260611.mbx

260611.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, June 11, 2026, Vol. 28, No. 116 Headlines ABBOTT DIABETES: Class Certification Filing in Taylor Due July 21 ADIDAS AMERICA: Downs Sues Over Unlawful Tariff Retention AGI GROUND: Martinez Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Advance Notice ALPHABET INC: Appeals Class Cert. Order in AMI Suit to 9th Circuit ALPHABET INC: Marin Sues Over Failure to Protect Information AMAZON.COM INC: Removes Johns Suit to C.D. Calif. AMAZON.COM INC: Sigwalt Sues Over Unlawful Installation of Cameras AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Duncan Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Ill. AMB MEDIA: Stanley Sues Over False Discount Prices AME CHURCH: Court Certifies Additional Claims in Class Suit AMERICAN HONDA: Cars Have Defective Starter Motors, Bodney Alleges AMERICAN MEDICAL: Joint Bid to Extend Discovery Deadlines Tossed AMERICAN TRENCH: Wilson Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over AirTag Tracking Devices ASCENSION HEALTH: Whitmore Files Suit Over Unpaid Wages ASSOCIATED PRESS: Tasker Sues Over Interception Technologies ASTOR & STONE: Faces Sanchez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. AT&T MOBILITY: Wesneski Balks at Failure to Pay Wages, OT ATOM COMPUTING: Faces Chavez Suit Over "Bait & Switch" Scheme BANQUE DU LIBAN: Najjar Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 3rd Cir. BAREFOOT DREAMS: Agrees to Settle Data Sharing Suit for $1.9MM BAREFOOT DREAMS: Settles Information Sharing Class Suit for $1.9MM BARNHART CRANE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Briceno Says BARNHART CRANE: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Brooks Says BEACON MUTUAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Gifford Alleges BIG TOYS GREEN: Ford Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BLUE TEAL: Faces McCowin Suit Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info BRIDLE TRAILS: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach BURGESS INFORMATION: Bradford Suit Moved to D. Minnesota CAESARS VIRGINIA: Court Tosses "Fowler" FLSA Overtime Claim CALYX & COROLLA: Lopez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind CAPITAL ONE: Loiacano Sues Over Unjustly Denied Earned Credit Card CIRCLE INTERNET: Newton Sues Over Cryptocurrency Transactions COREWELL HEALTH: Faces Class Suit Over Fraudulent Debt Collection COTY INC: Booker Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website DEANCO HEALTHCARE: $1.54MM Settlement Final OK Hearing Set Sept. 9 DEARBRIGHTLY INC: Tesch Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind DEVON ENERGY: Fails to Provide Check Stub Info, Wake Energy Says DIPLOMAT GOLF: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Alleges DOLLAR GENERAL: Shareholder Suit Pending, Derivative Suit Stayed DOLLAR TREE: Hearne Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DOTERRA INTERNATIONAL: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website EMPOWER GROUP: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Baldwin Says EPISCIENCES INC: Ramirez Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website ERMI LLC: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Dovberg Says ESR LLC: Wilson Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ETHIKA INC: Evans Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FABLETICS INC: Blaise Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messaging FIGURE LENDING: Nouri Sues Over Unauthorized Telephone Recordings FIVEPOINT CREDIT: Bradford Sues Over Illegal Credit Denial FLOORINGINC LLC: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Mueller Claims FRANK & ADAM APPAREL: Davis Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FREMONT CONTRACT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Luna Suit Alleges FRESH WATER SYSTEMS: Illegally Collects Personal Info, Yardley Says FROST BANK: Removes Donaie Class Suit to W.D. Tex. FROST BANK: Removes Hinojosa Suit to W.D. Tex. GASTRO HEALTH: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Telsey Suit Says GENERAC HOLDINGS: City Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 7th Cir. GEOLOGICS CORP: Agrees to Data Breach Class Action Settlement GL PARTNERS: Ramos-Williams Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages GLOBE LIFE: Amendment of Class Cert Briefing Schedule Sought GORILLA GLUE: Miscalculates Overtime Wages, Gabbard Says GRAIL INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit for Misleading Investors GREAT WOLF: Prout Sues Over Use of Toxic Synthetic Fragrances GRIFFIN FUNDING: Bradford Sues Over ECOA Violations GUARANTEED RATE: Faces Bradford Suit Over ECOA Violations HELEN OF TROY: Faces Atlanta Suit Over Share Price Drop HELEN OF TROY: Faces Class Action Suit for Misleading Investors HIMS & HERS: Merrill Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Text Messages HOME SECURITY: Echols Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website HOMETAP EQUITY PARTNERS: Ruane Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania HOSPITAL SERVICES: Rios Files FCRA Suit in D. New Mexico HOT TOPIC: Gallo Sues Over Misleading Discount Promotions HUMANEDGE INC: Purvis Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info IAC INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Defreitas Says INDUSTRIAL ACCEPTANCE: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Mayo Alleges J.M. SMUCKER: Faces Class Suit Over Hot Fudge Topping's False Ads KINDRED BRANDS: Echols Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website KOBY EMPIRE: Transmits Mobile App User Data to Meta, Savage Says KOCH FERTILIZER: Conspires to Fix NPK Fertilizer Prices, Suit Says KURU FOOTWEAR: McLean Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind LABORATORY CORP: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $35MM LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING: Idris Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LANE 201 BOUTIQUE: Ford Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website LEADER FREIGHT: Williams Sues Over Illegally Deducted Wages LISINSKI LAW: Faces Ortega Suit Over RICO Violations LPL FINANCIAL: Brown Class Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA LUCKY JOE'S: Udeme Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls M. LEONARD: Battle Sues Over Blind User-Inaccessible Website MANITOBA: Judge OKs $129MM Solitary Confinement Class Settlement MARKLEY LOWELL: Delgrosso Sues Over Excessive Data Center Noise MARS INC: Removes Martinez Suit to C.D. Calif. MAXEM HEALTH: Underpays Family Nurse Practitioners, Shows Claims MAZA LIQUORS: Evans Sues Over Website's Non-Compliance with ADA MCDONALD'S CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Worm Contamination in Sodas MER-SEA & CO: Murphy Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC: Wygle Seeks Refund of IEEPA Tariff Charges MINUS-8 INC: Lopez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind MISSION MERCANTILE: Ramirez Sues Over Website's Access Barriers MIZUBA CORPORATION: Barlow Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website NATERA INC: Klein Sues Over PGT-A Testing's Misrepresentation NEWREZ LLC: Fails to Provide Mortgage Payoff Statements, Suit Says OAKLAND COUNTY, MI: Forfeits Real Property Without Due Process ONSITE MAMMOGRAPHY: $2.5MM Settlement Final Hearing Set Sept. 9 OSHKOSH CORP: Fountain Valley Balks at Fire Truck Market Monopoly OUTLAW DIP: Evans Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website PACIFIC OAK: Continues to Defend Bondholder Class, Derivative Suits PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Public Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 3rd Cir. PENDULUM THERAPEUTICS: Echols Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Grohol Suit Over Mass Malpractice PICS NV: Faces Class Action Suit for Misleading Investors Over IPO PLAYA BOWLS BOCA: Diaz Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messaging PRIMMER PIPER: Court Denies Motion to Compel in Data Breach Suit PROFESSIONAL PARKING: Illegally Collects Personal Info, Stefek Says PROVEN WINNERS DIRECT: Cruz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website REGAL REXNORD: Clubhouse Trailer Sues Over Defective HD Actuators RIGETTI & CO: Faces Conner Suit Over Alleged Bait & Switch Scheme ROBERT BOSCH: Daniel's Balks at HVAC Equipment Price Conspiracy ROOTS AMERICA: Faces Murphy Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SHERWIN-WILLIAMS MANUFACTURING: Faces Class Suit Over Plant Odors SILVER BUYER: Murphy Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users SPORTRADAR GROUP: Faces Smale Suit Over Share Price Drop SPORTSMAN'S WAREHOUSE: Higley Deal Reached, Derivative Suit Stayed STATE FARM: Removes Leifester Class Suit to W.D. Wash. STONE LEGACY: Mhatre Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages SUSAN ALEXANDRA: Lopez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store TAGPUAN BAKERY: Almonte Seeks Wages, OT Pay Under FLSA, NYLL TAL EDUCATION: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Securities Fraud TESLA INC: Faces Class Action Over Heat Pump Failure in Quebec TILEVERA LLC: Faces Lamperis Suit Over Website's Access Barriers TOLL BROTHERS: Intercepts User Data Without Consent, Meeks Claims TRANSGLOBAL INSURANCE: Zacharias Sues Over Failure to Secure Info TRUMAN BOOT COMPANY: Booker Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website TUCKERNUCK INC: McWhirter Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website TUNNELL COMPANIES: Fails to Prevent Data Brach, Lathbury Says TURBO HOLDINGS: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Lamperis Claims UNION PACIFIC: Loses Bid to Dismiss TCE Contamination Suit UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Emerson Alleges UP FINTECH: Rosen Laws Investigates Potential Securities Claims UPSTEP LLC: Cole Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website VERITONE INC: Elwan Alleges Federal Securities Law Violations VIRTUAL PROFIT: Mollins Class Suit Removed to E.D.N.Y. WALMAN OPTICAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Urban Claims WATCHISMO LLC: Lopez Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website WELLS FARGO: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Class Cert Reply Brief WHALECO INC: Wade Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Messages WHOLE FOODS: Vickers Sues Over Facility's Use of Toxic Fragrances WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Battle Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website WOOF PET: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Ramirez Suit Alleges ZIMMER US: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, McDowell Suit Alleges ZOETIS INC: Ann Arbor RHC Suit Over Securities Law Violations ********* ABBOTT DIABETES: Class Certification Filing in Taylor Due July 21 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR, et al., v. ABBOTT DIABETES CARE INC., et al., Case No. 4:26-cv-00003-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered a scheduling order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and Civil Local Rule 16-10 as follows: Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file July 2, 2026 consolidated complaint: Deadline for Rule 26(a)(1) initial Aug. 3, 2026 disclosures: Substantial completion of discovery: April 22, 2027 Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file a motion July 21, 2027 for class certification and disclose all class certification experts and all class certification reports they intend to rely on in support of their motion for class certification: Hearing on class certification: Jan. 6, 2028 at 2:00 p.m. Abbott specializes in glucose monitoring device design and manufacturing with data analytics. A copy of the Court's order dated May 27, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KFM3sG at no extra charge.[CC] ADIDAS AMERICA: Downs Sues Over Unlawful Tariff Retention --------------------------------------------------------- AMBER DOWNS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ADIDAS AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-01008-JR (D. Or., May 20, 2026) arises from Adidas's retention of an unjustified profit created by unlawful tariffs imposed by the federal government of the United States under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Beginning in roughly February 2025, the United States government imposed tariffs later found to be illegal on imports from numerous countries. As a result, American consumers paid higher retail prices imposed by retailers like Defendant for consumer goods after the tariffs were imposed. The Supreme Court eventually held that these tariffs were illegal. Importers and retailers like Defendant became entitled to refunds of the duties they had previously paid to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this action on behalf of thousands of consumers who purchased goods from Adidas who paid inflated prices reflecting Adidas' increased prices based on Adidas' pass-through of the tariffs. The Plaintiff seeks restitution of the tariff overcharges, together with declaratory and monetary relief. Headquartered in Portland, OR, Adidas America, Inc. manufactures and sells sportswear, apparel, shoes, and related retail products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan R. Ring, Esq. STRANCH JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 3100 W. Charleston, Ste.208 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Telephone: 725-235-9750 E-mail: lasvegas@stranchlaw.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. Michael Tackeff, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com mtackeff@stranchlaw.com AGI GROUND: Martinez Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Advance Notice ----------------------------------------------------------------- DAILY MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AGI GROUND, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-23884 (S.D. Fla., June 2, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act. The case arises from the Defendant's action of terminating the employment of the Plaintiff and similarly situated airport employees as a result of a mass layoff ordered by the Defendant on May 2, 2026, without providing adequate advance notice as required by the WARN Act. AGI Ground, Inc. is an airport services provider headquartered in Miami, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy L. Judkins, Esq. NORMAND, JUDKINS & COUCH, PLLC 3165 McCrory Place, Suite 175 Orlando, FL 32803 Telephone: (407) 603-6031 Email: a.judkins@njc.law - and - Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Avenue Suite 500 Burbank, CA 95105 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 ALPHABET INC: Appeals Class Cert. Order in AMI Suit to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ ALPHABET, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled AMI - Government Employees Provident Fund Management Company Ltd., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Alphabet, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01186-RFL, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' misrepresentation of Google's digital advertising auctions artificially maintained Alphabet's stock price, thereby violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. On Oct. 30, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Rita F. Lin granted on May 18, 2026. The Court finds that the Defendants have not disproven back-end price impact from the first and last corrective disclosures within the class period. And those two incidents of back-end price impact support the Plaintiffs' theory that the alleged misrepresentation maintained the initial stock price at the front end. The appellate case is styled as AMI - Government Employees Provident Fund Management Company Ltd., et al. v. Alphabet, Inc., et al., Case No. 26-3548, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 1, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents AMI - GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND MANAGEMENT COMPANY LTD., et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Jeremy Lieberman, Esq. Emma Gilmore, Esq. Villi Shteyn, Esq. Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. Orly Guy, Esq. Eitan Lavie, Esq. 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com egilmore@pomlaw.com vshteyn@pomlaw.com jpafiti@pomlaw.com oguy@pomlaw.com eitan@pomlaw.com Defendants-Petitioners ALPHABET, INC., et al. are represented by: Boris Feldman, Esq. Doru Gavril, Esq. Elena Hadjimichael, Esq. Carl Hudson, Esq. J. Mia Tsui, Esq. FRESHFIELDS US LLP 855 Main Street Redwood City, CA 94063 Telephone: (650) 618-9250 Email: boris.feldman@freshfields.com doru.gavril@freshfields.com elena.hadjimichael@freshfields.com carl.hudson@freshfields.com mia.tsui@freshfields.com ALPHABET INC: Marin Sues Over Failure to Protect Information ------------------------------------------------------------ Carol Marin, Philip Rogers, Alison Flowers, Robin Amer, Lindsey Dorcus, Yohance Lacour, and Victoria Nassif, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALPHABET, INC., a Delaware corporation, and GOOGLE LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case: 1:26-cv-05436 (N.D. Ill., May 11, 2026), is brought under the Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), alleging Google's unlawful collection, retention, commercial exploitation, dissemination, and failure to protect from disclosure of their voiceprints without notice, informed written consent, a written release, or any publicly available retention and destruction policy applicable to non-users. Google's noncompliance was not a misreading of the statute. Google has been a repeat defendant in BIPA cases. It paid approximately $100 million to settle BIPA claims arising from Google Photos' face grouping feature. In October 2025, it paid $8.75 million to settle BIPA claims that it built voice and face models from Illinois schoolchildren using Google Workspace for Education without notice or consent. Nor was Google's noncompliance a failure of capability. For its consumer voice-cloning products, Custom Voice and Chirp 3 Instant Custom Voice, Google built a comprehensive consent infrastructure. The voiceprints Google extracted from Plaintiffs are not stored in a database that can be deleted on request. They are encoded in the parameters of Google's commercial voice models and reproduced in the audio that those models generate. At this point, the biometric data and the product are the same thing. The Plaintiffs' injuries are concrete and particularized. Google extracted their voiceprints without notice or consent, depriving them of the right BIPA guarantees to make an informed decision about the collection and use of their biometric data. Google retains those voiceprints in its commercial models and continues to profit from them. The voiceprints cannot be recovered or replaced. The technology built on those voiceprints now displaces Plaintiffs in the markets where they earn their living, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are seven Illinois residents whose recorded voices are among the most distinguished in their fields. Alphabet Inc. and Google LLC engaged jointly in the conduct alleged in this Complaint.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ross Kimbarovsky, Esq. Jon Loevy, Esq. Michael Kanovitz, Esq. Matthew Topic, Esq. Aaron Tucek, Esq. LOEVY & LOEVY 311 North Aberdeen, 3rd Floor Chicago, IL 60607 Phone: 312.243.5900 Fax: 312.243.5902 Email: ross@loevy.com jon@loevy.com mike@loevy.com matt@loevy.com aaron@loevy.com AMAZON.COM INC: Removes Johns Suit to C.