260610.mbx

260610.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, June 10, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 115 Headlines 7SECURE LLC: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Durand Alleges AIM DISTRIBUTION: Class Cert Filing in Sielaff Extended to July 1 ARIZONA: Solan Loses Bid to Certify Class BANNER HEALTH: Court Narrows Claims in Kelly Suit BARI HOME: Laduca Deadline Extension of Class Cert Bid Filing BUFFALO, NY: Partly Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Franklin CALIX INC: Noor Files Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop CAMBA INC: Jimenez Class Cert Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice CG MEDICAL: Johnson Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Kent Says CPAP MEDICAL: Court Narrows Claims in Consolidate Class Action FLUKE CORPORATION: Fails to Secure Private Info, Dequaine Alleges FORMAN MILLS: Rossi Suit Seeks Class Certification GEICO: Dempsey Suit Seeks to Certify Class GENERAL MOTORS: Shamoon Seeks to Certify Class GREAT WOLF: Prout Files ADA Suit Over Use of Synthetic Fragrances HELEN KAMINSKI: Ramirez Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website HYATT HOTELS: Uses Synthetic Fragrance in Facilities, Kovacs Says IP HOLDINGS: Lamperis Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website JEROME HARRIS: Additional Class Claims in Alexander Suit Certified JEROME HARRIS: Court Certifies Additional Claims in Carmichael Suit JORDAN CRAIG: Lamperis Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website KRISTI NOEM: Court Extends Time to File Class Response/Reply LENOVO (UNITED STATES): Frost Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website LINDA SOUTHERN: Carter Allowed to Amend Class Complaint LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA: Roelling Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective LOS ANGELES, CA: Renewed Bid for Class Certification Tossed MACYS.COM LLC: Discloses Website Users' Communication to Meta MBO PROFESSIONAL: Jallow Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA MERCY HOSPITAL: Shepard Suit Seeks Class Certification MICHAEL THOMAS: Henderson Loses Bid for Class Certification MONGODB INC: Bid to Reconsider Case Dismissal Filed NAVY FEDERAL: Withheld Credit Denial Reasons, Castleberry Alleges NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert. Bid NEW YORK, NY: Archer Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses NEWPORT GROUP: Court Certifies Additional Claims in Ewing Suit NEWPORT GROUP: Court Certifies Additional Claims in Jackson Suit NEWPORT GROUP: Court Certifies Additional Claims in Russ Suit NEWPORT GROUP: Court Certifies Additional Claims in Wade Suit NLV FINANCIAL: Class Certification Bids in Virani Due Jan. 29, 2027 OCHSNER CLINIC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Taylor Due Dec. 15 OP PHARMACY: Class Settlement Deal in Russo Suit Gets Initial Nod PATHWAY LENDERS: Loan Application Denial Violates ECOA, Suit Says PERRIGO COMPANY: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Ballard Says PNC FINANCIAL: Keturah Files Suit Over FCCPA Violation POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Court Junks Bid to Stay Discovery PROCTER & GAMBLE: Pinto Must Show Case on Non-Dismissal of Suit PROPHASE LABS: Portillo GIPA Class Suit at Pleading Stage RACK ROOM: Smith Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification REDDIT INC: Roseman Sues Over Removal of Directors Under DGCL REGAL CINEMAS: Garza Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Employees RICOH USA: Mike The Printer Seeks to Strike Saad's Declaration RUGSUSA LLC: Hong Allowed to Amend Complaint SAGE HOME: Denies Opportunity to Correct Application, Bradford Says SANTANDER CONSUMER: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Jan. 15, 2027 SELECT PORTFOLIO: Class Cert Bid in Hardnett Suit Due Oct 23 SHEIN US: Jones Sues Over Fraudulent Pricing and Phantom Discounts SHUTTERSTOCK INC: Seeks to File Unredacted Versions of Opposition SIMONMED IMAGING: Court Extends Discovery Deadlines SKYWEST AIRLINES: Campbell Seeks to Certify Employee Class SODEXO SA: Platt Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification SYNERGY ONE: Loan Application Denial Violates ECOA, Bradford Says VITAL HEALTHCARE: Underpays Healthcare Workers, McCaffery Says WORKDAY INC: Bid to Compel Production of Bias-Testing Data Tossed ********* 7SECURE LLC: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Durand Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- JOHN DURAND, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff v. 7SECURE LLC, and HUKM MYLES MOORE, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-04417 (S.D.N.Y., May 27, 2026) is a class action seeking to recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid wages, including overtime, due to time-shaving, (2) liquidated damages, and (3) attorneys' fees and costs. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Members, and Class Members are current and former security guards and other similarly positioned employees of Defendants and were victims of Defendants' schemes to underpay employees. Specifically, despite requiring employees to work hours beyond their shift and during meal breaks each day, Defendants would only compensate employees based on their schedules. Defendants' system resulted in both pre-and-post shift time-shaving. The Defendants' company-wide policies and practices affected all Class Members similarly, and Defendants benefited from the same type of unfair and/or wrongful acts as to each Class Member. Plaintiff and other Class Members sustained similar losses, injuries, and damages arising from the same unlawful policies, practices, and procedures, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this wage and hour class action on behalf of himself, and all Class Members employed by Defendants nationwide, who were similarly underpaid by Defendants in violation of protections afforded under the FLSA and state regulations. Defendant 7SECURE LLC operates a security and private investigation company which provides services throughout New York, New Jersey, and Texas. Defendant HUKM MYLES MOORE exercises operational control as it relates to all employees including Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: 212-465-1188 Facsimile: 212-465-1181 AIM DISTRIBUTION: Class Cert Filing in Sielaff Extended to July 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sielaff v. Aim Distribution Services LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00911 (E.D. Wisc., Filed June 27, 2025), the Hon. Judge Brett H. Ludwig entered an order re Joint Motion for Extension of Time: The deadline for Plaintiff to file her motion for court authorization of notice of the pendency of the action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and for class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 23 is extended from June 1, 2026 to July 1, 2026. The parties report that they are diligently conducting discovery and engaging in settlement negotiations and request a one-month extension for Plaintiff to file her motion for court authorization of notice of the pendency of the action. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Aim offers comprehensive supply chain, logistics, and inventory management solutions.[CC] ARIZONA: Solan Loses Bid to Certify Class ----------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Matthew Phillip Solan, Nicholas Philip Oakes, David Joshua Burstein, Robert Lee Dunn, and Bobby Gene Blansett, v. State of Arizona, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-04179-JJT--DMF (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge entered an order that: (1) The Plaintiff's motion to certify class is denied. (2) This case is severed into individual actions, one for each named Plaintiff. The Clerk of Court must assign a new case number to each new individual action. (3) In each new case, the Clerk of Court must file a copy of the Complaint, the Application to Proceed corresponding to the individual Plaintiff, the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, and this Order. The rulings in this Order shall apply in each new case. (4) The individual Plaintiffs must proceed independently from this point and will not be regarded as co-plaintiffs, except upon further order of the Court. All further pleadings, motions, or other papers submitted for filing by an individual Plaintiff in his separate case must be signed by the individual Plaintiff, or they will be stricken. (5) The Applications to Proceed in District Court Without P repayment of Fees and Costs are denied without prejudice. (6) Within 30 days of the date this Order is filed, each Plaintiff must either pay the $350.00 filing fee and $55.00 administrative fee or file a complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and a certified six-month trust account statement (or institutional equivalent) in his individual case. (7) If a Plaintiff fails to either pay the $350.00 filing fee and $55.00 administrative fee or file a complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis within 30 days, the Clerk of Court must enter a judgment of dismissal of his individual action without prejudice and without further notice to Plaintiff and deny any pending unrelated motions as moot. (8) The Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. (9) The Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is denied without prejudice. The Court concludes that unitary adjudication of the Plaintiffs' claims would result in unfairness to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants, and the Court's goals of achieving judicial economy and maintaining efficient control of the Court's docket. Allowing each Plaintiff to proceed separately, however, would overcome the unfairness created by these circumstances. Therefore, the Court will sever this action into individual cases, and a new case number will be assigned to each individually named Plaintiff. Arizona is a landlocked state situated in the southwestern United States, bordering Mexico in the south. A copy of the Court's order dated May 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FRydrc at no extra charge.[CC] BANNER HEALTH: Court Narrows Claims in Kelly Suit ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kelly, v. BANNER HEALTH, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00920-DJC-DMC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel Calabretta entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss as follows: 1. Counts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the first amended complaint are dismissed with leave to amend; 2. Count 4 for sick leave pay is dismissed with prejudice; and 3. The Defendants' motion to dismiss is otherwise denied. 4. The Plaintiff has 21 days from the docketing of this Order to file a second amended complaint. The Defendants will have 21 days after the docketing of the Second Amended Complaint to file their next responsive pleading. The Court found there was good cause under Rule 16 as Plaintiff had been sufficiently diligent in flagging the prior class representative's desire to withdraw as soon as it came up. Moreover, under Rule 15, the Court discussed the effect of the proposed amendments and ultimately concluded there was no substantial prejudice to Defendants and that amendment was not futile. The Court sees no need to revisit that determination here. The Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is therefore denied. The Plaintiff's meal and rest break claims are not adequately pled. Thus, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the first and second causes of action with leave to amend. The Court also denies the Defendants' request for certification of the Court's prior ruling for interlocutory appeal under 8 U.S.C. section 1292(b). The Court does not find that there is substantial ground for difference of opinion as to whether the decision of a named representative to withdraw as class representative — while retaining a claim against Defendants — moots the class action entirely. Former plaintiff Vincent Kelly initiated this class action on Feb. 16, 2024, in the Superior Court for the County of Lassen, and the Defendants removed the matter to this Court shortly thereafter. The Plaintiff alleges violations of certain California Labor Code provisions and California's Unfair Competition Law. Banner is a non-profit health system in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated May 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SRnK8M at no extra charge.[CC] BARI HOME: Laduca Deadline Extension of Class Cert Bid Filing ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Laduca, et al., v. Bari Home Care, LLC et al, Case No. 1:24-cv-07970-JAM (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to extend the June 8, 2026 pre-class certification discovery deadline and the June 15, 2026 deadline for the Plaintiffs to seek leave to move for class certification. On May 28, 2026, the Parties attended a mediation session with EDNY mediator Roger Briton, Esq. The Parties made progress towards potential resolution. However, in order to properly evaluate and confirm information relating to Plaintiffs' claims, the Defendants require additional time to investigate and obtain certain payroll documents from a third-party vendor. Accordingly, the Parties requested that the mediation be continued to July 13, 2026. In light of the continued mediation session on July 13, 2026, the Parties’ request that the deadline to complete pre-class certification discovery be extended from June 8, 2026 to July 20, 2026, and that the June 15, 2026 deadline for the Plaintiffs to seek leave to move for class certification be extended to on or before July 27, 2026. Both Parties would like to continue to explore settlement before expending additional resources on motion practice, and believe there remains a meaningful possibility of resolving this matter. Should the parties not reach a resolution at the continued mediation session, the Plaintiffs' counsel needs additional time to transition the file to a new associate. Bari is a New York-based home healthcare provider. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RQcBxm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paige Piazza, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 E-mail: ppiazza@vandallp.com BUFFALO, NY: Partly Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Franklin --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DORETHEA FRANKLIN, TANI QUA SIMMONS, DE'JON HALL, JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, SHIRLEY SARMIENTO, EBONY YELDON, CHARLES PALMER, SHAKETA REDDEN, and JOSEPH BONDS, v. CITY OF BUFFALO, N.Y., BYRON B. BROWN, Mayor of the City of Buffalo, in his individual and official capacities, BYRON C. LOCKWOOD, Commissioner of the Buffalo Police Depatiment, in his individual capacity, DANIEL DERENDA, former Commissioner of the Buffalo Police Department, in his individual capacity, Case No. 1:18-cv-00719-CCR (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Reiss entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court grants the Defendants' motion for summary judgment on Count III and on Count I to the extent Plaintiffs assert non-Checkpoint claims. The court denies the Defendants' motion for summary judgment on Count I to the extent Plaintiffs assert Checkpoint claims, Count II, and Count IV. The court denies the Defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to qualified immunity for Defendants Brown, Derenda, and Lockwood and Defendant Brown's liability. The court denies as moot the Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' injunctive relief. The court denies the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. There are genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether Defendants Brown, Derenda, and Lockwood violated the Constitution and, if so, how that violation occurred. The court thus cannot determine whether any constitutional violation was clearly established. Although a close question, in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, the undisputed and disputed evidence construed in the Plaintiffs' favor supports a conclusion that the Defendant Brown was a direct participant in the challenged conduct and alleged ensuing constitutional violations. The Defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to Defendant Brown's liability is therefore denied. The Plaintiffs claim that the City has unlawfully targeted Black and Latino motorists through the use of administrative traffic checkpoints (the "Checkpoints"). Even after the Checkpoints were discontinued, they assert City police officers continue to systematically target Black and Latino motorists for traffic enforcement, fines, and penalties. The Plaintiffs define the Checkpoint Class as: "All individuals who received a ticket or were arrested at a BPD 'traffic safety' vehicle checkpoint on or after June 28, 2015." The Plaintiffs define the Tinted Windows Class as: "All Black and/or Latino individuals who received multiple tinted windows tickets from the BPD in a single traffic stop on or after June 28, 2015." Buffalo is the second-largest city in the U.S. state of New York and the seat of Erie County. