric technology to authenticate those
callers using their voiceprints. They allege that Amazon and
Pindrop violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act,
740 ILCS 14/1 et seq. ("BIPA"), by collecting the callers'
biometric voiceprints without consent.

BIPA, enacted in 2008, regulates the collection, use, storage, and
destruction of biometric identifiers by private entities, with
certain industry exemptions. It was designed to address privacy
concerns involving biometrics in financial transactions and
security contexts.

In 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action in Illinois
state court against Amazon, alleging violations of BIPA Sections
15(a)–(d). They claim that when they called John Hancock about
their retirement accounts, their calls were routed through Amazon,
which used Pindrop technology to authenticate users by creating
voiceprints without consent, in violation of BIPA.

Amazon removed the case to federal court, and the Southern District
of Illinois dismissed it for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding
the relevant conduct did not occur in Illinois beyond the
Plaintiffs' phone use.

The Plaintiffs then filed a similar action in the District of
Delaware against Amazon and Pindrop. The court dismissed the case
on extraterritoriality grounds, and the Plaintiffs subsequently
filed an amended complaint.

Amazon and Pindrop again moved to dismiss. The district court
dismissed all claims against Pindrop under BIPA's
financial-institution exemption and dismissed all claims against
Amazon except the Section 15(b) claim alleging collection of
biometric data without written consent.

The Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint adding additional
plaintiffs. The court later granted Amazon judgment on the
pleadings on the previously dismissed Section 15(d) claim, granted
summary judgment to Amazon on the remaining claims, and closed the
case.

The Plaintiffs timely appealed, raising five issues: whether the
district court erred in dismissing Pindrop under BIPA's
financial-institution exemption; abused its discretion in denying
discovery motions; abused its discretion in refusing voluntary
dismissal for newly added plaintiffs; and erred in granting Amazon
summary judgment on the Section 15(b) claim and judgment on the
pleadings on the reasserted Section 15(d) claim.

The Third Circuit affirmed the district court in full. It held that
Pindrop was properly dismissed under BIPA's financial-institution
exemption because the complaint itself alleged conduct that fell
within the scope of that exemption. The Court also upheld the
denial of the Plaintiffs' discovery-related motions, finding no
abuse of discretion given the district court's repeated warnings to
narrow discovery requests and the Plaintiffs' failure to comply
with those instructions.

The Third Circuit further affirmed summary judgment for Amazon on
the Section 15(b) claim, concluding that the Plaintiffs failed to
create a genuine dispute of material fact that the relevant conduct
occurred in Illinois, making BIPA's extraterritorial application
improper.

Finally, the Third Circuit upheld judgment on the pleadings for
Amazon on the Section 15(d) claim, finding the Plaintiffs
improperly repleaded a claim previously dismissed without prejudice
after pursuing it elsewhere, and agreeing that dismissal with
prejudice was appropriate.

Because the District Court correctly dismissed Pindrop under the
financial-institution exemption, properly granted summary judgment
and judgment on the pleadings in favor of Amazon, and did not abuse
its discretion in resolving the other challenged motions, the Third
Circuit affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at
https://sl1nk.com/2nxg1t1

Andrew D. Schlichter -- aschlichter@uselaws.com -- Sean E. Soyars,
SCHLICHTER BOGARD LLC, Counsel for Appellants Christine McGoveran,
Joseph Valentine, Amelia Rodriguez, Richard Dresser, Fred Spagat,
Donna Winandy, Michelle Whalen, Steven Talmontas, Aliki Marianos,
Jeffrey Whalen, Traci Thompson, Robert Ritter.

Jody C. Barillare -- jody.barillare@morganlewis.com -- Elizabeth B.
Herrington -- beth.herrington@morganlewis.com -- Michael E.
Kenneally, Jordan McCrary -- jordan.mccrary@morganlewis.com -- Kyle
P. Nodes, Ari M. Selman -- ari.selman@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN
LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP. Counsel for Appellee Amazon Web Services,
Inc.

Andrew B. Bloomer -- andrew.bloomer@kirkland.com -- Jack B.
Blumenfeld -- jblumenfeld@morrisnichols.com -- Megan E. Dellinger,
George W. Hicks, Jr. -- george.hicks@kirkland.com -- Diana Torres
-- diana.torres@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, Counsel for
Appellee Pindrop Security, Inc.

AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Court Sets Class Cert Deadline in "Hanson"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Jon C. Hanson, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. American Financial
Network, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 26-00283-CV-W-BP (W.D. Mo.),
Judge Beth Phillips of the United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri, Western Division, issued an Interim
Scheduling Order on June 2, 2026, establishing deadlines for the
putative class action proceeding.

The court set July 20, 2026, as the deadline for any motion to join
additional parties or amend the pleadings. All discovery shall be
completed on or before March 15, 2027. Plaintiff shall designate
experts by January 4, 2027, and Defendant shall designate experts
by February 4, 2027. Plaintiff's motion for certification of the
class action shall be filed on or before December 1, 2026, with
Defendant's response due 21 days thereafter and Plaintiff's reply
due 10 days after that. All dispositive motions, except those under
Rule 12(h)(2) or (3), shall be filed on or before April 15, 2027.
The court will set dates for the pretrial conference and trial
after the motion for class certification and dispositive motions
are ruled upon.

A copy of the Court's Interim Scheduling Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W1pIzZ from PacerMonitor.com

ARIZONA: Olmos Appeals Denied Bill of Costs & Judgment to 9th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY PAUL OLMOS taking an appeal from a court order denying his
motion for leave to waive, denying the award of costs to him sought
in his bill of costs, and denying his motion to enforce judgment in
the lawsuit entitled Timothy Paul Olmos, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Charles L. Ryan, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-03665-GMS, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona.

The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violation of
prisoner's civil rights.

On Feb. 5, 2026, the Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to waive
and his bill of costs.

On Feb. 18, 2026, the Plaintiff filed a motion to enforce
judgment.

On Mar. 25, 2026, Judge G. Murray Snow entered an Order denying the
Plaintiff's motion for leave to waive, denying the award of costs
to him sought in his bill of costs, and denying his motion to
enforce judgment.

The appellate case is styled as Olmos v. Ryan, et al., Case No.
26-3394, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, filed on May 27, 2026.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on July 6, 2026; and

   -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on August 5, 2026. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant TIMOTHY PAUL OLMOS, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, appears pro se.

Defendants-Appellees CHARLES L. RYAN, et al. are represented by:

       Nancy J. Davis, Esq.
       OFFICE OF THE ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL
       416 W. Congress Street, 2nd Floor
       Tucson, AZ 85701

AT WORLD PROPERTIES: $52.25M Class Settlement Gets Preliminary OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eliana Block, writing for NAR Realtor News, reports that a district
court judge granted preliminary approval of the National
Association of REALTORS' proposed settlement with plaintiffs in the
Tuccori class-action lawsuit on Tuesday, May 26.

In Tuccori et al. v. At World Properties, et al., plaintiffs
alleged that certain industry practices regarding buyer agent
commissions impacted competition and compensation structures.

Preliminary approval is the first step in a multipart approval
process. A final approval hearing remains to be scheduled.

"We are pleased with the Court's preliminary approval of the
Tuccori settlement," an NAR spokesperson said. "This marks a
significant step forward in NAR's process to resolve nationwide
homebuyer claims. NAR continues to believe the settlement is fair,
reasonable and in the best interests of the class, and we will
continue to advocate for it through the final approval process."

NAR agreed to pay $52.25 million to the settlement fund over
several years. Importantly, there are no additional practice
changes for member agents and brokers stipulated by this
settlement.

If approved by the court, the settlement includes a release of
liability for REALTOR members, state and local REALTOR associations
(including those that do, and do not, operate multiple listing
services (MLSs)), REALTOR MLSs, non-REALTOR MLSs, and real estate
brokerages with a REALTOR as principal that have not previously
settled or been named in similar litigation and meet specified
eligibility criteria, including compliance with NAR rules and
policies and not asserting claims contrary to the settlement.

While NAR was not originally named in the Tuccori case, it opted in
to the settlement process to secure a comprehensive resolution to
home buyer claims. The opt-in settlement mechanism allows parties
facing similar claims in other litigation to resolve those claims
efficiently through the settlement framework.

For example, the fate of a separate case involving similar
accusations known as Batton is dependent on the outcome of the
Tuccori settlement. Final approval of the settlement would
effectively release NAR from claims in the Batton lawsuit. [GN]

ATTOM DATA: Paredes Sues Over Unauthorized Use of Identity Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
GILBERTO PAREDES, ROBERT HAFSTAD, and ELIZABETH MCDOWELL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. ATTOM DATA SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 3:26-cv-4921 (N.D. Cal., May 22, 2026) is a class action
seeking to remedy ATTOM's unauthorized commercial use and
disclosure of individuals' identity attributes, including names and
related identifying information, in connection with ATTOM's
Property Navigator subscription platform.

Defendant ATTOM Data Solutions LLC operates a nationwide
property-intelligence platform known as Property Navigator. Through
Property Navigator, ATTOM aggregates and sells property, ownership,
contact, valuation, and market data to paying and prospective
customers.

The complaint relates that through Property Navigator, ATTOM
displays identifiable attributes of real persons associated with
searched properties, including names, property addresses, telephone
numbers, ownership information, and related identifying data. ATTOM
uses those identity attributes as part of its subscription
marketing strategy. By showing users the names and identifying
information of real persons in property reports, ATTOM increases
the perceived value of its platform and encourages users to
register, continue using the service, and purchase a subscription.

ATTOM's conduct is intentional and commercial. It is not incidental
to any news, public affairs, or analogous public-interest function.
Rather, ATTOM uses the identities of real individuals as
promotional content to generate subscription revenue, says the
suit.

Plaintiffs Gilberto Paredes, Robert Hafstad, and Elizabeth McDowell
are California citizens whose addresses were searched as part of
ATTOM's free trial access to Property Navigator and the results
showed Plaintiffs' names as owner-occupants of the property.
Plaintiffs did not authorize or provide consent for this use.

DOES 1 through 10 are the fictitiously named defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
     Chumahan B. Bowen, Esq.
     Matthew M. Macke, Esq.
     Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq.
     WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
     660 S. Figueroa Street, Sky Lobby
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Telephone: (213) 381-9988
     Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
     E-mail: thiago.coelho@wilshirelawfirm.com
             chumahan.bowen@wilshirelawfirm.com
             matthew.macke@wilshirelawfirm.com
             jesenia.martinez@wilshirelawfirm.com

BAM! PIZZA: Files Petition for Writ of Mandamus to 10th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
BAM! PIZZA MANAGEMENT, INC., et al. filed on May 27, 2026, a
petition for writ of mandamus with the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit, under Case No. 26-2090, in connection with an
Order in the lawsuit entitled In re: Bam! Pizza Management, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00209-SMD-JMR, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Mexico. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents DEBORAH WEST, et al., individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by:

        Andy Biller, Esq.
        BILLER & KIMBLE
        4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
        Columbus, OH 43219
        Telephone: (614) 604-8759

                 - and -

        Laura Farmwald, Esq.
        Emily Hubbard, Esq.
        Andrew Kimble, Esq.
        BILLER & KIMBLE
        8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515
        Cincinnati, OH 45236
        Telephone: (513) 715-8712
                   (513) 452-3499
                   (513) 202-0710

                 - and -

        Christopher Murray Moody, Esq.
        MOODY & STANFORD
        P.O. Box 91853
        Albuquerque, NM 87199
        Telephone: (505) 944-0033

Defendants-Petitioners BAM! PIZZA MANAGEMENT, INC., et al. are
represented by:

        Jacob Michael Bass, Esq.
        Micah David Dawson, Esq.
        Janet M. Himmel, Esq.
        Darin Lee Mackender, Esq.
        FISHER & PHILLIPS
        1125 17th Street, Suite 2400
        Denver, CO 80202
        Telephone: (303) 218-3650

                 - and -

        Lindsay Itkin Reimer, Esq.
        FISHER & PHILLIPS
        910 Louisiana Street, Suite 4000
        Houston, TX 77022
        Telephone: (713) 292-0150

BANK OF AMERICA: Cantero Files Certiorari Petition to Supreme Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ALEX CANTERO, et al. filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with
the U.S. Supreme Court, under Case No. 25-1313, seeking a review of
a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit dated May 5, 2026, in the case captioned Alex Cantero, et
al. vs. Bank of America, N.A., Case Nos. 21-400 and 21-403.

Response is due on June 26, 2026.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that the Defendant failed to pay interest to the Plaintiff
and the class members on funds held in escrow accounts.

Plaintiffs-Petitioners Alex Cantero, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Jonathan Ellis Taylor, Esq.
          GUPTA WESSLER PLLC
          2001 K. Street N.W., Suite 850 North
          Washington, DC 20006
          Email: jon@guptawessler.com

BOSLEY INC: Sisti Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER SISTI is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing
his lawsuit entitled Alexander Sisti, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bosley, Inc., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-10669-JFW-DFM, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.

The suit is brought against the Defendants for violations of the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, the California Invasion
of Privacy Act, the Maryland Wiretap Act, and the Maryland Consumer
Protection Act, negligence, invasion of privacy, and unjust
enrichment.

On Jan. 9, 2026, the Plaintiff filed first amended complaint, which
the Defendants moved to dismiss on Feb. 19, 2026.

On Apr. 27, 2026, Judge John F. Walter entered an Order granting
the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The case is dismissed with
prejudice and without leave to amend.

The appellate case is styled as Sisti v. Bosley, Inc., et al., Case
No. 26-3458, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, filed on May 28, 2026.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on June 2,
2026;

   -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order is due on June 10, 2026;

   -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on July 10, 2026;

   -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on August 19, 2026; and

   -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on September 18, 2026.
[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant ALEXANDER SISTI, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, is represented by:

       Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
       HEDIN, LLP
       1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140
       Miami, FL 33131

              - and -

       Tyler Somes, Esq.
       HEDIN LLP
       1100 15th Street NW, Suite 4-105K
       Washington, DC 20009

Defendants-Appellees BOSLEY, INC., et al. are represented by:

       Rachel A. Straus, Esq.
       Saman Mostafavi Rejali, Esq.
       SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, LLP
       2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
       Los Angeles, CA 90067

BOULDER, CO: Police Chief Faces Class Suit Over Surveillance
------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Pampuro, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
in a class action filed against Boulder's police chief, Colorado
residents argue the city's use of Flock Safety Group's license
plate cameras amounts to "a warrantless surveillance dragnet" in
violation of their rights.

"Boulder Police Chief Stephen Redfearn has turned Boulder into a
surveillance state that rivals any dystopian science fiction
novel," said civil rights attorney Andy McNulty in a statement.

Over the last nine years, Flock Safety Group has installed 90,000
cameras across 5,000 communities in every state but Hawaii. On
average, residents say the cameras capture 20 billion vehicles each
month.

Thirty-one of those cameras are in active use in Boulder, located
30 miles north of Denver and home to 108,000 people.

McNulty, who practices with the Denver firm Newman McNulty,
illustrated the extent of the footage captured.

"Every time our clients travel to work, drive to the Islamic Center
to pray, or attend a protest, every time anyone in Boulder goes to
a doctor or takes their child to school, a Flock camera photographs
them, logs the time and GPS coordinates, and dumps the data into a
database that any officer can search for whatever reason they
happen to type into a box," McNulty said in an email.

The Boulder Reporting Lab estimates law enforcement outside of
Boulder searched the city's cameras 424,000 times in a month,
including 5,438 searches on Jan. 1, 2025. Before Boulder cut off
immigration authorities' access to its camera footage last summer,
the Boulder Reporting Lab also found U.S. Border Patrol used the
network more than 100 times.

According to the residents in their complaint, a Texas county that
restricted abortion access also searched Boulder's Flock database
600 times in the months following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision
in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

Since those findings were first published, Boulder began
restricting its data sharing to 90 state law enforcement agencies,
the residents noted.

William Freeman, who commutes to Boulder for work, requested images
and metadata of his own vehicle from the Boulder Police Department,
but was denied access.

In the 22-page class action filed Wednesday, May 27, in Boulder
County District Court, Freeman argues the collection of footage
violates his right against unlawful search and seizure, while the
denial of record access cuts against the Colorado Criminal Justice
Records Act.

In the complaint, Freeman raised concerns about the Flock network
sharing Boulder data with law enforcement in other states and
immigration authorities "without judicial oversight, without a
warrant and without the knowledge of the people being surveilled."

Freeman named as defendants Boulder Police Chief Stephen Redfearn,
along with Dawn Vanackeren, the city's supervisor for Records and
Information Services. A spokesperson for the city said the
government was reviewing the lawsuit.

"As this is now litigation, we will make our arguments and share
our perspective through official court filings and any hearings on
this matter," the spokesperson said over email.

In an email, Flock spokesperson Paris Lewbel stressed the
importance of the technology for law enforcement and told
Courthouse News the company complies with the law.

"The complaint against officials with the city of Boulder raises
questions about automated license plate readers that courts across
the country have considered -- and rejected -- dozens of times
now," Lewbel wrote. "Fixed LPR technology has consistently been
upheld as constitutional.

The case has been assigned to 20th Judicial District Judge Michael
Kotlarczyk. [GN]

CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: M&A Investigates Sale to Fertitta Gaming
---------------------------------------------------------------
Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates
PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a law firm headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Caesars
Entertainment, Inc. (NASDAQ: CZR) related to its sale to Fertitta
Gaming Holdco, LLC. Under the terms of the proposed transaction,
Caesars shareholders are expected to receive (i) $31.00 per share
in cash and (ii) a ticking consideration of $007150 multiplied by
the number of calendar days elapsed after June 27, 2027. Is it a
fair deal?

Visit link for more info
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/caesars-entertainment-inc/. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should
talk to a lawyer and ask:

     1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
     2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
     3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?

About Monteverde & Associates PC

Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.

No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above
listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional
information free of charge, please visit our website or contact
Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.

Contact:

     Juan Monteverde, Esq.
     MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
     The Empire State Building
     350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
     New York, NY 10118
     Tel: (212) 971-1341
     jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN]

CALIX INC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP ("GPWR"), announces that it has
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, captioned Noor v. Calix,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-04993, on behalf of persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Calix, Inc. ("Calix"
or the "Company") (NYSE: CALX) securities between January 28, 2026
and April 21, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff
pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date
of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.

IF YOU SUFFERED A LOSS ON YOUR CALIX INVESTMENTS, visit
https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/calix-inc/ TO INQUIRE ABOUT
POTENTIALLY PURSUING CLAIMS TO RECOVER YOUR LOSS UNDER THE FEDERAL
SECURITIES LAWS.

What Happened?

On April 21, 2026, after the market closed, Calix reported results
for the first quarter of 2026 earnings, including that "[n]on-GAAP
gross margin was 57.2%, a decrease of 80 basis points
sequentially." Further, the Company reported gross margin guidance
for the second quarter of 2026 is "55.8% (at the midpoint) is down
140 basis points from the previous quarter. This decline is
primarily due the increase in memory component costs."

In the accompanying earnings call held on the same date, the
Company's Chief Financial Officer, Cory Sindelar, stated "advanced
purchasing had allowed us to avoid higher memory component costs
during the first quarter. However, that advanced supply has run its
course, and we now face market prices." Sindelar further revealed
"reflecting the effects of higher memory component costs," "[f]or
the year, we expect our non-GAAP gross margin to decline between 50
and 150 basis points."

On this news, Calix's stock price fell $6.93, or 13.98% to close at
$42.65 per share on April 22, 2026, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

What Is The Lawsuit About?

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors:

      (1) the Company's first quarter margins had significantly
benefited from advanced purchasing of memory components;

      (2) that the Company's advanced supply of memory components
was dwindling;

      (3) that, as a result, the Company was experiencing negative
margin pressure as it was forced to purchase memory components at
rising market prices; and

      (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's margins, business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Calix securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the
date of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead
plaintiff.

Contact Us To Participate or Learn More:

If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, contact:

     Charles Linehan, Esq.
     Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Telephone: (310) 201-9150
     Toll-Free: (888) 773-9224
     Email: shareholders@glancylaw.com
     Website at www.glancylaw.com

If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address,
telephone number and number of shares purchased.

To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this
time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and
remain an absent member of the Class.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.[GN]

CARING PEOPLE: Court Compels Arbitration in "Ross" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Arlene Alexander Ross, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Silver Oak
Services Partners, LLC, Silver Oak Services, LLC, Silver Oak CP,
LLC, Silver Oak Management III, LP, Caring People Holdco, LLC,
Caring People Parent, LLC, Caring People NY Operating, LLC, Gregory
M. Barr, Anthony Spiro, Amerisa Kornblum, Christine Deleo, and
Carolina Pellicani, Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-07823 (NCM) (ST)
(E.D.N.Y.), Judge Natasha C. Merle of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York granted the motion to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by Silver Oak
Services Partners, LLC, Silver Oak CP, LLC, Silver Oak Management
III, LP, and Gregory Barr (collectively, Foreign Defendants), and
granted the motion to compel arbitration and stay the litigation
filed by Caring People Holdco, LLC, Caring People Parent, LLC, and
Caring People NY Operating, LLC (collectively, Caring People
Defendants) and individual defendants Anthony Spiro, Amerisa
Kornblum, Christine Deleo, and Carolina Pellicani.

Plaintiff Arlene Alexander Ross is a home health care aide who
worked for Caring People Defendants from May 2022 through February
2024. She filed a complaint on November 11, 2024, asserting
wage-and-hour claims under the FLSA and NYLL, and filed an Amended
Complaint on March 7, 2025, adding Foreign Defendants. On October
31, 2025, defendants filed an omnibus motion to dismiss as to
Foreign Defendants and to compel arbitration as to Caring People
Defendants and individual defendants.

On the personal jurisdiction question, the court found that
plaintiff failed to allege a prima facie case of personal
jurisdiction over Foreign Defendants. Plaintiff argued that Silver
Oak Defendants exercised dominion and control over Caring People
Defendants' finances, policies, and employment practices, making
Caring People Defendants either an agent or a mere department of
Silver Oak Defendants. The court rejected both theories. As to
agency, Silver Oak Defendants were not registered or licensed to do
business in New York and could not operate a home health care
business there. As to mere department status, the court held that
common ownership is the essential factor, and plaintiff's
allegation of a 62% ownership stake by Silver Oak Defendants fell
well short of the nearly identical ownership required under Second
Circuit precedent.

According to the Court "plaintiff's remaining allegations, drawn
largely from litigation papers in a separate Delaware Court of
Chancery action, were too conclusory to establish financial
dependence, interference in personnel selection, or control over
marketing and operational policies.

As to specific jurisdiction, plaintiff failed to connect any New
York transaction by Silver Oak Defendants to her wage-and-hour
claims. The court similarly found no basis for personal
jurisdiction over defendant Gregory Barr, a Florida resident who
neither lived nor owned property in New York and whose
participation in day-to-day operations was alleged in only general
terms insufficient to establish personal conduct tied to the
underlying wage claims. The motion to dismiss as to Foreign
Defendants was therefore granted.

On arbitration, the court found that plaintiff entered into a valid
agreement to arbitrate. Caring People Defendants produced an
electronically signed Acknowledgment Form and an electronically
initialed Arbitration Agreement bearing plaintiff's signature and
initials, submitted through the ExactHire onboarding platform on
August 24, 2021, the same day plaintiff received a conditional
offer of employment. Allen Edwards, Chief Technology Officer of
ExactHire, authenticated those documents.

Plaintiff denied signing the agreement and raised objections based
on font inconsistencies, initial discrepancies, and multiple IP
addresses. The court was unpersuaded, holding that bare denial is
insufficient to overcome the circumstantial evidence of a valid
electronic signature.

The court further found that even setting aside the signature
evidence, plaintiff was bound by the arbitration policy through her
conduct: Caring People Defendants made employment contingent on
completion of the onboarding package, informed all new hires that
employment was conditioned on agreement to arbitrate, and plaintiff
continued working for nearly two years after onboarding. The court
held that plaintiff thereby manifested assent to the Arbitration
Agreement.

The court confirmed that the Arbitration Agreement covered all of
plaintiff's claims, including those arising under the FLSA and
NYLL, which are well-settled as arbitrable in the Second Circuit.
Because all claims were referred to arbitration, a stay of the
proceedings was mandatory. The parties were directed to provide a
status report within 30 days of the completion of arbitration or by
December 1, 2026, whichever is sooner.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Opinion Order dated June 01,
2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V1aaWH from
PacerMonitor.com

CASELY INC: Faces Class Suit Over Overheating Portable Power Pods
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit claims that Casely, Inc. failed to warn consumers
that its Power Pods suffered from a dangerous lithium-ion battery
defect that could cause the portable wireless power banks to
overheat, swell, catch fire and/or explode.

The 28-page complaint relays that the battery-overheating defect in
Casely's Power Pods 5000mAh portable MagSafe wireless power banks,
Model E33A, led to a "renewed" nationwide recall of the devices
announced by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) in
April 2026.

According to the lawsuit, Casely marketed the power banks, which
reportedly sold for between $30 and $70, as fit for their intended
purpose despite knowing about the devices' propensity to overheat
and potentially ignite.

"Those representations about safety were false and misleading, and
the Affected Product, by Defendant's own admission, is not safe,"
the class action lawsuit summarizes.

The suit claims that the company promoted the Power Pods as
"suitable for safe, convenient, and continuous operation" and that
the devices were built using "cutting-edge technology." Per the
filing, Casely's representations of the wireless chargers led
reasonable consumers to believe that the power banks were equipped
with adequate safety mechanisms to prevent overheating and battery
failure during ordinary use.

However, the lawsuit charges that, despite Casely's advertising,
the power banks at issue were "not safer or more reliable than
lower-cost alternatives and, in fact, contained a dangerous defect"
plaguing the devices' lithium-ion batteries.

The case states that approximately 429,200 units were recalled last
month, covering devices that were previously subject to an April
2025 recall that was issued following 51 reports of the power
banks' lithium-ion batteries overheating, expanding or catching
fire during phone charging, resulting in six minor burn injuries.

According to the complaint, the 2026 "reannouncement" of the recall
came after 28 additional reports of overheating, expansion, and
fire following the initial recall initiative, including one
incident aboard an airplane and one reported fatality.

"This sequence of events demonstrates that the defect in the
Affected Product was severe and widespread, and that it was not
adequately addressed at the time of the initial recall," the
complaint charges.

Although consumers impacted by the recall were instructed to
immediately cease use of the affected devices and contact the
company to receive a replacement device or store credit, the
lawsuit contends that Casely's recall remedy is inadequate, given
that consumers must navigate a "cumbersome" multi-step verification
process and may not want to receive a replacement from a company
they no longer trust.

The suit further contends that Casely should have known about the
defect through consumer complaints, incident reports, presale
testing and widely-recognized risks associated with the lithium-ion
batteries.

In particular, the complaint references the "known characteristics"
of lithium-ion battery technology across multiple manufacturing
industries, including a phenomenon known as thermal runaway,
whereby a battery's cell generates heat more quickly than can be
dissipated, potentially resulting in fire or explosion.

The Casely class action lawsuit looks to represent all individuals
who purchased one or more Casely Power Pods 5000mAh portable
wireless power banks, Model E33A, in the United States for personal
or household use during the applicable statute of limitations
period. [GN]

CFH BLONDELL: Granville Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHIKARA GRANVILLE, ISMAILA SINGHATEH, and KIA WHEELER,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. CFH
BLONDELL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND CORPORATION and CARE FOR THE
HOMELESS, Case No. 1:26-cv-04481 (S.D.N.Y., May 28, 2026) seeks to
recover unpaid wages on behalf of Fair Labor Standards Act
Collective Members as well as seeks to recover unpaid compensation
on behalf of Class Members pursuant to the New York labor law.

According to the complaint, the  Defendants continue to employ
workers in New York. Plaintiff Granvilles initial job as a Resident
Aid required her to conduct client intakes, and her subsequent job
as a Cook required her to cook meals, wash dishes, and serve meals
to shelter residents. The Plaintiff regularly worked overtime and
was not compensated for all hours worked, the suit says.

The Defendants have engaged in a common practice of requiring
Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees to work without proper
pay, including substantial overtime work, the suit adds.