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of STEPHEN N. JOHNS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC.; AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino (Case No. CIVSB2610423) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 26, 2026. The clerk of court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-02833. The case is assigned to Sunshine Suzanne Sykes and referred to Magistrate Sheri Pym. Amazon Inc. offers online shopping services. The Company retails products such as television, computers, shoes, jewellery, books, toys, video games, grocery, clothing, and other products. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Andrew P. Frederick, Esq. Dominic D. Sbrocca, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1400 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1124 Telephone: (650) 843-4000 Facsimile: (650) 843-4001 Email: andrew.frederick@morganlewis.com dominic.sbrocca@morganlewis.com AMAZON.COM INC: Sigwalt Sues Over Unlawful Installation of Cameras ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHARLES SIGWALT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC. and RING LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-01887 (W.D. Wash., June 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Virginia's Consumer Protection Act of 1977, Virginia Appropriation Law, and Virginia's Computer Crimes Act, intrusion upon seclusion, gross negligence/negligence per se, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' invasion of the privacy rights of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals by installing security cameras using Familiar Faces feature, a facial recognition technology. According to the complaint, the Ring security camera scans the face of all guests and passersby without obtaining prior consent. As a result of the Defendants' conduct, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered damages. Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational technology company, with its principal place of business located in Washington. Ring LLC is a manufacturer of home security systems, with its principal place of business located in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lori G. Feldman, Esq. David L. Hecht, Esq. HECHT PARTNERS LLP 125 Park Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (917) 983-9321 Email: lfeldman@hechtpartners.com dhecht@hechtpartners.com - and - Lina Kaisey, Esq. KAISEY LAW PC 100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700 Santa Monica, CA 90403 Telephone: (858) 774-0819 Email: lina@kaiseylaw.com - and - Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq. YAGMAN PLLC 118-35 Queens Boulevard, Suite 444 New York, NY 11375 Telephone: (929) 709-1493 Email: blake.yagman@yagmanpllc.com AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Duncan Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Ill. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled RAESHEENA DUNCAN, on behalf of herself and other individuals similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2026-CH-03767, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May 21, 2026. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:26-cv-06011 to the proceeding. The case asserts causes of action under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, and seeks unpaid wages, unreimbursed business expenses, treble damages, statutory and pre-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. Headquartered in Seattle, WA, Amazon.com Services LLC is a technology company that operates in the fields of e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital screaming, entertainment, and artificial intelligence. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sari M. Alamuddin, Esq. James P. Walsh, Esq. Amanda J. Witt, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 110 North Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 324-1000 Facsimile: (312) 324-1001 E-mail: sari.alamuddin@morganlewis.com james.walsh@morganlewis.com amanda.witt@morganlewis.com AMB MEDIA: Stanley Sues Over False Discount Prices -------------------------------------------------- ARTHUR STANLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMB MEDIA, LLC, d/b/a LEGACYBOX, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-04720-LB (N.D. Cal., May 19, 2026) is a class action concerning deceptive representations and omissions made by Defendant through its misleading and unlawful pricing, sales and discounting practices on its website, https://www.legacybox.com/ which directly violate the Californias' Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising Law, and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant lists its products as having continuous, substantial discounts, which typically range up to 50% off or more. Additionally, the Defendant lists sitewide "discounts" on its products. These "discounts" are actually false discounts intended to induce consumers like Plaintiff into purchasing Defendant's products, as the products are never actually sold at the higher strikethrough reference prices listed next to the "sale" price. When purchasing the products, the Plaintiff relied on Defendant's misrepresentations that the products were on sale and were previously sold at the former strikethrough price listed next to the sale price. However, these products were not actually sold at the former or regular price listed on the website within the previous three months before the purchase. Therefore, the discount was false, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this proposed class action to put an end to Defendant's illegal conduct. Through this class action lawsuit, the Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, restitution and declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of the proposed Class. AMB Media, LLC, d/b/a Legacybox, markets and sells digitization kits and related services online through the Legacybox website which allows consumers to send in their analog media -- such as videotapes, film reels, photos and audio -- to be digitized.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael H. Pearson, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 788-8300 Facsimile: (818) 788-8104 E-mail: mpearson@pwfirm.com - and - Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW LLP 328 Barry Avenue South, Suite 200 Wayzata, MN 55391 Telephone: (612) 389-0600 Facsimile: (612) 389-0610 E-mail: mweiner@pwfirm.com - and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq. Winston S. Hudson, Esq. JENNINGS & EARLEY PLLC 500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (601) 270-0197 E-mail: chris@jefirm.com tyler@jefirm.com winston@jefirm.com AME CHURCH: Court Certifies Additional Claims in Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned RE: AME Church Employee Retirement Fund Litigation - MDL 3035, Case No. 1:22–md–03035–STA–jay (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=xBcb8l at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN HONDA: Cars Have Defective Starter Motors, Bodney Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ CAROLE BODNEY, MICHAEL SALLOWAY, TABOR MILLER, CAROL WOOD, MANDEEP SINGH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. and HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, LTD., Case No. 2:26-cv-05939 (C.D. Cal., June 2, 2026) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of current and former owners and lessees of 2018-2025 Honda Odyssey vehicles, all of which were sold with the same defective starting system. While starting a modern vehicle can appear simple and instantaneous, there are several steps in the technical process that must occur. Typically, when a driver simultaneously presses a vehicle's brake pedal and ignition button, power is delivered through the vehicle's electrical system from the battery to the starter motor, which then engages the engine's flywheel, the lawsuit says. The flywheel rotates the engine's crankshaft to sufficient speeds to initiate combustion. Once the engine reaches the target idle speed, the starter motor automatically disengages, and the vehicle is started and ready for operation. For this process to properly occur, it is critical that the vehicle battery has sufficient power output and the starter motor has sufficient and efficient torque output. The Class Vehicles lack both, resulting in a failure to start during normal operation. The Defect occurs because the batteries in the Class Vehicles fail to adequately charge during normal operation, resulting in a perpetual low state of charge and lack of sufficient power to crank the engine, says the suit. Additionally, the starter motors in the Class Vehicles prematurely degrade due to heat and age, reducing torque output and resulting in insufficient torque to crank the engine, the suit adds. Plaintiff Bodney owns a 2022 Honda Odyssey, which she purchased new from Norm Reeves Honda in Cerritos, California in August 2021. HONDA MOTOR COMPANY designs, manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells Honda automobiles across the United States. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO. is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Torrance, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Thomas J. O'reardon II, Esq. Paula R. Brown, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 1490 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1100 Facsimile: (619) 338-1101 E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com toreardon@bholaw.com pbrown@bholaw.com - and - Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. Mark Reich, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 33 Whitehall St. 