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EOVR49 at no extra charge.[CC] CALIX INC: Noor Files Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------------- WASEEM NOOR, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. CALIX, INC., MICHAEL WEENING, and CORY SINDELAR, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-04993 (N.D. Cal., May 27, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its plan, scheme and course of conduct which was intended to and, throughout the Class Period, did: (i) deceive the investing public, including Plaintiff and other Class members; and (ii) cause Plaintiff and other members of the Class to purchase Calix's securities at artificially inflated prices. Defendant Calix, Inc. engages in the provision of cloud and software platforms, and systems and services. Defendant Michael Weening was the Company's Chief Executive Officer. Defendant Cory Sindelar was the Company's Chief Financial Officer. The complaint relates 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. Plaintiff Waseem Noor purchased Calix securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, and suffered damages as a result of the federal securities law violations and false and/or misleading statements and/or material omissions. The price of the Company's securities significantly declined when the misrepresentations made to the market, and/or the information to have been concealed from the market, and/or the effects thereof, were revealed, causing investors' losses, says the suit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY WOLKE & ROTTER LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: CLinehan@glancylaw.com PRajesh@glancylaw.com - and - Frank R. Cruz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800 Century City, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 914-5007 CAMBA INC: Jimenez Class Cert Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jimenez, et al., v. Camba Inc. et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-05625 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 7, 2025), the Hon. Judge Pamela K. Chen entered an order denying the motion for class certification without prejudice to renew if a settlement is not reached. Since then, the parties have been in settlement discussions and are scheduled for a settlement conference with the Honorable Seth D. Eichenholtz, Magistrate Judge, on July 1, 2026. On October 7, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification alongside their complaint. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Housing Act. Camba is a multi-service agency that provides community-based programming including infant and maternal health, family support, and youth development programs.[CC] CG MEDICAL: Johnson Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------- KYLE JOHNSON for himself and all others similarly situated v. CG MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. and CHETAN GUPTA, M.D., Case No. 1:26-cv-00537-JPH (S.D. Ohio, June 1, 2026) seeks appropriate monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief based on the Defendants' willful failure to compensate Plaintiff and similarly-situated individuals with overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, the Defendants repeatedly violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff and the similarly situated employees overtime premium pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Defendants maintain a policy and practice of treating Plaintiff and similarly situated employees as non-exempt employees under the FLSA. The Defendants further maintain a policy and practice of not paying Plaintiff and the similarly situated employees on a salary basis by deducting their respective bi-weekly pay in situations where the Plaintiff and the similarly situated employees did not work all of their 7 twelve-hour shifts over the two-week pay periods, says the suit. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a Nurse Practitioner at Defendants' location in Elizabethtown, Kentucky. The Defendants operate 33 walk-in clinics in Ohio, 7 walk-in clinics in Kentucky, and 5 walk-in clinics in Nevada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradley L. Gibson, Esq. GIBSON LAW, LLC 9200 Montgomery, Rd., Suite 11A Telephone: (513) 834-8254 E-mail: brad@gibsonemploymentlaw.com CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Kent Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARIAH KENT, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC. d/b/a SPECTRUM, Case No. 3:26-cv-00850 (D. Conn., June 1, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard highly valuable, protected, personally identifiable information and for its failure to comply with industry standards to protect information systems that contain and/or are utilized to transfer personally identifiable information. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has been, and continues to be, harmed as a result of Charter's failure to properly secure and safeguard its customers' highly valuable, protected PII including, inter alia, full names, email addresses, physical addresses, telephone numbers, account plan information, customer support ticket details, and Customer Proprietary Network Information; and for its failure to comply with industry standards to protect information systems that contain PII. The Plaintiff and Class members were required to provide their PII to Defendant as a condition of receiving goods or services from Defendant in the regular course of Defendant's business activities. The Defendant is American telecommunications and mass media company headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. SCOTT SCOTT The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com - and - Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 1225 Franklin Avenue, Suite 325 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (917) 438-9189 E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com - and - Michael E. Criden, Esq. Lindsey C. Grossman, Esq. CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A. 2020 Salzedo Street, Suite 302 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 357-9000 E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com lgrossman@cridenlove.com CPAP MEDICAL: Court Narrows Claims in Consolidate Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRETT CONNER, DIANE EDWARDS, JUWAN OVERSHOWN, STEPHEN FOLLETT, TYRONE GIBBS, CHRIS HARRIMAN, RODERIC WOODS and JOHN CRIST, v. CPAP MEDICAL SUPPLIES AND SERVICES INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00945-WWB-LLL (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Berger entered an order as follows: 1. The Defendant's motion to dismiss consolidated class action complaint is granted in part to the extent provided herein and denied in all other respects. 2. Counts I and II of the consolidated class action complaint are dismissed without prejudice. 3. The Plaintiffs may file an amended pleading to correct the deficiencies noted herein with respect to Counts I and II on or before June 9, 2026. Failure to timely file an amended pleading in compliance with this Order will result in Counts I and II being dismissed with prejudice. Because the Plaintiffs' only well-pleaded allegations of a nexus between their harms and the Defendant's data breach are time and sequence, and because the Plaintiffs' wellpleaded allegations of a nexus between their harms and the Defendant's negligent actions are even more tenuous, the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for negligence. Count I will be dismissed accordingly. Further, the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for breach of implied contract because their "allegations reveal only that they provided their personal information as required to receive healthcare services from the Defendants—not data security services beyond the privacy requirements already imposed on Defendants by federal law." The Plaintiffs in this consolidated, putative class action are users of Defendant's sleep-apnea products and one contract employee of the Defendant. They seek to represent a class of victims of the Defendant's December 2024 data breach, which they allege compromised their sensitive personal health information and personally identifiably information. The Defendant specializes in providing comprehensive sleep therapy services and CPAP supplies. A copy of the Court's order dated May 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GUNzzt at no extra charge.[CC] FLUKE CORPORATION: Fails to Secure Private Info, Dequaine Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- TIFFANY DEQUAINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLUKE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-1817 (W.D. Wash., May 27, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its negligent failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information"), culminating in a massive and preventable data breach. The complaint relates that as part of its business practices and to provide employment and services, Defendant collects, stores, and maintains employees' PII, including Plaintiff's and Class Members'. Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former customers and/or employees of Defendant. On September 29, 2025, Fluke discovered suspicious activity on its network and launched an investigation. This investigation revealed that criminal third-party actors had access to Fluke's network via a third-party application and were able to copy customer and employee PII between approximately August 10, 2025, and October 7, 2025. Although the Breach was discovered on or about September 29, 2025, Defendant delayed noticing affected individuals until around May 15, 2026, nearly 8 months after the Data Breach, when it began mailing Notice Letters to affected individuals. Defendant's delay in alerting impacted individuals of the Breach caused Plaintiff and Class Members from taking earlier actions to protect themselves against fraud and misuse of their information, asserts the complaint. Due to Defendant's negligent failure to secure and protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, cybercriminals have stolen and obtained everything they need to commit identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives of thousands of individuals, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of the Class, seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, nominal damages, restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and all other remedies the Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff Tiffany Dequaine is a former employee of Fluke and received a Notice Letter dated May 15, 2026, informing her that her Social Security number and date of birth was involved in the Breach. Defendant Fluke Corporation is the world leader in professional electronic test tools and software for measuring and condition monitoring. It is the parent company for multiple companies, including Comark, Fluke Biochemical, Fluke Calibration, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com E-mail: jaw@federmanlaw.com FORMAN MILLS: Rossi Suit Seeks Class Certification -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NOELL DEL ROSSI, et al, individually and on behalf of all similarly-situated individuals, v. FORMAN MILLS, INC., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-03136-CPO-AMD (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs, on July 6, 2026, will move for an Order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In support of the Motion, the Plaintiffs shall rely upon their brief and Exhibits 1-10 attached thereto, which are being filed and served simultaneously herewith. Forman Mills is a retail chain and department store. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wUvw3r at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James E. Goodley, Esq. Ryan P. McCarthy, Esq. GOODLEY MCCARTHY LLC One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 394-0541 E-mail: james@gmlaborlaw.com ryan@gmlaborlaw.com Franklin J. Rooks, Jr. MORGAN ROOKS, P.C. Franklin J. Rooks, Jr., Esq. 525 Route 73 North, Suite 104 Marlton, NJ 08053 Telephone: (856) 874-8999 E-mail: fjrooks@morganrooks.com The Defendants are represented by: Jason A. Cabrera, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR, P.C. 1010 Kings Highway South Cherry Hill, NJ 08003 - and - Keith McDonald, Esq. Dominique Kilmartin, Esq. PASHMAN STEIN WALDER HAYDEN, P.C. 21 Main Street, Suite 200 Hackensack, NJ 07601 GEICO: Dempsey Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Reyna Dempsey, individually, on behalf of others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, v. Government Employees Insurance Company ("GEICO") et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-00425-EKL (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Aug. 26, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., will move the Court, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to certify the following class: "(1) All women in a non-heterosexual relationship; (2) who are or were enrolled in a health insurance plan insured and/or administered by United Healthcare Services, Inc., wherein the eligibility criteria for Infertility Services are the same or substantially similar to the requirements in the GEICO Corporation Medical, Dental and Vision Care Plan in the United States at any time between January 24, 2020 and present; and (3) who sought infertility benefits under their plan; but (4) excluding people covered by fullyinsured plans in states with mandated infertility benefits coverage wherein the definition of infertility is not the same or substantially similar to that in the GEICO Corporation Medical, Dental and Vision Care Plan." In conjunction with class certification, the Plaintiffs seek an order appointing the Plaintiff Reyna Dempsey as Class Representative, appointing the law firm of Nichols Kaster and the California Civil Rights Law Group as Class Counsel, approving the Plaintiff's proposed forms of notice for distribution to the Class, and ordering the Defendant to produce information necessary to facilitate notice. The parties last met and conferred about this Motion by videoconference on May 28, 2026, but were unable to reach agreement. GEICO is an American insurance company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aMZAXZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence A. Organ, Esq. Julianne K. Stanford, Esq. Kira Brekke, Esq. CALIFORNIA CIVIL RIGHTS LAW GROUP 332 San Anselmo Avenue San Anselmo, CA 94960 Telephone: (415) 453-4740 Facsimile: (415) 785-7352 E-mail: larry@civilrightsca.com julianne@civilrightsca.com kira@civilrightsca.com - and - Matthew C. Helland, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, LLP 235 Montgomery St., Suite 810 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 277-7235 Facsimile: (415) 277-7238 E-mail: helland@nka.com - and - Anna P. Prakash, Esq. Ricardo Perez, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4700 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 215-6870 E-mail: aprakash@nka.com rperez@nka.com GENERAL MOTORS: Shamoon Seeks to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shamoon, et al., v. General Motors Company et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-13132-SDK-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (i) Certifying a class consisting of; "All persons and entities that (1) purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded GM common stock (NYSE: "GM," "GM Stock") and exchange-traded call options to acquire GM Stock or (2) sold exchange-traded put options to sell GM Stock, during the period from Oct. 6, 2021, through Nov. 7, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby." (ii) Appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and (iii) Appointing Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP as Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants made material misstatements with scienter that inflated the price of GM Stock. General Motors is a motor-vehicle manufacturer. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fX5ibU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carol C. Villegas, Esq. Jake Bissell-Linsk, Esq. Guillaume Buell, Esq. Matthew J. Grier, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 E-mail: cvillegas@labaton.com jbissell-linsk@labaton.com gbuell@labaton.com mgrier@labaton.com - and - Matthew Henzi, Esq. Cynthia Billings-Dunn, Esq. ASHER KELLY PLLC 25800 Northwestern Highway, Suite 1100 Southfield, MI 48075 Telephone: (248) 746-2710 mhenzi@asherkellylaw.com cbdunn@asherkellylaw.com - and - Robert D. Klausner, Esq. Stuart Kaufman, Esq. KLAUSNER, KAUFMAN, JENSEN & LEVINSON 7080 Northwest 4th Street Plantation, FL 33317 Telephone: (954) 916-1202 E-mail: bob@robertdklausner.com stu@robertdklausner.com GREAT WOLF: Prout Files ADA Suit Over Use of Synthetic Fragrances ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW PROUT, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREAT WOLF RESORTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04077-KES-FJS (E.D. Cal., May 27, 2026) is a class action seeking remedies for Defendant's practice of employing fragrance in its facilities, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Defendant Great Wolf Resorts, Inc. is a business that maintains lodging, restaurant and bar service, and pool facilities, open to the public, and its operations significantly affect interstate commerce. The Representative Plaintiff asserts that Defendant had, and continues to have, a consistent policy of releasing Synthetic fragranced consumer products upon individuals as they enter Defendant's Facilities. Indeed, by the time these unsuspecting customers, employees, guests and/or patrons are aware of the pervasive scents/toxins, it is simply too late: the toxins are ingested, have landed upon the skin, have entered the lungs and, thus, entered these victims' bloodstreams and targeted various organs/systems. Representative Plaintiff Andrew Prout suffers and continues to suffer from chemical sensitivities and, when exposed to fragrance, is substantially limited in this Representative Plaintiff's ability to concentrate and/or breathe, which unquestionably constitute major life functions. He experiences symptoms such as respiratory problems, headaches, skin irritation, and gastrointestinal, cardiovascular and cognitive problems, says the suit. The Representative Plaintiff brings this action, individually, and on behalf of the Class of all persons harmed by the toxic doses of Synthetic fragranced consumer products at Defendant's Facilities. Moerover, Representative Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of members of the Nationwide Class, seeks injunctive and other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as a result of Defendant's numerous unfair, unlawful and deceptive business practices, as detailed herein, which run afoul of a multitude of state and federal laws. Representative Plaintiff Andrew Prout is a natural person with a physical condition which renders this individual unable to patronize, visit and/or enjoy the full and equal access to Defendant's Facilities--so long as this facility continues to expose patrons to fragranced substances (including carcinogenic and/or other hazardous air pollutants, and particulate matter).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edward Cole, Esq. Laura G. Van Note, Esq. Mark T. Freeman, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 Facsimile: (510) 891-7030 E-mail: sec@colevannote.com E-mail: lvn@colevannote.com E-mail: mtf@colevannote.com HELEN KAMINSKI: Ramirez Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- ROSEMARIE RAMIREZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. HELEN KAMINSKI ASIA, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-06442 (N.D. Ill., June 1, 2026) arises because the Defendant's s website, www.helenkaminski.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, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in 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; damages, and a damage multiplier. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com HYATT HOTELS: Uses Synthetic Fragrance in Facilities, Kovacs Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER KOVACS, MICHELLE POLLOK, and TINA WESTMAN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HYATT HOTELS CORPORATION, Case No. 2:26-cv-02024-DJC-SCR (E.D. Cal., June 1, 2026) is a class action seeking remedies for the Defendant's practice of employing Synthetic fragranced consumer product in it facilities -- despite Defendant's knowledge of the realities and the discriminatory effect of these practices. The Defendant claims to offer lodging facilities to the general public, including Representative Plaintiffs, and markets its facilities as being available equally to all members of that public, and yet, engages in practices that prohibit a substantial segment of that public (i.e., chemically sensitive disabled individuals) from the same benefits and opportunities of those facilities afforded to other individuals, the suit says. Accordingly, Representative Plaintiffs assert that these percentages would be far greater if those surveyed knew the full panoply of unregulated and toxic synthetic compounds normally found within Synthetic fragranced consumer products and their effect on daily life. A Synthetic fragranced consumer product is a base product to which synthetic fragrance compounds are then added and/or is a product that is largely comprised of fragrance. The Defendant is a business that maintains hotel and other lodging facilities, open to the public, and its operations significantly affect interstate commerce, open to the public, and its operations significantly affect interstate commerce.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott Edward Cole, Esq. Laura G. Van Note, Esq. Mark T. Freeman, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, California 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 Facsimile: (510) 891-7030 E-mail: sec@colevannote.com lvn@colevannote.com mtf@colevannote.com IP HOLDINGS: Lamperis Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH LAMPERIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. IP HOLDINGS UNLTD, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-06418 (N.D. Ill., June 1, 2026) arises because the Defendant's s website, www.ecko.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, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in 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; damages, and a damage multiplier. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com JEROME HARRIS: Additional Class Claims in Alexander Suit Certified ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alexander v. Harris et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01128 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge S. Thomas Anderson entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for partial reconsideration of order granting class certification. The Court amends its Class Certification Order and certifies the following additional class claims and issues for class action: (1) breach of fiduciary duty against the Estate of Dr. Harris and Robert Eaton; (2) conversion against the Estate of Dr. Harris; Sandra Harris; Eaton; Financial Freedom Funds, LLC; Financial Freedom Group, Inc.; Trinity Financial Consultants, LLC; Financial Technologies, LLC; and Day & Night Solar (count 4); (3) fraudulent concealment against the Estate of Dr. Harris and Eaton (count 5); (4) fraudulent misrepresentation against the Estate of Dr. Harris (count 6); and (5) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against Financial Freedom Funds, LLC; Financial Freedom Group, Inc.; Financial Technologies, LLC; Day & Night Solar; Trinity Financial Consultants, LLC; the Motorskill Entities; and Sandra Harris (count 9); and (6) any affirmative defense preserved by the Defendants named in these counts and certified for class action. Class counsel is directed to propose a form of notice to the class and submit its proposal within 14 days of the entry of this order. The Plaintiffs argue in their Motion for Partial Reconsideration that they can establish measures of damages on other tort claims outside of the expert opinions reflected in the Dirks/Devor Model. Because that is a contention the Court did not previously reach, reconsideration to address the Plaintiff's argument is warranted. The Plaintiffs initially filed a class certification motion on May 7, 2025. Symetra was the only Defendant to oppose that request. A copy of the Court's order dated May 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g90o2Z at no extra charge.[CC] JEROME HARRIS: Court Certifies Additional Claims in Carmichael Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARMICHAEL, JR. et al v. HARRIS et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01127 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge S. Thomas Anderson entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for partial reconsideration of order granting class certification. The Court amends its Class Certification Order and certifies the following additional class claims and issues for class action: (1) breach of fiduciary duty against the Estate of Dr. Harris and Robert Eaton; (2) conversion against the Estate of Dr. Harris; Sandra Harris; Eaton; Financial Freedom Funds, LLC; Financial Freedom Group, Inc.; Trinity Financial Consultants, LLC; Financial Technologies, LLC; and Day & Night Solar (count 4); (3) fraudulent concealment against the Estate of Dr. Harris and Eaton (count 5); (4) fraudulent misrepresentation against the Estate of Dr. Harris (count 6); and (5) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against Financial Freedom Funds, LLC; Financial Freedom Group, Inc.; Financial Technologies, LLC; Day & Night Solar; Trinity Financial Consultants, LLC; the Motorskill Entities; and Sandra Harris (count 9); and (6) any affirmative defense preserved by the Defendants named in these counts and certified for class action. Class counsel is directed to propose a form of notice to the class and submit its proposal within 14 days of the entry of this order. The Plaintiffs argue in their Motion for Partial Reconsideration that they can establish measures of damages on other tort claims outside of the expert opinions reflected in the Dirks/Devor Model. Because that is a contention the Court did not previously reach, reconsideration to address the Plaintiff's argument is warranted. The Plaintiffs initially filed a class certification motion on May 7, 2025. Symetra was the only Defendant to oppose that request. A copy of the Court's order dated May 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iI3xxW at no extra charge.[CC] JORDAN CRAIG: Lamperis Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH LAMPERIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. JORDAN CRAIG, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-06426 (N.D. Ill., June 1, 2026) arises because the Defendant's s website, www.jordancraig.com is not fully and equally accessible to Plaintiff and other 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, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to be-come, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota, damages, and a damage multiplier. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com KRISTI NOEM: Court Extends Time to File Class Response/Reply ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as E.M.P.C. et al., v. Kristi Noem. et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-21565 (S.D. Fla., Filed March 9, 2026), the Hon. Judge David S. Leibowitz entered an order granting motion for extension of time to file response / reply / answer. EMPC Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Response in Opposition re Motion to Certify Class filed on May 27, 2026 is deemed timely filed. The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus -- Mandamus & Other. Noem is an American politician.[CC] LENOVO (UNITED STATES): Frost Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Lenovo (United States) Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-02773 (D. Minn., May 27, 2026) arises because Defendant's Website www.lenovo.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 ("ADA") and its implementing regulations. The complaint relates that in order to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers, individuals may visit Defendant's Website. As a consequence of Plaintiff's experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on their behalf, Plaintiffs found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiffs full and equal access to important Website content. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology. The Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures fail to ensure that its Website does not discriminate against people who are blind or have low vision within the meaning of the ADA. In addition to the claim under the ADA, Plaintiffs also assert a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction requiring a change in 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; damages, and a damage multiplier pursuant to Minnesota Statute. Plaintiffs Clarence and Tammy Frost have been legally blind and are residents of Minnesota. Defendant Lenovo (United States) Inc. offers computers and accessories for sale including laptops, desktops, workstations, monitors, tablets, servers, office essentials, accessories, and more.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndselaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com LINDA SOUTHERN: Carter Allowed to Amend Class Complaint ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WALTER GLENN CARTER, v. LINDA SOUTHERN, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00155-DPM-PSH (E.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge entered an order allowing Carter another opportunity to amend his complaint before it makes a recommendation on a motion to dismiss. If Carter elects to file a Second Amended Complaint, he must do so by July 1, 2026. The Court finds that it would be most efficient to allow Carter one more opportunity to amend his complaint and clarify his allegations. The need for more information is triggered, in part, by the involvement of Wennerstein in drafting Carter's pleadings on behalf of multiple inmates, and the lack of specificity as to how Carter's rights have been allegedly violated and by whom. Carter should include all relevant facts in his Second Amended Complaint, including the specific involvement of each named defendant. If Carter does not timely file a Second Amended Complaint, the Court will consider only the factual allegations present in his Amended Complaint when it analyzes the Defendants' pending motion to dismiss. If Carter timely files a Second Amended Complaint, the Defendants shall have 21 days to file a new motion to dismiss or otherwise respond to the Second Amended Complaint. The Clerk of Court is directed to send a blank section 1983 complaint form to Carter. Carter is cautioned that a Second Amended Complaint renders his existing complaints without legal effect; only his factual allegations and claims set out in the Second Amended Complaint will be allowed to proceed. On May 6, 2025, Wennerstein filed a pro se complaint and a motion for class action status. On Aug. 11, 2025, plaintiff Walter Glenn Carter filed a pro se complaint and a petition for class certification. Carter alleges his religious rights have been infringed by certain regulations and/or practices in the Arkansas Division of Correction’s East Arkansas Regional Unit (EARU) where he is incarcerated. A copy of the Court's order dated May 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PHGDs1 at no extra charge.