The Defendants operate a non-profit corporation providing
healthcare, shelter, housing, and social services to people
experiencing homelessness throughout the five boroughs of New York
City.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sabine Jean, Esq.
          Breanna Small, Esq.
          LAWYERS for JUSTICE, P.C.
          217 Broadway, Suite 511
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (516) 587-8423
          Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
          E-mail: s.jean@calljustice.com
                  b.small@calljustice.com

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hansen Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN HANSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., d/b/a SPECTRUM, Case No.
3:26-cv-00833 (D. Conn., May 28, 2026) alleges that the Defendant
failedto properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other
similarly situated individuals personally identifying information,
including names, email addresses, addresses, phone numbers, phone
type, plan information, and some CPNI data, which includes usage
details, network data, billing information and geographic location
of an active mobile device.

According to the complaint, by collecting, storing, and maintaining
the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, Charter has
a resulting duty to secure, maintain, protect, and safeguard the
Private Information that it collects and stores against
unauthorized access and disclosure through reasonable and adequate
data security measures.

Despite Charter's duty to safeguard the Private Information of
Plaintiff and Class Members, their Private Information in
Defendant's possession was compromised when a hacker using the
online moniker "ShinyHunters" announced on its data leak site that,
on April 1, 2026, it stole more than 42 million records containing
PII "through a voice phishing (vishing) attack that compromised an
employee’s Microsoft Entra account" (the Data Breach).

The Data Breach occurred when cybercriminals infiltrated
Defendant's inadequately protected network servers and accessed
highly sensitive PII that was being kept. The Plaintiff and Class
Members are individuals who were required to indirectly and/or
directly provide Defendant with their Private Information.

Charter is a telecommunications and mass media company that
provides cable television, internet, telephone, and wireless
services to consumers and businesses, primarily under the Spectrum
brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian Murray, Esq.
          BRIAN MURRAY LAW, PLLC
          750 E. Main Street, Suite 620
          Stanford, CT 06902
          Telephone: (203) 883-2170
          E-mail: bmurray@brianmurraylaw.com

               - and -

          Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq.
          Stephen E. Connolly, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
          1760 Market Street, Suite 600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 609-6910
          Facsimile: (267) 609-6955
          E-mail: jerry@lcllp.com
                  steve@lcllp.com

CRAMERS INC: Violates FLSA & H-2A Program Regulations, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
DIEGO AGUILAR ESPARZA, JOSE ENRIQUE ESPARZA GARCIA, ENRIQUE ESPARZA
MACIAS, JOAQUIN GALVAN ESPINOZA, and JUAN MANUEL RODRIGUEZ CAMACHO,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. CRAMERS,
INC., RALPH CRAMER, KEITH CRAMER, and ERIN CRAMER, Case No.
2:26-cv-03711 (E.D. Pa., May 29, 2026) contends that the Defendants
failed to comply with health and safety laws, failed to reimburse
Plaintiffs for costs for the employer's benefit, and interfered
with their exercise of rights under the federal temporary foreign
agricultural worker program (H-2A program).

The Defendants allegedly failed to pay the Plaintiffs the sums due
to them under their contract and/or the federal regulations set
forth at 20 C.F.R. section 655.122. The Defendants intentionally
misrepresented the terms and conditions of employments as well as
the number of hours of work actually offered to Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs further bring this action to redress the violations
of their rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act and regulations
governing the H-2A program. The Plaintiffs seek an award of money
damages to make each of them whole for damages suffered because of
Defendants' violations of the law and contractual breaches.

The Defendants utilized the federal temporary foreign agricultural
worker program (H-2A Program) to recruit and bring foreign workers,
including Plaintiffs, from Mexico to work at its flower growing and
harvesting operation in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. The
Defendants entered employment contracts with Plaintiffs, the terms
of which were primarily dictated by federal regulations.

The Plaintiffs entered the United States pursuant to the H-2A
Program and traveled to Pennsylvania to work for Defendants based
on Defendants' promises that they would abide by the requirements
of the H-2A Program.

The specific terms promised include, that Plaintiffs would be
employed for a certain number of months, receive free housing and
transportation, and be offered 35 hours of work per week (with the
exception of the 2025 season when they were promised that they
would be offered 40 hours of work per week). During each of the
2022–2025, seasons, Defendants breached these provisions, says
the suit.

Cramers Inc. is a fresh flower farm selling to wholesale florists,
distributors, seed companies and other commercial growers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lerae Kroon, Esq.
          PHILADELPHIA LEGAL ASSISTANCE
          718 Arch Street, Suite 300N
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 981-3812
          E-mail: lkroon@philalegal.org

DOLLAR GENERAL: Appeals Arbitration Order in Miller ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION, et al. are taking an appeal from a
court order denying their motion to compel arbitration in the
lawsuit entitled Regina D. Miller, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Dollar General
Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00599, in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

The suit challenges Dollar General's practice of charging a monthly
"tobacco surcharge" without providing the clear and mandatory
disclosures required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974.

On Oct. 1, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's claims and to compel her remaining claims into
individual arbitration.

On Apr. 28, 2026, Judge William L. Campbell, Jr. entered an Order
denying the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration.

The appellate case is styled as Regina Miller v. Dollar General
Corporation, et al., Case No. 26-5479, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on May 28, 2026. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee REGINA D. MILLER, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, is represented by:

       Oren Faircloth, Esq.
       SIRI & GLIMSTAD
       100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor
       Hartford, CT 06103
       Telephone: (772) 783-8436

              - and -

       William Hancock Payne, IV, Esq.
       SIRI GLIMSTAD
       PMB 161
       8 Campus Drive, Suite 105
       Parsippany, NJ 07054
       Telephone: (717) 967-5529

Defendants-Appellants DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION, et al. are
represented by:

       Lindsey Camp, Esq.
       Todd David Wozniak, Esq.
       HOLLAND & KNIGHT
       1180 W. Peachtree Street, N.W., Suite 1800
       Atlanta, GA 30309

              - and -

       Marcus Marion Crider, Esq.
       HOLLAND & KNIGHT
       511 Union Street, Suite 2700
       Nashville, TN 37219

ELECTROLUX CONSUMER: Faces Kelly Suit Over Defective Gas Ranges
---------------------------------------------------------------
MEGAN KELLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ELECTROLUX CONSUMER PRODUCTS, INC., Case No.
1:26-cv-06335 (N.D. Ill., May 28, 2026) is a class action against
the Defendant for selling its "Frigidaire" branded gas ranges which
have an identical dangerous defect, the oven in the ranges can
experience a delayed ignition of the oven's bake burner, posing a
risk of burn hazards to users and to property (the Defect).

According to the complaint, the Defendant has been aware of the
Defect, which is dangerous, for years having received "62 reports
of the oven's bake burner delayed ignition, including 30 reports of
burn injuries."

The Products were recalled, and consumers were instructed to "stop
using ovens in the recalled ranges immediately". Hence, the ranges
are unreasonably dangerous, and unsuitable for one of their
principal and intended purposes.

The Defendant refuses to provide refunds for its admittedly
defective gas ranges. Instead, consumers' only option is to
schedule an in-home installation of a new bake burner. Consumers
have not been able to use the ovens in their gas ranges since they
bought the Products because of the defect.

Furthermore, scheduling the replacement of the bake burner would
take even more time away from the consumer being able to use the
Products until they can schedule the installation and find the part
needed (subject to availability), without certainty that the defect
will not manifest again.

The Plaintiff and the Class are purchasers of Frigidaire-branded
gas ranges, which are manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold
by Electrolux without disclosing to consumers that the Frigidaire
gas ranges' oven can experience a delayed ignition of the oven's
bake burner, posing a risk of burn or property damage to users.

ELECTROLUX CONSUMER PRODUCTS, INC. manufactures and distributes
electrical appliances.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Russell Busch, Esq.
          Nick Suciu III, Esq.
          Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
          Luis Cardona, Esq.
          BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC
          979 Green Bay Road
          Highland Park, IL 60035
          Telephoe: (630) 796-0903
          E-mail: rbusch@brysonpllc.com
                  tkashima@brysonpllc.com
                  lcardona@brysconpllc.com
                   nsuciu@brysconpllc.com

               - and -

          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC
          85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
          Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
          Telephone: (845) 483-7100
          E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com

EMM LOANS: Deadline to Opt-Out Data Breach Suit Deal Set July 17
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports that individuals who received
notice that the February 2024 EMM Loans data breach compromised
their personal information may qualify to submit a claim for up to
$4,000 and credit monitoring from a class action settlement. The
cybersecurity incident impacted at least 2,313 people.

EMM Loans LLC agreed to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it
failed to protect customer data following a targeted cyberattack in
February 2024. The plaintiff claimed the incident exposed sensitive
personal information, such as names and Social Security, driver's
license, state identification and passport numbers.

Who can file a claim for a data breach payout?

Class members are individuals residing in the United States whose
personally identifiable information the data breach EMM Loans
discovered in February 2024 involved, including those who received
a notice of the incident.

How much are settlement payments?

Class members have the following benefit options:

-- Credit monitoring: All class members can elect to receive two
years of CyEx Financial Shield Complete. Services include
monitoring for fraud, unauthorized transactions and high-risk
activity and access to a fraud resolution agent if suspicious
activity is detected.

-- Unreimbursed economic losses: Up to $4,000 for documented
out-of-pocket losses and lost time related to the data breach.

    --Out-of-pocket losses may include monetary losses due to
identity theft and fraud, fees for credit reports, credit
monitoring and freezing/unfreezing credit, cost to replace IDs and
postage for contacting financial institutions by mail.

    --Lost time includes up to three hours at $30 per hour ($90
maximum) for time spent dealing with the data breach.

-- Alternative cash payment: Class members who do not submit an
unreimbursed economic losses claim can submit a claim to receive a
one-time alternative cash payment of $50.

How to claim a class action rebate

To receive a settlement payment, class members can file a claim
online or print the PDF claim form to complete and mail to the
settlement administrator.

Settlement administrator's mailing address: EMM Loans Data Incident
Settlement, c/o Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 25226, Santa
Ana, CA 92799-9958

The claim deadline is Aug. 17, 2026.

Required proof and claim information

-- To submit an online claim, class members must provide the
unique ID and PIN from the settlement notice they received.

-- Out-of-pocket losses require supporting documentation, such as
receipts, bank or credit card statements showing unreimbursed fees
or fraudulent charges, invoices for services and other proof of
fraud or identity theft related to the data breach.

-- Lost time claims require a brief description of how the class
member spent the time.

Payout options

-- Paper check mailed to the address provided (only option for
claims submitted by mail)
-- PayPal
-- Venmo
-- Zelle

Settlement fund breakdown

The settlement fund will include:

-- Settlement administration costs: To be determined
-- Attorneys' fees and costs: Up to $125,000
-- Service award to class representative: Up to $5,000
-- Credit monitoring: Cost determined by number of claims filed
-- Payments to approved claimants: Total determined by number of
valid claims filed

Important dates

-- Deadline to opt out of the settlement: July 17, 2026
-- Deadline to file a claim: Aug. 17, 2026
-- Final approval hearing: Aug. 24, 2026

When is the EMM Loans data breach settlement payout date?

The settlement administrator will issue payments and credit
monitoring information to approved claimants after it completes
claim processing and the court grants final approval of the
settlement.

Why did this class action settlement happen?

This class action lawsuit alleged a targeted cyberattack on EMM
Loans' computer systems in February 2024 exposed files containing
personal information belonging to customers. The plaintiff claimed
EMM Loans failed to adequately protect this data.

EMM Loans denies the allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the
expense and risk of continued litigation.

Settlement Open for Claims

Award: Up to $4,000 plus credit monitoring
Deadline: August 17, 2026 [GN]

FEDEX SUPPLY: Flores Suit Removed from State Ct. to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as MIGUEL FLORES, an individual
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FEDEX SUPPLY
CHAIN, INC., a Delaware corporation; FEDEX SUPPLY CHAIN
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. CVSB2610856 (Filed April 7, 2026)
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, Eastern Division on May 28,
2026.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:26-cv-02916 to the proceeding.

In the operative Complaint, the Plaintiff asserts these causes of
action: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime
wages; and failure to provide meal periods in violation of the
California Labor Code.

FedEx Supply Chain is a third-party logistics provider and
subsidiary of FedEx Corporation.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew B. Golper, Esq.
          Amanda C. Koziol, Esq.
          Inbal Giron, Esq.
          BALLARD ROSENBERG GOLPER & SAVITT, LLP
          15760 Ventura Boulevard, Eighteenth Floor
          Encino, California 91436
          Telephone: (818) 508-3700
          Facsimile: (818) 506-4827
          E-mail: mgolper@brgslaw.com
                  akoziol@brgslaw.com
                  igiron@brgslaw.com

FITNESS INTERNATIONAL: Taylor Sues Over Unwanted Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
KEYONA TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Case No.
4:26-cv-04270 (S.D. Tex., May 29, 2026) contends that the Defendant
promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending
unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal
conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment,
aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of
individuals.

The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and
members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies.

Fitness International is a privately held American health club
chain headquartered in Irvine, California. Founded in 1984, it
operates nearly 700 locations across the United States and Canada
under multiple brand names, including LA Fitness, Esporta Fitness,
City Sports Club, and Club Studio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce W. Steckler, Esq.
          STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE PLLC
          12720 Hillcrest Rd., Suite 1045
          Dallas, TX 75230
          Telephone: (972) 387-4040
          Facsimile: (972) 387-4041
          E-mail: bruce@stecklerlaw.com  

               - and -

          Philip Krzeski, Esq.
          Nicolas R. Kaylor, Esq.
          CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA  
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700  
          Minneapolis, MN 55401  
          Telephone: (612) 339-7300  
          Facsimile: (612) 336-2940  
          E-mail: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com
                  nkaylor@chestnutcambronne.com

FORD MOTOR: Discovery Motion Denied in "Dolan" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as James Dolan, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Ford Motor
Company, Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:23-cv-00512 (E.D. Va.),
Senior United States District Judge Robert E. Payne of the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied
Ford's motion for a protective order regarding Plaintiffs' Sixth
Requests for Production of Documents.

Ford argued that producing documents from 13 additional custodians
would require approximately 1,500 hours, based on a declaration by
its attorney Jodi Schebel. The court found that declaration
insufficient, holding that the average hours per custodian from
previous work was not connected to any projection of burden for the
new custodians in different circumstances.

The court further held that documents from supervisory and
executive employees of Ford were relevant and that Plaintiffs were
entitled to them. Ford was ordered to produce the requested
documents by August 1, 2026.

A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rIPRz6 from PacerMonitor.com.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, represented by:

Jonathan Tuck Tan, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
804-775-7312
jtan@mcguirewoods.com

Brian David Schmalzbach, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
804-775-4746
bschmalzbach@mcguirewoods.com

John Stephen Tagert, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
202-857-2407
stagert@mcguirewoods.com

Perry W. Miles, IV, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
804-775-1039
pmiles@mcguirewoods.com

Hector Torres, Esq.
KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
212-506-1700
htorres@kasowitz.com

Stephen Paul Thomasch, Esq.
KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
212-506-1700
sthomasch@kasowitz.com

Cindy Caranella Kelly, Esq.
KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
212-506-1700
ckelly@kasowitz.com

Jodi Munn Schebel, Esq.
BOWMAN & BROOKE LLP
248-205-3300
jodi.schebel@bowmanandbrooke.com

James Dolan, Plaintiff, represented by:

Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES PC
757-930-3660
lenbennett@clalegal.com

Drew David Sarrett, Esq.
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES PC
804-905-9900
drew@clalegal.com

John Justin Maravalli, Esq.
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES PC
757-782-4716
john@clalegal.com

Adam Short, Esq.
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES PC
757-930-3660
adam@clalegal.com

Mark Clifton Leffler, Esq.
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES PC
757-930-3660
mark@clalegal.com

William Randolph Robins, Jr., Esq.
LANTZ & ROBINS PC
804-404-7870
rrobins@lantzrobins.com

FORWARD AIR: Faces Class Action Suit Over Labor Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
JDSupra reports that Forward Air Corporation is facing a class
action suit filed in Los Angeles County, alleging multiple labor
law violations, including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to
reimburse business expenses, and use of an improper compensation
plan for its truck drivers. According to the complaint, Forward Air
paid its drivers on a mileage-rate basis, not accounting for
non-driving and other time which the class members allege is
required compensable time under California law.

Plaintiff Tiga S. Stevenson, and all others similarly situated,
applied online, were hired, and required to attend mandatory
training. After that, plaintiffs had to "clock in and out", were
"assigned specific routes and schedules", and waited for
"electronically dispatched loads." Plaintiffs claim "[p]laintiff
had little to no discretion regarding the manner or order in which
work was performed and was not permitted to select or decline
routes[.]" "The trucks . . . displayed [d]efendants' names and . .
. signage." Despite this level of control, defendant paid
plaintiffs strictly "on a per-mile basis", which allegedly "fails
to compensate for non-driving time in violation of the California
Labor Code." Plaintiffs also allege they "were required to perform
non-driving . . . duties" -- such as pre- and post-trip
inspections, "waiting time, and other on-duty time" -- without
proper compensation. As a result, they claim "defendant failed to
pay . . . for all hours worked."

Likely Outcome While Litigation Is Ongoing

While we cannot be certain, at this stage, the most likely outcome
is not a trial, but a negotiated resolution. Cases like this --
particularly wage-and-hour class actions in California -- almost
always turn on a few key issues: control, compensation structure,
and whether employees were paid for all hours worked.

First, the level of control matters. Plaintiffs are alleging they
were assigned routes, required to follow schedules, and had no
ability to accept or reject work. If supported, those facts weigh
in favor of employee status and undermine any argument that drivers
operated independently.

Second, the mileage-based compensation model presents risk.
California law requires payment for all hours worked, not just
productive or driving time. If drivers were paid per mile, and not
separately compensated for waiting time, inspections, or other
on-duty tasks, that creates a clear exposure point. The issue is
not just how they were paid, but whether that pay structure
captures all compensable time.

The procedural turning point in this case will likely be class
certification. Reviewing courts consistently look to the
allegations of the complaint and the declarations of attorneys
representing the plaintiff class to resolve this question.[viii] If
the court finds that these policies were applied uniformly across
drivers, certification is likely, which significantly increases the
pressure on defendant to resolve the case. If certification is
denied, the value of the case drops and it may proceed, if at all,
on an individual basis.

Assuming certification is granted and there is some evidence of
uncompensated non-driving time, the most probable outcome is a
class-wide settlement, often reached at mediation or shortly
thereafter. The value of any resolution will depend on the size of
the class, the duration of the alleged violations, and the
availability (or lack) of reliable time records. A full defense
verdict or trial remains possible but is far less likely given the
cost and risk associated with litigating class actions of this
nature.

Key Takeaways for Carriers and Defense Counsel

From a defense and carrier standpoint, cases like this are about
controlling exposure early, not winning at trial. Wage-and-hour
class actions in California get expensive fast, especially if a
class gets certified.

First, the pay structure is what matters. Employers can call
someone whatever they want, but if they are being paid in a way
that does not cover all hours worked, that is where the problem
lies. Mileage-based pay can be an issue if it does not account for
things like waiting time, inspections, or other on-duty work.

Second, uniform policies are what drive these cases. If everyone is
being paid the same way and doing the job the same way, it makes it
much easier for plaintiffs to get a class certified. On the defense
side, anything that shows differences between drivers -- routes,
schedules, how they are managed -- can help push back on that.

Third, document, document, document. Records can make or break the
case. If there is no good way to track non-driving time, that
usually works against the defense. Plaintiffs will fill in the
gaps, and that tends to increase the value of the case.

Fourth, the real fight is at class certification. That is where the
case either becomes a big problem or stays manageable. Once a class
is certified, the pressure to settle goes way up.

Finally, early resolution is usually worth considering. These cases
are expensive to litigate, and fees add up quickly. Even if
liability is not clear, the cost of getting through certification
alone can be high. Sometimes it makes more sense to resolve it
early rather than spend more fighting it. Bottom line: Look at the
pay structure, look at the policies, and look at the records early.
Those items will drive exposure and determine the case resolution.
[GN]

FRC BALANCE: Appeals Remand Order in Hook Labor Suit to 9th Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
FRC BALANCE, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order in the
lawsuit entitled Jordan Van Hook, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FRC Balance, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-04159-RGK-AYP, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit,
which was removed from the Superior Court for the State of
California for the County of Riverside to the United States
District Court for Central District of California, is brought
against the Defendant for alleged violations of California Labor
Code and California's Business and Professions Code.

On May 12, 2026, Judge R. Gary Klausner entered an Order remanding
the case to state court. The Court finds that the Defendant has not
met its burden to demonstrate that removal was timely and proper.
In light of the foregoing, the action is hereby remanded to state
court for all further proceedings.

The appellate case is styled as Van Hook v. FRC Balance, LLC, Case
No. 26-3349, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, filed on May 26, 2026.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on June 1,
2026;

   -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on July 6, 2026; and

   -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on August 5, 2026. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee JORDAN VAN HOOK, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, is represented by:

       William M. Hogg, Esq.
       LAUREL EMPLOYMENT LAW, APC
       808 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200
       Santa Monica, CA 90401

Defendant-Appellant FRC BALANCE, LLC is represented by:

       Nikolas T. Djordjevski, Esq.
      Tracie Childs, Esq.
      Andrew J. Deddeh, Esq.
      OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC
      4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900
      San Diego, CA 92122

GKN DRIVELINE: Appeal from Decertification Order in Mebane Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES MEBANE, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, and ANGELA WORSHAM, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No.
25-2191 (4th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit dismissed Mebane's appeal from district court's
decertification order for lack of jurisdiction.

Plaintiff–Appellant Mebane brought a class-action lawsuit against
his former employer, Defendant GKN, alleging that violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the North Carolina Wage and
Hour Act (NCWHA) resulted in unpaid overtime compensation and
unpaid wages.

GKN operates three manufacturing facilities in North Carolina and
used time-rounding policies for employee time entries. It initially
applied a 7/8 rounding rule, under which time was rounded to the
nearest quarter hour, and later switched to a 3-minute rule that
rounded clock-in and clock-out times to scheduled shift start and
end times if they occurred within three minutes. GKN discontinued
all rounding practices in January 2020.

GKN also automatically deducted a 30-minute unpaid meal break from
employees' recorded hours. Employees were not required to clock in
or out for meal breaks, and the deduction was applied regardless of
whether a break was actually taken, although employees were
expected to be fully relieved of work duties during the break.

Plaintiffs James Mebane and Angela Worsham—both former GKN
employees—sued GKN on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated. They alleged in their operative complaint that GKN's
rounding and automatic deduction policies resulted in unpaid
overtime compensation and unpaid wages, in violation of both the
FLSA and the NCWHA.

The Plaintiffs moved for class certification under Rule 23 and
conditional collective action certification under 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b). The district court largely granted the Plaintiffs' motion.
First, it conditionally certified an FLSA collective action based
on GKN's rounding policy. Second, it certified a Rule 23(b)(3)
class to pursue an NCWHA claim also based on GKN's rounding policy.
And third, it certified another Rule 23(b)(3) class, this one to
pursue an NCWHA claim based on GKN's automatic deduction policy.

GKN later moved to decertify the FLSA collective action and the
Rule 23 classes, and the district court granted the motion. The
court found that claims based on the rounding policy would require
individualized inquiries into whether rounded time was compensable,
how much time was deducted from each employee, and whether
employees were negatively affected by the policy.

The court also decertified the Rule 23 class challenging the
automatic meal-break deduction policy, finding that not all
employees worked during deducted meal periods and that
individualized inquiries would be needed to determine whether
supervisors knew or should have known employees were working during
those breaks.

After the FLSA collective action and Rule 23 classes were
decertified, the case proceeded on the Plaintiffs' individual FLSA
and NCWHA claims. In November 2024, the parties settled those
claims, with GKN agreeing to pay a monetary amount in full
settlement of the released claims, while attorneys' fees and
expenses were excluded and left for the Plaintiffs' counsel to seek
separately by petition.

The settlement expressly preserved the Plaintiffs' right to appeal
the district court's May 12, 2023 decertification order. It also
provided that the Plaintiffs could seek service awards in related
cases and required any petition for attorneys' fees and costs to be
filed by December 17, 2024.

The Plaintiffs timely filed a petition for attorneys' fees and
costs, which GKN opposed. After briefing was completed, the
district court entered a consent judgment approving the settlement
and dismissed all remaining substantive claims with prejudice. It
then denied the fee petition without prejudice, and the Plaintiffs
did not refile it. Mebane subsequently appealed the district
court's decertification order.

Mebane argued that the district court abused its discretion in
decertifying the FLSA collective action and the two Rule 23(b)(3)
classes. He also challenged the court's legal standard for the
collective action, the timing of Rule 23(c)(2)(B) notice for the
automatic deduction class, and its reliance on declarations from
current GKN employees. GKN defended the decertification rulings but
argued that Mebane lacks standing to appeal because he settled his
FLSA and NCWHA claims.

The Fourth Circuit agreed with GKN and held that Mebane lacks
standing, resolving the appeal on that basis. It found that before
he filed his notice of appeal, Mebane voluntarily settled his
individual FLSA and NCWHA claims in the district court.
Essentially, Mebane voluntarily dismissed his individual claims
underlying the request for class certification. He has no remaining
interest in his substantive claims to establish standing to pursue
his appeal. For these reasons, Mebane lacks standing to appeal the
district court's order decertifying the two Rule 23(b)(3) classes
and the FLSA collective action. As a result, the Fourth Circuit
dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum is available at
https://l1nq.com/yzg3xrv.

ARGUED: Gilda Adriana Hernandez, LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ,
PLLC, Cary, North Carolina, for Appellant.

Paul DeCamp -- PDeCamp@ebglaw.com -- EPSTEIN, CKER & GREEN, P.C.,
Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

ON BRIEF: Laura Fisher, THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ,
PLLC, Cary, North Carolina, for Appellant.

Adriana S. Kosovych -- akosovych@ebglaw.com -- EPSTEIN, BECKER &
GREEN, P.C., New York, New York, for Appellee.

GRAND JUNCTION, CO: Denial of Attorney Fees & Costs Reversed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Grand Junction Peace Officers' Association, a/k/a
Grand Junction Police Officers' FOP Lodge 68, on behalf of its
members and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The City of Grand Junction; Claudia
Hazelhurst; Jodilyn Romero, n/k/a Jodilyn "Jodi" Welch; and Gregory
Caton, Defendants-Appellants, Court of Appeals No. 25CA1325 (Colo.
App.), the Court of Appeals of Colorado, Division II, reversed the
district court's orders denying the Defendants' (1) requests to
dismiss a claim for an accounting asserted by the Association and
(2) motion for attorney fees and costs.

In 1998, the City established the Retiree Health Program (RHP) to
cover health insurance premiums for certain retired employees.
Initially, participation was mandatory for all City employees
enrolled in the City's health plan, with funding provided through
biweekly payroll deductions that were nonrefundable. Later, due to
concerns about the program's financial stability, the City
significantly revised the RHP, including changes to its funding
structure, eligibility and enrollment rules, and benefits.

In April 2021, the Association filed a class action complaint
against the City and the Individual Defendants; the Individual
Defendants were each City employees at the times relevant to this
appeal and were named in their individual and official capacities.

In its amended complaint, the Association alleged that the RHP may
no longer be financially viable because of the Defendants'
mismanagement. It claimed that participants risk losing both their
contributions and the investment earnings those funds should have
generated if properly managed. The Association also alleged that
the Defendants' conduct made it nearly impossible for anyone other
than the City to accurately determine the amounts contributed to
the program and any additional premiums or benefits owed to
participants.

Based on those allegations, the Association asserted three claims
against the City: breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and
accounting. It also brought seven claims against the Individual
Defendants, including civil theft, breach of fiduciary duty,
fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, conversion, civil
conspiracy to commit fraud, and interference with contract.

The Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA),
arguing that the Association's claims either sounded in tort or
could lie in tort. In response, the Association voluntarily
withdrew its claims for civil theft, fraudulent misrepresentation,
conversion, and civil conspiracy to commit fraud, but requested a
Trinity hearing to resolve factual disputes regarding its six
remaining claims, citing Trinity Broad. of Denv., Inc. v. City of
Westminster, 848 P.2d 916 (Colo. 1993).