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 E-mail: ek@zlk.com mreich@zlk.com AMERICAN MEDICAL: Joint Bid to Extend Discovery Deadlines Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHEYENNE POST, on behalf of others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-01329-AJB-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Goddard entered an order granting the joint motion to extend discovery deadlines. The Court issues the following first amended scheduling order: 1. The Plaintiff's class certification motion must be filed no later than 30 days after the issuance of an order resolving the Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. 2. The parties must disclose the identity of their respective experts in writing by Sept. 11, 2026. The date for the disclosure of the identity of rebuttal experts must be on or before Oct. 13, 2026. 3. All fact discovery must be completed by all parties on or before Aug. 10, 2026. All expert discovery must be completed by all parties on or before Nov. 13, 2026. 4. All other dispositive motions, including those addressing Daubert issues, must be filed on or before Jan. 5, 2027. 5. A Mandatory Settlement Conference will be conducted on March 12, 2027 at 9:30 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard via videoconference. 6. The final Pretrial Conference is scheduled on the calendar of the Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia on May 27, 2027 at 10:00 a.m. American Medical provides ambulance services. A copy of the Court's order dated May 26, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MFnML4 at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN TRENCH: Wilson Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- HOWARD WILSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN TRENCH, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-06518 (N.D. Ill., June 2, 2026) arises because the Defendant's website, www.americantrench.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 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 APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over AirTag Tracking Devices ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that more than a dozen individuals filed separate lawsuits against Apple Inc. Why: Plaintiffs allege Apple's AirTags were used by stalkers to track them without their consent or knowledge. Where: The lawsuits were filed in California federal court. More than a dozen people have filed individual lawsuits against Apple after a prior class action lawsuit targeting the company's AirTag tracking devices failed to achieve class certification, according to Law360. At least 16 plaintiffs -- several filing under pseudonyms -- filed the lawsuits on May 2, two months after U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria declined to certify a class of alleged stalking victims. The lawsuits allege Apple knew about AirTag safety risks from the moment the product launched in 2021, when the company immediately began receiving reports of individuals finding the devices hidden in their cars and belongings by stalkers. Judge Chhabria rejected the class action lawsuit in part because the named plaintiffs could not demonstrate that stalkers would use AirTags to track them again, meaning they lacked standing to seek classwide injunctive relief. The judge had also suggested during an earlier hearing that the case should have been pursued as a mass tort rather than a class action, comparing the claims to multidistrict litigation targeting ride-hailing giant Uber over driver assaults, Law360 reported. The complaints allege that domestic violence advocates warned Apple about the risks of AirTag misuse before the product ever launched, but the company proceeded anyway. According to the Apple lawsuits, the company's own internal documents acknowledge that its safety measures only deter, rather than prevent, malicious use of the devices. Many of the plaintiffs report serious personal and financial harm resulting from being tracked without their knowledge. Plaintiffs detail accounts of stalking due to Apple AirTags According to one lawsuit against Apple, Ohio sheriff Tonya Harris alleges an ex-boyfriend used an AirTag to stalk her between April and May 2022. By downloading the Tracker Detect app, she located a hidden Apple AirTag under the carpet of the passenger side of her car. Plaintiff Lauren Hughes alleges her stalker placed an AirTag in the wheel well of her car in October 2021. She claims Apple bears legal responsibility for the harm she suffered -- including having to move multiple times, severe anxiety, depression, PTSD symptoms and significant out-of-pocket expenses for a guard dog, security camera, firearm and therapy. The complaints allege AirTags became tools used in domestic violence, trafficking and stalking situations. Reports claim that AirTag stalking incidents ended in physical violence, including a woman allegedly being followed to an Airbnb and punched by her stalker. Another incident allegedly involved a stalker using an AirTag to track a former partner before setting her car on fire. The Apple lawsuits also claim the company's safety protections were inadequate and left consumers vulnerable to harm. According to some allegations, alerts could take hours or days to appear, and Android users allegedly had few protections for more than two years. Plaintiffs claim AirTag sounds were too quiet or easy to disable, and they often could not find hidden AirTags even after receiving alerts. Meanwhile, in an ongoing Apple class action lawsuit, a judge certified a class of Illinois residents who used Siri on an Apple device and had their voiceprints or identifiable biometric feature vectors collected and stored since Sept. 14, 2014. The plaintiffs are represented by Gillian Wade, Sara Avila, Collins Kilgore, Marc Castaneda, Edwin Kilpela, Paige Noah, David Slade, Brandon Haubert and Lucy Holifield of Wade Kilpela Slade LLP. The Apple Air Tag lawsuits include Williams v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-03890, Freeman v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-03969, Miller v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-03894, Biedleman v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-03909, Alowonle v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-03902, Murray v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-03977, Hussein v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-03973, Harris v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-03972, Morris v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-03978, Hopkins v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-03898, Hughes v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-03974, Sanders v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-03975, Johnson v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-03976, Jane Doe v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-03914, Jane Doe v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-03980 and Jane Doe v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-03982, all filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California. [GN] ASCENSION HEALTH: Whitmore Files Suit Over Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------- KRYSTLE WHITMORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASCENSION HEALTH MINISTRY SERVICE CENTER, LLC and ASCENSIONCONNECT, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-1086 (S.D. Ind., May 27, 2026) arises from Defendants' willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The complaint relates that Defendants maintain patient care teams and patient care centers across the United States. In providing their services, Defendants employed patient access representatives in on-site and remote settings across the United States. Defendants used a number of job titles, including, but not limited to, Patient Care Navigator, Patient Access Representative, Lead Patient Access Representative, Patient Access Representative Outpatient, and Surgical Scheduler to refer to their patient access employees (collectively referred to as "Patient Access Representatives" or "PARs"). Defendants heavily relied on PARs to, among other things, schedule patient appointments, send messages to medical staff, refill prescriptions, and connect patients with medical offices. Defendants violated the FLSA and common law by systematically failing to compensate their PARs for work tasks completed before their scheduled shifts and during their unpaid meal periods when they were not logged into Defendants' timekeeping system, which resulted in PARs not being paid for all overtime hours worked, overtime gap time when associated with unpaid overtime and in non-overtime workweeks, for regular hours. More specifically, Defendants failed to compensate PARs for the substantial time they spent turning on and booting up their computer and computer systems prior to clocking into Defendants' timekeeping system, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a declaration that her rights, and the rights of the putative Collective and Class members, were violated, a judgment awarding unpaid back wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs to make them whole for damages they suffered, and any other remedies to which they may be entitled, and to help ensure Defendants will not subject future workers to the same illegal conduct in the future. Plaintiff Krystle Whitmore is a resident of Memphis, Tennessee, and worked remotely for Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt PAR with the specific job title of Patient Care Representative from approximately May 2023 through November 2025. Defendants compensated Plaintiff through the payment of an hourly rate, most recently $17.34 per hour. Defendants own and operate a national healthcare system and hold themselves out as having a commitment to patients and families that begins with the doctors, nurses and care teams serving in their hospitals and care sites across the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly D. Jeselskis, Esq. JESELSKIS BRINKERHOFF AND JOSEPH, LLC 320 North Meridian Street, Suite 428 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 220-6290 Facsimile: (317) 220-6291 E-mail: kjeselskis@jbjlegal.