[CC] LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA: Roelling Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON ROELLING, a California resident, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a California public entity, Case No. 2:25-cv-06832-FLA-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on June 26, 2026, at 1:30 p.m., will move the Court, pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), for an order: (1) certifying the proposed Collective defined as follows: "All 56-hour employees of the County of Los Angeles who, at any time between July 25, 2022 and [the date of notice to the Collective], began working prior to the beginning of their 24-hour shift or continued working after the end of their 24-hour shift and were not paid for the additional time worked while working in one or more of the following fire protection positions for the Los Angeles County Fire Department: Fire Captain; Fire Fighter; Fire Fighter Specialist Inspector; Fire Fighter Specialist Engineer; Fire Fighter Specialist Paramedic; Fire Fighter Specialist Foreman; and Battalion Chief." ("LACOFD 56-Hour Employee Collective"); (2) approving the content, method of delivery, and timing of notice to be provided to the proposed Collective; and (3) requiring Defendant to provide certain identifying information for each member of the proposed Collective. The content, method of delivery, and timing of the notice proposed to be provided to the proposed LACOFD 56-Hour Employee Collective is set forth in the Declaration of J. Paul Gignac filed in support of the Plaintiff's motion. The Defendant is A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=diY6CN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Paul Gignac, Esq. Claire K. Mitchell, Esq. EXCELLO LAW U.S. LLP 17 El Paseo Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 317-6402 E-mail: jpgignac@excellolaw.com cmitchell@excellolaw.com - and - Steven H. Haney, Esq. Michael Sobel, Esq. HANEY & SHAH LLP 915 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2125 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 228-6500 E-mail: shaney@haneyshah.com msobel@haneyshah.com LOS ANGELES, CA: Renewed Bid for Class Certification Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLACK LIVES MATTER LOS ANGELES ET AL, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL, Case No. 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Consuelo B. Marshall entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs' renewed motion does not cure the deficiencies identified by the Ninth Circuit. While the Plaintiffs have adjusted some class definitions, the fundamental facts and necessary analysis underlying the Motion require individualized considerations and individualized evidence of the proposed classes and subclasses. Therefore, the Court finds the Plaintiffs' have not demonstrated that the critical questions or issues raised by each proposed class or subclass can be resolved on a class-wide basis. This putative class action arises out of protests and demonstrations which occurred throughout Los Angeles in late May and early June of 2020 in response to the murder of George Floyd. On July 14, 2025, Plaintiffs were granted leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint (the "FAC"). The Plaintiffs propose the following classes and subclasses: The Injunctive Relief Class defined as: "All individual persons who have in the past participated, presently are participating, or may in the future participate in, or be present at, demonstrations within the City of Los Angeles in the peaceful exercise of their rights of free speech, assembly and petition in general, and particularly as it relates to protesting police violence and discrimination against people of color, especially African Americans." The Damages Class, Arrest Class #1 (Arrest Conditions Class) defined as: "Beginning May 29, 2020, and continuing through June 2, 2020, all persons present at or during the aftermath of protests regarding the killing of George Floyd in the City of Los Angeles, who were 1) arrested by the LAPD on misdemeanor and/or infraction charges of failure to obey a curfew, failure to disperse, failure to follow a lawful order of a police officer and/or unlawful assembly; 2) who were held on the street and then on buses or, in a very few instances, in "Slammer" vans; and 3) subjected to prolonged restraint with their hands zip tied behind their backs for a minimum of two hours, causing pain to their wrists. Krystle Hartsfield, Devon Young, Linus Shentu, Alexander Stamm, Christian Steven Roe, Maia Kazin, Nelson Lopez, Nadia Khan, Jonathan Mayorca, Nelson Lopez, Alicia Barrera-Trujillo and Shea Backes are the proposed class representatives." The Damages Class, Arrest Class # 2 (False Arrest Class) defined as: "Beginning May 29, 2020, and continuing through June 2, 2020, all persons present at or during the aftermath of protests regarding the killing of George Floyd in the City of Los Angeles, who were arrested by the LAPD on misdemeanor charges of failure to disperse, unlawful assembly and/or failure to follow an order from a police officer where 1) the order on which people were arrested for violating involved failure to disperse or to move where police directed, or no order was given, and 2) the order, if given, was inadequate in the time allowed to comply and leave an explicitly defined area, was not provided in a manner that the full intended audience for the order could reasonably hear it, or LAPD officers prevented those gathered from complying with the order; or arrested for curfew violations on May 30 and subsequent days right after the curfew was imposed without first notifying protestors of the imposition of the curfew and providing them an opportunity and reasonable time to leave." Arrest Class # 2 Subclass #2(A): May 29 Temple & Spring Subclass. The Subclass #2(A) is defined as: "Persons in the vicinity of Temple & Spring Streets on May 29, 2020, in the evening, who were herded and kettled by LAPD officers, instructed to sit on the ground, and arrested for a curfew violation when they had no basis to know of the curfew as it had just been announced but only by text to those who were previously signed up on the City's Emergency Notification System." Arrest Class # 2 Subclass #2(B): May 29 First & Spring Subclass. The Subclass #2(B) is defined as: "Persons in the vicinity of First & Spring Streets on May 29, 2020, in the evening, who were herded and kettled by LAPD officers and blocked from leaving, first told to sit on the ground and that they would be arrested, then told that they would be cited and released on site, but were arrested anyway for either failure to disperse or failure to obey a police order; to whom no audible order to disperse was provided. Nelson Lopez is the proposed subclass representative." Arrest Class #2 Subclass #2(C): May 30 Beverly and Third (South to North) and Fairfax Subclass. The Subclass #2(C) is defined as: "Persons in the vicinity of Beverly or Third & Fairfax on May 30, 2020, in the evening, who were herded and kettled by LAPD officers and prevented from leaving when they attempted to comply with orders to leave, instructed to sit on the ground, arrested and, at the police station, issued a cite and release for either failure to disperse or failure to obey a police order." Arrest Class # 2 Subclass #2(D): May 30 Beverly and Third (South to North) and Fairfax Subclass. The Subclass #2(D) is defined as: "Persons in the vicinity of Beverly & Fairfax on May 30, 2020, in the afternoon, who were herded and kettled by LAPD officers and instructed to sit on the ground, issued a citation and release for either failure to disperse or failure to obey a police order, and to whom no legally sufficient audible order to disperse was provided." Arrest Class # 2 Subclass #2(E): June 1 Hollywood Subclass. The Subclass #2(E) is defined as: "Persons in the vicinity of Hollywood Boulevard on June 1, 2020, in the early evening, where a dispersal order was given at approximately 6:00 p.m., and, after following police directions regarding where to go, the subclass members were herded and kettled by LAPD officers and unable to leave, many ordered by the police to get on their knees and put their hands behind their backs, and arrested for either failure to disperse or failure to obey a police order." Arrest Class # 2 Subclass #2(F): June 1 Downtown Spring or Grand & Fifth. The Subclass #2(F) is defined as: "Persons in the vicinity of Spring or Grand & Fifth Streets on June 1, 2020, in the early evening who were blocked and prevented from leaving by LAPD officers, for which the Incident Commander deliberately did not issue a dispersal order." Arrest Class # 2 Subclass #2(G): June 2 Hancock Park Subclass. The Subclass #2(G) is defined as: "Persons in the vicinity of Getty House (the Los Angeles City) Mayor's House) on June 2, 2020, at around 8:30 p.m., who were ordered to disperse, left the Getty House area as directed and were subsequently blocked and prevented from moving by LAPD officers." Arrest Class # 2 Subclass #2(H): June 2 Hollywood Subclass. The Subclass #2(H) is defined as: "Persons in Hollywood on June 2, 2020, who were arrested for curfew violations without adequate notice to disperse and without being provided an opportunity or means to disperse." The Infraction Class defined as: "Beginning May 29, 2020, and through June 2, 2020, all persons present at or during the aftermath of protests regarding the killing of George Floyd in the City of Los Angeles, who were charged with infractions, arrested and taken into custody, and not released in the field, as required by Penal Code section 853.5." Los Angeles is the most populous city in the U.S. state of California, and the commercial, financial, and cultural center of Southern California. A copy of the Court's order dated May 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qTiU4C at no extra charge.[CC] MACYS.COM LLC: Discloses Website Users' Communication to Meta ------------------------------------------------------------- RAEANON HARTIGAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. MACYS.COM, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-03341-JES-AHG (S.D. Cal., June 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for intercepting, recording, decoding, capturing, disclosing, and using the contents of Plaintiff's and Class Members' electronic communications with the Defendant's Website, as well as their routing, addressing, and signaling information, and for aiding Meta Platforms, Inc. to do the same, by means of a tracking pixel and related tracking technologies embedded in Defendant's Website in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the Meta Pixel and related technologies did more than capture routing and signaling data. As Plaintiff's own off-Facebook activity confirms, they intercepted the contents of Plaintiff’s and Class Members' communications with the Website -- including the full URL strings, search queries, and the specific products and content they viewed -- and transmitted those contents to Meta and other third parties contemporaneously with, and as a duplicate of, the users' communications with Defendant. The Plaintiff is a natural person and an adult citizen of the state of California, domiciled in San Diego County, California. The Defendant owns and operates the website https://www.macys.com/ Website, through which consumers in California and elsewhere browse and purchase clothing, accessories, home goods, and beauty products, and use online deals, order fulfillment, and customer account services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. Spener L. Pfeiff, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (866) 219-3343 E-mail: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com Spencer@SwigartLawGroup.com - and - Daniel G. Shay, Esq. SHAY LEGAL, APC San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 222-7429 E-mail: Dan@ShayLegal.com MBO PROFESSIONAL: Jallow Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- LATONYA JALLOW, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. MBO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC., a Virginia Corporation, Case No. 1:2026cv01500 (June 1, 2026) alleges on behalf of the Plaintiff and others similarly situated current and former non-exempt hourly paid Anti-Money Laundering workers (AMLs) of Defendant, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act that they are entitled to unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs The Plaintiff complains that she, as well as other similarly situated AMLs, were regularly required to work off-the-clock, as a result of the Defendant's company-wide corporate policies, applicable to all AML workers, limiting the hours these employees were allowed to put on their timesheets on a weekly basis. The Defendant knew that Plaintiff and other AML workers were working more hours than Defendant let Plaintiff and AML workers record on their timesheet, resulting in unpaid overtime compensation occurring for these employees. Based on MBO's uniform policies, the Plaintiff, and those employees similarly situated to Plaintiff, were not paid the statutorily required overtime premiums for all hours worked. MBO Partners -- https://www.mbopartners.com/ -- helps enterprises easily and compliantly engage independent professionals with strategic, technology-driven solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Getty, Esq. C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. Andrew Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, DC PLLC 20 M St. S.E., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20003 Telephone: (202) 772-0587 Facsimile: (202) 772-0637 E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com afrisch@forthepeople.com cgetty@forthepeople.com MERCY HOSPITAL: Shepard Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMY SHEPARD, MARISSA MOFFATT, JANE DOE 1, JANE DOE 2, JANE DOE 3, JANE DOE 4, JANE DOE 5, JANE DOE 6, JANE DOE 7 and JANE DOE 8, v. MERCY HOSPITAL SPRINGFIELD, Case No. 6:26-cv-03310-DPR (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for certification of class. Attempting to align every Plaintiffs right to sue timelines together through joinder is not possible in this instance and the sole remedy is to combine the Plaintiffs into a class action, the Plaintiffs aver. The claims all arise from Title 7 and the rights protected by the 14th amendment. None of the claims arise from another source of law and the claims are all arising from the same circumstance such as being fired due to not partaking in the Covid-19 vaccine and in return being fire/dismissed for it, the Plaintiffs add. The Defendant is a full-service hospital. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=r4uQiG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kristi S. Fulnecky, Esq. FULNECKY LAW, LLC 2627 W. Republic Rd. Suite A-108 Springfield, MO 65807 Telephone: (417) 882-1044 E-mail: Kristi@fulneckylaw.com MICHAEL THOMAS: Henderson Loses Bid for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHNDELL HENDERSON, v. MICHAEL THOMAS, et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-02166-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wise entered an order as follows: 1. The motion for class certification is denied. 2. The motion for appointment of counsel is denied. Mr. Henderson does not acknowledge Rule 23's requirements and fails to show that class certification is appropriate. Although the Court is mindful that Mr. Henderson may need additional time to prepare his filings due to his medical conditions and his lost typewriter, his case does not present exceptional circumstances. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion for the appointment of counsel. If Mr. Henderson needs additional time to prepare his legal filings, he may request an extension of time. Mr. Henderson filed a motion to certify a class of: "Muslim prisoners affected by the Defendants' alleged interference with their ability to exercise their religion at Salinas Valley State Prison." Mr. Henderson alleges that several of the Muslim prisoners cosigned the grievances and appeals Henderson filed regarding some of the incidents underlying his religious exercise claim, which is currently pending in this lawsuit. A copy of the Court's order dated May 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LBPsqQ at no extra charge.