The district court partially granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss (dismissal order). It dismissed the breach of contract
claim as barred by the CGIA, finding it could lie in tort, and
dismissed the negligent misrepresentation and
interference-with-contract claims due to untimely notice. However,
it denied dismissal of the breach of fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment claims and scheduled a Trinity hearing to resolve
related factual issues. The court also held that the Association's
accounting claim could not lie in tort and therefore was not barred
by the CGIA.

After conducting a Trinity hearing, the district court dismissed
the Association's unjust enrichment claim against the City,
concluding that it could lie in tort and was therefore barred by
the CGIA. The court also dismissed the breach of fiduciary duty
claim against the individual defendants as untimely. Although the
Trinity order identified the accounting claim as remaining in the
case, it did not substantively analyze that claim under the CGIA.

In the Trinity order, the district court found the Association
failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction or a waiver of
sovereign immunity under the CGIA and dismissed the complaint for
lack of jurisdiction. It also awarded the defendants reasonable
attorney fees and costs.

The Association moved for clarification, noting that the Trinity
order did not address its accounting claim. The Defendants, in
turn, sought attorney fees and costs, arguing that the court had
dismissed the amended complaint in full.

Before the court ruled on the pending motions, the Association
filed an interlocutory appeal under section 24-10-108, C.R.S. A
division affirmed dismissal of the breach of contract and unjust
enrichment claims against the City and the breach of fiduciary duty
claim against the Individual Defendants. However, it found the
record unclear as to whether the accounting claim had been
dismissed and remanded for the district court to rule on the
clarification motion and resolve the Defendants' request for
attorney fees and costs.

On remand, the district court granted the Association's motion for
clarification (clarification order), holding that the accounting
claim could proceed as a distinct equitable claim. Because that
claim remained pending, the court denied the Defendants' request
for attorney fees and did not address their request for costs.

The City moved for reconsideration, arguing the court erred in
allowing the accounting claim to proceed and seeking dismissal of
the complaint. The district court denied the motion
(reconsideration order), holding that an accounting may proceed as
a standalone equitable claim to obtain a clear and verifiable
record of the retirement accounts' financial activity.

The Defendants appeal the clarification and reconsideration orders,
arguing the district court should have dismissed the accounting
claim under the CGIA. They also contend the court erred in denying
attorney fees and failing to address their request for costs.

The Court of Appeals opined that the Defendants' motion for
reconsideration tolled the time for appealing the clarification
order and rendered their later notice of appeal timely. It agreed
with the Defendants that their motion for reconsideration qualified
as a Rule 59 motion. The motion sought amendment of the court's
judgment that the accounting claim wasn't subject to dismissal
under the CGIA, bringing it squarely within Rule 59. And while the
motion cited C.R.C.P. 121, section 1-15(11), rather than Rule 59,
the substance of both the motion and the reconsideration order
focused on whether the court’s judgment under the CGIA should be
amended.

Moreover, the Court of Appeals held that the CGIA bars the
Association's accounting claim because it lies in tort. It reasoned
that the Association's claim for an accounting, even if equitable
in nature, is premised upon, and could succeed only upon a
demonstration of the Defendants' liability for claims that are
barred under the CGIA. Accordingly, the Association's accounting
claim is barred under the CGIA.

Lastly, the Court of Appeals explained that when a plaintiff pleads
a mix of both tort and nontort claims, a prevailing defendant is
entitled to recover attorney fees under the statute if the essence
of the action was one in tort. It found that the essence of the
action was. The Association's accounting claim was premised on
claims that lie in tort or could lie in tort. The Association did
plead most of its claims as torts.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals reversed the district
court's orders declining to dismiss the accounting claim and its
order denying the Defendants' motion for attorney fees and costs.
It remanded the case to the district court with directions to (1)
dismiss the accounting claim; (2) determine and award the
Defendants their reasonable attorney fees; and (3) resolve the
Defendants' request for costs.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at
https://l1nq.com/t4wqqnk.

Wegener Lane & Evans, PC, Benjamin Wegener -- ben@wlelegal.com --
Meaghan Fischer -- meaghan@wlelegal.com -- Grand Junction,
Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Nathan Dumm & Mayer P.C., J. Andrew Nathan -- anathan@ndm-law.com
-- Daniel A. Jacobs, Jeffrey E. Miller, Denver, Colorado, for
Defendants-Appellants.

GUZMAN Y GOMEZ: Employees Terminated Without Notice, Martinez Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
MONICA MARTINEZ and YOMIRA GOMEZ, on behalf of themselves and all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GUZMAN Y GOMEZ
CORP., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-6094
(N.D. Ill., May 24, 2026) is a class action under the federal
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN") and the
Illinois Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act
("IWARN") over Defendant's failure to provide notice of mass layoff
or plant closing.

The complaint relates that on May 21, 2026, the Defendant's
restaurant locations permanently closed. All six of Defendant's
Chicagoland restaurant locations abruptly closed. Employees at all
of Defendant's locations were terminated immediately without any
prior notice. Prior to its closure and mass layoff of employees,
the corporate Defendant employed more than 100 employees in its
Restaurant locations and/or had 100 or more employees who in the
aggregate worked at least 4,000 hours per week exclusive of
overtime. The mass layoff or plant closing resulted in "employment
losses" for at least 50 of Defendant's employees as well as 33% of
Defendant's workforce, excluding "part time employees".

By conducting business using the centralized administrative
infrastructure of GYG Australia, including centralized human
resources, payroll, and executive decision-making authority,
Defendant and GYG Australia operated their interrelated businesses
as a single joint employer and are jointly and severally liable for
the violations under the law as alleged in this Complaint.

Plaintiff Monica Martinez was employed at Defendant's restaurant
location in Evanston, Illinois. Ms. Martinez began her employment
with Defendant in July 2025 as a Lead Barista and was promoted to
Shift Leader approximately six months prior to the closure.

Plaintiff Yomira Gomez was employed at Defendant's restaurant
location in Des Plaines, Illinois. Ms. Gomez began her employment
with Defendant in December 2024 as a Barista and was promoted to
Shift Leader in May 2025.

Defendant Guzman y Gomez Corp is a Delaware corporation registered
to do business in the State of Illinois and engaged in the business
of operating fast-casual Mexican restaurants in the Chicagoland
area. On information and belief, Defendant operated no fewer than
six (6) restaurant locations in the Northern District of Illinois
at the time of the events giving rise to this action.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Syed Haseeb Hussain, Esq.
     HASEEB LEGAL, PLLC
     420 E Waterside Dr #3004
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Main: (954) 225-4934
     Office: (630) 534-2527
     E-mail: sh@haseeblegal.com

HAGERTY INSURANCE: All Discovery Must be Completed by Dec. 15
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC RUSSELL, individual
and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. HAGERTY INSURANCE
AGENCY, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00318-SDM-SCS (S.D. Ohio), the Hon.
Judge Shimeall entered a preliminary pretrial order as follows:

The parties submitted their Rule 26(f) Report on May 26, 2026, and
indicated their preference that the Court issue a Preliminary
Pretrial Order without a conference.

Accordingly, the June 2, 2026, preliminary pretrial conference is
vacated.

-- The parties have agreed to make initial disclosures by June
    30, 2026.

-- Motions or stipulations addressing the parties or pleadings,
    if any, must be filed no later than Sept. 15, 2026. The
    parties agree that the motion for class certification shall be

    filed by Oct. 15, 2026.

-- All discovery shall be completed by Dec. 15, 2026.

-- Primary expert reports, if any, must be produced by Oct. 15,
    2026. Rebuttal expert reports, if any, must be produced by
    Dec. 7, 2026.

-- Case dispositive motions must be filed by Feb. 15, 2027.

The Defendant offers insurance for classic cars, boats,
motorcycles, and more.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 27, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=McI7IY at no extra
charge.[CC]

 


HEALTH VIA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Murphy Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. HEALTH VIA MODERN NUTRITION INC., Case No.
1:26-cv-04504 (S.D.N.Y., May 28, 2026) sues the Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its commercial
website, https://ketone.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.

During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on
April 29, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Ketone IQ No Caffeine
Shot 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.

The Plaintiff visited the Website in order to purchase a Ketone-IQ
No Caffeine Shot. The Plaintiff attempted to purchase a Ketone-IQ
No Caffeine Shot but was unable to locate pricing and was not able
to add the items to the cart due to broken links, pictures without
alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's Website,
which prevented him from doing so, says the suit.

The Defendant offers the commercial website to the public. The
Website offers features which should allow all consumers to access
the goods and services offered by Defendant and which Defendant
ensures delivery of such goods and services throughout the United
States including New York State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michael A. LaBollita, 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

HEAVEN HILL: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Lunazul Tequila
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit claims that Heaven Hill Distilleries falsely
advertises its Lunazul tequila as "100% agave," given that the
product is adulterated with non-agave sugars during the
fermentation process.

The 34-page complaint contends that Heaven Hill Distilleries and
its Mexican manufacturing partner, Tierra de Agaves, deceptively
market the purportedly 100-percent agave, zero-additive Lunazul
tequilas, even though independent testing has revealed that the
products' ethanol is derived in material part from non-agave
sources, such as corn or sugarcane.

According to the suit, consumers' understanding of the term "100%
agave" is consistent with Mexican tequila labeling regulations in
that a reasonable shopper understands the claim to mean every drop
of liquid in the bottle came from fermented agave sugar, "with no
cane, corn, or other non-agave sugar source introduced at any stage
of production."

The complaint explains that tequila labeled 100-percent agave is
widely regarded as higher quality than "mixto" tequila, which can
legally contain up to 49 percent non-agave sugars.

Because consumers cannot verify or test the accuracy of these
claims on their own, producers can charge a significant price
premium for products marketed as "100% agave," the lawsuit argues.

"A representation that a product is '100% agave' is therefore not a
matter of degree but a categorical assertion: any addition of
non-agave sugar, in any amount, makes the claim false," the filing
states.

The accusations in the lawsuit are based on testing conducted by an
independent, accredited laboratory in France using carbon isotope
analysis to examine the tequila's molecular composition. According
to the complaint, all four tested samples of Lunazul tequila were
deemed "not compliant" with the specific isotopic signatures
associated with alcohol fermented from agave, allegedly indicating
the presence of sugars from other sources.

Despite this, the lawsuit says, "100% agave" labeling appears
consistently across all Lunazul tequila bottles and in marketing
and promotional materials, conveying to consumers that the product
is premium, authentic agave tequila.

The suit claims the "100% agave" misrepresentation has enabled the
defendants to sell roughly 54 million bottles of Lunazul Tequila in
the United States since May 2021, generating over $1 billion in
sales.

The case further alleges that the mislabeling of tequila products
as "100% agave" despite the use of alternative sugars is a
"widespread industry practice." Per the complaint, this is due to
the "mathematically irreconcilable" volume at which 100-percent
agave tequila has been produced in recent years in comparison to
the supply of agave in Mexico, which has dwindled substantially due
to unfavorable weather conditions and growing demand.

The Lunazul class action lawsuit seeks to represent all consumers
who purchased Lunazul tequila in the United States. [GN]

HENDERSON & WALTON: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $900,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Henderson & Walton
Women's Center, P.C. has agreed to a $900,000 settlement to resolve
a class action lawsuit that alleged the OB/GYN and women's health
practice failed to protect current and former patients' sensitive
information from a February 2022 data breach.

The $900,000 Henderson & Walton Women's Center class action
settlement received preliminary approval from the court on March
24, 2026. The deal covers all individuals whose personal and/or
protected health information was potentially compromised as a
result of the data breach that occurred between February 11 and
February 14, 2022.

The court-approved website for the Henderson & Walton Women's
Center data breach settlement can be found at
HWWCDataIncidentSettlement.com.

Settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form can
receive up to $150 for "ordinary" losses stemming from the data
breach. Losses covered by this benefit include bank fees, phone and
data charges, postage, travel, and costs for credit reports, credit
monitoring or other identity theft insurance services purchased
between August 2022 and August 27, 2026.

Class members must submit proof, such as receipts, to receive an
ordinary-loss payment.

Class members can also file a claim form to receive up to $2,500
for "extraordinary" losses incurred as a result of the breach that
are not covered by the ordinary-loss benefit.

Class members must submit proof, such as identity theft reports,
affidavits, police reports, or other correspondence, to receive an
extraordinary-loss payment.

In addition, class members may file a claim to receive
reimbursement for up to three hours of lost time spent responding
to the breach, at a rate of $30 per hour. Class members must
provide with their claim an attestation indicating how this time
was spent.

Finally, all class members can file a claim form to receive three
years of medical and credit monitoring, which includes one-bureau
credit monitoring, dark web scanning, identity theft insurance, and
other services.

To file a Henderson & Walton Women's Center settlement claim form
online, class members can head to this page and log in using the
notice ID and confirmation code listed on their copy of the
settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF
of the claim form to print, fill out, and return by mail to the
settlement administrator.

All class action settlement claim forms must be submitted online or
by mail by August 27, 2026.

The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the
Henderson & Walton Women's Center settlement following a hearing on
August 12, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class
members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are
resolved.

The Henderson & Walton Women's Center class action lawsuit claimed
that the Alabama-based women's healthcare and OB/GYN practices
failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to protect
the sensitive information of current and former patients, which
allegedly led to a data breach between February 11 and February 14,
2022.

Per court documents, private information potentially exposed during
the breach included dates of birth, Social Security numbers,
medical information, health insurance information, driver's license
numbers and state ID numbers. [GN]

HILSCHER-CLARKE: Initial Disclosures in Burson Suit Due June 26
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA BURSON, v.
HILSCHER-CLARKE ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., Case No.
2:26-cv-00076-MHW-SCS (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Shimeall entered
a preliminary pretrial order as follows:

The parties submitted their Rule 26(f) Report on May 18, 2026, and
indicated that a conference was not necessary.

Accordingly, the Preliminary Pretrial Conference set for May 27,
2026 is vacated.

-- The parties will provide initial disclosures by June 26, 2026.


-- Motions or stipulations addressing the parties or pleadings,
    if any, must be filed no later than Aug. 21, 2026. The
    Plaintiff's motion for Court-supervised notice to potential
    opt-in Plaintiffs must be filed on or before Dec. 22, 2026.
    The Plaintiff's motion for class certification must be filed
    on or before March 15, 2027.

-- The parties must submit a proposed case schedule, including
    proposed deadlines for expert disclosures, within 14 days
    after the Court's ruling on the Plaintiffs' motion for
    Court-supervised notice, or by Jan. 22, 2027, if no such
    motion is filed.

-- All initial discovery shall be completed by Nov. 23, 2026.

Hilscher-Clarke is a full service electrical contractor.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 27, 2026, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JeSlEp at no extra
charge.[CC] 


HOMELAND SECURITY: Consent Decree Extension Upheld in Castanon-Nava
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARGARITO CASTAÑON-NAVA, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et
al., Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 25-3050 (7th Cir.), the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit:

(i) affirms the district court's October 7, 2025 order extending
the Consent Decree for 118 days; and

(ii) affirms in part and reverses in part the November 13, 2025
order directing the release of 13 class members and approximately
200 additional individuals whose arrests potentially violated 8
U.S.C. Section 1357(a)(2).

In 2018, the Plaintiffs filed this class action against the
Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), Immigration and Customs
Enforcement ("ICE"), and various federal officials, alleging that
they were arresting noncitizens without a warrant in violation of 8
U.S.C. Section 1357(a)(2). After several years of discovery and
motion practice, the parties negotiated a settlement and signed the
Consent Decree on November 29, 2021.

On February 8, 2022, the district court granted final approval of
the agreement, entered the Consent Decree, and certified the
following class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e):
"All current and future persons arrested without a warrant for a
civil violation of U.S. immigration laws within the area of
responsibility of the ICE Chicago Field Office."

As part of the Consent Decree, the Defendants agreed to issue a
broadcast policy statement to ICE officers reaffirming compliance
with 8 U.S.C. Section 1357(a)(2). They also agreed to update
training materials and maintain records of warrantless arrests to
ensure compliance.

The decree established a process for addressing alleged violations,
allowing the Plaintiffs to raise concerns with the Defendants and,
if unresolved, file a motion to enforce. It also permitted them to
seek equitable relief from the court if they believed there were
repeated, material violations, after first conferring with the
Defendants.

The Consent Decree was set to expire on May 12, 2025, three years
after its effective date, but would remain in effect if a motion to
enforce was pending.

In March 2025, the Plaintiffs moved to enforce a Consent Decree,
alleging ICE had unlawfully arrested 26 individuals in violation of
8 U.S.C. Section 1357(a)(2) and the decree. They later filed a Rule
60(b)(5) motion seeking to modify the decree. While those motions
were pending, DHS issued an email in June 2025 stating that ICE's
obligations under the decree were unilaterally terminated.

In October 2025, the district court granted the enforcement motion
in part, finding that 22 of the 26 individuals had been arrested in
violation of the Consent Decree. It rejected the Defendants'
argument that certain arrests were lawful because they involved
I-200 warrants, concluding they still fell within the decree’s
scope. The court awarded fees to the Plaintiffs, which the
Defendants do not challenge.

The court also granted the Rule 60(b)(5) motion in part, finding
the Defendants had not substantially complied with the decree. It
extended the decree by 118 days, matching the period between DHS's
June 11, 2025 termination notice and the October 7, 2025 order,
setting a new expiration date of February 2, 2026. On appeal, the
Defendants challenge only the 118-day extension.

On October 20, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
placement of potential class members on Alternatives to Detention
(ATD). The motion responded to the Defendants' request for a
two-month extension to produce documents concerning the arrest of
individuals the Plaintiffs believed were detained in violation of
the Consent Decree.

The Plaintiffs asked the district court to order the Defendants to
place all potential class members arrested before October 7, 2025,
on ankle monitors or other alternatives to detention due to delays
in document production. The Defendants opposed the request, arguing
that releasing "potential" class members would violate the Consent
Decree, which allows release only after a showing that specific
arrests violated Section 1357(a)(2) and the decree.

On November 7, 2025, the parties filed a joint status report
identifying 46 arrests they agreed violated the Consent Decree. At
a November 12 hearing, the parties confirmed that 13 individuals
who were still in ICE custody had been arrested in violation of the
decree, though Defendants argued for the first time that those
individuals were being detained under mandatory detention authority
in 8 U.S.C. Section 1225(b)(2)(A).

On November 13, 2025, the district court ordered the release of
those 13 individuals. It also granted the Plaintiffs' broader
request, directing the release on bond or placement in alternatives
to detention for 615 "potential class members" who were detained
but not deemed high risk, based on the likelihood of additional
violations being uncovered during review of arrest records. The
number of individuals covered has since decreased to approximately
200. The Defendants appeal the November 13 order in full.

The Seventh Circuit begins with the Defendants' appeal of the
district court's decision in its October 7 order to extend the term
of the Consent Decree by 118 days. The Defendants contend that the
118-day extension constitutes an error of law because it
contravenes 8 U.S.C. Section 1252(f)(1) as well as fundamental
restrictions on the modification of institutional reform decrees.

The Seventh Circuit finds that the district court did not abuse its
discretion when ordering that the Consent Decree be extended by 118
days based upon its findings of substantial noncompliance. It
explains that any objection based on Section 1252(f)(1) is waivable
and the order does not contravene Section 1252(f)(1).

In its November 13 Order appeal, the Defendants contend that this
order violates Section 1252(f)(1) by restricting the government's
ability to detain noncitizens pursuant to its authority under
Section 1225(b)(2)(A) and Section 1226(a). Furthermore, in their
view, the order contravenes the terms of the Consent Decree itself.


The Seventh Circuit opines that 8 U.S.C. Section 1225(b)(2)(A)
applies only to "applicants for admission" seeking lawful entry at
the border or ports of entry, not to noncitizens already living in
the interior of the United States. It relies on the statutory text,
context, legislative history, and longstanding executive practice
in reaching that conclusion. It also notes that it would be
unreasonable to assume Congress intended such broad mandatory
detention of millions of noncitizens through that provision. Hence,
the Defendants lacked authority to detain the individuals at issue
under Section 1225(b)(2)(A).

Moreover, the Seventh Circuit concludes that the Consent Decree
does not authorize the release of "potential" class members. Under
the decree's terms, release is permitted only after an
individualized finding that an individual was arrested in violation
of 8 U.S.C. Section 1357(a)(2).

Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit affirms the October 7 order
extending the Consent Decree by 118 days. It also affirms the
November 13 order only as to individuals already determined to have
been unlawfully arrested without a warrant in violation of Section
1357(a)(2) and the Consent Decree. However, it reverses the
November 13 order insofar as it directed the release of "potential
class members" and individuals arrested pursuant to I-200
warrants.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at
https://l1nq.com/pj9b42e

INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a
class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Interstate
Management Company data breach.

As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals
who had their information exposed in the incident, including those
who received notice of the Interstate Management Company data
breach or otherwise believe they are affected.

Interstate Management Company Security Incident: What Happened?

Interstate Management Company, which operated as Interstate Hotels
& Resorts before its merger with Aimbridge Hospitality, has
reported a data breach affecting 22,743 individuals.

A sample notification letter (pictured below) states that on April
23, 2026, Interstate Management Company, which operates The Westin
San Diego Bayview, confirmed that personal data might have been
accessed or stolen from hotel systems between November 19 and
November 22, 2025.

A letter sent to the Maine Attorney General's Office states that
names, Social Security numbers, and financial account details may
have been exposed in the Interstate Management Company data breach.
In a report submitted to the Texas Attorney General's Office, the
company indicated that medical information and health insurance
information may also have been compromised.

What You Can Do After the Interstate Management Company Data
Breach

If your information was exposed in the Interstate Management
Company data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be
able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for
loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket
costs, and more.

A successful case could also force Interstate Management Company to
ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were
entrusted with.

An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to
explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions.

Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no
obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN]

INVIDA FINANCIAL: Bland Allowed Leave to Serve Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bland v. InVida Financial
Network LLC, et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-00259 (N.D. Tex., Filed Feb.
2, 2026), the Hon. Judge Brantley Starr entered an order granting
motion to expedite.

The Plaintiff has shown good cause to obtain discovery before the
Rule 26(f) conference. Specifically, she needs discovery in order
to proceed to default judgment or class certification, the Court
says.

Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to serve discovery on
Defendants and the telecommunications carriers for the telephone
numbers used to call her (on information and belief, Peerless
Network of Maryland, LLC, Level 3 Communications, LLC, IP Horizon
LLC, and AT&T Inc.) for: call records related to Brylorences
telemarketing campaigns; and Brylorences communications with its
telemarketers and other documents that Plaintiff can use to
identify or locate relevant call records (such as documents showing
the dates and times of Brylorences telemarketing campaigns, the
campaign codes or designations used by such campaigns).

The nature of suit states Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA).

InVida is a privately held financial services and insurance
marketing organization.[CC]

 


JND LEGAL: U.S. Judge Questions Bills Charged on Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Scarcella and Karen Sloan of Reuters report that a U.S. judge
is questioning the bills charged by settlement administrator JND
Legal in a high-profile nationwide real estate class action that
has garnered the company more than $36 million for its services.

U.S. District Judge Stephen Bough in the federal court in Kansas
City, Missouri this week ordered JND to stop receiving payments
until the court determines whether to appoint a temporary official
known as a special master to scrutinize its billing records in the
case.

The judge in a brief order last month suggested that the company's
invoices should be publicly filed and directed the plaintiffs'
lawyers and JND to present any arguments against disclosing them.
Bough did not explain his reasoning in the order, which came after
he reviewed JND's quarterly accounting.

Bough in his new order asked the lawyers in the case to respond to
him by mid-June about his proposal to appoint a special master. The
class action has generated hundreds of millions of dollars in
settlements from U.S. home brokerages to resolve ⁠claims that
they conspired with the National Association of Realtors to inflate
commissions that home sellers pay for residential real estate
sales.

Seattle-based JND in a statement said "we respect the Court's
orders and look forward to discussing these issues with the judge
directly rather than through the media."

Lead attorneys for the class of home sellers did not immediately
respond to a request for comment. In a filing on Wednesday, May 27,
they told Bough they don't have any objection to the appointment of
a special master.

Settlement administrators like JND are appointed in class actions
to help notify recipients of settlements and distribute funds to
class members. Their fees and costs are deducted from the total
settlement amounts.

JND is among several defendants in separate coordinated litigation
in Washington accusing settlement administrators of running a
kickback scheme with banks that hold and distribute funds for class
members. JND has called the allegations baseless in that lawsuit,
which was brought by class members in major settlements.

In a court filing this month in the real estate case, JND chief
executive Jennifer Keough said her company should ⁠not be
required to publicly disclose detailed billing records, saying they
contain proprietary and competitively sensitive information and are
typically protected from public disclosure.

"We do not want our competitors to see our unit rates or other
pricing models," she wrote.

JND said it has issued dozens of invoices between January 2024 and
April 2026 as part of the real estate litigation. Of the $36
million JND has billed so far, $22 million is tied to out-of-pocket
expenses including postage, the company said in a court filing. JND
said about $3.3 million has not yet been paid.

AI in law school

The vast majority ⁠of U.S. law students -- 72% -- say AI literacy
is an essential skill, yet 32% report that their schools aren't
giving them the AI skills they need for their careers. That's the
takeaway from a recent survey more than 1,800 law students
conducted by the Thomson Reuters Institute, which shares a parent
company with Reuters.

The survey comes amid debate over how far law schools should go to
embrace ⁠or restrict AI use. The University of California,
Berkeley School of Law recently revised its AI policy to severely
curtail how the technology can be used in academic work in a bid to
ensure students develop foundational legal skills.

More than half of the surveyed students -- 57% -- said they use AI
several times a week or more in their academic work, and ⁠21%
reported using it multiple times a day.

While many students are already using AI, nearly three-quarters of
the survey respondents said that over-reliance on AI would cause
them to struggle to develop critical legal skills. And 47% of the
surveyed students predicted that entry-level positions will
decrease as AI absorbs work. [GN]

KARABETIAN IMPORT: Products Contain No Olive Oil, Hallak Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emmanoel Hallak, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. KARABETIAN IMPORT & DISTRIBUTION, INC., Case
No. 3:26-cv-03269-AJB-DDL (S.D. Cal., May 28, 2026) addresses a
profound breach of consumer trust by Defendant, which has misled
thousands, if not millions, through its product branded BELLA
GOURMET FOODS and labeled "CANOLA & EXTRA VIRGIN OLIVE OIL
MEDITERRANEAN BLEND" (the Mislabeled Product).

According to the complaint, Laboratory testing reveals a troubling
reality -- the Mislabeled Product contains no detectable olive oil
and consists entirely of canola oil, despite the labeled "CANOLA &
EXTRA VIRGIN OLIVE OIL MEDITERRANEAN BLEND" labeling, prominent
depiction of a cluster of olives, and small-font label on the
bottle listing "healthy blend of canola oil and olive oil".

This uniform mislabeling scheme was developed, approved, and
disseminated from Defendant's headquarters in California and has
deceived consumers nationwide through both online and retail sales
channels, the suit says.

This misconduct violates California law in three critical ways: (1)
the failure to label the product as "mixed vegetable oil" as
required; (2) the omission of accurate blend proportions; and (3)
the complete absence of olive oil. These violations demand
accountability for a company that has prioritized profit over
people.

In addition to violating California Health & Safety Code section
112895(b), the Defendant's conduct constitutes false advertising,
unfair competition, and deceptive business practices in violation
of California Business & Professions Code section 17200 and section
17500, common-law fraud and deceit, breach of the implied warranty
of merchantability, and unjust enrichment.

The Defendant manufactures, distributes, and sells food products,
including the Mislabeled Product, both directly through its website
https://karabetian.com/ and through third-party distributors,
wholesalers, and retailers throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katherine A. Tuohy, Esq.
          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
          2221 Camino del Rio S, Suite 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (866) 219-3343
          E-mail: josh@swigartlawgroup.com
                  katherine@swigartlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Quintin G. Shammam, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF QUINTIN G. SHAMMAM
          2221 Camino del Rio S, Suite 207
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 444-0001
          Facsimile: (619) 501-1119
          E-mail: quintin@shammamlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph M. Attiq, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH M. ATTIQ
          2221 Camino del Rio S, Suite 207
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 520-5201
          E-mail: joseph@attiqlaw.com

LAKEVIEW HEALTH: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The HIPAA Journal reports that a settlement has been negotiated to
resolve a class action lawsuit against Lakeview Health Systems LLC.
The lawsuit stemmed from a January 2024 cyberattack that exposed
the personal and protected health information of 10,772
individuals. Hackers breached its network and accessed and
potentially obtained files containing names, addresses, dates of
birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, financial
account numbers, patient IDs, diagnoses, treatment information,
prescription information, and health insurance information.