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Alana A. Karbal, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Facsimile: (248) 936-2143 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com akarbal@sommerspc.com ASSOCIATED PRESS: Tasker Sues Over Interception Technologies ------------------------------------------------------------ John Tasker, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons v. THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, a New York not-for-profit corporation, Case No. 5:26-cv-02963 (C.D. Cal., May 30, 2026), is brought on behalf of all California residents who have accessed and used www.apnews.com (the "Website"), a website that Defendant provides for public access and use due to the Defendant's interception technologies which violates the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the Federal Wiretap Act. During his use of the Website, Plaintiff navigated to multiple pages on the Website, unaware that Defendant was causing and permitting Third Parties to intercept the content of his communications and reveal his content interests. The Defendant caused the interception of the contents of Plaintiff's communications with the Website, including the page URLs identifying what he was browsing and/or the referrer URLs reflecting prior navigation, which were transmitted to the Third Parties during the page-load process itself. The Defendant surreptitiously embeds and operates third-party tracking technologies on the Website that intercept the contents of users' electronic communications, including the page URLs reflecting what users are browsing, in real time and without notice or consent. The Defendant intentionally deploys these technologies to accomplish its commercial objectives, including identity resolution, cross-session behavioral profiling, audience segmentation, and the monetization of users' browsing activity through targeted advertising and real-time bidding, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was in California when he visited the Website, which occurred during the class period. Associated Press conducts news, media, and publishing business nationwide and serves readers in California and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Phone: (949) 270-2798 Email: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC P.O. Box 1989 #305 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Phone: (562) 612-1708 Email: rc@rosscornelllaw.com ASTOR & STONE: Faces Sanchez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------- LUIS ANTONIO SANCHEZ VEGA, FRANCISCO JAVIER JUAREZ LOPEZ, and EDWIN RAMIRO LAMINA MELINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ASTOR & STONE INC (D/B/A ASTOR & STONE), and DIMITRIOS JIMMY TSOUMAS, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-04604 (S.D.N.Y., June 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide wage notice, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to timely pay wages, and failure to reimburse business expenses. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as plasterers and painters in construction projects in New York at any time between 2024 and 2026. Astor & Stone Inc., doing business as Astor & Stone, is a construction company based in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 AT&T MOBILITY: Wesneski Balks at Failure to Pay Wages, OT --------------------------------------------------------- SHAWNA WESNESKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01368-JFS (M.D. Pa., May 19, 2026) is brought as a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law to recover unpaid wages, overtime wages, and other applicable penalties. The Named Plaintiff and all others similarly situated are those persons who worked for the Defendant in call centers, anywhere in the United States, including those working remotely from their homes at any time during the three year period preceding the filing date of this complaint through the final disposition of this matter, and have not been paid for all hours worked nor the correct amount of overtime in violation of federal and state law. Specifically, the Defendant enforced a uniform company-wide policy wherein it improperly required its hourly call-center employees -- Named Plaintiff and the Putative Class -- to perform work "off-the-clock" and without pay. The Defendant's illegal company-wide policy has caused Named Plaintiff and the Putative Class to have worked hours that were not compensated at their regular rate of pay, including for overtime compensation each workweek, says the suit. Although Named Plaintiff and the Putative Class have routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, Named Plaintiff and the Putative Class have not been paid for all hours worked at their regular rate of pay, including for overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the suit asserts. AT&T Mobility Services LLC is a major subsidiary of AT&T Inc. It manages the company's wireless operations, network infrastructure, and consumer and business cellular services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Derrek W. Cummings, Esq. Steve T. Mahan, Esq. Larry A. Weisberg, Esq. Michael J. Bradley, Esq. WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C. 2704 Commerce Drive, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17110-9380 Telephone: (717) 238-5707 Facsimile: (717) 233-8133 E-mail: dcummings@weisbergcummings.com smahan@weisbergcummings.com lweisberg@weisbergcummings.com mbradley@weisbergcummings.com ATOM COMPUTING: Faces Chavez Suit Over "Bait & Switch" Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE CHAVEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ATOM COMPUTING INC., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a WWW.ATOM-COMPUTING.COM, Case No. J6STO17338 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 2, 2026) involves an outrageous privacy "bait and switch" scheme. Accordingly, the Defendant lures visitors to atom-computing.com (the Website) by assuring consumers that it respects their privacy. The Defendant even presents visitors with a "consent banner" that purports to allow visitors to choose whether to permit Defendant to install third party tracking cookies used to harvest their private information. However, the Defendant secretly tracks, de-anonymizes, and sells visitors' personal information before the consent "banner" even appears and continues to track even after a visitor rejects cookies. As shown below, the Defendant has violated California law, says the suit. The Defendant markets quantum computing solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com BANQUE DU LIBAN: Najjar Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 3rd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ KARIM P. NAJJAR, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Karim P. Najjar, et al., on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Riad Salameh, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-05043, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. This case arises from the collapse of Lebanon's banking system and the resulting loss of access to U.S. dollar deposits that the U.S.-based Plaintiffs claim they entrusted to various Lebanese banks. The Plaintiffs allege that Banque du Liban (BDL) and the Lebanese Commercial Banks orchestrated and sustained a scheme to attract, retain, and ultimately trap those deposits through false assurances and unsustainable financial practices. On Sept. 18, 2025, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended complaint, which Judge Christine P. O'Hearn granted on Apr. 29, 2026. The Plaintiffs' amended complaint is dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend. The Court finds that BDL is entitled to dismissal on foreign sovereign immunity grounds, and the claims against the Commercial Banks will be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs' alternative requests for jurisdictional discovery, raised in opposition to each motion, are denied. The appellate case is styled as Karim P. Najjar, et al. v. Riad Salameh, et al., Case No. 26-2340, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on June 2, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants KARIM P. NAJJAR, et al., on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, are represented by: Jason Henry Alperstein, Esq. James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Defendants-Respondents RIAD SALAMEH, et al. are represented by: James Figorski, Esq. Michael H. McGinley, Esq. DECHERT LLP 2929 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 - and - Gary J. Mennitt, Esq. Tamer H. Mallat, Esq. DECHERT LLP 1095 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 - and - Jennifer M. Rosa, Esq. Mark G. Hanchet, Esq. Robert W. Hamburg, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 - and - Michael D. Hynes, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 27th Floor New York, NY 10020 - and - John J. Hamill, Esq. Pamela B. Loutos, Esq. Noah A. Smith, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP 444 W. Lake Street, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60606 BAREFOOT DREAMS: Agrees to Settle Data Sharing Suit for $1.9MM -------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Barefoot Dreams has agreed to a $1,934,328 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged the retailer unlawfully disclosed its customers' personally identifiable information to third parties for targeted advertising purposes without first obtaining consent to do so. The $1.93 million Barefoot Dreams class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on May 1, 2026. The deal