[CC] MONGODB INC: Bid to Reconsider Case Dismissal Filed --------------------------------------------------- MongoDB, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending April 30, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 29, 2026, that a class action against it has been dismissed and a motion for reconsideration has been filed. Derivative actions stemming from said action has been stayed pending court ruling. A putative securities class action lawsuit was filed on July 9, 2024, captioned "Baxter v. MongoDB, Inc., et al." (Case No. 1:24-cv-5191), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against MongoDB, former CEO Dev Ittycheria, and former COO and CFO Michael Gordon. On January 27, 2025, the lead plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint naming former Senior Vice President of Finance and former Interim CFO Srdjan Tanjga as an additional defendant. The operative complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and alleges that defendants made material misstatements and/or omissions, including regarding MongoDB's sales strategy, growth projections, and its financial results. The complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired MongoDB common stock between June 1, 2023 and May 30, 2024. It seeks unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and other unspecified relief. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 9, 2025. Plaintiffs filed an opposition brief on July 1, 2025, and defendants filed their reply brief on July 29, 2025. On May 1, 2026, the court entered an order granting defendants' motion to dismiss in part and denying it in part, as it relates to four specific statements. On May 15, 2026, defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the its order on the motion to dismiss. In addition, on Oct. 7, 2024, a purported shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned "Roy v. Ittycheria et al." (Case No. 1:24-cv-07594), against the company, as a nominal defendant, and Ittycheria, Gordon, and several of the company's current and former directors. The lawsuit alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties and committed other alleged misconduct in connection with the statements at issue in the Securities Action and by causing the company to issue allegedly false and misleading statements to investors. Another similar case, "Silva v. Ittycheria et al." (Case No. 1:24-cv-9014), was subsequently filed in the same district on Nov. 25, 2024 against MongoDB, as nominal defendant, and the same individual defendants as the Roy action. It has been consolidated with the Roy action with the caption "In re MongoDB, Inc. Shareholder Litigation," (Case No. 1:24-cv-9014) On Sept. 12, 2025, another purported derivative action was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the company, as a nominal defendant, and Ittycheria, Gordon, and several of its current and former directors. The case is captioned "Sansone v. Ittycheria, et al" (Case No. 2025-1030). The lawsuit alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties and committed other alleged misconduct in connection with the statements at issue in the Securities Action and by causing the company to issue allegedly false and misleading statements to investors. Derivative litigations have been stayed pending the outcome of the court's decision on the defendants' motion for reconsideration in the securities action. MongoDB, Inc. is a modern, general-purpose database platform company best known for its document database MongoDB, used by enterprises and developers to build, run and scale applications. The company provides both self-managed and cloud-based database services to customers worldwide. NAVY FEDERAL: Withheld Credit Denial Reasons, Castleberry Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- DOMINIC A. CASTLEBERRY, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01720-X (N.D. Tex., May 27, 2026) is a class action seeking redress for violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA"). The complaint relates that in February 2026, Plaintiff applied for a line of credit from Defendant. On February 12, 2026, Plaintiff received a letter from Defendant denying Plaintiff's credit application. The letter provided the reasons for the credit denial ("adverse action letter") stating: "After careful consideration, we are unable to approve your application for the following reason(s): Limited Credit Experience". However, the adverse action letter failed to identify the specific reasons for the denial. The Plaintiff was forced to file this action to obtain information he is entitled to under the ECOA, notes the complaint. The Defendant's failure to provide Plaintiff with the specific reasons for the credit denial deprived Plaintiff of the opportunity to address or correct the issues that Defendant based its credit denial on. As a result, Plaintiff was not able to correct the alleged deficiency that led to the credit denial, adds the complaint. Plaintiff DOMINIC A. CASTLEBERRY is a consumer and a natural person, over 18-years-of-age, residing in Mesquite, Texas. Defendant NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION is a financial services institution that provides credit and banking opportunities to consumers across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy D. Hogan, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD 2500 S Highland Ave, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: (630) 575-8181 E-mail: thogan@atlaslawcenter.com NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert. Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Manuel Angel Calderon v. Network Infrastructure, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-05442-ALC-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting a brief, one-week extension of the Defendants' deadline to oppose the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Defendants request that the briefing schedule established by the Court be extended as follows: -- The Defendants' deadline to file their opposition to the Plaintiff's class certification motion to be extended from June 3, 2026 to June 10, 2026. -- The Plaintiff's deadline to file a reply in further support of the class certification motion to be extended from June 17, 2026 to June 24, 2026. This extension is being requested because the undersigned had to unexpectedly travel to Florida due to a medical emergency involving an immediate family member. Network is a NY-based utility contracting company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xoCM8F at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Edward Grimmett, Esq. KAUFMAN DOLOWICH LLP 135 Crossways Park Drive, Suite 201 Woodbury, NY 11797 Telephone: (516) 681-1100 E-mail: egrimmett@kaufmandolowich.com NEW YORK, NY: Archer Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENISE ARCHER, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 1:26-cv-04426-RA (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs, at a date and time to be determined by the Court, will move the Court for an order granting certification of the following classes and subclasses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), consisting of: Children's Class: "All children who have been, are, or will be seized by ACS without a court order, parental consent, or threat of such immediate harm to the child's health or safety that there is insufficient time to secure a court order." Parents' Class: "All parents whose children have been, are, or will be seized by ACS without a court order, parental consent, or threat of such immediate harm to the child's health or safety that there is insufficient time to secure a court order." Children's Equal Protection Subclass: "All members of the Children's Class who are Black or Latino." Parents' Equal Protection Subclass: "All members of the Parents' Class who are Black or Latino." New York comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OBJwlE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lisa Freeman, Esq. Anna Blondell, Esq. Melissa Friedman, Esq. THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY 49 Thomas Street, 10th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 577-7982 Facsimile: (646) 616-4982 E-mail: lafreeman@legal-aid.org ablondell@legal-aid.org mfriedman@legal-aid.org - and - Roger A. Cooper, Esq. Andrew Khanarian, Esq. Noopur Sen, Esq. Ariel Sheffey, Esq. Michael Cronin, Esq. CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP One Liberty Plaza New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 225-2000 E-mail: racooper@cgsh.com akhanarian@cgsh.com nsen@cgsh.com asheffey@cgsh.com mcronin@cgsh.com - and - David Shalleck-Klein, Esq. Lewis Bossing, Esq. Eliza J. McDuffie, Esq. Anna Belle Newport, Esq. Amelia Y. Goldberg, Esq. Phoenix Rice-Johnson, Esq. FAMILY JUSTICE LAW CENTER 183 Madison Avenue, Suite 419 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 223-6939 E-mail: dshalleckklein@fjlc.org lbossing@fjlc.org emcduffie@fjlc.org anewport@fjlc.org agoldberg@fjlc.org pricejohnson@fjlc.org - and - Baher Azmy, Esq. Adina Marx-Arpadi, Esq. CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 666 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10012 Telephone: (212) 614-6464 E-mail: bazmy@ccrjustice.org amarxarpadi@ccrjustice.org - and - Christine Gottlieb, Esq. NYU SCHOOL OF LAW FAMILY DEFENSE CLINIC/WASHINGTON SQUARE LEGAL SERVICES 245 Sullivan Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10012 Telephone: (212) 998-6693 E-mail: gottlieb@mercury.law.nyu.edu - and - Tarek Z. Ismail, Esq. Julia Hernandez, Esq. FAMILY DEFENSE CLINIC MAIN STREET LEGAL SERVICES, CUNY SCHOOL OF LAW 2 Court Square Long Island City, NY 11101 Telephone: (718) 340-4141 E-mail: Tarek.Ismail@law.cuny.edu Julia.Hernandez@law.cuny.edu - and - Alan E. Schoenfeld, Esq. Thomas White, Esq. Hannah Hoffman, Esq. Michaela Olson, Esq. Hailey Elisabeth Kruger, Esq. Kendrick Baker, Esq. Sean J. Kim, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 7 World Trade Center New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 230-8800 Facsimile: (212) 230-8888 E-mail: Alan.Schoenfeld@wilmerhale.com Tom.White@wilmerhale.com Hannah.Hoffman@wilmerhale.com Michaela.Olson@wilmerhale.com Hailey.Kruger@wilmerhale.com Kendrick.Baker@wilmerhale.com Sean.Kim@wilmerhale.com NEWPORT GROUP: Court Certifies Additional Claims in Ewing Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ewing v. Newport Group, Inc. et al. Case No. 2:22-cv-02136 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge S. Thomas Anderson entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for partial reconsideration of order granting class certification. The Court amends its Class Certification Order and certifies the following additional class claims and issues for class action: (1) breach of fiduciary duty against the Estate of Dr. Harris and Robert Eaton; (2) conversion against the Estate of Dr. Harris; Sandra Harris; Eaton; Financial Freedom Funds, LLC; Financial Freedom Group, Inc.; Trinity Financial Consultants, LLC; Financial Technologies, LLC; and Day & Night Solar (count 4); (3) fraudulent concealment against the Estate of Dr. Harris and Eaton (count 5); (4) fraudulent misrepresentation against the Estate of Dr. Harris (count 6); and (5) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against Financial Freedom Funds, LLC; Financial Freedom Group, Inc.; Financial Technologies, LLC; Day & Night Solar; Trinity Financial Consultants, LLC; the Motorskill Entities; and Sandra Harris (count 9); and (6) any affirmative defense preserved by the Defendants named in these counts and certified for class action. Class counsel is directed to propose a form of notice to the class and submit its proposal within 14 days of the entry of this order. The Plaintiffs argue in their Motion for Partial Reconsideration that they can establish measures of damages on other tort claims outside of the expert opinions reflected in the Dirks/Devor Model. Because that is a contention the Court did not previously reach, reconsideration to address the Plaintiff's argument is warranted. The Plaintiffs initially filed a class certification motion on May 7, 2025. Symetra was the only Defendant to oppose that request. Newport operates as retirement services firm. A copy of the Court's order dated May 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nyVzT9 at no extra charge.[CC] NEWPORT GROUP: Court Certifies Additional Claims in Jackson Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jackson v. Newport Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02174 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge S. Thomas Anderson entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for partial reconsideration of order granting class certification. The Court amends its Class Certification Order and certifies the following additional class claims and issues for class action: (1) breach of fiduciary duty against the Estate of Dr. Harris and Robert Eaton; (2) conversion against the Estate of Dr. Harris; Sandra Harris; Eaton; Financial Freedom Funds, LLC; Financial Freedom Group, Inc.; Trinity Financial Consultants, LLC; Financial Technologies, LLC; and Day & Night Solar (count 4); (3) fraudulent concealment against the Estate of Dr. Harris and Eaton (count 5); (4) fraudulent misrepresentation against the Estate of Dr. Harris (count 6); and (5) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against Financial Freedom Funds, LLC; Financial Freedom Group, Inc.; Financial Technologies, LLC; Day & Night Solar; Trinity Financial Consultants, LLC; the Motorskill Entities; and Sandra Harris (count 9); and (6) any affirmative defense preserved by the Defendants named in these counts and certified for class action. Class counsel is directed to propose a form of notice to the class and submit its proposal within 14 days of the entry of this order. The Plaintiffs argue in their Motion for Partial Reconsideration that they can establish measures of damages on other tort claims outside of the expert opinions reflected in the Dirks/Devor Model. Because that is a contention the Court did not previously reach, reconsideration to address the Plaintiff's argument is warranted. The Plaintiffs initially filed a class certification motion on May 7, 2025. Symetra was the only Defendant to oppose that request. Newport operates as retirement services firm. A copy of the Court's order dated May 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sbSjop at no extra charge.[CC] NEWPORT GROUP: Court Certifies Additional Claims in Russ Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Russ, et al., v. Newport Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01129 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge S. Thomas Anderson entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for partial reconsideration of order granting class certification. The Court amends its Class Certification Order and certifies the following additional class claims and issues for class action: (1) breach of fiduciary duty against the Estate of Dr. Harris and Robert Eaton; (2) conversion against the Estate of Dr. Harris; Sandra Harris; Eaton; Financial Freedom Funds, LLC; Financial Freedom Group, Inc.; Trinity Financial Consultants, LLC; Financial Technologies, LLC; and Day & Night Solar (count 4); (3) fraudulent concealment against the Estate of Dr. Harris and Eaton (count 5); (4) fraudulent misrepresentation against the Estate of Dr. Harris (count 6); and (5) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against Financial Freedom Funds, LLC; Financial Freedom Group, Inc.; Financial Technologies, LLC; Day & Night Solar; Trinity Financial Consultants, LLC; the Motorskill Entities; and Sandra Harris (count 9); and (6) any affirmative defense preserved by the Defendants named in these counts and certified for class action. Class counsel is directed to propose a form of notice to the class and submit its proposal within 14 days of the entry of this order. The Plaintiffs argue in their Motion for Partial Reconsideration that they can establish measures of damages on other tort claims outside of the expert opinions reflected in the Dirks/Devor Model. Because that is a contention the Court did not previously reach, reconsideration to address the Plaintiff's argument is warranted. The Plaintiffs initially filed a class certification motion on May 7, 2025. Symetra was the only Defendant to oppose that request. Newport operates as retirement services firm. A copy of the Court's order dated May 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AjsjSP at no extra charge.