Shortly after being notified about the breach, some of the affected
individuals filed lawsuits against Lakeview Health, alleging
negligence for failing to adequately protect sensitive data stored
on its network. The plaintiffs claimed the data breach could have
been and should have been prevented. Lakeview Health maintains that
there was no wrongdoing and is no liability.

The lawsuits made similar claims and were consolidated -- Skov et
al., v. Lakeview Health Systems, L.L.C -- in the Circuit Court of
Duval County, Florida. The lawsuit is pending; however, the
defendants and the plaintiffs agreed to settle the lawsuit to avoid
the costs, risks, disruptions, and uncertainties from continuing
with the litigation.

The defendant has agreed to pay attorneys' fees and expenses,
settlement administration and notification costs, and service
awards for the class representatives. Class members may submit a
claim for reimbursement of documented, unreimbursed ordinary losses
due to the data breach up to a maximum of $2,000 per class member
and reimbursement of up to $5,000 in extraordinary losses. A claim
may also be submitted for up to 4 hours of lost time at $20 per
hour, and one year of credit monitoring services. If none of those
options are claimed, class members may claim a one-time cash
payment of $50.

The deadline for objection and exclusion is July 23, 2026. Claims
must be submitted by August 24, 2026, and the final fairness
hearing has been scheduled for October 8, 2026. [GN]

LEXINGTON COUNTY, CO: 4th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of AAC v. LCSD
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the
district court's order granting the motion of the Lexington County
Sheriff's Department ("LCSD") to dismiss the case, AMERICAN
ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION OF SC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOHN GIETZ; SHERIFF
BRYAN KOON, a/k/a Jay Koon, in his official capacity; SANDRA BLACK;
JOEL M. DEASON; JAMES WESTBURY; JESSE LAINTZ; LEXINGTON COUNTY
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 25-1448 (4th
Cir.).

Appellant American Acceptance Corporation of SC ("AAC") brought a
Section 1983 claim against LCSD after the department confiscated
two motorcycles during a murder investigation. AAC, which held a
security interest in the motorcycles through purchased retail
installment contracts ("RISCs"), alleged that LCSD violated its
procedural due process rights by retaining the property without
providing notice or a hearing. AAC's business involves financing
vehicle purchases by acquiring installment contracts and securing
interests in the underlying collateral, with the right to repossess
upon default or impairment.

AAC acquired the RISCs for two Harley-Davidson motorcycles financed
by Timothy Brock and Shane Andrzejewski. Both borrowers titled
their motorcycles in South Carolina under their names and listed
AAC as lienholder, agreeing to make monthly payments. Brock and
Andrzejewski made payments until October 7, 2022, and November 1,
2022, respectively.

In early October 2022, Brock was killed during a shootout between
rival motorcycle gangs, and LCSD collected his motorcycle from the
scene as evidence in its investigation. In November 2022,
Andrzejewski was arrested and later charged with murder-related
offenses, and LCSD executed a search warrant seizing his motorcycle
as evidence. Both seizures triggered defaults under the
corresponding RISCs held by AAC.

LCSD did not notify AAC of the seizures or the location of the
motorcycles, and AAC learned of them through news reports. In
December 2022, AAC contacted LCSD Captain Laintz, who said it would
be several years before the motorcycles could be returned and
referred the matter to other officers, who provided no further
notice or information. AAC's counsel later sought incident reports
by email and through a FOIA request.

In January 2023, AAC filed state court actions for claim and
delivery regarding the two motorcycles. There is no indication that
AAC contacted the Solicitor's Office before filing suit. In April
2023, LCSD moved to dismiss for insufficiency of process, and after
a July 2023 hearing, the circuit court dismissed the actions for
improper service but allowed AAC to cure the defects.

On February 1, 2024, AAC filed suit in state court seeking claim
and delivery under state law, along with declaratory, injunctive,
and monetary relief under Section 1983. LCSD removed the case to
federal court. AAC later filed an amended class action complaint,
and LCSD moved to dismiss it for failure to state a claim. AAC also
moved for summary judgment, and the district court stayed the case
pending resolution of the motions.

On March 26, 2025, the district court granted LCSD's motion to
dismiss AAC's procedural due process claim, finding the motorcycle
seizures lawful under the Fourth Amendment and holding that AAC's
property interest must yield to a defendant's constitutional right
of access to evidence. The court also remanded the remaining
claim-and-delivery claims to state court. AAC timely appealed.

The Fourth Circuit held that no procedural due process violation
occurred because the motorcycles were lawfully seized under the
Fourth Amendment—either pursuant to a warrant or a valid
exception—and properly retained as evidence in an ongoing
criminal investigation. It further noted that LCSD acted
consistently with South Carolina law requiring preservation of
physical evidence in serious criminal cases. Because the seizures
and retention were lawful and tied to active investigations, no
additional process was required, and the district court properly
dismissed the due process claim.

The Fourth Circuit rejected AAC's argument that the district court
improperly considered materials outside the complaint in granting
the motion to dismiss. It held that the court's reference to the
motion, briefing, record, and applicable law was proper, and that
courts may consider legal arguments and governing law when deciding
a motion to dismiss.

AAC also argued that the district court improperly referenced Brock
being on his motorcycle at the time of his death because that fact
was not alleged in the complaint. The Fourth Circuit rejected this
argument, noting that an exhibit to the amended complaint included
an LCSD statement indicating that one motorcycle rider shot and
killed another, along with a cited news article referencing the
same facts. It held that the district court properly considered
materials incorporated into the pleadings and found no error.

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting
LCSD's motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at
https://l1nq.com/mkjh3tt.

ARGUED: Joseph Studemeyer -- contact@studemeyerlawfirm.com --
STUDEMEYER LAW FIRM, P.C., Irmo, South Carolina, for Appellant.

Daniel C. Plyler -- daniel.plyler@smithrobinsonlaw.com -- SMITH
ROBINSON HOLLER DUBOSE & MORGAN, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.

ON BRIEF: J. Gregory Studemeyer -- greg@studemeyerlawfirm.com --
STUDEMEYER LAW FIRM, P.C., Irmo, South Carolina, for Appellant.

Austin Tyler Reed -- austin.reed@smithrobinsonlaw.com -- Frederick
Newman Hanna, Jr. -- fred.hanna@smithrobinsonlaw.com -- SMITH
ROBINSON HOLLER DUBOSE & MORGAN, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.

LIVERAMP HOLDINGS: M&A Investigates Sale to Publicis Groupe
-----------------------------------------------------------
Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates
PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a law firm headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:

-- LiveRamp Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: RAMP) related to its sale to
Publicis Groupe. Under the terms of the proposed transaction,
LiveRamp shareholders are expected to receive $38.50 per share in
cash.

Visit link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/liveramp-holdings-inc/. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.

-- NextEra Energy, Inc. (NYSE: NEE) related to merger with
Dominion Energy, Inc. Upon closing of the proposed transaction,
NextEra shareholders will own approximately 74.5% of the combined
company.

Visit link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/nextera-energy-inc/. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.

-- Centessa Pharmaceuticals plc (NASDAQ: CNTA) related to its sale
to Eli Lilly and Company. Under the terms of the proposed
transaction, Centessa shareholders are expected to receive $38.00
per share in cash and one non-transferable contingent value right
entitling the holder to receive up to an aggregate of $9.00 subject
to the achievement of certain milestones.

ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for June 12, 2026.

Visit link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/centessa-pharmaceuticals-plc/. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

-- HCB Financial Corp. (OTCPK: HCBN) related to its merger with
Independent Bank Corporation. Under the terms of the proposed
transaction, HCB shareholders are expected to receive 1.5900 shares
of Independent common stock and $17.51 for each share of HCB common
stock.

ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for June 17, 2026.

Visit link for more info
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/hcb-financial-corp/. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.

NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:

     1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
     2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
     3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?

About Monteverde & Associates PC

Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.

No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to
obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our
website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.

Contact:

     Juan Monteverde, Esq.
     MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
     The Empire State Building
     350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
     New York, NY 10118
     Tel: (212) 971-1341
     jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN]


LONG BEACH, CA: Agrees to Settle Racial Bias Class Suit for $1.28MM
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Sisneros, writing for Long Beach Post News, reports that Long
Beach will pay $1.28 million to settle a lawsuit brought by five
current and former city employees who alleged there was systemic
racial bias in the city's hiring, pay and promotion practices.

The lawsuit, filed in June 2021, made sweeping claims against the
city, alleging that Black employees were not being properly paid or
promoted.

Primarily, the suit set out to prove that five current and former
city employees were underpaid or wrongfully passed over based on
their ethnicity.

After nearly five years of legal back-and-forth, the City Council
in April agreed to pay the settlement instead of heading toward
trial.

Long Beach "vehemently denied the allegations" and emphasized that
the settlement "is not an admission of liability," Deputy City
Attorney Howard Russell wrote in an email.

The city "operates with a strong commitment to respect, integrity
and equity," Russell wrote.

Among the lawsuit's claims, Christopher Stuart alleged he was not
promoted despite singlehandedly doing the same amount of work "as
three non-Black employees." He further alleged he was subjected to
a hostile work environment from his white supervisor, who allegedly
accused him of stealing batteries and scrutinized his work harder
than that of non-Black employees.

Stuart also claimed he was "required to perform higher class work
without the pay or title" for the duration of his employment with
the city.

Eric Bailey, who retired from the Public Works Department in 2021
after more than three decades with the city, claimed he was passed
over for the role of street sweeper supervisor in favor of a
non-Black employee who lacked experience working as a street
sweeper.

When Bailey eventually was promoted, the lawsuit alleged, he was
given the "lower-paying title" of refuse supervisor and required to
perform "out-of-class work without the proper pay or title for the
rest of his career."

Deborah Hill and Sharon Hamilton, both administrative aides with
more than two decades of experience with the city, made similar
claims and also took issue with the city's use of an employee exam
created by the Wonderlic company to evaluate candidates for
promotion.

They claimed the test "is notorious for creating exams that
disparately impact Black people."

The city did not answer a question about whether it still uses the
Wonderlic exam.

The five plaintiffs were not the only city employees to allege they
suffered through racist treatment in recent years.

In March 2021, the Long Beach City Council approved a $700,000
settlement to end a lawsuit against its former Civil Service
Director, who was in charge of overseeing the city's hiring.

Two years ago, the City Council approved a $500,000 payment to
settle discrimination claims from a former Long Beach Police
Department helicopter pilot who alleged he was subjected to
persistent harassment, including racial slurs and a demotion. [GN]

LUCID GROUP: Faces Eke Class Suit over Lucid's Stock Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------------
IZOGIE OSARO EKE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LUCID GROUP, INC., MARC WINTERHOFF, and
TAOUFIQ BOUSSAID, Case No. 3:26-cv-05128 (N.D. Cal., May 28, 2026)
is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that
purchased or otherwise acquired Lucid securities between February
25, 2026 and April 13, 2026, both dates inclusive, seeking to
recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Accordingly, the Defendants touted purported enhancements to
Lucid's manufacturing and delivery capabilities and overall
operations. In particular, beginning in late February 2026,
Defendants represented that, in fiscal year (FY) 2025, they had
implemented sustainable improvements in these areas, including with
respect to the production and ramp-up of deliveries of the Lucid
Gravity.

The Defendants likewise asserted that these improvements would lead
to profitable growth and performance efficiencies in FY 2026.
Unbeknownst to investors, however, Lucid's performance was
materially hampered by significant supplier and delivery issues in
February 2026, putting the Company on track for dismal, rather than
improved, performance in its first quarter (Q1) of 2026.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that a
supplier quality issue had significantly disrupted deliveries of
the Lucid Gravity.

The truth began to emerge on April 3, 2026, when Lucid issued a
press release "announcing its Q1 2026 production and delivery
totals.

Lucid revealed that it had "produced 5,500 vehicles" during Q1
2026, while only "delivering 3,093 vehicles."

Following the foregoing news and disclosures, Lucid's stock price
fell $1.13 per share, or 11.35%, over the following two trading
sessions, to close at $8.83 per share on April 7, 2026.

On April 14, 2026, Lucid filed a current report on Form 8-K with
the SEC, reporting, inter alia, its preliminary Q1 2026 financial
results, including revenue in the range of $280 million to $284
million—well below the consensus estimate of $433.8 million—and
losses from operations in the range of $985 million to $1.005
billion.

The same day, Lucid issued a press release revealing its plans for
a $1.05 billion capital raise, including a $300 million public
stock offering.

Following these disclosures, Lucid's stock price fell $0.44 per
share, or 4.76%, to close at $8.80 per share on April 14, 2026.

Then, on May 5, 2026, Lucid issued a press release reporting its Q1
2026 financial results, including GAAP1 earnings per share (EPS) of
-- $3.46, missing consensus estimates by $0.83, a net loss of over
$1 billion, and revenue of $282.47 million, missing consensus
estimates by $76.04 million.  

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

Lucid is a technology company that designs, develops, manufactures,
and sells electric vehicles (EVs), EV powertrains, and battery
systems. The Company's products include, inter alia, the "Lucid
Air" sedan and "Lucid Gravity" sport utility vehicle (SUV).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 405-7190  
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com

LUEMME LLC: Echols Suit Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
TAZINIQUE ECHOLS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Luemme, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-06241 (N.D.
Ill., May 28, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website,
https://cosabella.com to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and
visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to the goods and services the website provides to their
non-disabled customers through its website. The Defendant's denial
of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of
its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its
physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the
ADA.

Yet, the website contains significant access barriers that make it
difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired
customers to use the website. The access barriers make it
impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a
transaction on the website, says the suit.

The Defendant provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, price specials and other programs offered by Three Bird
Nest.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Ohrenberger, Esq.
          EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
          68-29 Main Street
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Telephone: (844) 731-3343
          Facsimile: (630) 478-0856
          E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law 


MARTIN JUGENBURG: Plaintiffs Win $22.5MM Verdict in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo Finance reports that years of legal battles have culminated
in a decisive judgment against a well-known Toronto plastic
surgeon, Dr. Martin Jugenburg. The ruling follows a comprehensive
five-week common issues trial that concluded in mid-December 2025.

The Court found the defendant, Dr. Jugenburg (also known as Dr.
6ix), was negligent, breached his fiduciary duty to his patients,
and is liable for the privacy breach known as intrusion upon
seclusion arising from his use of 24 surveillance cameras
throughout his clinic, the Toronto Cosmetic Surgery Institute. The
cameras were in areas where patients would expect privacy,
including consultation, examination, and operating rooms.

First exposed by a CBC Marketplace undercover investigation in
November 2018, the surveillance system was subsequently seized by
the CPSO (College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario) in
December 2018.

The class action was certified in May 2021, coinciding with a
six-month CPSO suspension imposed against Dr. Jugenburg for various
patient privacy violations including on social media and from his
use of the surveillance cameras.

Justice Schabas' judgment was released on May 26th, 2026. The Court
disbelieved the defendant's defence that the surveillance cameras
were installed as a general security measure for the benefit of
everyone at the Clinic. The judge found that Dr. Jugenburg's
evidence was not credible or reliable. His Honour did not accept
Dr. Jugenburg's excuse that he misunderstood his obligations under
privacy laws. The judgment notes that ignorance of the law is no
defence.

Justice Schabas concluded that Dr. Jugenburg's clinic took no steps
to inform patients of the existence of the surveillance cameras,
the surveillance was used exclusively to resolve disputes in Dr.
Jugenburg's own favour, and was directly accessible on his personal
iPhone and iPad. He concluded that "every patient has an
expectation of privacy, which was breached", and that the privacy
breach was "highly offensive and would reasonably cause distress,
humiliation and anguish to Class Members".

Significantly, Justice Schabas awarded $1 million in punitive
damages against Dr. Jugenburg, stating that Dr. Jugenburg knew what
he was doing, that his conduct was reprehensible and deserving of
condemnation and punishment by the Court.

Dr. Jugenburg has been ordered to pay $21,500,000 in aggregate
damages for intrusion upon seclusion and $1,000,000 in punitive
damages, for a total of $22,500,000. Pre-judgment interest and
legal costs will be determined at a later date.

This concludes the common issues portion of the litigation,
however, individual damages assessments for negligence and breach
of fiduciary duty remain pending. Class members are eligible to
pursue further compensation through the upcoming individual claims
phase if they suffered injuries or harms as a consequence of being
subjected to the surveillance.

A copy of the judgment can be found at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mVVBbcrRQQXH4KUGtsYf7mwaLQabEFBT/view?usp=sharing
[GN]

MDL 3074: Cornell & Montecalvo Wiretapping Suits Dismissal Reversed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: BPS DIRECT, LLC; CABELA's, LLC WIRETAPPING
LITIGATION. BRIAN CALVERT; HEATHER CORNELL; TIMOTHY DURHAM; MARILYN
HERNANDEZ; GREG MOORE, JR.; ET AL., Appellants, Case No. 23-3235
(3d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit:

(i) reverses the district court's order dismissed the complaint
for lack of Article III standing as to Cornell and Montecalvo;

(ii) modifies the district court's order to a dismissal without
prejudice as to all other plaintiffs, and affirms that part of the
order as modified; and

(iii)  remands for further proceedings consistent with its
Opinion.

Outdoor products retailers Bass Pro Shops and Cabela's
(collectively, "BPS") use a JavaScript computer code known as
"Session Replay Code" on their websites. The Session Replay Code
(developed by various third-party Session Replay Code providers,
such as Microsoft, Quantum Metric, and Mouseflow) captures and
stores users' interactions on the websites, including mouse
movements, text entries, and clicks.

The code activates anytime a user visits one of these websites,
allowing it to surreptitiously intercept nearly every action a user
takes on the site, including "all mouse movements, clicks, scrolls,
zooms, window resizes, keystrokes, and text entries. The
third-party Providers also store data collected from users of BPS's
websites on their own servers. These data include personally
identifying information. BPS does not give users an opportunity to
opt out of its use of the Session Replay Code on its websites.

In a putative class action, eight named Plaintiffs claimed that
BPS's use of Session Replay Code without their consent violated
various state and federal privacy laws. Those cases were
transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the eight
Plaintiffs then filed a consolidated class action complaint. They
all seek relief because BPS's use of Session Replay Code captured
their interactions on its websites. They claim that BPS violated
two federal statutes—the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510 et
seq. and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, id. Section 1030 et
seq.—and is also liable under several state and common-law causes
of action.

According to the consolidated complaint, two plaintiffs, Heather
Cornell and Peter Montecalvo, made purchases on BPS websites after
entering their name, address, and payment and billing information
during checkout. Cornell bought a camp chair on basspro.com, while
Montecalvo purchased a belt and other items on cabelas.com during
multiple visits. The remaining six plaintiffs—Brian Calvert,
Timothy Durham, Marilyn Hernandez, Greg Moore, Arlie Tucker, and
Brittany Vonbergen—only browsed the websites and did not make
purchases or provide any personal information.

BPS moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), and the
district court granted the motion under Rule 12(b)(1), finding that
none of the Plaintiffs had Article III standing. The court held
that standing required allegations of sharing highly sensitive
personal information, such as medical or financial data. Because
the six non-purchasing Plaintiffs failed to allege such facts
despite having opportunities to amend, the court dismissed their
claims with prejudice.

Because Cornell and Montecalvo made purchases on a BPS website, the
district court dismissed their claims without prejudice, allowing
amendment if they could truthfully allege that BPS intercepted and
shared highly sensitive personal information, such as medical or
financial data, during their website interactions. Instead of
amending, Cornell and Montecalvo filed a notice stating they would
stand on the allegations in the consolidated complaint.

All eight Plaintiffs timely appealed. They argue that their
injuries are analogous to the harms recognized by two common-law
torts: (1) public disclosure of private facts and (2) intrusion
upon seclusion.

The Third Circuit finds that the six Plaintiffs have not alleged
injuries analogous to those caused by the comparator tort. They
could not plausibly allege that their clicks, scrolls, and searches
for outdoor products on BPS's websites were private. They entered
no personal or sensitive information, and their electronic browsing
for quotidian items was no more private than the physical browsing
countless shoppers do daily in BPS's brick-and-mortar stores. So,
the observation of those non-personal and non-sensitive
interactions did not injure them in a manner analogous to an
invasion into private affairs.

Cornell and Montecalvo, by contrast, have alleged injuries
analogous to those vindicated by the intrusion-uponseclusion tort.
Unlike the other six Plaintiffs, Cornell and Montecalvo entered
personal or sensitive information when they made purchases on BPS's
websites. Among other things, they entered their complete credit
card or debit card numbers. So, when BPS permitted its Session
Replay Code Providers to surreptitiously record Cornell's and
Montecalvo's complete credit card or debit card numbers, it caused
those plaintiffs harm closely analogous to that vindicated by the
intrusion upon seclusion tort. Thus, Cornell and Montecalvo have
standing based on their allegations that BPS embedded Session
Replay Code in its websites, allowing the Providers to
surreptitiously record their billing and payment information absent
consent.

For these reasons, the Third Circuit opines that the district court
correctly concluded that the six Plaintiffs who made no purchases
on BPS's websites lack a concrete injury to confer Article III
standing, but the district court erred in dismissing those
Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. Because the absence of standing
leaves the court without subject matter jurisdiction to reach a
decision on the merits, dismissals with prejudice for lack of
standing are generally improper. That general rule applies here, so
the Third Circuit will modify the district court's order to dismiss
their claims without prejudice and affirms that order as modified.


A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at
https://l1nq.com/b97996e.

Kate M. Baxter-Kauf [Argued] -- kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com -- Karen
H. Riebel -- khriebel@locklaw.com -- LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP,
Counsel for Appellant Arlie Tucker.

Carey Alexander -- arthur@arthurbryantlaw.com -- ARTHUR BRYANT LAW,
Nicholas Colella, Jamisen A. Etzel -- jamisen@lcllp.com -- LYNCH
CARPENTER, LLP, MaryBeth V. Gibson -- mgibson@thefinleyfirm.com --
THE FINLEY FIRM, PC., Steven M. Nathan -- snathan@hausfeld.com --
HAUSFELD, Counsel for Appellants Brian Calvert, Heather Cornell,
Timothy Durham, Marilyn Hernandez, Greg Moore, Jr., Peter
Montecalvo, Arlie Tucker, Brittany Vonbergen, and David Irvin.

Michael E. Rayfield [Argued] -- mrayfield@shb.com -- Jennifer A.
McLoone -- jmcloone@shb.com -- Maveric R. Searle -- msearle@shb.com
-- SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP, Counsel for Appellees BPS Direct LLC
and Cabela's LLC.

MEDTRONIC INC: Faces Frost Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Medtronic, Inc., Case No. 0:26-cv-02785 (D.
Minn., May 28, 2026) alleges that the Defendant's website,
www.medtronic.com is not fully and equally accessible to people who
are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general
non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and
auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations.

As a consequence of her experience visiting the Defendant's
website, including in the past year, and from an investigation
performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found the Defendant's
website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader
users like the Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website
content – content Defendant makes available to its sighted
Website users, the suit alleges.

In addition to her claim under the ADA, the Plaintiff also asserts
a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in
the Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to
become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual
disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota
pursuant to Minn. Stat.

The Defendant offers medical devices and services for sale
including, but not limited to, surgical products, equipment,
educational resources, and training.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
          Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
          Jason Gustafson, Esq.
          THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
          80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (763) 515-6110
          E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com
                  chad@throndsetlaw.com
                  jason@throndsetlaw.com

MICHIGAN: Denial of Motion to Dismiss Alzandani Class Suit Reversed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IBRAHIM ALZANDANI, Plaintiff, Y.A., a minor by Next
Friend Ibrahim Alzandani; W.A., a minor by Next Friend Nadhem
Alnajar; A.M., a minor by Next Friend Abraham Muzib,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. HAMTRAMCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS (25-1603);
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (25-1602); WAYNE COUNTY REGIONAL
EDUCATIONAL SERVICE AGENCY (25-1601), Defendants-Appellants, Case
Nos. 25-1601, 25-1602, 25-1603 (6th Cir.), the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's denial
of the Defendants' motion to dismiss.

A group of Michigan parents alleges that a local public school
district denied their children access to special-education
services. The parents, as a result, filed this lawsuit under
several federal laws, including the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, what's come to be called the IDEA for short.

The IDEA provides an administrative hearing process for resolving
special-education disputes and permits parents to sue in federal
court only if they are aggrieved by the hearing officer's decision.
Here, the parents did not pursue an administrative hearing but
nevertheless claim they may bring suit under the IDEA.

The City of Hamtramck, a small enclave within Detroit, operates
eight public schools serving about 2,900 students. The district
faces significant challenges, including high poverty rates, a large
immigrant population, widespread academic underperformance, and a
substantial number of students requiring special education
services. Nearly half of residents were born abroad, most students
speak Arabic or Bengali at home, and about one in ten students has
a disability requiring special education.

In 2021, a dispute between the school district and its
superintendent led more than 30 teachers and staff members to
resign, worsening staffing shortages in a district that typically
employed about 200 teachers. In 2023, three parents sued, alleging
that Hamtramck failed to provide their children with the specially
designed education required by the IDEA to meet their unique
needs.

The three parents alleged that Hamtramck failed to provide required
special education services to their children. Ibrahim Alzandani
claimed his seven-year-old son with autism, Y.A., was promised a
full-time aide but received only limited support and spent much of
first grade at home. Nadheem Alnajar alleged his nine-year-old son
with autism, W.A., was denied promised speech therapy and other
services and was often sent home early or placed in seclusion.
Abraham Muzib claimed the district refused to evaluate his
five-year-old daughter with Down syndrome, A.M., and told him it
did not provide services for children with Down syndrome.

Two of the parents first sought relief through Michigan’s
Department of Education. Acting on complaints filed by a special
advocate, the department found that the school district had
violated the IDEA rights of Y.A. and A.M. and implemented
corrective-action plans addressing both past and future compliance.
However, none of the parents pursued the IDEA's administrative due
process hearing process.

The children and their parents filed a putative class action
against the school district, county education agency, and the
State, alleging violations of the IDEA, the ADA, the Rehabilitation
Act, and Michigan law. They sought damages under the ADA and
Rehabilitation Act, and injunctive relief under all three federal
statutes, including appointment of experts to design corrective
measures and a monitor to oversee implementation.

The Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the parents failed to
exhaust IDEA administrative remedies, which they claimed applied to
all asserted claims. The district court denied the motion, holding
that exhaustion was not required for alleged systemic IDEA
violations involving district-wide resource and staffing
deficiencies. It certified the issue for interlocutory appeal,
which the Sixth Circuit accepted.

The Sixth Circuit resolved just what it must to decide this appeal.
It explained that the IDEA simply does not recognize the parents'
proposed "systematic violations" exception, or for that matter
"futility" exception, with respect to challenges to the school
district's alleged understaffing or underfunding. There's no need
to decide whether a "futility" or "systemic violations" exception
might apply in some future case and different setting. What it can
say is that the only one recognized in the circuit no longer
applies. And the only ones narrowly acknowledged elsewhere would
not apply in the context of alleged staffing and resource
shortfalls.

On top of that, the Sixth Circuit held that a word of judicial
caution is in order for intrepid quests for new exhaustion
exceptions. Anyone wishing to sidestep the IDEA's highly
reticulated exhaustion requirements on "futility" or "systemic
violations" grounds in the future must come to grips with the
reality that those requirements are what create the right of action
and will have to explain why judges have the authority to add an
unwritten exception. When Congress carefully designs intricate
procedural mechanisms, judges should pause before crafting
extratextual workarounds. That is particularly true of mandatory
exhaustion requirements. As the Supreme Court recently emphasized,
"mandatory exhaustion statutes" create "mandatory exhaustion
regimes, foreclosing judicial discretion" to craft exceptions.

For these reasons, the Sixth Circuit reversed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at
https://sl1nk.com/60pk32p.