covers all living United States residents who purchased an item from BarefootDreams.com or any associated URLs from October 14, 2023 through June 1, 2026. The court-approved website for the Barefoot Dreams settlement can be found at BarefootDreamsClassSettlement.com. Barefoot Dreams settlement class members who file a valid, timely claim form can receive an $8 cash payment. Should the total value of filed claims exceed the amount in the settlement fund, each class member's cash payout may be reduced on a pro rata basis. To file a Barefoot Dreams settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and log in using the unique ID and PIN listed on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, fill out, and return by mail to the settlement administrator. All Barefoot Dreams settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by July 31, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Barefoot Dreams privacy settlement following a hearing on August 17, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Barefoot Dreams class action lawsuit alleged that the apparel and home goods retailer disclosed customers' personal information to third parties without consent by way of tracking, analytics, and advertising technologies embedded on its website, in violation of the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act and a handful of state-specific consumer privacy laws. [GN] BAREFOOT DREAMS: Settles Information Sharing Class Suit for $1.9MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that Barefoot Dreams agreed to a $1.9 million class action settlement to resolve claims that it violated federal and state privacy laws by sharing customer information with third parties. The Barefoot Dreams settlement benefits consumers who purchased a product from Barefoot Dreams' website between Oct. 14, 2023, and June 1, 2026. According to the class action lawsuit, Barefoot Dreams shared customer information with third parties, such as Meta and Attentive Mobile, without obtaining consumer consent. Plaintiffs in the case claim this practice violated the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act and similar state laws. Barefoot Dreams is a clothing brand that sells loungewear, blankets and other products. Barefoot Dreams has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay a $1.9 million class action settlement to resolve the privacy class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Barefoot Dreams settlement, members can receive a cash payment of $8. The deadline for exclusion and objection is July 31, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Barefoot Dreams website tracking settlement is scheduled for Aug. 17, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by July 31, 2026. Who's Eligible The Barefoot Dreams class action settlement benefits consumers who purchased a product from barefootdreams.com or any of Barefoot Dreams' associated URLs between Oct. 14, 2023, and June 1, 2026. Potential Award $8 cash payment Proof of Purchase Unique ID and PIN from the class notice Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 07/31/2026 Case Name Grubor, et al. v. Barefoot Dreams Inc., Case No. CACE26003507, in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida Final Hearing 08/17/2026 Settlement Website BarefootDreamsClassSettlement.com Claims Administrator Barefoot Dreams Privacy Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 3127 Portland, OR 97208-3127 info@barefootdreamsclasssettlement.com (877) 417-7449 Class Counsel Stephen A. Beck Philip L. Fraietta BURSOR & FISHER P.A. Defense Counsel Aaron Charfoos PAUL HASTINGS LLP [GN] BARNHART CRANE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Briceno Says ----------------------------------------------------------- JOSE BRICENO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BARNHART CRANE AND RIGGING CO. and BARNHART CRANE AND RIGGING, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-02620 (W.D. Tenn., June 2, 2026) arises out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant, which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and other current and former employees of the Defendant. On May 21, 2026, the Defendant mailed Plaintiff a letter advising him that the personally identifiable information compromised in the Data Breach included certain personal information of Defendant's current and former employees, including Plaintiff. The private information included but is not limited to full names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers or state identification, passport numbers, financial account information, dates of birth, health information, and/or insurance information. The data breach resulted from Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' private information with which they were entrusted for employment or other business relationships. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information that it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information was subjected to unauthorized access by a ransomware group and precisely what type of information was accessed. Barnhart is a foreign limited liability company based in Tennessee. Barnhart was founded in 1969 in Memphis, Tennessee, as a small, family-owned business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. John C. Roberts, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gwells@stranchlaw.com jroberts@stranchlaw.com - and - Tyler Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com - and - Sean Short, Esq. ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD MONTGOMERY, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 E-mail: sshort@eksm.com BARNHART CRANE: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Brooks Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Plaintiff v. BARNHART CRANE AND RIGGING CO. and BARNHART CRANE AND RIGGING, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-02621-SHL-atc (W.D. Tenn., June 2, 2026) is a class action lawsuit against the Defendant for its negligent failure to protect and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information, culminating in a massive and preventable data breach. As a result of Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and necessary data security practices, cybercriminals easily infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected computer systems and stole the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former employees of Defendant. Barnhart is heavy lift and heavy transport organizations in North America with more than 70 locations across the nation. As part of its business practices and to provide employment and services, Defendant collects, stores, and maintains employees' PII and PHI, including Plaintiff's and Class Members'.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. John C. Roberts, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gwells@stranchlaw.com jroberts@stranchlaw.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. Jonathan Herrera, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com jjh@federmanlaw.com BEACON MUTUAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Gifford Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ MEAGAN GIFFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE BEACON MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00340-MSM-AEM (D.R.I., May 26, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' personally identifying information. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII––and failed to encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted PII was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect its customers' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members, says the suit. The Beacon Mutual Insurance Company operates as an insurance company. The Company offers workers compensation insurance. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony R. Leone, II, Esq. John J. O'Brien, Esq. LEONE LAW LLC 1345 Jefferson Boulevard Warwick, Rhode Island 02886 Telephone: (401) 921-6684 Facsimile: (401) 921-6686 Email: aleone@leonelawllc.com jobrien@leonelawllc.com - and - Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. Brian J. Devall, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com bdevall@ahdootwolfson.com BIG TOYS GREEN: Ford Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- Sandra Ford, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Big Toys Green Country LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-06394 (N.D. Ill., May 30, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://www.bigtoysgreencountry.com (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website") to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Wood and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the Website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a selection of mini bikes, electric ride-on cars, ATVs, go-karts, dirt bikes, UTVs, scooters, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law BLUE TEAL: Faces McCowin Suit Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ DORAIN MCCOWIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE TEAL HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:26-cv-00063-O (N.D. Tex., June 2, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence and negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on or around October 13, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Blue Teal Holdings, LLC is a commercial holding company based in Wichita Falls, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 2626 Cole Avenue, Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. Sam Douthit, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com sdouthit@stranchlaw.com BRIDLE TRAILS: ClassAction.org Investigates Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Bridle Trails Family Dentistry