[CC] NEWPORT GROUP: Court Certifies Additional Claims in Wade Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wade, et al., v. Newport Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01126 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge S. Thomas Anderson entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for partial reconsideration of order granting class certification. The Court amends its Class Certification Order and certifies the following additional class claims and issues for class action: (1) breach of fiduciary duty against the Estate of Dr. Harris and Robert Eaton; (2) conversion against the Estate of Dr. Harris; Sandra Harris; Eaton; Financial Freedom Funds, LLC; Financial Freedom Group, Inc.; Trinity Financial Consultants, LLC; Financial Technologies, LLC; and Day & Night Solar (count 4); (3) fraudulent concealment against the Estate of Dr. Harris and Eaton (count 5); (4) fraudulent misrepresentation against the Estate of Dr. Harris (count 6); and (5) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against Financial Freedom Funds, LLC; Financial Freedom Group, Inc.; Financial Technologies, LLC; Day & Night Solar; Trinity Financial Consultants, LLC; the Motorskill Entities; and Sandra Harris (count 9); and (6) any affirmative defense preserved by the Defendants named in these counts and certified for class action. Class counsel is directed to propose a form of notice to the class and submit its proposal within 14 days of the entry of this order. The Plaintiffs argue in their Motion for Partial Reconsideration that they can establish measures of damages on other tort claims outside of the expert opinions reflected in the Dirks/Devor Model. Because that is a contention the Court did not previously reach, reconsideration to address the Plaintiff's argument is warranted. The Plaintiffs initially filed a class certification motion on May 7, 2025. Symetra was the only Defendant to oppose that request. Newport operates as retirement services firm. A copy of the Court's order dated May 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hscZzw at no extra charge.[CC] NLV FINANCIAL: Class Certification Bids in Virani Due Jan. 29, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANY A. VIRANI, v. NLV Financial Corporation et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01150-cr (D. Vt.), the Hon. Judge entered an order as follows : 1. The parties shall serve initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(l) on or before May 29, 2026. 2. Depositions of all non-expert witnesses shall be completed by Jan. 8, 2027. 3. The Plaintiff shall submit expert witness reports on or before Oct. 20, 2026. Depositions of the plaintiff's expert witnesses shall be completed by Jan. 8, 2027. 4. The Defendant shall submit expert witness reports on or before Oct. 20, 2026. Depositions of defendant's expert witnesses shall be completed by Jan. 8, 2027. 5. All discovery shall be completed by Jan. 8, 2027. 6. Motions for class certification shall be filed on or before Jan. 29, 2027, to allow the Plaintiff to propose a fulsome damages model following completion of discovery as part of her motion for class certification. Oppositions shall be filed on or before March 5, 2027. Replies shall be filed on or before April 2, 2027. 7. Other motions, including summary judgment motions but excluding motions relating to the conduct of the trial, shall be filed on or before July 2, 2027, subject to revision if class certification has not been decided or any resulting opt-out proceedings are not completed. 8. This case shall be ready for trial by the later of Nov. 1, 2027, or 90 days after resolution of any motions for summary judgment and the conclusion of any opt-out period in the event a class is certified. NLV is a holding company that provides life insurance, annuities, mutual funds, and retirement planning services in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated May 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g578jB at no extra charge.[CC] OCHSNER CLINIC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Taylor Due Dec. 15 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY TAYLOR, V. OCHSNER CLINIC FOUNDATION d/b/a OCHSNER MEDICAL CENTER and DR. ANDREW MATTHEWS, Case No. 2:24-cv-01872-ASJ-DPC (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Anna St. John entered an order granting the joint motion for entry of class certification scheduling order as modified. Class Certification will proceed in accordance with the deadlines below: Event: Deadline: Initial Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures: June 1, 2026 Deadline for conducting fact discovery on Nov. 13, 2026 class certification issues (the parties will not have expert witnesses on class certification): The Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion Dec. 15, 2026 for class certification, accompanying memorandum, and evidence on which the Plaintiff relies for class certification: The Defendants' deadline to file any Jan. 20, 2027 opposition memoranda to the motion for class certification, and evidence on which the Defendants rely for class certification: The Plaintiff's deadline to file a reply Feb. 3, 2027 memorandum in response to the Defendants' opposition memoranda on class certification: The Plaintiff's motion to certify class action is dismissed without prejudice, reserving to the Plaintiff the right to file a renewed motion for class certification in accordance with the above class certification schedule. Ochsner is a nonprofit academic medical center. A copy of the Court's order dated May 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KrU15G at no extra charge.[CC] OP PHARMACY: Class Settlement Deal in Russo Suit Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Russo v. OP Pharmacy, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00649-RGJ (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Jennings entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement agreement. 1. The Agreement provides for a Settlement Class defined as follows: "All living individuals residing in the United States whose Private Information may have been accessed during the Data Incident, including those individuals who were sent a notice by OnePoint that their Private Information may have been impacted in the Data Incident." Excluded from the Settlement Class are (a) officers, directors, and agents of OnePoint; and (b) the Judge assigned to the Action, that Judge’s immediate family, and Court staff. It is estimated that there are 528,452 persons potentially in the Settlement Class. 2. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs will likely satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(e)(2)(A) and should be appointed as the Class Representatives. Additionally, the Court finds that Tyler J. Bean of Siri & Glimstad LLP, A. Brooke Murphy of Murphy Law Firm, Andrew W. Ferich of Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC, and Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A. will likely satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(e)(2)(A) and should be appointed as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g)( 3. A final approval hearing shall be held on Sept. 23, 2026, at 1:30 PM. The Settlement Agreement provides that OnePoint will pay $2,115,000 into a nonreversionary common fund. The Plaintiffs are individuals who allege that their private information was exposed in a data breach as a result of Defendant OnePoint Patient Care, LLC (“OnePoint”) failing to sufficiently protect their information. The Defendant is a Kentucky-based pharmacy and pharmacy benefits manager specializing in hospice care serving over 40,000 patients nationally across various service platforms. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated May 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4g9bnK at no extra charge.[CC] PATHWAY LENDERS: Loan Application Denial Violates ECOA, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- RADLEY BRADFORD, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PATHWAY LENDERS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-04203 (S.D. Tex., May 27, 2026) is a class action seeking redress for violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA"). Defendant PATHWAY LENDERS, LLC is an online lender that provides financial loans to consumers across the United States. The complaint relates that in May 2026, Plaintiff applied for a consolidation loan from Defendant. On May 12, 2026, Plaintiff received an notification from Defendant denying Plaintiff's loan application. The email contained a letter that provided the reasons for the credit denial ("adverse action letter"). The adverse action letter stated, in pertinent part, as follows: "APPLICATION NOT APPROVED. A consolidation loan is not the right fit for your situation - but you have real options below". The adverse action letter failed to identify the specific reasons for the denial. On May 12, 2026, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant requesting that Defendant provide more details regarding reason(s) for the credit denial. Plaintiff's letter was returned to sender, as USPS noted the location of the Defendant as 'vacant'. The Defendant violated the ECOA by failing to provide Plaintiff with specific reasons for the credit denial, alleges the complaint. Specifically, Defendant failed to specify why Plaintiff was not approved for a consolidation loan. Defendant also violated the ECOA by failing to disclose Plaintiff's right to a statement of reasons, and the identity of the person or office from which such statement may be obtained. Accordingly, Plaintiff was unable to address or correct the alleged deficiencies that Defendant based its denial on, or obtain specific reasons for his denial. Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of Defendant's violations of the ECOA, adds the suit. Plaintiff RADLEY BRADFORD is an African-American consumer and a natural person, over 18-years-of-age, residing in Houston, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy D. Hogan, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD 2500 S Highland Ave, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: (630) 575-8181 E-mail: thogan@atlaslawcenter.com PERRIGO COMPANY: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Ballard Says ------------------------------------------------------------- ROBIN BALLARD and YEHEZKEL MARX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PERRIGO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01710 (W.D. Mich., May 27, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to protect highly sensitive data. The complaint relates that as part of its business, Defendant receives and maintains the highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") of thousands of its current and former employees. In collecting and maintaining the PII, Defendant agreed it would safeguard the data in accordance with its internal policies, state law, and federal law. On March 4, 2026, Perrigo was hacked and the cybercriminals that obtained Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII appear to be the notorious cybercriminal group "Termite." Yet, Perrigo waited over until May 19, 2026 -- a full 76 days after the Data Breach was discovered -- before it began notifying the class. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff suffered actual injury from the exposure and theft of her PII which violates her rights to privacy. Because of the Data Breach, Plaintiff anticipates spending considerable amounts of time and money to try and mitigate her injuries. In addition to injunctive relief, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the other Class Members, seeks compensatory damages for Defendant's invasion of privacy, which includes the value of the privacy interest invaded by Defendant, the costs of future monitoring of their credit history for identity theft and fraud, plus prejudgment interest and costs. Plaintiffs Robin Ballard and Yehezkiel Marx are former employees of Defendant. Defendant Perrigo Company manufactures branded and private label over-the-counter health and wellness products, and distributes them to retailers throughout the United States, Europe and other major markets.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com PNC FINANCIAL: Keturah Files Suit Over FCCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------ SHADEE KETURAH, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-2026-CA-003687-AXXX-MA (Cir. Ct., Duval Cty., Fla., May 27, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA"). The complaint relates that on a date better known by Defendant, Defendant began attempting to collect a consumer debt from Plaintiff by sending Plaintiff a collection communication. On April 2025, Defendant was notified on a phone call, by and through a 'Stop Request', that Plaintiff requested Defendant to stop contacting them. As such, Defendant knew Plaintiff requested Defendant to stop contacting Plaintiff. Despite knowing this, Defendant communicated with and/or contacted Plaintiff in connection with the collection of the Consumer Debt, by and through a Second Collection Communication. In doing so, Defendant willfully engaged in conduct which could reasonably be expected to abuse or harass Plaintiff. As such, by and through the Second Collection Communication, Defendant violated Florida Statute, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, injunctive relief, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, and any other relief that the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances. Plaintiff Shadee Keturah is a natural person, and a citizen of the State of Florida, residing in Duval County, Florida. Defendant PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. is an American bank holding company and financial services corporation based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Awad, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street, Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: 813-340-8838 E-mail: samuel@jibraellaw.com E-mail: Zane@jibraellaw.com POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Court Junks Bid to Stay Discovery ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned RE: POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC. AND POWERSCHOOL GROUP, LLC CUSTOMER SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION, Case No. 3:25-md-03149-AJB-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Battaglia entered an order: -- denying PowerSchool's Track One motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rules 54 and 59, -- denying PowerSchool's motion for certification of interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. section 1292(b), and -- denying the related request to stay discovery. This case is complex, involving numerous similar and distinct legal theories applied to the same facts against various defendants, with variations among Plaintiffs, as supported by cases from different jurisdictions. Therefore, challenging inconsistencies in prior Orders now—unless they clearly contain errors—only impedes judicial efficiency in resolving all disputes fairly and promptly. These issues will likely be addressed soon, but not right now. Because PowerSchool has not satisfied the threshold for reconsideration, the Court denies its motion. On March 18, 2026, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part PowerSchool’s motion to dismiss. PowerSchool is a provider of cloud-based K-12 education software in North America. A copy of the Court's order dated May 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mDMlWi at no extra charge.[CC] PROCTER & GAMBLE: Pinto Must Show Case on Non-Dismissal of Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pinto v. The Procter & Gamble Company, Case No. 2:24-cv-07700 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Nov. 4, 2024), the Hon. Judge Joanna Seybert entered an order as follows: -- By no later than June 12, 2026, and by way of affidavit, the Plaintiff is to SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. In accordance with Magistrate Judge Shields' March 17, 2025 Scheduling Order, has a motion for class certification been filed by the May 4, 2026 deadline. The nature of suit states Contract Product Liability. The Defendant is an American multinational consumer goods corporation.