ARGUED: Stephen J. van Stempvoort --
vanstempvoorts@millerjohnson.com -- MILLER JOHNSON, Detroit,
Michigan, for Appellant Wayne County Regional Educational Service
Agency.

Kathleen A. Halloran -- HalloranK1@michigan.gov -- MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lansing, Michigan, for
Appellant Michigan Department of Education.

Robert A. Dietzel -- rdietzel@thrunlaw.com -- THRUN LAW FIRM, P.C.,
East Lansing, Michigan, for Appellant Hamtramck Public Schools.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Espinoza Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GUILLERMO A. ESPINOZA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION; and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 26CV493918 (Super. Ct.,
Santa Clara Cty., Cal., May 22, 2026) is a class action seeking to
recover, among other things, unpaid wages (including minimum wages
and overtime wages), unpaid meal period premium payments, unpaid
rest period premium payments, unreimbursed business expenditures,
interest, attorneys' fees, penalties, costs, and expenses.

The complaint relates that the Defendants required Plaintiff and
Class Members to work in excess of eight hours in a day, 40 hours
in a week, and/or on a seventh consecutive day of work, entitling
them to overtime wages. In violation of California law, Defendants
knowingly and willfully refused to perform their obligations and
compensate Plaintiff and Class Members for all wages earned and all
hours worked, adds the complaint.

Through this action, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged
in a systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under the
California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC")
Wage Orders, all of which contribute to Defendants' deliberate
unfair competition. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have
increased their profits by violating state wage and hour laws by,
among other things: (a) failing to pay all wages (including minimum
wages and overtime wages); (b) failing to provide lawful meal
periods or compensation in lieu thereof; (c) failing to authorize
or permit lawful rest breaks or provide compensation in lieu
thereof; (d) failing to reimburse necessary business-related costs;
(e) failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (f)
failing to pay wages timely during employment; and (g) failing to
pay all wages due upon separation of employment.

The Plaintiff seeks monetary relief against Defendants on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated in California to recover,
among other things, unpaid wages, un-reimbursed business expenses,
benefits, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and
penalties pursuant to Labor Code and Code of California Civil
Procedure.

Plaintiff Guillermo A. Espinoza is a resident of California and
worked for Defendants during the relevant time periods.

Defendant Microsoft Corporation provide services or goods
throughout California.

DOES 1 through 20 are the defendants with fictitious names.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
     Kashif Haque, Esq.
     Jessica L. Campbell, Esq
     AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
     9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
     Irvine, CA 92618
     Telephone: (949) 379-6250
     Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
     E-mail: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com

MINNESOTA: Karsjens Files Certiorari Petition to Supreme Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN SCOTT KARSJENS, et al. filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, under Case No. 25-1321,
seeking a review of a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit dated January 7, 2026, in the case captioned
Kevin Scott Karsjens, et al. vs. Shireen Gandhi, et al., Case No.
24-2876.

Response is due on June 29, 2026.

The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violation of
civil rights.

Plaintiffs-Petitioners KEVIN SCOTT KARSJENS, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK, PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com

MISSOURI: Grant Appeals RICO Suit Dismissal to 8th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW R. GRANT, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Matthew R. Grant, et al.,
individually, as Next Friend to C.L.G. and as Next Friend to
C.M.G., and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. Bruce Hilton, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-01203-JMD, in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violation of
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.

On Oct. 10, 2025, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
case.

On Dec. 23, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file
second amended complaint.

On Apr. 23, 2026, Judge Joshua M. Divine entered an Order granting
the Defendants' motions to dismiss with prejudice and denying the
Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file second amended complaint.

The Court determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that this
suit has been filed for the improper purpose of harassing and
imposing costs on others.  

The appellate case is styled as Matthew Grant, et al. v. Bruce
Hilton, et al., Case No. 26-2050, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on May 28, 2026. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant MATTHEW R. GRANT, individually, as Next Friend
to C.L.G. and as Next Friend to C.M.G., and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, appears pro se.

Defendants-Appellees BRUCE F. HILTON, et al. are represented by:

       Lauren Ashley Kessler, Esq.
       Kelli Reichert, Esq.
       ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
       815 Olive Street, Suite 200
       Saint Louis, MO 63101
       Telephone: (314) 915-2595
                  (314) 340-7849

               - and -

       Thomas Joseph Magee, Esq.
       Gabrielle Deimeke, Esq.
       HEPLER & BROOM
       701 Market Street, Suite 1400
       Saint Louis, MO 63101
       Telephone: (314) 241-6160

               - and -

       Albert Joseph Bronsky, Esq.
       Bryce Geoffrey Pfalzgraf, Esq.
       BROWN & JAMES
       800 Market Street, Suite 1100
       Saint Louis, MO 63101
       Telephone: (314) 421-3400

               - and -

       Matthew Alan Radefeld, Esq.
       RADEFELD LAW GROUP, LLC
       7711 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 710
       Clayton, MO 63105
       Telephone: (314) 341-0374

               - and -

       Robert T. Plunkert, Esq.
       PITZER & SNODGRASS
       100 S. Fourth Street, Suite 400
       Saint Louis, MO 63102
       Telephone: (314) 421-5545

NATIONAL RAILROAD: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Reyes Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
VIVIAN REYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION
d/b/a AMTRAK, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01792 (D.D.C., May 22,
2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to
exercise reasonable care in safeguarding and protecting Plaintiff's
and Class Members' sensitive personally identifiable information
("PII" or "Personal Information").

The complaint relates that in the ordinary course of its business,
Amtrak collects, stores, processes, and maintains substantial
volumes of sensitive Personal Information, including names,
physical mailing addresses, email addresses, payment information,
account credentials, trip information, geolocation data,
communications, device information, and other identifying consumer
data. In April 2026, the cybercriminal threat actor group known as
ShinyHunters reportedly claimed to have compromised Amtrak customer
data and threatened to publicly release the information unless
ransom demands were satisfied. The exposed data reportedly included
approximately 2,106,238 unique email addresses, together with
associated names, physical mailing addresses, and customer support
records.

The complaint alleges that Plaintiff Reyes has experienced
increased spam activity and faces a continuing risk of fraud,
identity theft, phishing, and misuse of her information for years
to come. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff Reyes
anticipates spending considerable time and money on an ongoing
basis to try to mitigate and address harm caused by the Data
Breach.

The Plaintiff and the Class, therefore, seek damages, injunctive
relief, and other and further relief as the Court may deem just and
proper.

Plaintiff Vivian Reyes is a customer of Amtrak.

Defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a Amtrak is
the nation's passenger railroad carrier, serving more than 500
destinations across 46 states, the District of Columbia, and parts
of Canada.[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 -

     Tina Wolfson, Esq.
     AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
     2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500
     Burbank, CA 91505
     Telephone: 310-474-9111
     Facsimile: 310-474-8585
     E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com

          - and -

     Bradley King, Esq.
     AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
     521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
     New York, NY 10175
     Telephone: (917) 336-0171
     Facsimile: (917) 336-0177
     E-mail: bking@ahdootwolfson.com

NETLINE CORP: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a
class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the NetLine data
breach.

As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals
who had their information exposed in the incident, including those
who received notice of the NetLine data breach or otherwise believe
they are affected.

NetLine Security Incident: What Happened?

NetLine Corporation, which operates a business-to-business
marketing platform used by 125 million users monthly, experienced a
data breach involving unauthorized access to a public-facing web
server. A letter sent to the Maine Attorney General's Office states
that upon discovering suspicious activity on April 21, 2026,
NetLine launched an investigation and found that an unknown actor
had queried databases on the server without authorization the day
prior, April 20.

NetLine reviewed the affected databases to identify what
information was present and to whom it belonged, completing this
process by April 29, 2026. The information potentially exposed by
the NetLine data breach includes names, Social Security numbers,
and individual taxpayer identification numbers.  

Those potentially affected by the NetLine Corporation data breach
were notified in writing on or around May 27.

What You Can Do After the NetLine Data Breach

If your information was exposed in the NetLine data breach,
attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class
action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time
spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more.

A successful case could also force NetLine to ensure they take
proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with.

An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to
explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions.

Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no
obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN]

NEW YORK, NY: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Khan Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
RESMIE KHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION, Case
No. 1:26-cv-04549 (S.D.N.Y., May 29, 2026) alleges that the
Defendant failed to secure and safeguard consumers' personally
identifiable information and protected health information that
Defendant collected, processed, and maintained in connection with
providing healthcare services, as well as failed to provide timely,
accurate and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members
that their Private Information had been unlawfully accessed and
precisely what types of information were stolen.

The Defendant collected and maintained the Private Information of
the Proposed Class Members, who are current and former patients and
employees of NYCHHC (and, in some instances, their family members).
The categories of personally identifiable information entrusted to
and exposed by Defendant include names; Social Security numbers;
driver's license numbers and other government-issued identification
numbers; taxpayer identification numbers and IRS-issued identity
protection numbers; precise geolocation data; credit and debit card
numbers; financial account information and credentials; online
account credentials; billing information, including claims and
payment data; biometric information, including fingerprints and
palm prints; and health insurance information, including plans and
policies, insurer names, member and group identification numbers,
and Medicaid, Medicare, and other government payor identification
numbers.

The Plaintiff also sues NYCHHC for failing to protect the PHI of
Plaintiff and the Class -- including medical record numbers,
disability codes, diagnoses, medications, test results, diagnostic
images, and treatment plans.

New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation operates the public
hospital and health care systems for the City of New York and
provides medical and related services through a network of
hospitals, clinics, and long term care facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
          David L. Hecht, Esq.
          Brittany Sackrin, Esq.
          Justin Alverez-Herman, Esq.
          Tiffany Wong, Esq.
          HECHT PARTNERS LLP
          125 Park Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, New York 10017
          Telephone: (212) 851-6821
          E-mail: lfeldman@hechtpartners.com
                  dhecht@hechtpartners.com  
                  bsackrin@hechtpartners.com
                  jalverez@hechtpartners.com
                  twong@hechtpartners.com

NISSAN NORTH: Proudfoot Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
GRACE PROUDFOOT, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Grace Proudfoot, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Nissan
North America, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:25-cv-09115-JFW-PVC, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

The suit is brought against the Defendants for unjust enrichment,
fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of implied warranty
pursuant to Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, and violations of
the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act, California's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, and California Business & Professions Code.

On Oct. 27, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed first amended complaint,
which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Jan. 2, 2026.

On Jan. 30, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed second amended complaint,
which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Mar. 13, 2026.

On May 1, 2026, Judge John F. Walter entered an Order granting the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. The
case is dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend.

On May 11, 2026, final judgment is entered in favor of the
Defendants.

The appellate case is styled as Proudfoot, et al. v. Nissan North
America, Inc., et al., Case No. 26-3464, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 29, 2026.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on June 3,
2026;

   -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on July 8, 2026; and

   -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on August 7, 2026. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants GRACE PROUDFOOT, et al., individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by:

       Andrew Daniel Bluth, Esq.
       Christopher Ross Rodriguez, Esq.
       SINGLETON SCHREIBER, LLP
       1414 K. Street, Suite 470
       Sacramento, CA 95814

              - and -

       Jonna Lothyan, Esq.
       SINGLETON SCHREIBER, LLP
       591 Camino de la Reina, Suite 1025
       San Diego, CA 92108

Defendants-Appellees NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., et al. are
represented by:

       Edwin Paul Cauley, Jr., Esq.
       FAEGRE, DRINKER, BIDDLE & REATH, LLP
       2323 Ross Avenue, Suite 1700
       Dallas, TX 75201

              - and -

       John J. Powers, Esq.
       FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH, LLP
       4 Embarcadero Center, 27th Floor
       San Francisco, CA 94111

NUCOR CORPORATION: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $200,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Olivia DeRicco of ClassAction.org reports that Nucor Corporation
has agreed to an up to $200,000 settlement to end a class action
lawsuit that alleged the steel manufacturer failed to protect
confidential information on its systems from a data breach
discovered on or around May 13, 2025.

The $200,000 Nucor Corporation class action settlement received
preliminary approval from the court on March 11, 2026. The
settlement covers all individuals who were sent a notice from Nucor
related to the data breach and their personal information.

The court-approved website for the Nucor Corporation data breach
settlement can be found at Nucor-DataSettlement.com.

Nucor settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim
form can receive up to $700 for documented out-of-pocket losses
traceable to the data breach. Losses covered by this benefit
include the cost of credit reports, credit monitoring and identity
theft insurance purchased between June 24, 2025 and June 9, 2026,
and expenses like bank fees, postage and more.

Class members must submit proof, such as receipts, to receive an
out-of-pocket loss payment.

Class members can also claim up to three hours of lost time spent
responding to the data breach, at a rate of $25 per hour, subject
to the $700 out-of-pocket payout cap.

Additionally, class members can file a claim form to receive up to
$7,500 for documented “extraordinary” losses incurred due to
fraud or identity theft as a result of the breach not already
covered by the out-of-pocket loss benefit.

Class members must submit proof, such as receipts, to receive an
extraordinary-loss payment.

Finally, class members who did not already enroll in the two years
of credit monitoring offered by Nucor in June 2025 following the
data breach can submit a claim form to receive two years of
Equifax's Complete Premier service.

Should the total cost of all benefits exceed the $200,000 aggregate
settlement cap, payments to class members may be subject to a pro
rata reduction.

To submit a Nucor Corporation claim form online, class members can
head to this page and enter the login and password found on their
copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can
download a PDF claim form to print, fill out and return by mail to
the settlement administrator.

All Nucor Corporation settlement claim forms must be submitted
online or postmarked by June 9, 2026.

The court will determine whether to grant the Nucor settlement
final approval following a hearing on July 6, 2026. Compensation
will begin to be distributed to class members only after final
approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved.

The Nucor Corporation class action lawsuit alleged that the steel
manufacturer failed to implement appropriate cybersecurity measures
to prevent a data breach that occurred sometime between May 3 and
May 13, 2025.

According to the complaint, personal information that may have been
compromised during the breach included Social Security numbers,
driver's license numbers, dates of birth, medical information and
financial information. [GN]

ON INC: Norberg Suit Seeks IEEPA Tariff Refunds
-----------------------------------------------
LINDA NORBERG, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. ON INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-1035 (D. Or., May 24, 2026) is a class
action for damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies over Defendant's practice of charging its customers
inflated prices in response to unlawfully imposed tariffs.

The complaint relates that the Defendant paid International
Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariffs when it imported the
products Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers purchased. To
offset the cost of paying IEEPA tariffs, Defendant passed those
costs on to Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers by inflating
the prices of its products. On February 20, 2026, the United States
Supreme Court held that the IEEPA does not authorize the President
to impose the tariffs at issue. As a result, any IEEPA tariffs
charged to Defendant were unlawful for lack of statutory
authorization, and Defendant is entitled to seek a refund for any
tariffs it paid pursuant to the Tariff Executive Orders through
either litigation in the U.S. Court of International Trade, the
CAPE refund process, or other administrative refund procedures.

Although Defendant has affirmatively sought refunds of the IEEPA
tariffs it paid through the protective action it filed in the U.S.
Court of International Trade, Defendant has made no public
commitment to return any portion of those anticipated tariff
refunds to the consumers who, through elevated prices, bore the
economic burden of those tariffs. Defendant could have enacted a
similar payback program for Plaintiff and the Class Members yet
chose not to. At minimum, once IEEPA tariff refunds, reliquidation,
or other recovery became available, Defendant's retention of
tariff-related amounts paid by consumers became unfair, oppressive,
and substantially injurious because Defendant retained the benefit
of both consumer pass-through payments and the corresponding refund
rights or proceeds, says the suit.

Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action individually and on
behalf of similarly situated individuals to seek redress for
violations of the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act ("UTPA"), as
well as common law unjust enrichment and money had and received,
and for such other equitable and legal relief as is appropriate,
including the imposition of a constructive trust over any IEEPA
tariff refund proceeds Defendant receives from the United States.

Plaintiff Linda Norberg is a resident of the State of Iowa.
Plaintiff purchased an ON-branded product that was subject to a
tariff-related price increase directly tied to IEEPA tariffs that
ON paid and passed through to her.

Defendant ON Inc. is responsible for the importation, pricing,
marketing, distribution, and sale of products sold under the "On"
brand in the United States, including the running shoes and apparel
that Plaintiff purchased.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Rick Klingbeil, Esq.
     RICK KLINGBEIL, PC
     1826 NE Broadway
     Portland, OR 97232
     Telephone: (503) 490-6763
     E-mail: rick@klingbeil-law.com

          - and -

     Brady Mertz, Esq.
     BRADY MERTZ, PC
     685 Church St. NE
     Salem, OR 97301
     Telephone: (503) 385-0121
     E-mail: brady@bradymertz.com

          - and -

     Myles McGuire, Esq.
     Andrew T. Heldut, Esq.
     MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
     55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Telephone: (312) 893-7002
     E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
             aheldut@mcgpc.com

OVERSEAS FOOD: Product Contains No Olive Oil, Hallak Says
---------------------------------------------------------
Duraid Hallak, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. OVERSEAS FOOD DISTRIBUTION, LLC, Case No.
3:26-cv-03268-H-MMP (S.D. Cal., May 28, 2026) is a class action
addressing a profound breach of consumer trust by Defendant, which
has misled thousands, if not millions, through its product branded
GOLCHIN and labeled "CANOLA & EXTRA VIRGIN OLIVE OIL MEDITERRANEAN
STYLE BLEND" (the "Mislabeled Product").

According to the complaint, Laboratory testing reveals a troubling
reality -- the Mislabeled Product contains no detectable olive oil
and consists entirely of canola oil and soybean oil, despite the
labeled "CANOLA & EXTRA VIRGIN OLIVE OIL MEDITERRANEAN STYLE BLEND"
labeling, prominent depiction of a cluster of olives, and
small-font label on the bottle listing "Mediterranean Style Blend"
and "No Cholesterol, No Additives, No Preservatives".

This uniform mislabeling scheme was developed, approved, and
disseminated from Defendant's headquarters in California and has
deceived consumers nationwide through both online and retail sales
channels, the suit contends.

This misconduct violates California law in three critical ways: (1)
the failure to label the product as "mixed vegetable oil" as
required; (2) the omission of accurate blend proportions; and (3)
the complete absence of olive oil. These violations demand
accountability for a company that has prioritized profit over
people, the suit adds.

In addition to violating California Health & Safety Code section
112895(b), the Defendant's conduct constitutes false advertising,
unfair competition, and deceptive business practices in violation
of California Business & Professions Code.

The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated to hold Defendant accountable for its
unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent labeling, advertising, and sale of
GOLCHIN "CANOLA & EXTRA VIRGIN OLIVE OIL MEDITERRANEAN STYLE
BLEND", and to obtain restitution, damages, and injunctive relief
necessary to prevent ongoing deception.

The Defendant manufactures, distributes, and sells food products,
including the Mislabeled Product, both directly through its website
(https://ofdusa.com/) and through third-party distributors,
wholesalers, and retailers throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          Katherine A. Tuohy, Esq.
          SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
          2221 Camino del Rio S, Suite 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (866) 219-3343
          E-mail: josh@swigartlawgroup.com
                  katherine@swigartlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Quintin G. Shammam, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF QUINTIN G. SHAMMAM
          2221 Camino del Rio S, Suite 207
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 444-0001
          Facsimile: (619) 501-1119
          E-mail: quintin@shammamlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph M. Attiq, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH M. ATTIQ
          2221 Camino del Rio S, Suite 207
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 520-5201
          E-mail: joseph@attiqlaw.com

OXY USA: Denial of Class Certification in Rider Suit Reversed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHERRY RIDER, trustee of the Cherry Rider Family
Trust; R. W. LUCAS, co-trustee of the R.W. Lucas and Cathy Lucas
Living Trust, individually and as representative plaintiff on
behalf of persons or concerns similarly situated; CATHY LUCAS,
co-trustee of the R.W. Lucas and Cathy Lucas Living Trust,
individually and as representative plaintiffs on behalf of persons
or concerns similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. OXY USA,
INC.; MERIT ENERGY COMPANY, LLC; MERIT HUGOTON, L.P.,
Defendants-Appellees. EASTERN KANSAS ROYALTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION,
Amicus Curiae, Case No. 25-3142 (10th Cir.), the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reverses the district court's denial
of class certification and remands with instructions to certify the
putative class.

On November 13, 1998, a group of plaintiffs filed a putative class
action, Littell v. OXY USA, Inc., Case No. 98-CV-51, in the
District Court of Stevens County, Kansas against Oxy, alleging Oxy
was underpaying royalties on lease agreements in the Kansas Hugoton
Gas Field. The court certified the class under Kansas law.

The Littell class was defined as: All persons or concerns owning
mineral interests in lands located in the areal confines of the
Kansas Hugoton Gas Field, burdened by oil and gas leases owned in
whole or in part by defendant with respect to gas production from
the above base of the Panoma-Council Grove Field, whose royalty
payments have been reduced by a "gathering/compression" deduction
or "marketing deduct" identified on the monthly gas revenue detail
sent by defendant to each such member.

In January 2008, the Littell plaintiffs settled with Oxy, and the
court approved the agreement on March 4, 2008, entering judgment.
The settlement released past claims and required Oxy to pay $16.7
million into a settlement fund and change future royalty practices
by eliminating fuel charges and limiting gathering charges on
royalty payments.

In May 2014, Merit acquired Oxy's Kansas Hugoton Gas Field assets.
At closing, Oxy provided information identifying royalty owners
paid under the Littell settlement, including opt-outs, and
explained how participating class members' royalty payments were
calculated. A Merit representative stated that Merit verifies
ownership before issuing payments, placing disputed claims in
suspense until resolved. Merit also held other Kansas interests
acquired independently of Oxy. Merit argues it is not bound by the
settlement's royalty provisions, while Oxy contends it has no
responsibility for payments made by other parties.

The Plaintiffs allege that since May 2014, Merit has improperly
deducted amounts from royalty payments in violation of the
settlement's royalty provisions. They moved to enforce the judgment
against Merit in the District Court of Stevens County, Kansas, but
the court denied the motion, finding the judgment was dormant and
unenforceable under Kansas law. The Plaintiffs appealed on February
8, 2024, and that appeal remains pending before the Kansas Court of
Appeals.

The Plaintiffs filed this federal class action complaint on
December 29, 2023, asserting breach of contract claims against
Merit and Oxy based on the Littell settlement. They allege the
settlement binds Merit and that Oxy's assignment of assets did not
relieve it of its obligations under the agreement.

The Plaintiffs defined the putative class as former participating
members of the Littell settlement (and their successors) who
received or were entitled to royalty payments from Merit Energy
Company, Merit Hugoton LP, or related entities from May 2014
onward. The parties disputed whether "successors" to the Littell
class members could be feasibly identified.

In response, the Plaintiffs proposed a modified class definition in
their motion for class certification focused on payees under the
leases Merit acquired from Oxy: All persons or entities to whom
Merit Energy Company, LLC, Merit Hugoton LP, and/or any related or
affiliated entity (collectively "Merit") has paid royalties at any
time since December 2, 2017, under oil and gas leases in the Kansas
Hugoton Field that were assigned to Merit by OXY USA, Inc. in or
about 2014, except for those persons or entities who have received
royalty payments from Merit exclusively for interests now or
previously held by any of the 19 persons or entities who opted out
of the class action settlement approved by the District Court of
Stevens County, Kansas, on March 4, 2008, in the case of Opal
Littell, et. al v. OXY USA, Inc., Case No. 98-CV-51.

The Defendants opposed class certification. On June 18, 2025, the
district court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, finding that the proposed class was not readily
ascertainable and therefore failed to satisfy numerosity. It also
concluded that the Plaintiffs failed to meet the requirements of
commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority.

The Plaintiffs timely sought interlocutory review of the denial of
class certification. On appeal, they argue the district court erred
in requiring proof of record title ownership for each claimant
despite Merit's ability to identify royalty payees, in finding the
class was not administratively feasible and therefore not
ascertainable despite the inclusion of over 1,900 settlement class
members and uncontested numerosity, and in concluding that the
remaining Rule 23 requirements were not met, as those findings were
influenced by its administrative feasibility determination.

The Tenth Circuit held that the proposed class is readily
ascertainable and that the district court abused its discretion in
concluding otherwise. It further found the district court erred in
determining there were no common questions of law or fact,
explaining that the central issue is whether Merit breached the
settlement by exceeding permitted deduction limits.

The court also held that typicality is satisfied because the
Plaintiffs' claims arise from the same legal theory as the class.
It found the adequacy ruling erroneous, noting no evidence of
conflicts of interest or inadequate representation. The court
concluded predominance is met because the case centers on a single
breach-of-settlement claim against each Defendant. Finally, having
found all Rule 23 requirements satisfied, it held the superiority
requirement was also met.

Ultimately, the Tenth Circuit rejects the Defendants' arguments
against class certification, concluding that a class action is an
appropriate method to litigate the alleged breach of the settlement
agreement. It reverses the district court's denial of class
certification and remands with instructions to certify a class
consistent with its Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at
https://l1nq.com/fwbmmzs.

Mr. David G. Seely -- dseely@fleeson.com -- (Ryan K. Meyer --
rmeyer@fleeson.com -- and Emily K. Arida -- earida@fleeson.com --
of Fleeson, Gooing, Coulson & Kitch, L.L.C., Wichita, Kansas, and
Erick E. Nordling of Kramer -- erick.nordling@nordlinglaw.com --
Nordling & Nordling, LLC, Hugoton, Kansas, with him on the briefs),
for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Mr. Daniel M. McClure -- dan.mcclure@nortonrosefulbright.com --
Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Houston, Texas (James M. Shultz of
Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Houston, Texas, James V. Leito IV --
james.leito@nortonrosefulbright.com -- of Norton Rose Fulbright US
LLP, Dallas, Texas, Peter B. Siegal of Norton Rose Fulbright US
LLP, Washington, D.C., Robert W. Coykendall --
rcoykendall@morrislaing.com -- and Will B. Wohlford --
wwohlford@morrislaing.com -- of Morris, Laing, Evans, Brock &
Kennedy, CHTD., Wichita, Kansas, James M. Armstrong --
jarmstrong@foulston.com -- of Foulston Siefkin LLP, Wichita,
Kansas, and Mark Rodriguez -- mrodriguez@beckredden.com -- and
Maryam Ghaffar -- mghaffar@beckredden.com -- of Beck Redden LLP,
Houston, Texas, with him on the brief), for Defendants-Appellees
Rex A. Sharp and Scott B. Goodger, Sharp Law, LLP, Prairie Village,
Kansas, filed an Amicus Curiae brief in support of Appellants.

PLEASURES NOW: Bennett Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LIVINGSTON BENNETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Pleasures Now, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:26-cv-6086 (N.D. Ill., May 22, 2026) is a civil rights action
against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its Website https://pleasuresnow.com to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Bennett and other
blind or visually-impaired individuals, in violation of Bennett's
rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").

The complaint relates that Bennett has made an attempt to complete
a purchase on the Website on January 20, 2026. However, while
navigating the website using screen reader software, Bennett
encountered multiple accessibility barriers. The Website contains
access barriers that deny full and equal access to Bennett. As
such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to
discriminate against Bennett 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.

Bennett 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 Livingston Bennett is a visually-impaired and legally
blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website
content using the computer.

Defendant Pleasures Now, LLC provides to the public the Website,
which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services,
including, the ability to purchase a rich collection of
street-style apparel, including T-shirts, jackets, hoodies, vests,
shorts, and pants, complemented by accessories such as headwear,
belts, and bags.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alison Chan, Esq.
     EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
     4903 Avenue N,
     Brooklyn, NY 11234
     Office: 844-731-3343
     Direct: 929-442-2154
     E-mail: Achan@ealg.law

PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Unscented Deodorant
------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Lisa Phaneuf filed a class
action lawsuit against The Procter & Gamble Co.

Why: Phaneuf claims P&G falsely advertises certain Secret Invisible
Solid Antiperspirant and Deodorant products as being unscented.

Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in Massachusetts federal
court.

A new class action lawsuit alleges The Procter & Gamble falsely
advertises certain Secret Invisible Solid Antiperspirant and
Deodorant products as being unscented.

Plaintiff Lisa Phaneuf's class action lawsuit claims P&G's Secret
Invisible Solid Antiperspirant and Deodorant products actually
contain fragrance.

Phaneuf argues P&G misleads consumers into believing the Secret
deodorant products are unscented as part of an effort to capitalize
on consumers' desire to purchase products without fragrance
ingredients, which, she claims, can cause skin irritation and
allergic reactions.

"Plaintiff and class members would not have purchased the products
-- or would not have paid as much as they did to purchase them --
had they known the unscented representation was false," the class
action lawsuit states.

Secret deodorant lawsuit claims P&G's conduct deceptive

Phaneuf argues P&G's alleged misconduct deceived and/or was likely
to deceive the public into believing the Secret deodorant products
are unscented when they actually contain fragrance.

"Plaintiff and class members would not know the true nature of the
products by looking at the front labels of the products," the
Secret deodorant class action lawsuit says.

Phaneuf claims P&G is guilty of fraud and unjust enrichment. The
plaintiff is demanding a jury trial and requesting an award of
actual, compensatory, statutory, nominal and/or punitive damages,
restitution, attorneys' fees and other relief for herself and all
class members.

Phaneuf wants to represent a nationwide class and Massachusetts
subclass of consumers who purchased Secret Invisible Solid
Antiperspirant and Deodorant products with the unscented
representation within the applicable statute of limitations.

In similar alleged misleading claims, a lawsuit accuses Unilever of
falsely advertising its Dove Men+Care deodorant as alcohol-free
when it actually contains benzyl alcohol.

Phaneuf is represented by Joel D. Smith of Smith Krivoshey P.C.

The Secret deodorant class action lawsuit is Phaneuf v. The Procter
& Gamble Company, Case No. 1:26-cv-12251, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts. [GN]

R. W. SELBY & CO: Tejera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against R. W. Selby & Co.,
Inc. The case is styled as Juan Arturo De La Tejera, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. R. W. Selby &
Co., Inc., Greystar Management Services LLC, Case No. 26STCV15705
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 18, 2026).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."

R.W. Selby & Co. -- https://www.rwselby.com/ -- offers high-quality
property services in Southern California and Nevada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seung L. Yang, Esq.
          THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC
          355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1450
          Los Angeles, California 90071
          Phone: (213) 985-1150
          Fax: (213) 985-2155
          Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com

RADARIS LLC: Exploits Cellular Telephone Numbers, Larancuent Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN LARANCUENT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RADARIS, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-12426-GAO (D. Mass. May
29, 2026) is a class action complaint against the Defendant for
violations of the Colorado's Prevention of Telemarketing Fraud
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant operates a for-profit
online "people search" business built on the aggregation,
publication, and monetization of individuals' personal information.
The Defendant knowingly publishes Colorado residents' cellular
telephone numbers through its website, radaris.com, without the
affirmative consent required by Colorado law, the suit contends.

The Defendant has listed the cellular telephone numbers of
thousands of Colorado residents in its for-sale and for-profit
directory, without requesting (let alone actually receiving)
affirmative consent to such listings. The Defendant commercially
exploits Plaintiff's and Class Members' cellular telephone numbers
in direct violation of the PTFA through publicly searchable profile
pages, subscription products, and data-driven advertising, the suit
adds.

The Plaintiff and Class Members alleges that they never provided
Defendant with written, oral, or electronic authorization to
publicly display, index, market, sell, disseminate, or commercially
exploit their cellular telephone numbers through radaris.com.

RADARIS, LLC is a data-as-a-service provider offering public record
information on individuals, organizations, and properties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zachary Arbitman, Esq.
          Nicole Maruzzi, Esq.
          George Donnelly, Esq.
          FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER
          TANNER WEINSTOCK & DODIG, LLP
          1845 Walnut Street, 21st Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 567-8300
          E-mail: zarbitman@feldmanshepherd.com
                  nmaruzzi@feldmanshepherd.com
                  gdonnelly@feldmansheperd.com

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          William J. Edelman, Esq.
          Michael A. Acciavatti, Esq.
          MILBERG, PLLC  
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100  
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (866) 252-0878
          E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
                  wedelman@milberg.com
                  macciavatti@milberg.com

RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES: Adair Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Radiology Associates
of Richmond, Inc. The case is styled as Amelia Adair, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Radiology
Associates of Richmond, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-00470-DJN (E.D. Va.,
May 27, 2026).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.

Radiology Associates of Richmond -- https://rarichmond.com/ -- is
the oldest ongoing private radiology practice in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lee Adair Floyd, Esq.
          Jonathan Patrick Floyd, Esq.
          FLOYD LAW, PC
          626 E. Broad Street, Ste. 300
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Phone: (804) 529-0001
          Fax: (804) 529-0009
          Email: lee@floydpc.com
                 jonathan@floydpc.com

RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES: Cason Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against D Radiology
Associates of Richmond, Inc. The case is styled as Terry Cason,
Melissa Fivecoat, Frederick Fivecoat, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Radiology Associates of Richmond,
Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-00472-DJN (E.D. Va., May 27, 2026).

The nature of suit is stated Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

Radiology Associates of Richmond -- https://rarichmond.com/ -- is
the oldest ongoing private radiology practice in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Hilton Wise, Esq.
          Dylan Scout Graham, Esq.
          WISE LAW FIRM, PLC
          10640 Page Ave, Ste 320
          Fairfax, VA 22030-7409
          Phone: (703) 934-6377
          Fax: (703) 934-6379
          Email: dwise@wiselaw.pro
                 dgraham@wiselaw.pro

RAMSEY EXPRESS: Duran Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Armando Mora Duran, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated v. RAMSEY EXPRESS TRUCKING, INC., a
Nevada Stock Corporation; BBSI STAFFING SERVICES, LLC, a Washington
Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2026-0002551 was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of San Joaquin, to the United States
District Court for Eastern District of California on May 18, 2026,
and assigned Case No. 2:26-at-00835.

The Complaint asserts the following ten causes of action: Failure
to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to pay all Wages and Minimum Wages;
Failure to Provide Compliant Meal Periods; Failure to Provide
Compliant Rest Periods; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses;
Failure to Provide a Safe Work Environment; Failure to Pay Timely
Wages During Employment; Failure to Pay All Wages Owed at
Termination; Failure to Furnish Accurate, Itemized Wage Statements
and Failure to Maintain Accurate Records; all in Violation of Labor
Codes and Violations of Business & Professions Code Section
17200.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lisa Blanco Jimenez, Esq.
          NEUMILLER & BEARDSLEE,
          A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          Mailing: P.O. Box 20
          Stockton, CA 95201-3020
          Office: 3121 W. March Lane, Suite 100
          Stockton, CA 95219
          Phone: (209) 948-8200
          Facsimile: (209) 948-4910
          Email: ljimenez@neumiller.com

REAL PHOTO BY FREDDY'S: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Nelson Rodriguez, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. REAL PHOTO BY FREDDY'S COLORS
INC. d/b/a REAL PHOTOS NYC, and FREDDY ALCANTARA, individually, and
JOHANATHAN JULIAN, individually, Case No. 1:26-cv-04178 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 19, 2026), is brought for damages and equitable relief based
upon willful violations that Defendants committed of Plaintiff's
rights guaranteed to him by: the overtime provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); the overtime provisions of the New
York Labor Law ("NYLL"), N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. ("NYCRR")

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants beginning in or around October
2021, until in or around mid-September 2025, but was furloughed
each year from mid-July through August as a result of Defendants'
work primarily involving school photography. Throughout Plaintiff's
employment, as described below, Defendants willfully failed to pay
Plaintiff the overtime wages lawfully due to him under the FLSA and
the NYLL. Specifically, Defendants routinely required Plaintiff to
work, and Plaintiff did in fact work, in excess of forty hours each
week, or virtually each week, throughout his employment. Yet, in
exchange for his work from the beginning of his employment through
September 2022, Defendants paid Plaintiff a flat weekly salary that
failed to compensate him at least at the applicable minimum wage
rate for each hour worked, and failed to compensate him at the
statutorily-required overtime rate of one and one-half times his
regular rate of pay, or the minimum wage, if greater, for the hours
that he worked each week in excess of forty each week, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a non-managerial
photographer.

The Defendants is a New York corporation that operates as a
Manhattan based school photography and photo studio business and
the corporation's owner and day-to-day overseer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew C. Weiss, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 248-5550
          Fax: (516) 248-6027

RED ROCK: Fails to Secure Customers' Personal Info, Geiner Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN GEINER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RED ROCK RESORTS, INC., STATION HOLDCO LLC, and STATION
CASINOS LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-01632 (D. Nev., May 28, 2026) is a
class action against Defendants for their failure to properly
secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated
individuals' personally identifiable information from criminal
hackers.

In the ordinary course of business, the Defendants collect and
store sensitive Private Information belonging to its customers and
employees. In exchange for receiving services or employment,
Defendants' customers and employees entrust Private Information to
Defendants with the reasonable expectation and mutual understanding
that Defendants will safeguard their data from unauthorized access,
the suit says.

Despite this reasonable expectation, on March 5, 2026, an external
threat actor breached Defendants' systems, compromising the Private
Information of Defendants' customers and employees (Data Breach).
Contrary to the expectation of privacy, Class Members have now had
their privacy jeopardized and their sensitive information exposed
to unauthorized persons and the risk of fraud. The potential for
improper disclosure and theft of Plaintiff's and Class members'
Private Information was a known risk to Defendants, and thus
Defendants were on notice that failing to take necessary steps to
secure the Private Information left it vulnerable to an attack.
The Defendants failed to properly monitor and implement security
practices with regard to the computer network and systems that
housed the Private Information, alleges the suit.

The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit to address
Defendants’ inadequate safeguarding of Class members' Private
Information that they collected and maintained, and their failure
to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and Class
members of the types of information that were accessed, and that
such information was subject to unauthorized access by
cybercriminals.

The Defendants collectively own and operate various Nevada-based
hospitality and entertainment brands, including Station Casinos,
Red Rock Resorts, Wildfire Gaming, and Seventy Six Taverns, which
serve hundreds of thousands of customers a year.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George Haines, Esq.
          Gerardo Avalos, Esq.  
          FREEDOM LAW FIRM, LLC
          8985 South Eastern Ave., Suite 205
          Las Vegas, NV 89123
          Telephone: (702) 880-5554
          Facsimile: (702) 385-5518
          E-mail: ghaines@freedomlegalteam.com
                  gavalos@freedomlegalteam.com

               - and -

          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

RED VIOLET INC: Barrow Suit Transferred to D. Colorado
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Bradley Barrow, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Red Violet, Inc., Case No.
9:26-cv-80418 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado on May 21, 2026.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-02234-STV to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle.

Red Violet -- https://www.redviolet.com/ -- is a U.S.
identity-intelligence software company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven P. Sukert, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
          One West Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 525-4100
          Fax: (954) 525-4300
          Email: sukert@kolawyers.com

REDDIT INC: First Amended LevelFields Class Suit Dismissal Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LEVELFIELDS, INC., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. REDDIT, INC., a
California Corporation, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 25-394 (9th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
district court's order dismissing with prejudice Lvelfelds' First
Amended Class Action Complaint.

Plaintiff-Appellant LevelFields, individually and on behalf of a
proposed class, appealed the district court's order. The parties
disputed the meaning of the term "click." LevelFields asserted that
"click" refers to a human user and not a bot. Reddit countered that
it refers to any user selecting an ad that is delivered to
LevelFields' website.

As previously reported, the suit is brought against the Defendant
for breach of contract and for violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law in connection with its failure to prevent
click-through fraud.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling excluding
LevelFields' extrinsic email evidence, holding it did not create
ambiguity in the contract. It also found no improper fact-finding
in the court's determination that Reddit used "reasonable means" to
deliver ads, noting LevelFields conceded there was no guarantee of
specific delivery results.

The Ninth Circuit declined to reach Reddit's alternative dismissal
arguments because it affirmed on other grounds. It further held
that dismissal with prejudice was proper given prior opportunities
to amend and the futility of further amendment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum is available at
https://sl1nk.com/51b4ddo

REDWOOD TOXICOLOGY: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Toothman Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT TOOTHMAN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. REDWOOD
TOXICOLOGY LABORATORY, INC., Defendant and Appellant, Case No.
A171567 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, First
District, Division Four, affirms the trial court's order denying
Redwood's motion to compel Toothman to arbitrate his individual
employment claims against it and to dismiss his class claims.

Apex Life Sciences, LLC, is an employment agency that hires and
places temporary workers at other businesses. In January 2018, Apex
hired Toothman for that purpose. Toothman and Apex entered into an
employment agreement and the companion Arbitration Agreement under
which they agreed to arbitrate employment disputes.

Apex placed Toothman at Redwood, where Toothman worked exclusively
until his employment with Apex ended in April 2018. Toothman then
began working directly for Redwood, where he stayed until June
2022. Toothman and Redwood did not enter into an arbitration
agreement, and the documents that Toothman signed upon hire did not
refer to the Arbitration Agreement.

On September 26, 2022, about three months after leaving his job
with Redwood, Toothman filed a class action against Redwood. The
complaint alleged that he had been a Redwood employee from January
2018 to June 2022, and it alleged Labor Code violations with a
maximum statutory period of limitation of four years. He thus based
his claims on Redwood's alleged conduct starting no earlier than
September 26, 2018, well after he had stopped working for Apex and
had started working directly for Redwood.

The complaint defined the class as "all individuals who are or
previously were employed by Redwood in California, including any
employees staffed with Redwood by a third party and classified as
non-exempt employees at any time during the period beginning four
(4) years prior to the filing of this complaint."

After Apex produced the Arbitration Agreement in response to a
subpoena from Redwood, Toothman filed a first amended complaint
(Complaint). The Complaint redefined the class to exclude "any
workers staffed with Redwood by a third party while those workers
were on assignment with Redwood. It expressly did not exclude
"individuals, such as Toothman, who were both direct employees and
non-direct/staffed workers of Redwood at different periods of
time," but it did exclude "any such time such individuals were not
direct employees of Redwood."

Redwood filed a motion to compel arbitration, arguing that it was a
party to the Arbitration Agreement because it qualified as an
"affiliate" of Apex. It argued alternatively that it could enforce
the Arbitration Agreement as a third-party beneficiary and that
Toothman was equitably estopped from refusing to arbitrate. In
addition to requesting an order to compel arbitration, Redwood
sought dismissal of Toothman's proposed class claims. The trial
court denied the motion.

Redwood appealed from the order, claiming that Toothman was bound
by an arbitration agreement (Arbitration Agreement) he had signed
with Apex. After Toothman's employment with Apex ended, Redwood
hired him directly. Toothman's claims against Redwood are based
exclusively on this period of direct employment.

The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court correctly
denied Redwood's motion for the following reasons: Redwood was not
a party to the Arbitration Agreement; even if it could be
considered a third-party beneficiary, the Arbitration Agreement did
not cover claims arising from Toothman's employment with Redwood;
and Toothman was not equitably estopped from refusing to arbitrate
because his claims were not intertwined with or founded in the
Arbitration Agreement. It therefore affirmed the order. Toothman is
entitled to recover his costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at
https://l1nq.com/wf8sn5e.

Seyfarth Shaw, Michele J. Beilke -- mbeilke@seyfarth.com -- Julia
Y. Trankiem -- jtrankiem@seyfarth.com -- Steven A. Morphy --
smorphy@seyfarth.com -- Counsel for Defendant and Appellant.

Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw, Norman B. Blumenthal --
Norm@bamlawca.com -- Kyle R. Nordrehaug -- kyle@bamlawca.com --
Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.

RETAIL SERVICES WIS: Smith Files Suit in N.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Retail Services WIS
Corporation. The case is styled as Calvin Smith, Jr., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Retail Services
WIS Corporation, Case No. 3:26-cv-01646-S (N.D. Tex., May 20,
2026).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.

WIS International -- https://wisintl.com/ -- offers inventory,
retail & supply-chain solutions empowering accuracy & efficiency
across retail, healthcare, auto & warehousing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leigh Skye Montgomery, Esq.
          EKSM, LLP
          4200 Montrose Boulevard, Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (888) 350-3931
          Fax: (888) 276-3455
          Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com

RETAIL SERVICES: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Obercom Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAPHNE OBERCOM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RETAIL SERVICES WIS CORPORATION d/b/a WIS
INTERNATIONAL INC. d/b/a DEALER SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 4:26-cv-556 (E.D. Tex., May 22, 2026) is a class action against
the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information
("PII") from criminal hackers, resulting in a data breach.

The complaint relates that as a condition of receiving employment
and/or services, Defendant requires that its employees and/or
customers entrust it with highly sensitive Private Information. By
obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from
Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, Defendant
assumed legal and equitable duties it owed to them and knew or
should have known that it was responsible for protecting
Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information from
unauthorized disclosure and exfiltration.

However, on May 16, 2026, Defendant reported to the Office of the
Vermont Attorney General that it had experienced a data breach
impacting Social Security numbers. Defendant has not yet mailed
individual notice to all individuals impacted by the Data Breach.
Thus, most, if not all Class Members have no idea that their
Private Information has been compromised, and that they are and
continue to be at a significant risk of identity theft and various
other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. This risk of
harm will remain for their respective lifetimes, says the suit.

Plaintiff Daphne Obercom is a former employee of Defendant.

Defendant Retail Services WIS Corporation d/b/a WIS International
Inc. d/b/a Dealer Solutions, Inc. is the world's largest inventory
service provider and offers comprehensive capabilities from
full-service inventory management to advanced self-service
solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kennedy M. Brian, Esq.
     Tyler Bean, Esq.
     SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
     101 Park Avenue
     Suite 1300, #16982799
     Oklahoma City, OK 73102
     Telephone: (212) 532-1091
     E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com
             kbrian@sirillp.com

          - and -

     Philip Krzeski, Esq.
     CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
     100 Washington Avenue S., STE 1700
     Minneapolis, MN 55401
     Telephone: (612) 339-7300
     E-mail: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com

RIDOC: Paiva Files Suit in D. Rhode Island
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rhode Island
Department of Corrections (RIDOC), et al. The case is styled as
Richard Lee Paiva, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Rhode Island Department of Corrections; Wayne
Salisbury, in his individual and official capacity as Director of
the Rhode Island Department of Corrections; Lynne Corry, in her
individual and official capacity as Warden of the Adult
Correctional Institutions, Maximum Security Facility and High
Security; Lynda Aul, in her individual and official capacity as
Warden of the Adult Correctional Institutions, Minium Security
Facility and Women's Facility; Kathleen Lyons, in her individual
and official capacity as Warden of the Adulty Correctional
Institutions, Medium Security Facility; Rachel Bray, in her
individual and official capacity of Warden of the Adult
Correctional Institutions, Intake Service Center; Case No.
1:26-cv-00338 (D.R.I., May 26, 2026).

The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.

The Rhode Island Department of Corrections (RIDOC) --
https://doc.ri.gov/ -- is a government agency of the US state of
Rhode Island.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

RIVER ROAD FEE OWNER: Jaklovsky Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against River Road Fee Owner,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Mark Jaklovsky, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. River Road Fee Owner,
LLC, TruAmerica Multifamily, LLC, GREP Atlantic, LLC, Case No.
2681CV01337 (Mass. Super. Ct., Middlesex Cty., May 18, 2026).

The case type is stated as "Torts."

River Road Asset Management is a large advisory firm based out of
Louisville.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kenneth D. Quat, Esq.
          QUAT LAW
          Offices 373 Winch St
          Framingham, MA 01701
          Phone: (508) 872-1261

               - and -

          John Richard Yasi, Esq.
          YASI AND YASI TWO SALEM GREEN
          Salem, MA 01970
          Phone: (978) 741-0400

ROSLYN HOSPITALITY: Orgera Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Roslyn Hospitality
LLC, et al. The case is styled as William Orgera, individually and
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Roslyn
Hospitality LLC d/b/a Hendrick's Tavern, Poll Restaurant Group.
Inc., Case No. 156834/2026 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., May 29,
2026).

The case type is stated as "Other Matters - Other Contract."

Roslyn Hospitality LLC doing business as Hendrick's Tavern --
https://www.hendrickstavern.com/ -- is an elegant, historic estate
turned upscale steakhouse featuring exceptional event spaces.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel Levi Goldenberg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOEL L. GOLDENBERG, PLLC
          1178 Broadway, 3rd Floor #3771
          New York, NY 10001
          Phone: (917) 328-0812
          Email: joel@jlgpllc.com

RREM INC: Archuleta Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RREM, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Monica Archuleta, individually, on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. RREM, Inc., Mandeep Dhillon, Case
No. STK-CV-UOE-2026-0003744 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May
20, 2026).

The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."

RREM Progressive Toolings, Inc. is a tool and die company serving
precision & semi-precision industrial firms.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jenny D. Baysinger, Esq.
          MAYALL HURLEY P.C.
          112 S Church St, Lodi, CA 95240-3501
          Phone: 209-477-3833
          Fax: 209-473-4818
          Email: jbaysinger@mayallaw.com

RTX CORP: Dismissal of Grace Class Suit as Untimely Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the
dismissal of the case, KRISTEN GRACE; ROSSANA HERNANDEZ; MICHAEL
HEYSER; LISA LEAKE; CHRISTOPHER STEIN; CHRISTOPHER SUBLETT; LESLIE
ZEPEDA, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and FRANCISCO GARZA, Plaintiff, v.
RTX CORPORATION, f/k/a Raytheon Technologies Corporation,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 25-2022 (4th Cir.), as untimely.

In September 2022, Appellee RTX was sued by several former
employees in the District Court for the District of Arizona on
behalf of themselves and a purported class of similarly situated
persons. The former employees ("Arizona Appellants") claimed that
the Appellee had discriminated against them based on their
religious objections to wearing face masks as required by the
Appellee's COVID-19 pandemic-era workplace safety policy. The
District of Arizona court dismissed the individual claims as
facially implausible and denied the motion for class certification
as moot.

Undeterred, in November 2024, the Arizona Appellants sued the
Appellee again, this time in the District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia. And this time, they were joined by three
additional plaintiffs (together with the Arizona Appellants,
"Appellants"). In addressing this second suit, the Eastern District
of Virginia held that some of the claims were barred by res
judicata, but in any event, none of the claims were filed within
the applicable statute of limitations. So, this action, too, was
dismissed.

The Appellants appealed, raising two issues on appeal. First,
although they concede that their claims are outside the ordinary
statute of limitations, they argued that the rule from American
Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974), saves their
case. Briefly, the American Pipe rule tolls the applicable statute
of limitations as to any individual cause of action during the
pendency of a class action lawsuit for any individual who was or
would have been a member of the purported class. Second, they
argued that the filing deadline for all of their claims was tolled,
such that they are timely for the purposes of this action.

Because the timeliness issue is dispositive of this appeal, the
Fourth Circuit did not address the question of res judicata.

The Fourth Circuit disagreed with the Appellants and affirmed the
dismissal of the case as untimely. It explained that the Appellants
each had 90 days from receipt of their respective right to sue
letters to file individual actions. The American Pipe rule tolled
that statute of limitations while the Arizona Appellants' motion
for class certification was before the district court in the
Arizona action. The Arizona district court denied class
certification on February 27, 2023.

The American Pipe rule thus tolled the statute of limitations for
prospective class members only until that date, at which time the
statutory clock resumed for all Appellants. Consequently, each
Appellant had to file their individual claims within 90 days of the
later of (1) February 27, 2023, or (2) the day they received their
own right to sue letter. And because every Appellant had received a
right to sue letter by August 5, 2024, none of the Appellants'
individual claims could have been timely after November 3, 2024--90
days later. This action commenced on November 20, 2024--107 days
later. The claims are therefore untimely, and the district court
properly dismissed the action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at
https://sl1nk.com/lbgpohj.

ON BRIEF: E. Scott Lloyd -- Scott@lloydlg.com -- LLOYD LAW GROUP,
PLLC, Front Royal, Virginia, for Appellant.

Dawn R. Solowey -- dsolowey@seyfarth.com -- Boston, Massachusetts,
Samantha L. Brooks -- sbrooks@seyfarth.com -- Washington, D.C.,
Owen R. Wolfe -- owolfe@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, New
York, New York, for Appellee.

RUAN TRANSPORT: Uno Mas Co. Files Suit in N.D. Mississippi
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ruan Transport
Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Uno Mas Co., Inc.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ruan
Transport Corporation, Case No. 3:26-cv-00123-JDM-JMV (N.D. Miss.,
May 19, 2026).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Ruan -- https://www.ruan.com/ -- is a privately-owned
transportation company that provides dedicated contract
transportation, managed transportation, and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Malcolm McMullan, Jr., Esq.
          Sarah Sterling Aldridge, Esq.
          DON BARRETT, P.A.
          404 Court Square N
          P.O. Box 927
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Phone: (662) 834-2488
          Fax: (662) 834-2628
          Email: dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com
                 saldridge@barrettlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Gary McKay Yarborough, Jr., Esq.
          YARBOROUGH LAW FIRM, PLLC
          P.O. Box 4168
          Bay St. Louis, MS 39521
          Phone: (228) 342-7987
          Email: gary@yarboroughlaw.co

               - and -

          John W. Don Barrett, Esq.
          BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
          P.O. Box 927
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Phone: (662) 834-9168
          Email: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Katherine Barrett Riley, Esq.
          BARRETT LAW OFFICES
          P. O. Box 987
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Phone: (662) 834-2376
          Email: kbriley@barrettlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Richard Runft Barrett, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD R BARRETT, PLLC
          2086 Old Taylor Road, Ste 1011
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Phone: (662) 380-5018
          Fax: (866) 430-5459
          Email: rrb@rrblawfirm.net

RUNWAY AI INC: Gardner Files Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Runway AI Inc. The
case is styled as David Vance Gardner, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Runway AI, Inc., Case No.
1:26-cv-04360-LAK (S.D.N.Y., May 26, 2026).

The nature of suit is stated as Copyright for Digital Millennium
Copyright Act.

Runway AI, Inc. -- https://runwayml.com/en -- is an American
company headquartered in New York City that specializes in
generative artificial intelligence research and technologies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          521 5th Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10175
          Phone: (917) 336-0271
          Fax: (917) 336-0177
          Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Marc Shapiro, Esq.
          Vanessa Sorrentino, Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON, & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          51 West 52nd Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (212) 506-3521
          Email: mrshapiro@orrick.com
                 vsorrentino@orrick.com

               - and -

          Annette L Hurst, Esq.
          Nathan D. Shaffer, Esq.
          ORRICK HERRINGTON AND SUTCLIFFE LLP
          Orrick Building
          405 Howard Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2669
          Phone: (415) 773-4585
          Fax: (415) 773-5759

               - and -

          David P. Fuad, Esq.
          Johnathan Joseph Vaknin, Esq.
          ORRICK HERRINGTON AND SUTCLIFFE LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 612-2020
          Fax: (213) 612-2499

SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: Abrego Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Fernando Abrego, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. SAFELITE FULFILLMENT, LLC., a
Delaware corporation, Case No. 26-2-07864-5 SEA was removed from
the Superior Court for the State of Washington in and for King
County, to the United States District Court for Western District of
Washington on May 22, 2026, and assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-01773.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and exemplary damages
arising from Safelite's allegedly noncompliant provision of rest
breaks, meal breaks, overtime, unlawful withholding and deductions,
and paid sick leave. Additionally, the Complaint seeks a statutory
award of attorneys' fees under RCW 49.48.030, 49.52.070, and
49.46.090, double damages under 49.52.070, pre- and post-judgment
interest, injunctive, and declaratory relief.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
          Winthrop Hubbard, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          751 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101
          Pasadena, California 91103
          Phone: (818) 230-7502
          Facsimile: (818) 230-7259
          Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com
                 statavos@justicelawcorp.com
                 whubbard@justicelawcorp.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          E. Ashley Paynter, Esq.
          Lauren S. Titchbourne, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 693-7057
          Facsimile: (206) 693-7058
          Email: ashley.paynter@ogletree.com
                 lauren.titchbourne@ogletree.com

SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT: Robles Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Cesar Robles, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT LINE, LLC, a
Louisiana Limited Liability Company; FRANCISCO MORAN, an
individual; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 26STCV13027
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for
Central District of California on May 29, 2026, and assigned Case
No. 2:26-cv-05764.

The Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action against
Defendant on behalf of himself individually: Sexual Harassment in
Violation of FEHA; Discrimination in Violation of FEHA; Retaliation
in Violation of FEHA; Failure to Prevent Harassment and
Discrimination in Violation of FEHA; Labor Code 1102.5
(Whistleblower); and Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public
Policy. The Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action
against Defendant on behalf of himself and the putative class:
Recovery of Unpaid Minimum Wages; Recovery of Unpaid Overtime
Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest
Periods; Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements; Failure to
Indemnify for Expenses and Losses; Waiting Time Penalties; and
Unfair Competition.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher J. Archibald, Esq.
          Ethan W. Smith, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
          1920 Main Street, Suite 1000
          Irvine, CA 92614-7276
          Phone: (949) 223-7000
          Facsimile: (949) 223-7100
          Email: christopher.archibald@bclplaw.com
                 ethan.smith@bclplaw.com

               - and -

          Sharon S. Mequet, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
          120 Broadway, Suite 300
          Santa Monica, CA 90401-2386
          Phone: (310) 576-2100
          Facsimile: (310) 576-2200
          Email: sharon.mequet@bclplaw.com

SALES-AHOLIC INC: Burgess Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Burgess, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SALES-AHOLIC, INC., and ANNA HUYNH,
individually, Case No. 4:26-cv-00840-JSD (E.D. Mo., May 28, 2026),
is brought for unpaid overtime wages and other relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Missouri Minimum Wage
Law ("MMWL").

The Plaintiff and similarly situated employees worked more than
forty hours in workweeks during the relevant period. Defendants
paid Plaintiff and similarly situated employees straight time only
for overtime hours worked and failed to pay overtime compensation
as required by federal law. The Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and all
other available relief, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from 2019 through April
21, 2026.

Sales-Aholic, Inc. is a Virginia corporation with its principal
place of business at 10207 Brittenford Drive, Vienna,
Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip E. Oliphant, Esq.
          THE ROLWES LAW FIRM, LLC
          254 Court Avenue, Suite 305
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Phone: 901.519.9135
          Fax: 901.979.2499
          Email: poliphant@rolweslaw.com

               - and -

          Edward J. Rolwes, Esq.
          THE ROLWES LAW FIRM, LLC
          2333 South Hanley Road, Suite 104
          St. Louis, MO 63144
          Phone: 314-806-9626
          Fax: 314-472-0900
          Email: erolwes@rolweslaw.com

SALIDA HOSPITAL: Young Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Justine Young, individually and for others similarly situated v.
SALIDA HOSPITAL DISTRICT d/b/a HEART OF THE ROCKIES REGIONAL
MEDICAL CENTER, Case No. 1:26-cv-02228 (D. Colo., May 21, 2026), is
brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages in
violationg the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more
than 40 hours in a workweek. But the Defendant does not pay them
for all hours worked. Instead, the Defendant automatically deducts
30 minutes a day from these employees for so called "meal periods"
(the Defendant' "auto-deduction policy"). The Plaintiff and the
other Hourly Employees are thus not paid for this time. The
Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees do not actually receive
bona fide meal periods. Instead, the Defendant requires The
Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees to remain on duty and
perform compensable work throughout their shifts, including during
"meal periods," and/or subjects them to work interruptions during
their "meal breaks."

Additionally, the Defendant requires the Hourly Employees to clock
in and out for their shifts via its timekeeping system but
automatically rounds their clock in and clock out punches to the
nearest quarter hour for its own primary benefit (the Defendant
"rounding policy"). Finally, the Defendant does not pay The
Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees at least 1.5 times their
regular rates of pay—based on all remuneration—for all hours
they work in excess of 40 in a workweek. Instead, the Defendant
pays The Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees non-discretionary
bonuses that it fails to include in these employees' regular rates
of pay for overtime purposes (the Defendant' "bonus pay scheme"),
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a PSS registration
specialist from December 2021 to October 2025.

Heart of the Rockies "is an officially accredited Critical Access
Hospital by The Joint Commission."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Richard M. Schreiber
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: 713-352-1100
          Facsimile: 713-352-3300
          Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                 adunlap@mybackwages.com
                 rschreiber@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: 713-877-8065
          Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com

SEASONAL FOOD: Harrison Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Angelina Harrison, on behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. SEASONAL FOOD CONCEPTS INCORPORATED d/b/a KONA ICE OF
THE BLUEGRASS, KONA ICE OF THE VILLE, LLC CO., THOMAS SCOTT LAMB,
and LISA DAWN LAMB, Case No. 5:26-cv-00192-CHB-MAS (E.D. Ky., May
28, 2026), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the
"FLSA"), on behalf of other similarly situated hourly-paid,
non-exempt employees, to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and
all other relief available for Defendants' willful violations of
the FLSA.

The Plaintiff, worked extensive hours, including hours in excess of
40 in one or more workweeks, throughout Plaintiff's tenure and
throughout the relevant limitations period. The Defendants knew or
should have known the hours worked by Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees because Defendants controlled event schedules,
truck assignments, travel, arrival times, closing times, staffing
levels, sales operations, and communications concerning work
performed. Despite this knowledge, Defendants failed to compensate
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees for all hours worked and
failed to pay overtime compensation at one and one half times the
regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by Kona as an hourly-paid, non-exempt
employee.

Kona operates a mobile food-service and event business that sells
and serves shaved ice and related products at schools, businesses,
daycares, summer programs, youth sports events, picnics, weddings,
major sporting events, festivals, and other public and private
events.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James M. Morris, Esq.
          Tyler J. Morris, Esq.
          Sharon K. Morris, Esq.
          MORRIS & MORRIS, P.S.C.
          217 North Upper Street
          Lexington, Kentucky 40507
          Phone: (859) 281-6981
          Facsimile: (859) 233-7876

SECURIAN FINANCIAL: Wurst Files Suit in D. Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Securian Financial
Group, Inc. The case is styled as Lyndsey Wurst, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Securian Financial
Group, Inc., Case No. 0:26-cv-02647-NEB-DJF (D. Minn., May 18,
2026).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

Securian Financial Group -- https://www.securian.com/ -- is an
American financial service group that provides a range of financial
products and services such as insurance and investments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
          Philip Joseph Krzeski, Esq.
          CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: (612) 339-7300
          Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
                 pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com

SEMPER HOME LOANS: Polland Files TCPA Suit in D. Maryland
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Semper Home Loans,
Inc. The case is styled as Sam Polland, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Semper Home Loans, Inc., Case
No. 8:26-cv-02132-SAG (D. Md., May 29, 2026).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of Telephone Consumer
Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment.

Semper Home Loans, Inc. -- https://semperhomeloans.com/ -- is an
Equal Housing Lender.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leanna Loginov, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 N.E. 1st Avenue-Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com

SENDERO PROVISIONS: Evans Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Evans, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Sendero Provisions Co., LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-05943 (N.D. Ill.,
May 21, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website
https://senderopc.com (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website") to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Wood and other
blind or visually-impaired individuals.

The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals
throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services
Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the
Website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its
Website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered,
and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(the "ADA").

Because Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and
visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff
seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's
policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to
compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful
discrimination, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.

The Defendant provides to the public the Website, which provides
consumers access to an array of goods and services, including the
ability to purchase a large selection of hats, shirts, hoodies,
bandanas, and other outdoor-focused apparel for both men and
women.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Ohrenberger, Esq.
          EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC
          4903 Avenue N
          Brooklyn, NY 11234
          Phone: (844) 731-3343
          Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law

SHAKERAG FARMS HOMEOWNERS: Shah Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shakerag Farms
Homeowners Association, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Chintan
Shah, Ashish Gupta, Aniket Patil, Prasanna Mahadevan, Vivekkanada
Maiya, Sharma Ashish, Pawan Gupta, Manoj Sharma, Antonio Goncalves,
et al as individuals and on behalf of all similarly situated
members of the Shakerag Farms Homeowners Association Inc, and
derivatively on behalf of the Shakerag Farms Homeowners Association
Inc. v. Shakerag Farms Homeowners Association, Inc., Shakerag Farms
Homeowners Association, Inc., Julie Sansalone, Sanny Shah, Saad
Khan, Mario Vera, in their capacity as officers of the Board of
Directors of Shakerag Farms Homeowners Association Inc, Sixes
Management Group LLC, John Does 1 Through 20, Case No. 26CV-0897-1
(Ga. Super. Ct., Forsyth Cty., May 21, 2026).

The case type is stated as "Real Property."

Shakerag Farms -- https://shakeragfarms.net/ -- is a covenant
controlled community of 235 homes in Forsyth County, with Strict
Rental Restriction Rules.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sage S. Stone, Esq.
          BLACKSTONE LAW PC
          8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442
          Phone: 310-622-4278

SOLID & STRIPED: Ford Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Ford, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Solid & Striped LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-05936 (N.D. Ill., May 21,
2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its Website
https://www.solidandstriped.com (hereinafter "Website" or "the
Website") to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Ford and other blind or visually impaired individuals.

The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals
throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services
Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the
Website. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its
Website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered,
and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Ford's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the
"ADA").

Because Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and
visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff
seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's
policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to
compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful
discrimination, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.

The Defendant provides to the public the Website, which provides
consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the
ability to purchase a selection of shirts, one-piece swimsuits,
bikinis, swim trunks, resort and midi dresses, cover-ups, knitwear,
loungewear, beach towels, and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Ohrenberger, Esq.
          EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC
          4903 Avenue N
          Brooklyn, NY 11234
          Phone: (844) 731-3343
          Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law

SOMBRERO MEXICAN FOOD: Mcneeley Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sombrero Mexican
Food, Inc. The case is styled as Lesley Mcneeley, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sombrero Mexican
Food, Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-03093-WQH-DDL (S.D. Cal., May 18,
2026).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Sombrero Mexican Food -- https://sombreromex.com/ -- has offered
authentic, fast, and fresh Mexican cuisine now, for 40 years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Faythe Gutierrez, Esq.
          PLG DAMAGE ATTORNEYS, PLLC
          2750 SW 145th Avenue, Suite #509
          Miramar, FL 33027
          Phone: (305) 506-4746
          Email: fgutierrez@plgdamage.com


SOUTHERN NEW HAMPSHIRE: Rudoy Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Eugene Rudoy, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SOUTHERN NEW HAMPSHIRE UNIVERSITY,
Case No. 2026-002440-CA-01 was removed from the Circuit Court of
the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami-Dade County,
Florida, to the United States District Court for Southern District
of Florida on May 20, 2026, and assigned Case No.
1:26-cv-23588-XXXX.

SNHU was first served with Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint for
said action on April 20, 2026. This is an action brought by
Plaintiff, a citizen of the State of Florida, under The Higher
Education Act of 1965, The Willaim D. Ford Federal Direct Loan
Program, Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jennifer Shoaf Richardson, Esq.
          30 S. Spring Street
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Phone: (850) 433-6581
          Fax: (850) 434-5856
          Email: jrichardson@esclaw.com

               - and -

          Riley Landy, Esq.
          1558 Village Square Boulevard, Suite 1
          Tallahassee, FL 32309
          Phone: (850) 297-0090
          Fax: (850) 297-0219
          Email: rlandy@llrlegal.com
                 jhartsfield@llrlegal.com
                 asullivan@llrlegal.com

ST. LUKE'S HEALTH: Monka Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Monka, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. ST. LUKE'S HEALTH NETWORK, INC., a Pennsylvania
domestic nonprofit corporation, Case No. 5:26-cv-03617 (E.D. Pa.,
May 27, 2026), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as
appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The Plaintiff's most recent base hourly rate of pay was $19.54. In
addition to the base rate of pay, Defendant incorporated various
types of routine and non-discretionary pay into its compensation
structure, including, but not limited to, "sign-on bonus" and
"appreciation payment" (collectively "Bonus Pay"). Throughout
Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, she and Defendant's Hourly
Employees earned Bonus Pay and other non-discretionary
remuneration. As non-exempt employees, Defendant's Hourly Employees
were entitled to full compensation for all overtime hours worked at
a rate of 1.5 times their "regular rate" of pay. Throughout
Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, Defendant failed to properly
calculate Plaintiff's Bonus Pay and other non-discretionary
remuneration into the regular rate for proper overtime calculation,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a non-exempt, Hourly Employee
with the job title Nutritional Associate Services Dietary Worker
from October 2023 through February 2026.

The Defendant is a health system of integrated hospitals,
physicians, and other related organizations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jesse L. Young, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Phone: (248) 355-0300
          Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com

               - and -

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: (412) 322-9243
          Email: gary@lcllp.com

STA MANAGEMENT: Appeals Court Order in Barker Suit to Mich. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STA MANAGEMENT LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
in the lawsuit entitled James Barker, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. STA
Management LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. _______, in the Wayne
Circuit Court in Michigan.

The appellate case is styled as James Barker vs. STA Management
LLC, Case No. 380956, in the Michigan Court of Appeals, filed on
May 28, 2026. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees JAMES BARKER, et al., individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by:

       David M. Blanchard, Esq.
       Kelly R. McClintock, Esq.
       Blanchard & Walker PLLC
       221 N. Main St., #300
       Ann Arbor, MI 48104
       Telephone: (734) 926-8389

Defendants-Appellants STA MANAGEMENT LLC, et al. are represented
by:

       Donovan Asmar, Esq.
       Bodman PLC
       201 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 500
       Troy, MI 48084
       Telephone: (248) 743-6000

STAR CREATIONS: Rudenko Sues Over False and Deceptive Pricing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stepan Rudenko, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. STAR CREATIONS INC., d/b/a AJ MADISON, INC.,
Case No. 2:26-cv-05501 (C.D. Cal., May 22, 2026), is brought
against Defendant for false and deceptive pricing practices in
connection with Defendant's sale of home appliances on the website
https://www.ajmadison.com/ (the "Website").

AJ Madison sells home appliances through the Website and other
online channels. Unfortunately, Defendant advertises fake and
inflated comparison reference prices to deceive customers into a
false belief that AJ Madison is offering its products at deeply
discounted bargain prices. For example, anyone visiting the Website
on a given day may see products advertised with a struck-through or
"compare at" price displayed alongside a lower purported "sale"
price.

Stated differently, Defendant's advertised "sales" are not really
sales at all. It is a misrepresentation that Defendant repeats
across its product lines. The reference prices that Defendant
advertises are fictitious and fake, because they are not original,
regular, retail, or former prices. They are inflated prices posted
to lure unsuspecting customers into jumping at a fictitious
"bargain" and intended to mislead customers into believing that the
value of the products they are buying are higher than reality.

That is, Defendant engages in this deceptive advertising and
pricing scheme to give customers the false impression that they are
getting a deal or bargain when in reality they are being swindled
by fake sales and promotions. Defendant exacerbates this deception
by advertising that its purported sales are limited in time, where
in reality the same or substantially similar "sales" are offered
continuously or almost continuously. As a result, customers are
deceived into spending money they otherwise would not have spent,
purchasing products they otherwise would not have purchased,
spending more money for products than they otherwise would have
absent the deceptive marketing, and/or are receiving a value less
than bargained for.

By this action, Plaintiff seeks to put an immediate end to
Defendant's untruthful marketing practices and recover restitution
and damages on behalf of all persons who have fallen victim to
Defendant's sham sales by purchasing products on the Website from
May 2022 to the present, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff accessed the Website and ordered Defendant's product
from California and received the product in California.

AJ Madison markets itself as "Your Appliance Authority" and sells a
wide range of home appliances, including refrigerators,
dishwashers, microwaves, ovens, and other household products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew T. Ryan, Esq.
          THE RYAN LAW GROUP
          317 Rosecrans Ave.
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Phone: 310-321-4800
          Fax: 310-496-1435
          Email: andrew.ryan@theryanlawgroup.com

STOCKTON CARDIOLOGY MEDICAL: Bravo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stockton Cardiology
Medical Group Complete Heart Care, Inc. The case is styled as
Sheryl Bravo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Stockton Cardiology Medical Group Complete Heart Care,
Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UPI-2026-0003667 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Joaquin Cty., May 18, 2026).

The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil PI/PD/WD (Other)."

Stockton Cardiology -- https://stocktoncardiology.com/ -- provides
the care needed to improve and maintain heart health, from
preventive checkups and on-site diagnostic testing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Barbara Duvan-Clarke, Esq.
          BLACKSTONE PC
          8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442
          Phone: 310-361-0599
          Email: BDC@blackstonepc.com

STRAINE DENTAL MANAGEMENT: Love Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Straine Dental
Management, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Desiree Monique Love,
all others similarly situated v. Straine Dental Management, LLC,
Redford Dental Care, Mark Redford DMD Dental Group Inc., Does 1-50,
Case No. 26CV012775 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 27,
2026).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."

Straine Dental Management -- https://straine.com/ -- is a premier
DSO providing strategic growth, practice transitions, and
operational excellence for dental professionals nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christina Le, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          660 S. Figueroa St., Sky Lobby
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-381-9988
          Fax: 213-381-9989
          Email: christina.le@wilshirelawfirm.com

STS OPERATING INC: Baker Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against STS Operating, Inc.
The case is styled as Clifford Baker, Jr., individually and on
behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated v. STS
Operating, Inc. d/b/a SunSource, Case No. 1:26-cv-05965 (N.D. Ill.,
May 21, 2026).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

STS Operating, Inc. doing business as SunSource --
https://www.sun-source.com/ -- is North America's largest
distributor for Fluid Power & Motion Control solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Svensson, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
          405 East 50th Street
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (202) 975-0468
          Email: msvensson@zlk.com

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MILBERG LLC
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (866) 252-0878
          Email: gklinger@milberg.com

SUB-ZERO INC: Must Face Cost-of-Living Pay Rate Claims in "Wagner"
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Ian Nelson and Brandon Wagner,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Sub-Zero, Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No.
25-cv-464-jdp (W.D. Wis.), District Judge James D. Peterson of the
United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
granted in part and denied in part Defendant's motion to dismiss
part of Plaintiffs' second amended complaint. The court also denied
Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a third amended complaint and
ordered the parties to submit a status report by June 15, 2026,
identifying employees subject to the challenged practices.

Plaintiff Brandon Wagner is a current employee of Sub-Zero, Inc., a
refrigerator manufacturer, and Plaintiff Ian Nelson is a former
employee. Plaintiffs alleged that Sub-Zero miscalculated their
regular rates of pay and their overtime pay, resulting in unpaid
wages and overtime. They brought claims under the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Wisconsin state wage laws, seeking
to represent similarly situated employees in a collective under the
FLSA and Rule 23 Class action.

The central legal question was whether the term regular rate
carries the same meaning under the FLSA and Wisconsin wage laws.
The FLSA generally includes all compensation within an employee's
regular rate, subject to enumerated exclusions, among them
discretionary bonuses and premium pay for weekend and holiday work
under 29 U.S.C. Section 207(e)(3) and (6). Wisconsin statutes and
regulations use the term "regular rate" without defining it. The
court concluded that the Wisconsin Supreme Court would give
"regular rate" the same meaning as defined in the FLSA, because the
Wisconsin Legislature adopted a legal term of art with a
well-established federal meaning in the same overtime-compensation
context.

Plaintiffs argued that Wisconsin's Department of Workforce
Development defined regular rate more broadly on its website to
include premium pay. The court rejected this argument on two
grounds. First, the Department's webpage definition had not gone
through the vetting process required under Chapter 227, and
therefore lacked the authority of a formal regulation. Second,
Wisconsin courts no longer defer to agency interpretations of
statutory language, and are required to conduct de novo review
applying traditional statutory interpretation principles.

On the premium pay claim, Plaintiffs contended that Sub-Zero
miscalculated employees' regular rates by excluding Saturday
premium pay. The court found that Sub-Zero's Saturday premium pay
fell squarely within the FLSA's exclusion for premium pay on
weekends and holidays under Section 207(e)(6), because Sub-Zero
provided the premium for all non-overtime Saturday work, not merely
for particularly undesirable hours. The court granted Sub-Zero's
motion to dismiss the premium pay claims under both federal and
state law.

On the cost-of-living-adjustment claim, Plaintiffs alleged that
Sub-Zero excluded lump-sum cost-of-living payments from employees'
regular rates by characterizing them as discretionary bonuses. The
court found that Plaintiffs' allegations plausibly showed the
payments were not discretionary. The collective bargaining
agreement required Sub-Zero to meet with the union to discuss wage
adjustments when certain inflationary conditions were met, and the
lump-sum amounts were calculated by formula based on average wage
rates and hours. The court denied Sub-Zero's motion to dismiss this
claim, finding Plaintiffs stated a valid claim under both the FLSA
and Wisconsin law.

The court denied Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a third
amended complaint, which sought to add allegations about
non-mandatory Saturday, Sunday, and holiday premium pay. Because
the court had already determined that all premium pay claims failed
to state a claim, the proposed amendment was futile.

On the FLSA collective action notice motion, the court noted that
Sub-Zero did not deny applying the challenged practices uniformly,
which favored authorizing notice. However, the court found the
proposed collective potentially overbroad, as it swept in all
union-represented hourly employees regardless of whether they were
subject to the specific challenged practices. The court ordered the
parties to meet and confer and file a status report by June 15,
2026, identifying employees who received sign-on bonuses, certain
overtime and incentive pay combinations, cost-of-living-adjustment
payments, or maintenance training time. The deadline for motions to
certify a collective or putative class was reset to August 31,
2026.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IsVZ8s from PacerMonitor.com

SUNRISE CREDIT SERVICES: Reyes Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunrise Credit
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Mike Reyes, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sunrise Credit
Services, Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-05307 (C.D. Cal., May 18, 2026).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Sunrise Credit Services, Inc. --
https://www.sunrisecreditservices.com/ -- offer a wide range of
credit & collection services to credit grantors from coast to
coast.[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

SUPER MICRO: Writ of Mandamus Bid in Securities Class Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: CRAIN WALNUT SHELLING, LP. CRAIN WALNUT
SHELLING, LP, Petitioner. v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, JOSE, Respondent. SUPER MICRO
COMPUTER, INC.; CHARLES LIANG; DAVID WEIGAND;
UNIVERSAL-INVESTMENT-GESELLSCHAFT MBH; SURENDRA J. SHAH; THEODORE
C. GROSS; THEODORE R. GROSS; VALIKHAN KUNAKBAYEV; ILLINOIS
TREASURER; MISSISSIPPI PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM; COVEY
FINANCIAL, INC.; PEMBROKE CAPITAL LTD. CORP.; SOVEREL, INC.; DAVID
BURDETTE; PRITI BHARDWAJ; ERSTE ASSET MANAGEMENT GMBH; CHRISTIAN
MAHE DE BERDOUARE; SUPER MICRO INVESTOR GROUP; JOSEPH AVERZA;
Doctor MITHILESH K. JHA; NORFOLK COUNTY RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Real
Parties in Interest, Case No. 25-5435 (9th Cir.), Judge N. Randy
Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the
petition for writ of mandamus.

On August 30, 2024, Joseph Averza filed the first claim in a
putative class action alleging federal securities claims against
Super Micro and its executives. Members of the putative class filed
ten separate motions for appointment as lead plaintiff, including
both Crain Walnut and Universal. Over time, each member withdrew
its petition or filed statements of non-opposition except for Crain
Walnut and Universal.

On December 12, 2024, the district court applied the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section
78u-4, framework to evaluate competing lead plaintiff motions. It
found that Crain Walnut suffered approximately $49 million in
losses from its Super Micro investments, far exceeding Universal
and other movants. The court concluded that Crain Walnut made a
prima facie showing of adequacy and typicality under Rule 23(a) and
was therefore the presumptive lead plaintiff.

Universal challenged Crain Walnut's adequacy, pointing to alleged
inconsistencies in CEO Charles Crain Jr.'s sworn statement that he
was the "sole" owner of Crain Walnut, despite public records
suggesting the entity had a general partner and was part of a
broader network of related entities. The district court found that
Universal had not rebutted the presumption of adequacy but had
raised sufficient questions to warrant limited discovery before
making a final determination.

On June 26, 2025, the district court issued another order applying
the PSLRA framework and again found Crain Walnut to be the
presumptive lead plaintiff. In doing so, the court adopted a
"genuine and serious doubt" standard for rebutting the presumption
of adequacy, noting the absence of controlling precedent on the
issue.

On July 10, 2025, the district court appointed Universal as lead
plaintiff after finding it made a prima facie showing of adequacy
and typicality, noting that no party had rebutted its adequacy. It
also granted Crain Walnut leave to seek reconsideration of the
prior denial of its lead plaintiff motion.

On August 5, 2025, the court denied reconsideration, reaffirming
its use of the "genuine and serious doubt" standard under Ninth
Circuit precedent. In the alternative, it found that Crain Walnut
was inadequate to serve as lead plaintiff under even a
preponderance of the evidence standard, citing Mr. Crain's
deposition testimony and inconsistencies in filings.

Crain Walnut petitions for a writ of mandamus to vacate the
district court orders, declining to appoint it as the Lead
Plaintiff in an underlying securities fraud class action under the
PSLRA.

The panel denied a petition for a writ of mandamus to vacate the
district court's orders declining to appoint Crain Walnut as the
Lead Plaintiff in a securities fraud class action under the PSLRA.
To determine whether mandamus is appropriate, it considered the
five Bauman factors, citing Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 557 F.2d 650,
654–55 (9th Cir. 1977) (simplified):

(1) The party seeking the writ has no other adequate means, such
as a direct appeal, to attain the relief he or she desires.

(2) The petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in a way not
correctable on appeal. (This guideline is closely related to the
first.)

(3) The district court's order is clearly erroneous as a matter of
law.

(4) The district court's order is an oft-repeated error, or
manifests a persistent disregard of the federal rules.

(5) The district court's order raises new and important problems,
or issues of law of first impression.

Applying the Bauman test for deciding whether to grant mandamus
relief, the panel held that the district court did not commit clear
error, and the other Bauman factors did not demonstrate that
mandamus was appropriate.

The PSLRA sets out a step-by-step process for appointing a lead
plaintiff in securities class actions. First, the court selects the
movant with the largest financial interest, and if that movant
makes a prima facie showing of adequacy and typicality, they are
designated as the presumptive lead plaintiff. The process then
becomes adversarial, allowing competing movants to rebut that
presumption by showing the presumptive plaintiff is inadequate or
subject to unique defenses that would prevent fair representation.
If the presumption is not rebutted, the presumptive lead plaintiff
must be appointed.

The panel held that the standard of proof for rebutting the
presumption of adequacy under the PSLRA is preponderance of the
evidence. The district court first applied an incorrect "genuine
and serious doubt" standard, but in denying reconsideration it
reasoned alternatively that Crain Walnut's presumption of adequacy
had been rebutted even under the correct presumption of the
evidence standard.

In its reconsideration order, the district court held that the
competing plaintiff had rebutted Crain Walnut's presumption of
adequacy based on two categories of evidence: (1) filing
inaccuracies; and (2) problematic testimony from Crain Walnut. The
panel held that district court’s determination that Crain
Walnut's adequacy had been sufficiently rebutted based on the
preponderance of the evidence did not amount to clear error because
it did not leave the panel with a definite and firm conviction that
a mistake had been committed.

The panel concluded that even if several of the remaining Bauman
factors favored Crain Walnut, the absence of clear error struck a
mortal blow against its petition for a writ of mandamus.

The Ninth Circuit opined that preponderance of the evidence is the
correct standard for rebutting the presumption of adequacy afforded
to a presumptive lead plaintiff under the PSLRA. The district court
applied that standard in its reconsideration order and did not
clearly err in determining that Crain Walnut's presumption of
adequacy had been rebutted based on the available evidence. The
panel therefore denied the petition for writ of mandamus. Parties
are to bear their own costs.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at
https://sl1nk.com/bwfsjv2.

David J. Zimmer (argued) -- dzimmer@zimmercitronclarke.com --
Zimmer Citron & Clarke LLP, Cambridge, Massachusetts; Lucas E.
Gilmore -- Reed R. Kathrein -- and Reed R. Kathrein --
reed@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Berkeley,
California; Steve Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, Seattle, Washington; Brian J. Schall --
brian@schallfirm.com -- and Andrew J. Brown --
andrew@schallfirm.com -- The Schall Law Firm, Los Angeles,
California; for Petitioner.