[CC] PROPHASE LABS: Portillo GIPA Class Suit at Pleading Stage --------------------------------------------------------- ProPhase Labs, Inc. disclosed in its annual report on Form 10-K, for the period ending Dec. 31, 2025, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 1, 2026, that the Portillo GIPA class suit is at pleading stage in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. A putative class action lawsuit, Portillo v. Nebula Genomics, Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act (GIPA), alleging that Nebula improperly shared customers genetic information with third parties without written consent, and naming Nebula along with Meta Platforms, Google, and Microsoft as defendants. The dispute was later transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in accordance with Nebula's Terms of Use, which mandated that claims be brought in Massachusetts. The complaint remains at the pleading stage. In addition to the motion to change venue, Nebula filed a motion to dismiss. While the allegations raise reputational and legal risks, no judgment or settlement has been entered, and potential liability is not reasonably estimable at this time. Accordingly, management does not consider this litigation to be material to the consolidated financial statements as of the date of this Annual Report. ProPhase Labs, Inc. is a diversified diagnostics, genomics and consumer products company engaged in health care diagnostics, genomics testing and the manufacture and marketing of over-the-counter consumer health products. The company operates through various subsidiaries, including ProPhase Diagnostics, to provide laboratory-based services and related offerings. RACK ROOM: Smith Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEMETRIUS SMITH and MIA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RACK ROOM SHOES, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-06709-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Aug. 25, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., will move for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiffs request that the Court certify the following classes: Nationwide Purchaser Class: "All individuals who purchased products through Rack Room's website from May 1, 2022, through Dec. 1, 2025." Nationwide Meta Class: "All individuals who purchased products through Rack Room's website from July 1, 2021, through Dec. 1, 2025, and who Meta used identifiers to attribute either ViewContent events from product pages or AddtoCart events." California Purchaser Class – CIPA section 631: "All California residents who purchased products through Rack Room’s website between May 1, 2022, and Dec. 1, 2025, using shipping addresses exclusively within California." California Meta Class – CIPA section 631: "All California residents who purchased products through Rack Room's website: between July 1, 2022, through Dec. 1, 2025, using shipping addresses exclusively within California and who Meta used identifiers to attribute either ViewContent events from product pages or AddtoCart events." California Purchaser Class – CIPA section 632: "All California residents who purchased products through Rack Room's website between July 1, 2022, through Dec. 1, 2025." California Meta Class – CIPA section 632: "All California residents who purchased products through Rack Room's website between July 1, 2022, through Dec. 1, 2025, using shipping addresses exclusively within California and who Meta used identifiers to attribute either ViewContent events from product pages or AddtoCart events." The Defendant markets shoes for men, women, and kids. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PFNKar at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher R. Reilly, Esq. Michael A. Pineiro, Esq. MARCUS RASHBAUM PINEIRO & MEYERS LLP 2 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2530 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 402-9050 E-mail: mpineiro@mrpfirm.com creilly@mrpfirm.com - and - Brian Levin, Esq. Jacob Polin, Esq. LEVIN LAW, P.A. 2665 S. Bayshore Dr., Ph. 2B Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 400-4260 E-mail: brian@levinlawpa.com jpolin@levinlawpa.com REDDIT INC: Roseman Sues Over Removal of Directors Under DGCL ------------------------------------------------------------- JACOB ROSEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. REDDIT, INC., Case No. 2026-0704 (Del. Ch., June 1, 2026) is a verified stockholder class action complaint against Reddit under the Delaware General Corporation Law. The Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of Reddit, Inc. purports to prohibit stockholders from removing a director(s) designated by Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. unless Advance consents to removal. Section 141(k), however, guarantees that the holders of a majority of the shares then entitled to vote at an election of directors may remove directors, with or without cause, subject to two discrete exceptions that are not relevant here. There is no allowance for a corporation to impose a veto power on top of this mandatory term, through charter language or otherwise. Recognizing that this facial statutory violation was readily curable, Plaintiff, through his counsel, made a demand upon the Company's board of directors to take steps to eliminate the offensive provision via letter dated April 29, 2026. On May 7, 2026, counsel for Plaintiff received an email from "Reddit Legal Support (Reddit Legal) with the subject line "[Reddit Support] Re: Your request sent to Reddit Support”" (the "Rejection"). The rejection bears indicia of having been drafted with generative artificial intelligence reaching an ultimate legal conclusion that no sentient being could reasonably draw. The complaint alleges that the Company has maintained a provision in Article VI.C of the Charter that purports to make director removal contingent upon the consent of Advance and therefore violates Section 141(k). The Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the foregoing provision is invalid and unenforceable under Delaware law. As a result of the Company's violation of Delaware law, Plaintiff and the Class have been and will be injured. The Plaintiff, a stockholder of the Company, brings this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Rules of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on behalf of all similarly situated holders of shares of Reddit Class A common stock. Reddit operates a website, reddit.com, on which users post to a network of message boards.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William J. Fields, Esq. Christopher J. Kupka, Esq. Samir Shukurov, Esq. FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP 141 Tompkins Ave, Suite 404 Pleasantville, NY 10570 Telephone: (212) 231-1500 - and - D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. KASKELA LAW LLC 18 Campus Blvd., Suite 100 Newtown Square, PA 19073 Telephone: (484) 258-1585 - and - F. Troupe Mickler IV, Esq. ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A. 500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 654-1888 E-mail: tmickler@ashbygeddes.com REGAL CINEMAS: Garza Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Employees ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PORFIRIO GARZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. REGAL CINEMAS, INC., a foreign profit corporation; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 2:25-cv-01941-KKE (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class defined as: "All current and former employees of Regal who worked in Washington and earned less than twice the applicable state minimum hourly wage from Sept. 4, 2022, through the date notice is provided to the class." Certification is warranted because Garza and all class members earned less than twice minimum wage and were subject to identical outside employment restrictions and noncompetition covenants. Accordingly, the Court should grant class certification, appoint Garza as class representative, appoint his counsel as class counsel, and order that notice be issued to the class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 23(c). In October 2023, Regal hired Garza to work as a runner at its Cinebarre theatre in Mountlake Terrace, Washington. Regal operates one of the largest theatre circuits in the country, consisting of 5,386 screens in 394 theatres. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Gdp6Yr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. Hannah M. Hamley, Esq. EMERY | REDDY, PC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 442-9106 Facsimile: (206) 441-9711 E-mail: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com hannah@emeryreddy.com RICOH USA: Mike The Printer Seeks to Strike Saad's Declaration -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKE THE PRINTER, INC., a California corporation, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RICOH USA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-08192-JFW-AYP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on July 13, 2026, at 1:30 p.m., will move under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert to strike the declaration of Ali Saad, Ph.D., in support of the Defendant's response in opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and motion to strike the declaration of G. Michael Phillips, Ph.D. Dr. Saad provides a variety of opinions irrelevant at the class certification stage. He critiques Dr. Phillips' damages calculations and extrapolation by focusing on the execution of Dr. Phillips' methodology, not the reliability of the methodology itself. Such a critique is inappropriate at the class certification stage, the suit says. To the extent the Court finds that customer choice may bear on a customer's duty to mitigate, the Court should still exclude these opinions as speculative and untethered to class members. Dr. Saad provides no examples of class members who were aware of the breach and elected not to terminate their contracts. These opinions should therefore be excluded as irrelevant to Rule 23 considerations, the suit adds. The Plaintiff moved for class certification on Feb. 20, 2026, attaching with its motion the Declaration of Dr. G. Michael Phillips and Dr. Phillips' expert report. Ricoh is an information management and digital services company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lbvtZz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Panish, Esq. Jesse Creed, Esq. PANISH | SHEA | RAVIPUDI LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, California 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: panish@panish.law jcreed@panish.law RUGSUSA LLC: Hong Allowed to Amend Complaint -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNA HONG, v. RUGSUSA, LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-08799-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to amend complaint. Ms. Hong shall file the proposed amended complaint as a standalone docket entry by noon on May 29, 2026. The Defendant shall file a responsive pleading within 28 days from the date of Hong's amended complaint filing. If the Defendant files an answer, discovery will close July 31, 2026, and the Plaintiffs' deadline to file a motion for class certification will be Sept. 4, 2026. If RugsUSA files a Rule 12 motion, the parties shall meet and confer and propose a remaining case schedule within seven days after the order resolving RugsUSA's motion. The Court orders that the written discovery propounded on Ms. Hong by RugsUSA shall be deemed effectively propounded on the two newly-named Plaintiffs as of today. The two newly-named Plaintiffs shall ensure that their responses to written discovery are timely produced and that they are available for depositions in a timely manner. Any further requests for written discovery from the new Plaintiffs to RugsUSA shall be limited to the individual facts of those Plaintiffs' purchases. The Defendant sells home furnishings and decor products. A copy of the Court's order dated May 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Iyeh43 at no extra charge.[CC] SAGE HOME: Denies Opportunity to Correct Application, Bradford Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- RADLEY BRADFORD, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAGE HOME LOANS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-04201 (S.D. Tex., May 27, 2026) is a class action seeking redress for violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA"). The complaint relates that in May 2026, Plaintiff applied for a home equity line of credit from Defendant. On May 10, 2026, Plaintiff received an email from Defendant denying Plaintiff's credit application. The email contained a letter that provided the reasons for the credit denial ("adverse action letter") stating: "Credit Application Incomplete". The adverse action letter failed to identify the specific reasons for the denial, and failed to specify why the application was incomplete. The Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff with a reasonable period of time for the applicant to provide the information; and failed to inform the applicant that failure to provide the information requested will result in no further consideration being given to the application. Accordingly, Plaintiff was unable to address or correct the alleged deficiencies that Defendant based its denial on. The Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of Defendant's violations of the ECOA, says the suit. Plaintiff RADLEY BRADFORD is an African-American consumer and a natural person, over 18-years-of-age, residing in Houston, Texas. Defendant SAGE HOME LOANS CORPORATION is an online lender that provides home loans to consumers across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy D. Hogan, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD 2500 S Highland Ave, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: (630) 575-8181 E-mail: thogan@atlaslawcenter.com SANTANDER CONSUMER: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Jan. 15, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY L. COOK, V. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-01521-RJC (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Colville entered an order setting discovery and class certification briefing schedule as follows: 1. The parties shall move to add new parties or amend the pleadings by June 1, 2026. 2. The parties shall complete class-certification discovery by Oct. 2, 2026. 3. The Plaintiffs expert reports on class-certification are due on or before Oct. 16, 206. 4. The Defendant's expert reports as to class-certification are due on or before Nov. 16, 2026. 5. Depositions of class certification experts are due on or before Dec. 23, 2026. 6. The Plaintiffs motion for class certification, memorandum in support, and all supporting evidence are due on or before Jan. 15, 2027. 7. The Defendant's memorandum in opposition to class certification and all supporting evidence are due on or before Feb. 15, 2027. 8. The Plaintiff's reply memorandum in support of class certification, if any, is due on or before Mar. 1, 2027. The Defendant specializes in automotive financing for dealers and consumers. A copy of the Court's order dated May 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0lh9nY at no extra charge.[CC] SELECT PORTFOLIO: Class Cert Bid in Hardnett Suit Due Oct 23 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as HARDNETT v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-01534 (D.D.C., Filed ay 24, 2024), the Hon. Judge Amir H. Ali entered an order on motion for extension of time to complete discovery set/reset deadlines : The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is due by October 23, 2026. The Defendant's opposition to motion for class certification is due by December 11, 2026. The Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion for class certification is due by January 15, 2027. Within 21 days of the court's ruling on certification, the parties shall meet, confer, and file a joint status report advising the court whether (a) the parties request referral for mediation; (b) the parties request a date for a pretrial conference; (c) dispositive motions are anticipated and, if so, proposing a briefing schedule; and (d) additional discovery is needed and proposing a schedule for such discovery. The nature of suit states Consumer Credit. Select is a loan servicing company.[CC] SHEIN US: Jones Sues Over Fraudulent Pricing and Phantom Discounts ------------------------------------------------------------------ ASHLEY JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHEIN US SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-05012 (N.D. Cal., May 27, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practice of advertising fictitious prices and corresponding phantom discounts on its merchandise. According to the complaint, Shein utilizes a false and misleading reference price in the marketing and selling of Shein branded and/or trademarked merchandise sold on its website. The Plaintiff made numerous purchases on Defendant's website in reliance on the "sale" and "reference" pricing Defendant advertised for the merchandise she purchased, believing she was receiving a large discount for her purchases based on those advertisements. If Plaintiff had known the reference prices were fictitious and the sale was illusory, she would not have made the purchases on Defendant's website. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of other similarly situated consumers who have purchased one or more items on Shein's online store that were deceptively represented as discounted from false former reference prices. Plaintiff seeks to halt the dissemination of this false, misleading, and deceptive pricing scheme, to correct the false and misleading perception Shein has created in the minds of consumers, and obtain redress for those who have purchased merchandise tainted by this deceptive pricing scheme. Plaintiff also seeks to enjoin Shein from using false and misleading misrepresentations regarding retail price comparisons in its labeling and advertising permanently. Further, Plaintiff seeks to obtain damages, restitution, and other appropriate relief in the amount by which Shein was unjustly enriched as a result of its sales of merchandise offered a false discount. Plaintiff also seeks reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5, as this lawsuit seeks the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest and satisfies the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys' fees. Plaintiff Ashley Jones is a California citizen residing in the County of Los Angeles who made purchases on Defendant's website. Defendant SHEIN US Services, LLC operates and maintains an online store offering various lines of clothing, handbags, shoes, jewelry, accessories, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Theodore W. Maya, Esq. Lisa Cintron, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Ave., Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com lcintron@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Bradley K. 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 SHUTTERSTOCK INC: Seeks to File Unredacted Versions of Opposition ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cynthia Herrick et al. v. Shutterstock, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03191-JPC-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order allowing it to file unredacted versions of the Opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification and unredacted versions of Exhibits 3-12, 16, and 20-35 to the declaration of Sarah E. Burns in support of the opposition. With respect to the Opposition, the only information Shutterstock seeks to seal is certain revenue information that it does not publicly disclose. If publicly disclosed, this information would reveal to Shutterstock's competitors and customers sensitive financial information that would undermine its ability to offer its services and compete in the market. With respect to the exhibits, Shutterstock seeks to seal personally identifying information of third parties (including, inter alia, email addresses, physical addresses and telephone numbers from communications with putative class members). Shutterstock is a media technology company that provides social networking platforms. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ev3vTj at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: James Rosenfeld, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 21st Floor, 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020-1104 Telephone: (212) 603-6455 Facsimile: (212) 489-8340 E-mail: jamesrosenfeld@dwt.com SIMONMED IMAGING: Court Extends Discovery Deadlines --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lawrence E. Schwanke, D.C., individually and as a representative of a class of similarly situated persons and entities, v. SimonMed Imaging LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01759-DGC (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Campbell entered an order granting the parties' joint request for an extension of discovery deadlines. The Court enters the following Amended Case Management order to govern the litigation in this case. The parties are advised the Court will not be inclined to grant further extensions. 1. Initial disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) shall be exchanged no later than Jan. 16, 2026. 2. The deadline for completing fact discovery, including discovery by subpoena, shall be Sept. 24, 2026. 3. Expert depositions shall be completed no later than Jan. 14, 2027. 4. The class certification motion will be filed by Feb. 4, 2027. Simonmed provides diagnostic imaging services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8bIYIE at no extra charge.[CC] SKYWEST AIRLINES: Campbell Seeks to Certify Employee Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALLISON CAMPBELL and HARMONY A. WOOD, individuals, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-02141-TWR-SBC (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Aug. 6, 2026, at 1:30 p.m., will move pursuant to Section 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure for an order as follows: 1. Certification of the "Class" defined as: "all individuals employed by SkyWest Airlines, Inc. ("Defendant") in California and classified as California based flight attendants during the period of Aug. 22, 2023 to the date of the order granting Class Certification." 2. Appointment of Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP and Lavi and Ebrahimian, LLP as Class Counsel. 3. Approving the designation of Allison Campbell and Harmony A. Wood as the Class Representatives. The Plaintiff brings the third cause of action for statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation of Labor Code section 226. In compliance with Hon. Todd W. Robinson's Civil Standing Order sectionIII(A)(1), the Plaintiffs represent that on April 30, 2026, the Parties met and conferred by zoom in good faith to attempt to resolve their issues regarding the grounds for this Motion. SkyWest is an American regional airline headquartered in St. George, Utah. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xIkmeb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq. Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. Christine T. LeVu, Esq. Adolfo Sanchez Contreras, Esq. BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858)551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 E-mail: norm@bamlawca.com kyle@bamlawca.com AJ@bamlawca.com nick@bamlawca.com christine@bamlawca.com adolfo@bamlawca.com SODEXO SA: Platt Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT PLATT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SODEXO, S.A. and SODEXO, INC. Case No. 8:22-cv-02211-DOC-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on July 27, 2026 at 8:30 a.m., will move the Court, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, for an order certifying the following classes: 1. The Statutory Violation Class, defined as: "All persons within the United States who paid Sodexo's nicotine surcharge from Dec.8, 2018, through the date of the class certification order." 2. The Plan Terms Violation Class, defined as: "All persons within the United States who paid Sodexo's nicotine surcharge from Jan. 1, 2014, through the date of the class certification order." 3. The Plan Fiduciary Duty Class, defined as: "All persons within the United States who paid Sodexo's nicotine surcharge from Dec. 8, 2016, through the date of the class certification order." The Plaintiff satisfies the elements of Rule 23(a) because there are thousands of members of the Class; there are common claims of fact and law among the Class; the Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those in the Class; and the Plaintiff, as class representative, and his counsel are adequate to represent the interests of the Class. The Plaintiff further moves to designate Robert Platt as Class Representative and appoint George A. Hanson, Alexander T. Ricke, and Caleb J. Wagner of Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP; Ryan L. McClelland of McClelland Law Firm, P.C.; and Jason S. Hartley and Jason M. Lindner of Hartley LLP as Class Counsel. Sodexo is a French-based, multinational corporation founded in 1966 by Pierre Bellon. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ThZM7Q at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Hartley, Esq. Jason M. Lindner, Esq. HARTLEY LLP 101 West Broadway, Suite 820 San Diego, CA 92010 Telephone: (619) 400-5822 E-mail: Hartley@HartleyLLP.com Lindner@HartleyLLP.com Ryan L. McClelland, Esq. McCLELLAND LAW FIRM, P.C. The Flagship Building 200 Westwoods Drive Liberty, MO 64068 Telephone: (816) 781-0002 E-mail: Ryan@McClellandLawFirm.com - and - Alexander T. Ricke, Esq. George A. Hanson, Esq. Caleb J. Wagner, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO Telephone: (816) 714-7100 E-mail: Ricke@StueveSiegel.com Hanson@StueveSiegel.com Wagner@StueveSiegel.com SYNERGY ONE: Loan Application Denial Violates ECOA, Bradford Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- RADLEY BRADFORD, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SYNERGY ONE LENDING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-04185 (S.D. Tex., May 27, 2026) is a class action seeking redress for violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA"). Defendant SYNERGY ONE LENDING, INC. is an online lender that provides loans and credit to consumers across the United States. The complaint relates that in April 2026, Plaintiff applied for a Home Equity Line of Credit from Defendant. On April 14, 2026, Plaintiff received an email from Defendant denying Plaintiff's credit application. The email contained a letter that provided the reasons for the credit denial ("adverse action letter") stating: "Credit Application Incomplete" The adverse action letter failed to identify the specific reasons for the denial, and failed to specify why the application was incomplete. On April 28, 2026, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant's address listed within the adverse action letter, requesting that Defendant provide more details regarding reason(s) for the credit denial. Plaintiff's letter was returned due to non-delivery. The Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff with specific information as to why his application was incomplete and what would be needed to complete the application; failed to provide Plaintiff with a reasonable period of time for the applicant to provide the information; and failed to inform the applicant that failure to provide the information requested will result in no further consideration being given to the application. Accordingly, Plaintiff was unable to address or correct the alleged deficiencies that Defendant based its denial on. The Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of Defendant's violations of the ECOA, says the suit. Plaintiff RADLEY BRADFORD is an African-American consumer and a natural person, over 18-years-of-age, residing in Houston, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy D. Hogan, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD 2500 S Highland Ave, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: (630) 575-8181 E-mail: thogan@atlaslawcenter.com VITAL HEALTHCARE: Underpays Healthcare Workers, McCaffery Says -------------------------------------------------------------- TAIT MCCAFFERY, on behalf of himself and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VITAL HEALTHCARE STAFFING INC., a Nebraska corporation; DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-05001 (N.D. Cal., May 27, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly pay Plaintiff and others similarly situated all overtime wages, premium wages for meal periods not provided or rest periods not authorized, paid time off, sick pay, and any other wages based on the regular rate of pay. The complaint relates that the Defendant recruits and hires healthcare workers from across the country. The positions include, but are not limited to, MRI and X-Ray Technologists, Registered Nurses (RNs), Licensed Vocational Nurses (LVNs), and Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) ("Travelers"). When assigned to a California facility, such as Natividad Medical Center, Travelers, including Plaintiff, must sign a standard form contract that provides them with compensation information and other terms of employment. Plaintiff and other Travelers then temporarily relocate to the assigned area. Defendants pay Travelers, including Plaintiff, housing and meal per diems, in addition to hourly wages. Defendants retain authority, according to the required form contract, to reduce the per diems for any scheduled hours not worked by Travelers. Defendants have a uniform policy not to include amounts paid for housing and meals when determining an employee's regular rate of pay. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff was underpaid in each pay period of his assignment as a result of Defendants' uniform policy, including his first pay period ending April 5, 2025. During each workweek of his assignment, Defendants expected Plaintiff to use, and Plaintiff did use, his personal cell phone for business related purposes, including communicating with supervisors, managers, and employees performing human resources functions for Defendants, and for the California facility it assigned him to. Though Plaintiff and Travelers use their personal cell phones, Defendants have no policy to, and do not, reimburse employees for reasonable and necessary business expenses incurred in direct consequence of the discharge of their duties, including personal cell phone use, says the suit. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class, seeks unpaid wages, liquidated damages, equitable relief, prejudgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and any other relief this Court deems proper. Plaintiff TAIT MCCAFFERY worked as an MRI Technologist for VHS at Natividad Medical Center, in Salinas, California, from March 31, 2025 through August 15, 2025. Defendant Vital Healthcare Staffing, Inc. is a healthcare staffing company employing hourly health care workers for short-term travel assignments throughout California. Does 1 through 10, inclusive, are persons or entities whose true names and identities are unknown to Plaintiff, and are sued by fictitious names.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Isam C. Khoury, Esq. Jeff Geraci, Esq. COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER 605 C Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 595-3001 Facsimile: (619) 595-3000 E-mail: msinger@ckslaw.com E-mail: jgeraci@ckslaw.com - and - Walter L. Haines, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP 8605 Santa Monica Blvd., #63354 West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (562) 256-1047 Facsimile: (562) 256-1006 E-mail: whaines@uelglaw.com WORKDAY INC: Bid to Compel Production of Bias-Testing Data Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEREK L. MOBLEY, et al., v. WORKDAY, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00770-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler entered an order denying the motion to compel production of Workday's bias-testing data and its customers' applicant data. Attorney-client privilege applies to the bias-testing data because Workday’s attorneys curated the underlying data and used the results in providing legal advice. The plaintiffs have not shown that Workday has control of its customers' data under Rule 34. The court orders production of Workday's EEO-1 and OFCCP documents. They are relevant to Workday's knowledge of potential demographic disparities when utilizing the AI tools, and Workday has not shown sufficient burden to warrant denying the discovery. The court terminates the letter brief addressing deanonymizing applicant data as moot because the plaintiffs admitted in similar discovery requests to third parties that they do not need the data deanonymized. This order resolves ECF Nos. 310, 314, and 319. The plaintiffs in this employment-discrimination case and putative class action are suing Workday, Inc., for utilizing an AI screening system that is more likely to deny applicants who are African American, suffer from disabilities, or are over 40 years old. Workday is an American on‑demand (cloud-based) financial management, human capital management, and student information system software vendor. A copy of the Court's order dated May 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iXuVHv at no extra charge.[CC] ********* 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 ***