John Rizio-Hamilton (argued) -- johnr@blbglaw.com -- Avi Josefson
-- avi@blbglaw.com  -- Scott R. Foglietta --
scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com -- Preethi Krishnamurthy --  Gerald H.
Silk -- and Gerald H. Silk -- jerry@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, New York; Jonathan D.
Uslaner, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Los Angeles,
California; Boris Feldman, Carl P. Hudson, Elena Hadjimichael, and
Doru Gavril, Freshfields US LLP, Redwood City, California; Joshua
P. Davis, Berger Montague PC, San Francisco, California; Charles H.
Linehan, Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP, Los Angeles,
California; Adam M. Apton, Levi & Korsinsky LLP, San Francisco,
California; Robert J. Gralewski Jr., Kirby McInerney LLP, San
Diego, California; Daniel L. Berger and Caitlin Moyna, Grant &
Eisenhofer PA, New York, New York; Mary E. Graham, Grant &
Eisenhofer PA, San Francisco, California; Lesley E. Weaver --
lweaver@bfalaw.com -- and Adam C. McCall -- amccall@bfalaw.com --
Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP, Oakland, California; David R. Kaplan,
Saxena White PA, Solana Beach, California; Jennifer Pafiti,
Pomerantz LLP, Los Angeles, California; Eric J. Belfi -- Francis P.
McConville -- and Francis P. McConville -- fmcconville@labaton.com
-- Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP, New York, New York; Alex J.
Tramontano -- tramontano@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz LLP, San Diego, California; for Real Parties in
Interest.

T-MOBILE USA: Kaidi Suit Removed from State Ct. to N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as SPENCER KAIDI, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. T-MOBILE USA,
INC., and DOES 1-10, Inclusive, Case No. 26CV000735 (Filed April 1,
2026) was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of Napa, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California San
Francisco Division on May 28, 2026.

The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:26-cv-05015 to the proceeding.

As alleged in the Complaint, Mr. Kaidi alleges that he and other
nationwide and California individuals were subjected to unlawful
tracking after visiting T-Mobile's website at
https://www.t-mobile.com.

The Plaintiff alleges that T-Mobile's website installed various
electronic trackers and web browser cookies to his and others’
web browsers and subsequently captured information about their
online activity.

The Plaintiff brings a putative class action alleging claims for
violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, California Computer Data Access and
Fraud Act, California Constitution, and California Unfair
Competition Law.

The Complaint seeks restitution, equitable relief, injunctive
relief, and attorneys' fees.

T-Mobile USA is a wireless carrier in the United States, providing
extensive 5G and 4G LTE coverage across the country.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          James H. Moon, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, 27th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 633-6800
          Facsimile: (213) 633-6899
          E-mail: jamesmoon@dwt.com

               - and -

          Justin Oliver C. Lin,. Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          50 California Street, Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 276-6500
          E-mail: justinlin@dwt.com

TARGET CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Mislabeled Yogurt Snacks Labels
------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Victor Sierra filed a
class action lawsuit against Target Corporation.

Why: Sierra claims Target falsely markets certain snacks as "yogurt
covered," even though the products allegedly contain no yogurt
ingredients.

Where: The Target class action lawsuit was filed in New York
federal court.

A new class action lawsuit accuses Target of misleading consumers
by labeling certain snack products as "yogurt covered" despite
allegedly containing no yogurt at all.

Plaintiff Victor Sierra claims Target sells products under its
Favorite Day and Good & Gather brands that are marketed as "yogurt
covered," even though the coatings allegedly contain no yogurt,
yogurt powder or similar yogurt-based ingredients.

According to the complaint, Target uses the "yogurt covered"
description on the packaging of multiple products, including
Favorite Day Blueberry Yogurt Covered Mini Pretzels.

The class action lawsuit argues consumers associate yogurt with
nutritional benefits, such as probiotics, calcium, protein and
digestive health support, and are therefore willing to pay more for
products marketed as containing real yogurt.

However, Sierra claims the coating ingredients consist primarily of
sugar, palm kernel oil, milk powders, whey powder, palm oil, soy
lecithin and vanilla rather than yogurt-based ingredients.

"These ingredients do not provide the health benefits that yogurt
does," the complaint states.

Plaintiff claims he relied on 'yogurt covered' labeling

Sierra, a New York resident, says he purchased a package of
Favorite Day Blueberry Yogurt Covered Mini Pretzels from a Target
store in East Farmingdale, New York, in March 2025 for about $3.

According to the class action lawsuit, Sierra relied on Target's
marketing and labeling when purchasing the product and claims he
would not have bought the snacks, or would have paid less for them,
had he known the products contained no yogurt.

The complaint argues Target used misleading packaging to boost
sales and is demanding the company change its labeling and provide
monetary relief to consumers.

Sierra seeks to represent a class of New York consumers who
purchased the products for personal or household use during the
applicable statute of limitations period.

The Target class action lawsuit alleges violations of New York
General Business Law Sections 349 and 350, which prohibit deceptive
business practices and false advertising.

In another class action lawsuit involving Target, a consumer
recently alleged the retailer misrepresented the number of servings
in its Market Pantry Original Coffee Creamer powder.

The plaintiff is represented by Joshua D. Arisohn of Arisohn LLC.

The Target class action lawsuit is Sierra v. Target Corporation,
Case No. 2:26-cv-02799, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York. [GN]

TEXAS: Appeals Motions to Strike & Dismiss Order 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.
26-90014, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, filed on May 29, 2026. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents L.M.L., et al., on behalf of themselves and
all those similarly situated, are represented by:

       Spencer Amdur, Esq.
       Hannah Schoen Steinberg, Esq.
       Cody Wofsy, Esq.
       AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
       425 California Street
       San Francisco, CA 94104
       Telephone: (415) 343-0785
                  (332) 204-2777

              - and -

       Lee P. Gelernt, Esq.
       Omar C. Jadwat, Esq.
       AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
       125 Broad Street
       New York, NY 10004
       Telephone: (212) 549-2620

              - and -

       Kate Gibson Kumar, Esq.
       Daniel Woodward, Esq.
       TEXAS CIVIL RIGHTS PROJECT
       P.O. Box 17757
       Austin, TX 78760
       Telephone: (512) 695-2326

              - and -

       Daniel Hatoum, Esq.
       TEXAS CIVIL RIGHTS PROJECT
       P.O. Box 219
       Alamo, TX 78516
       Telephone: (956) 787-8171

              - and -

       Adriana Cecilia Pinon, Esq.
       Carolina Rivera Nelson, Esq.
       AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF TEXAS
       P.O. Box 8306
       Houston, TX 77288
       Telephone: (713) 942-8146

              - and -

       Dustin Wade Rynders, Esq.
       TEXAS CIVIL RIGHTS PROJECT
       P.O. Box 1108
       Houston, TX 77251
       Telephone: (832) 971-8984

Defendant-Petitioner 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

UNITED STATES: Appeals Court Order in Advocates Suit to 8th Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al. are taking an appeal
from a court order in the lawsuit entitled The Advocates for Human
Rights, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 0:26-cv-00749-NEB, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota.

The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violation of
civil rights.

The appellate case is styled as The Advocates for H.R., et al v.
U.S. DHS, et al., Case No. 26-2064, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on May 29, 2026. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees THE ADVOCATES FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, et al.,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are
represented by:

       Rachel Dougherty, Esq.
       Devin Thomas Driscoll, Esq.
       Alethea Marie Huyser, Esq.
       Margaret Severson, Esq.
       Sarah Theisen, Esq.
       FREDRIKSON & BYRON
       60 S. Sixth Street, Suite 1500
       Minneapolis, MN 55402
       Telephone: (612) 492-7000

               - and -

       Jeffrey B. Dubner, Esq.
       DUBNER LEGAL
       P.O. Box 34125
       Washington, DC 20043
       Telephone: (202) 596-2920

               - and -

       Anashua Dutta, Esq.
       Aman Tewari George, Esq.
       Mark B. Samburg, Esq.
       DEMOCRACY FORWARD FOUNDATION
       P.O. Box 34553
       Washington, DC 20043
       Telephone: (202) 701-1783

               - and -

       Elena S. Goldstein, Esq.
       U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
       200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
       Washington, DC 20210

Defendants-Appellants U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al.
are represented by:

       Andrew Abrams, Esq.
       Aniello DeSimone, Esq.
       450 Fifth Street, N.W.
       Washington, DC 20001

              - and -

       David W. Fuller, Esq.
       U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
       600 U.S. Courthouse
       300 S. Fourth Street
       Minneapolis, MN 55415
       Telephone: (612) 664-5600

              - and -

       Brendan Thomas Moore, Esq.
       U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
       Ben Franklin Station
       P.O. Box 878
       Washington, DC 20044
       Telephone: (202) 598-8173

UNITED STATES: Appeals Preliminary Injunction Order in Kingdom Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD TRUMP, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
granting the Plaintiffs' motion for renewed preliminary injunction
in the lawsuit entitled Alishea Kingdom, et al., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Donald
Trump, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00691-RCL, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.

The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged civil rights
violation.

On Apr. 29, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
injunction.

On May 13, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to extend
preliminary injunction, which Judge Royce C. Lamberth granted on
May 26, 2026.

The Defendants are enjoined from implementing Section 4(c) of
Executive Order 14168 against any class member in this action for a
period (not to exceed 90 days) beginning June 1, 2026 and ending
fourteen calendar days following the Court's resolution of the
Plaintiffs' pending motion for an updated preliminary injunction.

The appellate case is styled as Alishea Kingdom, et al. v. Donald
Trump, et al., Case No. 26-5181, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on May 28,
2026. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellees ALISHEA SOPHIA KINGDOM, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:

       Michael Krevans Perloff, Esq.
       AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
       915 15th Street, NW
       Washington, DC 20005
       Telephone: (202) 457-0800

               - and -

       Aditi Shah, Esq.
       AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
       529 14th Street, NW, Suite 722
       Washington, DC 20045

Defendants-Appellants DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as
President of the United States, et al. are represented by:

       DOJ Appellate Counsel
       U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
       950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
       Washington, DC 20530
       Telephone: (202) 514-2000

USHEALTH ADVISORS: Arbitration Denial in Sessoms TCPA Suit Flipped
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CYNTHIA MICHELLE SESSOMS, Individually and on Behalf
of all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. USHEALTH
ADVISORS, LLC, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 25-2086 (4th Cir.),
Judge Robert Bruce King of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit reverses the district court's August 2025 denying the
Defendant's motion to compel arbitration.

USHealth challenges the district court's adverse August 2025 ruling
("Denial Order") that Plaintiff Sessoms's putative class action
lawsuit -- which alleges a violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA") by USHealth -- should not be referred to
arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"). According to
the Denial Order, because USHealth is not a third-party beneficiary
of an online agreement between Sessoms and a so-called "lead
generating service provider"—specifically, a non-party named
NextGen Leads, LLC—USHealth is unable to enforce the arbitration
clause contained therein, pursuant to applicable Delaware law.

In October 2024, Sessoms, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed the putative class action against
USHealth in the Eastern District of North Carolina. By her
single-count Complaint, she alleges that, on February 27, 2024,
USHealth caused a prerecorded voice message to be transmitted to
her cellular telephone offering health insurance information,
without obtaining any prior express consent from her, in violation
of the TCPA.

After answering the Complaint in December 2024, USHealth eventually
moved in March 2025 to compel arbitration of Sessoms' TCPA claim.
Therein, it related that, in December 2023 and January 2024,
Sessoms had visited a "lead generation" website -- operated by the
entity called NextGen and its subsidiary, named FirstQuoteHealth --
to request health insurance quotes. USHealth alleges that Sessoms,
who completed an online form which included a hyperlink listing
various "Marketing Partners" as entities from which Sessoms had
agreed to receive solicitations, gave her express consent to
NextGen to receive telemarketing calls from, inter alia, USHealth.

Although USHealth acknowledged that Sessoms had never signed a
contract with them containing an arbitration clause, USHealth
maintained that the online "Terms and Conditions" -- drafted by
NextGen and agreed to by Sessoms -- contain the applicable and
pertinent arbitration clause. Against this backdrop, it maintained
in the underlying proceedings that arbitration of all issues is
warranted.

In opposing USHealth's motion to compel arbitration, Sessoms argued
that under recent Fourth Circuit precedent, a court, not an
arbitrator, must decide whether a non-signatory can enforce an
arbitration agreement, even if the agreement delegates other
arbitrability issues to the arbitrator. She further contended that,
under Delaware law and the terms of the agreement, USHealth was at
most an incidental beneficiary and therefore lacked the right to
enforce the arbitration clause.

By its six-page Denial Order of August 2025, the district court
denied USHealth's motion to compel arbitration of Sessoms' TCPA
claim. After summarizing the controlling legal principles, the
Denial Order found that USHealth is not a third-party beneficiary
of the Terms of Use agreement between Sessoms and NextGen, such
that USHealth cannot enforce the arbitration clause contained
therein. Consequently, the Denial Order rejected USHealth's attempt
to compel arbitration and denied a stay of the district court
proceedings pending arbitration.

USHealth filed a timely interlocutory appeal from the denial of its
motion to compel arbitration. It argues that the district court
erred in two ways: first, that an arbitrator—not the
court—should decide whether USHealth can enforce the arbitration
clause in Sessoms's agreement with NextGen; and second, that even
if the court properly decided the issue, it misapplied Delaware law
in finding that USHealth is not a third-party beneficiary of the
Terms of Use and therefore cannot enforce the arbitration
agreement.

In these circumstances, the Fourth Circuit is constrained to reject
as foreclosed USHealth's appellate contention that an arbitrator
should decide whether USHealth can enforce the arbitration
provision in the agreement between Sessoms and NextGen. That
conclusion notwithstanding, Judge King agrees with USHealth that
the Denial Order erred under Delaware law in concluding that
USHealth is not a third-party beneficiary of the Terms of Use
Sessoms agreed to with NextGen via the FirstQuoteHealth website,
and that USHealth therefore cannot enforce the arbitration clause
as recited therein against Sessoms' TCPA claim.

In sum, Judge King opines that the Denial Order correctly
determined that the district court should resolve whether USHealth
can enforce the arbitration clause as a third-party beneficiary of
the agreement between Sessoms and NextGen, pursuant to the Fourth
Circuit's 2023 Tug Hill precedent, citing Rogers v. Tug Hill
Operating, LLC, 76 F.4th 279 (4th Cir. 2023). Despite that solid
ruling, however, the Denial Order nevertheless erred in concluding
that USHealth is not entitled to enforce that arbitration clause
against Sessoms' TCPA claim.

For these reasons, Judge King reverses the Denial Order and remands
for entry of an order compelling arbitration and staying these
proceedings pending arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at
https://l1nq.com/fi8jvho.

ARGUED: Jeffrey Aaron Backman -- jeffrey.backman@gmlaw.com --
GREENSPOON MARDER LLP, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for Appellant.

Jacob Lawrence Phillips -- jacob@jacobsonphillips.com -- JACOBSON
PHILLIPS PLLC, Winter Park, Florida, for Appellee.

ON BRIEF: John H. Pelzer -- john.pelzer@gmlaw.com -- Roy Taub --
roy.taub@gmlaw.com -- GREENSPOON MARDER LLP, Fort Lauderdale,
Florida, for Appellant.

Manuel S. Hiraldo -- mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com -- HIRALDO P.A., Fort
Lauderdale, Florida; David M. Wilkerson -- dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com
-- WILKERSON JUSTUS, LLC, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

VERITONE INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Set July 20
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP reminds stockholders that a class action was filed on
behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Veritone, Inc. (NASDAQ: VERI) securities between October 14, 2025
and April 14, 2026. Veritone engages in the provision of artificial
intelligence ("AI") computing solutions and services.

For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas,
Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003.

The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that
Veritone, Inc. (VERI) Failed to Disclose to Investors That it
Maintained Deficient Internal Controls Over Financial Reporting

According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
failed to disclose to investors:

      (1) that the Company inaccurately recorded and/or
misclassified certain revenue and costs;

      (2) that, as a result, the Company overstated its revenue,
assets, accounts receivable, royalties and other comprehensive
income;

      (3) that Veritone maintained deficient internal controls over
accounting and financial reporting;

      (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company would be
forced to restate certain of its financial statements, and

      (5) that, as a result, defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When Veritone finally
revealed the truth, the stock dropped, harming investors.

What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against Veritone, Inc. Shareholders who wish to serve as lead
plaintiff for the class must submit their papers to the court by
July 20, 2026. The lead plaintiff is a representative party who
acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a
recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent
class member.

All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.

About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights
litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been
dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate
governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for
their wrongdoing since 2002. [GN]

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: 11th Cir. Affirms Burt Class Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirms the
judgment of the district court dismissing the case, DAGNEY JOHNSON
BURT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 25-12623, Non-Argument Calendar (11th
Cir.).

Burt appeals the dismissal of her lawsuit against Volkswagen. On
appeal, she argues that the district court erred when it dismissed
her fraudulent suppression, negligence, and Alabama Deceptive Trade
Practices Act ("ADTPA"), Ala. Stat. Section 8-19-1 et seq, claims
as inadequately pled. She also argues the court erred when it
denied her motion to reconsider pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 59(e) and 60(b)(2).

Burt purchased her Volkswagen Atlas new in 2022 and it was
warranted for 4 years or 50,000 miles, whichever came first. After
driving it for over 57,000 miles in two years, Burt took the car to
the dealership because of an oil leak. The dealer determined that
the car's oil separator was sticking, causing the leak. The dealer
quoted her a price for the repair because the car was by then out
of warranty. Burt declined the repair.

Burt continued driving the vehicle as the oil leak worsened,
requiring frequent refills. On May 21, 2025, the car broke down
when the rotator belt failed due to damage from the leak. After
replacing the belt and battery, she drove from Birmingham to Gulf
Shores two days later, adding ten quarts of oil during the trip.
Near arrival, the air conditioner failed and oil began leaking from
the rear of the car. The vehicle was later towed back to
Birmingham, where the dealer repaired the oil leak and replaced the
rotator belt and A/C compressor, and also addressed issues with the
check engine light and leak detection pump.

Before the events in May 2025, Burt had already filed suit against
Volkswagen in December 2024. In April 2025, she amended her
complaint to be a class action lawsuit. Her operative first amended
complaint alleged breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranty, negligence, unjust enrichment, fraud and suppression,
violation of the ADTPA, and violation of the New Jersey and
Virginia consumer protection acts; it sought injunctive and
equitable relief.

Volkswagen moved to dismiss, and the district court granted the
motion. As relevant on appeal, the court dismissed Burt's
negligence claim under the economic-loss rule and for failure to
plausibly allege a breach of duty. It also dismissed her fraud and
suppression claim, finding it improperly pleaded as a shotgun
count, insufficiently particular, and barred by the economic-loss
rule, and rejecting her suppression theory for failure to allege a
duty to disclose.

The court further dismissed her ADTPA claim for failure to plead
specific misrepresentations, a duty to disclose, or resulting
injury such as loss of use or safety concerns. Burt does not
challenge the dismissal of her remaining claims, leaving only the
negligence, fraudulent suppression, and ADTPA claims on appeal.

Burt moved for reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 59(e) and 60(b)(2), claiming newly discovered evidence
related to events in May 2025. The district court denied the
motion, finding the evidence was available before it ruled on the
motion to dismiss. It also held that, even if considered, the
evidence would not have changed its decision.

With respect to Burt's fraudulent suppression claim and
Volkswagen's duty to disclose aspect, the Eleventh Circuit finds
that Burt's alleged facts do not allege a duty to disclose. Because
she has not alleged a duty to disclose the information, the
district court properly dismissed her claim for fraudulent
suppression.

Next, the Eleventh Circuit examines the dismissal of Burt's
negligence claim. It finds that the operative first amended
complaint made a conclusory statement that the car was unsafe.
Under the alleged facts, the Eleventh Circuit agrees with the
district court that Burt has not plausibly alleged that the car was
sufficiently unsafe so as to be defective.

Regarding Burt's ADTPA claim, the Eleventh Circuit agrees with the
district court that Burt utterly failed to plead any facts
establishing there was any actionable deception. She has failed to
plead any facts that would show that Volkswagen had a duty to
disclose the alleged flaw. Also, her complaint failed to allege
that her vehicle was inoperable or that she had it repaired as a
result of the alleged flaw.

Lastly, with respect to Burt's motion for reconsideration, the
Eleventh Circuit holds that the evidence of the car's breakdown
could have been submitted before Volkswagen replied on June 6,
2025, to Burt's opposition to the motion to dismiss, and long
before the district court's judgment on June 11, 2025. Because this
evidence was not new, the district court did not abuse its
discretion when it denied the motion.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is
affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at
https://sl1nk.com/k9asutz

WELLS FARGO: 8th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Matula ERISA Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Thomas O. Matula, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Wells
Fargo & Company; Human Resources Committee of the Wells Fargo Board
of Directors; Wells Fargo Employee Benefits Review Committee,
Defendants-Appellees. Chamber of Commerce of the United States of
America; The ERISA Industry Committee; National Retail Federation,
Amici on Behalf of Appellee(s), Case No. 25-2441 (8th Cir.), the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal
of Matula's complaint for lack of Article III standing but remanded
for the district court to enter a dismissal without prejudice.

Matula brought a class action lawsuit against Wells Fargo and two
of its committees tasked with administering retirement benefits
(collectively, "Wells Fargo"), alleging that Wells Fargo's use of
forfeited 401(k) funds violates several provisions of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA").

Wells Fargo administers a defined contribution 401(k) plan governed
by ERISA. Employees may contribute to their accounts with immediate
vesting, and Wells Fargo matches up to six percent of those
contributions. The employer match vests over three years, and
employees who leave before then forfeit any unvested matching
funds. Under the Plan, Wells Fargo has sole discretion to allocate
forfeited amounts to offset future employer contributions, pay plan
expenses, or make corrective adjustments. It has chosen to use
forfeited funds to reduce its own contribution obligations.

On June 11, 2024, Matula filed a putative class action against
Wells Fargo on behalf of Plan participants and beneficiaries. He
alleged that Wells Fargo breached its fiduciary duties under ERISA
by using forfeited 401(k) matching contributions to offset its own
future contributions, rather than applying the funds to pay Plan
expenses or make corrective adjustments, and that this amounted to
self-dealing in violation of ERISA.

Wells Fargo moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, arguing in
particular that Matula lacked Article III standing because he
failed to allege an injury in fact.

The district court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the
Plan rules did not allow Wells Fargo to use forfeited funds for
participant expenses or general "corrective adjustments" as
alleged. It held that Matula failed to allege an injury in fact
traceable to Wells Fargo's use of forfeited funds and therefore
lacked Article III standing. The complaint was dismissed with
prejudice.

Matula appealed, arguing the district court erred by resolving
standing based on Wells Fargo's interpretation of the Plan rules
and materials outside the pleadings. He contended that, under the
proper analysis, he sufficiently alleged Article III standing. He
also argued that the court abused its discretion by dismissing the
complaint with prejudice.

The Eighth Circuit agreed that Matula failed to establish Article
III standing. It held that Matula lacked Article III standing
because he failed to allege any actual injury to his Plan account
from Wells Fargo's use of forfeited funds. It agreed with his
counsel's concession at oral argument and affirmed dismissal for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

However, the Eighth Circuit held that the district court erred in
dismissing the case with prejudice, explaining that cases dismissed
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should generally be
dismissed without prejudice. It therefore remanded for entry of a
dismissal without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at
https://l1nq.com/t4yo6pi

WHALECO INC: Hussein Suit Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
SUMAYA HUSSEIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Whaleco Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-06380 (N.D. Ill., May
29, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate their website, https://www.temu.com to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and
visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to the goods and services the website provides to their
non-disabled customers through its website.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in
conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the ADA.

Yet, the website contains significant access barriers that make it
difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired
customers to use the website. The access barriers make it
impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a
transaction on the website, says the suit.

Whaleco Inc. operates the website, a commercial platform through
which consumers can browse and offers products and services for
online sale. The online store allows the user to view outdoor gear
and accessories, make purchases, and perform a variety of other
functions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alison Chan, Esq.
          EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
          68-29 Main Street
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Telephone: (844) 731-3343
          Facsimile: (630) 478-0856
          E-mail: Achan@ealg.law

YOUTH AND SHELTER: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Youth and Shelter
Services, Inc. has agreed to a settlement to wrap up a class action
lawsuit that alleged the organization, which provides services to
homeless youths, failed to protect the sensitive information of
current and former patients and employees from a September 2023
data breach.

The Youth and Shelter Services class action settlement received
preliminary approval from the court on April 27, 2026. The deal
covers all living individuals in the United States whose private
information was potentially compromised in the September 2023 data
breach, including those who received a notice of the incident by
mail.

Court documents state that approximately 20,000 people are covered
by the settlement.

The court-approved website for the Youth and Shelter Services data
breach settlement can be found at
YouthShelterServicesDataSettlement.com.

Youth and Shelter Services settlement class members who file a
valid, timely claim form can receive up to $2,500 for documented
losses incurred between September 2023 and July 20, 2026 due to the
data breach.

Reimbursable expenses include losses due to fraud or identity
theft, as well as the cost of credit monitoring, credit reports,
freezing or unfreezing credit, replacement IDs and more. Class
members must provide proof, such as receipts, to receive a
documented-loss payment.

In lieu of a documented-loss payment, class members can file a
claim form to receive a $50 alternative cash payment with no proof
required.

To file a Youth and Shelter Services settlement claim form online,
class members can head to this page and log in using the unique ID
and PIN found on their copy of the settlement notice.
Alternatively, class members can download a PDF of the claim form
to print, fill out, and return by mail to the settlement
administrator.

All Youth and Shelter Services settlement claim forms must be
submitted online or by mail by July 20, 2026.

The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the
Youth and Shelter Services data breach settlement following a
hearing on August 3, 2026. Compensation will begin to be
distributed to class members only after final approval has been
granted and any appeals are resolved.

The Youth and Shelter Services class action lawsuit claimed that
the nonprofit, which serves youth throughout Iowa, failed to
implement proper cybersecurity safeguards to protect the sensitive
information of its current and former patients and employees, which
allegedly led to a September 2023 data breach.

Per court documents, private information potentially compromised
during the breach included names, dates of birth, Social Security
numbers, driver's license numbers, financial information, medical
and health insurance information, passport numbers, billing and
claims information, and government-issued ID numbers. [GN]

ZOETIS INC: Faces Class Action for Misleading Investors
-------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP informs stockholders that a class action was filed on
behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Zoetis
Inc. (NYSE: ZTS) securities between January 14, 2025 and May 6,
2026. Zoetis is an animal health company that develops,
manufactures, and sells vaccines, medicines, diagnostics,
biopharmaceuticals, and digital solutions for companion animals and
livestock.

For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas,
Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003.

The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that
Zoetis Inc. (ZTS) Misled Investors Regarding its Flagship Products
as a Durable Growth Engine

According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
failed to disclose that: (i) veterinarian prescription growth and
adoption of Zoetis' Librela, a canine pain treatment, were sharply
weakening as clinicians became more cautious following FDA safety
warnings concerning serious neurological complications in dogs;
(ii) Zoetis' Simparica Trio was losing significant market share to
a lower priced competing canine parasiticide with broader indicated
use in a slowing overall market; and (iii) Zoetis' dermatology
products, Apoquel and Cytopoint, were losing substantial market
share to a newly launched competing canine treatment.

Plaintiff alleges that the truth behind defendants'
misrepresentations was revealed over the course of four disclosures
spanning from August 5, 2025 to May 7, 2026. In the final
disclosure on May 7, 2026, the Company reported first quarter 2026
financial results that reflected significant deterioration across
its core Companion Animal business and sharply reduced its
full-year guidance. On this news, Zoetis' stock price plummeted
21.5% from $111.22 to $87.31.

What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against Zoetis Inc. Shareholders who wish to serve as lead
plaintiff for the class should contact Robbins LLP. The lead
plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to
participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you
choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member.
For more information, click https://robbinsllp.com/zoetis/

All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.

About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights
litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been
dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate
governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for
their wrongdoing since 2002.

To be notified if a class action against Zoetis Inc. settles or to
receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing,
sign up for Stock Watch today.

Contacts

     Aaron Dumas, Jr., Esq.
     Robbins LLP
     5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
     San Diego, CA 92122
     (800) 350-6003
     adumas@robbinsllp.com
     www.robbinsllp.com [GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2026. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***