data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who had their information exposed in the incident, including those who received notice of the Bridle Trails Family Dentistry data breach or otherwise believe they are affected. Bridle Trails Family Dentistry Security Incident: What Happened? Bridle Trails Family Dentistry, located in Kirkland, Washington, has disclosed a data breach to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services affecting 20,976 people. A notice posted on the dental practice's website states that upon discovery of unauthorized access to an employee's email account, an investigation into the incident was initiated. On March 12, 2026, the investigation discovered that unauthorized access had occurred between November 19 and November 25, 2024. The information potentially compromised in the Bridle Trails Family Dentistry data breach varies by individual and may include personal information spanning names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, and taxpayer ID numbers. Health-related information that may have been compromised includes reasons for visits, medical provider names, clinical or treatment information, health insurance information, and medical record numbers. What You Can Do After the Bridle Trails Family Dentistry Data Breach If your information was exposed in the Bridle Trails Family Dentistry data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Bridle Trails Family Dentistry to ensure they take proper steps to protect the information they were entrusted with. An attorney or legal representative may then reach out to you to explain more about this investigation and ask you a few questions. Remember, there is no cost to get in touch, and you are under no obligation to take action after speaking to someone. [GN] BURGESS INFORMATION: Bradford Suit Moved to D. Minnesota -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as City of Rochester, New York, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 26-cv-02329 respectfully moves the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ("JPML") for an Order transferring and centralizing all Related Actions to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on May 11, 2026, and assigned Case MDL No. 3191. In addition to the Movant's Action filed in the District of Minnesota, there are two additional cases pending in Minnesota, one in the Northern District of California, and one in the District of Montana (collectively, the "Related Actions"). Transfer and centralization are appropriate because the Related Actions all involve the same core Defendants, all of which fall generally into three categories: those that manufacture, market, and sell PFAS used in PFAS Turnout Gear; those that manufacture and apply PFAS to fabrics, textiles, and other Turnout Gear components; and those that assemble, market, and sell completed PFAS Turnout Gear.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Bryan L. Clobes, Esq. Daniel H. Herrera, Esq. Henry Visser Melville, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 782-4880 Facsimile: (312) 782-4485 Email: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com dherrera@caffertyclobers.com hmelville@caffertyclobes.com - and - Garrett Blanchfield, Esq. Brant Penney, Esq. Roberta Yard, Esq. REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD 80 So. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: 651-287-2100 Email: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com b.penney@rwblawfirm.com r.yard@rwblawfirm.com CAESARS VIRGINIA: Court Tosses "Fowler" FLSA Overtime Claim ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Levar Fowler, Plaintiff, v. Caesars Virginia, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-00029 (W.D. Va.), Judge Thomas T. Cullen of the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia granted Defendant's partial motion to dismiss Plaintiff's collective action claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act and class action claim under the Virginia Wage Payment Act. Fowler, a former employee of Caesars Virginia, LLC, sued his former employer in August 2024, alleging that Caesars violated his federal and state rights when it fired him after he complained that a co-worker repeatedly referred to him with racial slurs and engaged in other discriminatory and threatening conduct. In August 2025, Fowler amended his complaint to add claims under the FLSA and the Virginia Wage Payment Act. The court granted Caesars's motion to dismiss those claims in October 2025 but gave Fowler leave to amend. Fowler filed a second amended complaint, and Caesars again moved to dismiss the FLSA and Virginia Wage Payment Act claims. On the statute of limitations question, the court sided with Fowler. Because Fowler did not add his FLSA claim until August 13, 2025, more than two years after his termination on July 21, 2023, his claim was time-barred under the standard two-year limitations period. However, the court held that Fowler's general averment in the second amended complaint -- that Caesars acted willfully or with reckless disregard in failing to comply with FLSA overtime rules -- was sufficient at the motion to dismiss stage to trigger the three-year limitations period for willful violations. The court noted that employer willfulness is generally a question of fact and that a plaintiff does not need to allege specific facts to support that allegation at this stage. On the merits, however, the court agreed with Caesars that Fowler failed to state a claim for unpaid overtime. Fowler had argued that his $5,000 sign-on bonus -- which was nondiscretionary because its terms were set out in his offer letter -- should have been pro-rated and included in his overtime rate across the 12-month period during which it was repayable. The court found that neither party correctly interpreted the controlling regulation. Under 29 C.F.R. Section 778.209(a), where the calculation of a bonus is necessarily deferred over a period longer than a workweek, an employer may disregard the bonus in computing the regular hourly rate until the bonus amount can be ascertained. Because of the staggered repayment schedule in Fowler's offer letter -- under which the repayable portion of the bonus decreased incrementally from 100 percent to zero depending on when his employment ended -- the final bonus amount Fowler was entitled to was not ascertainable at the outset. Caesars was therefore permitted to defer the bonus calculation. Because Fowler was terminated approximately two-and-a-half months after his start date, the entire bonus was repayable, and he was not actually entitled to any portion of it. Accordingly, Caesars did not violate the FLSA by not incorporating the bonus into his overtime rate. Because Fowler failed to state an individual FLSA claim, the court dismissed his collective action claim on behalf of similarly situated employees. The court further declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Virginia Wage Payment Act claim, which arose from the same facts as the dismissed FLSA claim, and dismissed the Rule 23 class action under that statute as well. A copy of the Court's decision dated 5th June, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0JiCac at PacerMonitor.com. CALYX & COROLLA: Lopez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CALYX & COROLLA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04503 (S.D.N.Y., May 28, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.calyxflowers.com/, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Calyx & Corolla, Inc. operates as a floral mail order and catalog company. The Company offers a diversified selection of the finest delivered gifts appealing both to flower lovers and to those looking for an alternative to flowers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal CAPITAL ONE: Loiacano Sues Over Unjustly Denied Earned Credit Card ------------------------------------------------------------------ Misty Loiacano, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CAPITAL ONE, N.A., Case No. 26STCV14983 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 11, 2026), is brought arising from injuries caused to Capital One credit card members who were unjustly denied their earned credit card rewards by Capital One in violation the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA"). Pursuant to its undisclosed rewards cancellation policy, Capital One frequently cancels credit card accounts and the rewards earned on those accounts when the cardholder is not at fault, such as when the credit card has been subject to fraud or unauthorized use. Even though Plaintiff and other Class Member cardholders complied with the terms of their agreements and earned their rewards benefits, Capital One improperly denied them the full benefit of those earned rewards. Capital One's policy and its actions in canceling and denying Plaintiff and other Class Member cardholders their earned credit card rewards constitute breach of contract (including a breach of the duties of good faith and fair dealing); a deceptive and unfair practice; and results in unjust enrichment to Capital One. Those violations occur when Capital One cancels a rewards credit card for reasons other than the cardholder's' default, including: by cancelling earned rewards posted to reward credit cards on or after the dates of cancellation; by not providing cardholders with a reasonable opportunity (or in many cases any opportunity) to redeem earned rewards after account closure; and/or by deeming earned rewards forfeited when Capital One closes the rewards credit card account, through no fault of the cardholder. Capital One falsely advertises its rewards credit cards by asserting that earned rewards will be redeemable, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was lured by Capital One to apply for and obtain a Capital One QuicksilverOne card with advertisements promising a 1.5% cash-back Purchase Reward on every purchase. Capital One is a nationally chartered bank with its principal place of business in Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Caleb Marker, Esq. Jessica Liu, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 6420 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1080 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Phone: (877) 500-8780 Fax: (877) 500-8781 Email: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com jessica.liu@zimmreed.com CIRCLE INTERNET: Newton Sues Over Cryptocurrency Transactions ------------------------------------------------------------- NEWTON AC/DC FUND, L.P.; PATAGON MANAGEMENT LLC; and SCALLION TRADING LTD., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MAXIM ERMILOV; and CIRCLE INTERNET FINANCIAL, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:26-cv-05055 (N.D. Cal., May 28, 2026) alleges violation of the California Uniform Voidable Transfer Act. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, Defendant Ermilov created a cryptocurrency called Overnight ("OVN") and advertised its public sale beginning in September 2023. He sold OVN tokens to investors with the promise that each could confer fractional ownership of millions of dollars' worth of communal assets. Instead, Ermilov diverted the bulk of the communal assets for himself, say the Plaintiffs. Circle Internet Financial, LLC operates as a global crypto finance company. The Company offers peer-to-peer payments technology platform which allows users to hold, send, and receive traditional fiat currencies. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew H. Weiner, Esq. PIERSON FERDINAND LLP 2100 Geng Road, Suite 210 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Telephone: (415) 915-4415 Facsimile: (415) 890-4845 Email: matthewweiner@pierferd.com COREWELL HEALTH: Faces Class Suit Over Fraudulent Debt Collection ----------------------------------------------------------------- Allan Lengel, writing for Deadline Detroit, reports that Corewell Health, which includes former Beaumont Health, is the target of a federal class-action lawsuit filed Friday, June 5, that alleges the health care system tried collecting millions of dollars in medical bills that had already been paid through insurance and government programs. The lawsuit alleges that Corewell and Delaware-based debt collection agency DCM Services, LLC, engaged in fraud and violated state debt collection and consumer protection laws, Michigan Advance reports. The Advance reports: That practice, which the complaint calls "balance billing," means that Corewell Health "submits claims for payment to insurers, group health plans, Medicare, or Medicaid and accepts reduced payments under negotiated agreements and governing law as payment in full for covered services." Legally, the complaint continues, after accepting those claims, Corewell "cannot bill, charge, collect from, seek compensation, remuneration or reimbursement from, or have any recourse against the patient for covered medical services." The complaint alleges balance billing is a "routine and systematic practice" of Corewell Health, listing 19 hospitals where the plaintiffs allege the practice is being used, ranging from Big Rapids in West Michigan to a number of hospitals in Wayne County. Corwell and DCM did not respond to requests from the Michigan Advance for comment. [GN] COTY INC: Booker Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------- Martrell Desamonta Booker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Coty Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-06395 (N.D. Ill., May 30, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://philosophy.com (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website") to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Wood and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the Website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a selection of skincare, bath and body products, including cleansers, moisturizers, serums, exfoliators, masks, eye creams, fragrances, shower gels, body lotions, hand creams, and gift sets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law DEANCO HEALTHCARE: $1.54MM Settlement Final OK Hearing Set Sept. 9 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that Deanco Healthcare agreed to a $1.54 million class action settlement to resolve claims it failed to prevent a 2023 data breach that compromised patient information. The Deanco Healthcare settlement benefits individuals whose personally identifiable information may have been compromised in the Deanco Healthcare data breach on May 1, 2023. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit accused Deanco Healthcare of failing to protect their information from a May 2023 data breach. The Deanco Healthcare data breach reportedly compromised sensitive information, such as Social Security numbers, financial account information and health insurance data. Deanco Healthcare, doing business as Mission Community Hospital, is a healthcare provider in California. Deanco has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $1,546,409.42 class action settlement to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the Deanco Healthcare settlement, class members can receive up to $5,000 for documented losses related to the data breach. These losses may include communication charges, credit report costs and fraudulent charges. Class members can also receive two years of medical monitoring services through the settlement. These services include credit monitoring, identity theft insurance, dark web monitoring and more. California residents who were affected by the data breach may receive a $100 statutory payment plus a pro rata share of any remaining settlement funds. Residual cash payments will be distributed on a pro rata basis to class members who do not qualify for documented loss payments or California statutory claim benefits. These payments will vary depending on the number of participating class members and the amount of funds available for distribution. The deadline for exclusion and objection is July 13, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Deanco Healthcare data breach settlement is scheduled for Sept. 9, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Aug. 12, 2026. Who's Eligible The Deanco Healthcare class action settlement benefits individuals whose personally identifiable information may have been compromised in the Deanco Healthcare data breach on May 1, 2023. Potential Award Up to $5,000 in documented losses, a $100 California statutory payment and/or a pro rata cash payout Proof of Purchase Documentation of losses, such as credit card statements, bank statements, invoices, telephone records and receipts Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 08/12/2026 Case Name Concepcion, et al. v. Deanco Healthcare d/b/a Mission Community Hospital, Case No. 23STCV29292, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles Final Hearing 09/09/2026 Settlement Website DeancoDataBreachSettlement.com Claims Administrator Deanco Healthcare Data Security Incident Litigation c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC P.O. Box 5324 New York, NY 10150-5324 833-319-2344 Class Counsel M. Anderson Berry EMERY REDDY BERRY APC Patrick A. Barthle MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP Ryan D. Maxey MAXEY LAW FIRM P.A. Daniel Srourian SROURIAN LAW FIRM P.C. Defense Counsel Marcus McCutcheon Casie D. Collignon BAKER HOSTETLER LLP [GN] DEARBRIGHTLY INC: Tesch Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY TESCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEARBRIGHTLY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00770 (N.D. Ind., June 2, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.dearbrightly.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Dearbrightly, Inc. operates as a beauty care company. The Company provides platform to get a doctors consult and prescription-grade skincare products such as moisturizer and cream. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason B. Marshall, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N, Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 Email: jmarshall@ealg.law DEVON ENERGY: Fails to Provide Check Stub Info, Wake Energy Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wake Energy, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Devon Energy Production Company, L.P., Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00162 (D. Wy., May 19, 2026) is a class action concerning Devon Energy's ongoing violation of Wyoming law relating to its failure to comply with the check stub reporting requirements under the law. Like other top-producing states, Wyoming has enacted legislation that strictly governs oil and gas companies and how they pay and the form of how they report those payments to oil and gas owners. The Wyoming statute requires Devon to provide a form of "check stub" that provides on a regular monthly basis certain information, including, inter alia, the owner's share of the total value of sales prior to any deductions, the net value of total sales after deductions, and an itemized list of any deductions or adjustments to the sales value. In the event Devon fails to provide the statutorily required information on the check stub, Devon is liable to the affected royalty, overriding royalty or other nonworking interest owner in the amount of $100 per month that complete reporting is not provided to the interest owner. Upon information and belief, Devon failed to list the net value of total sales after deductions as required by Wyo. Stat., says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this class action to recover the $100 liability imposed by Wyoming law for failing to provide the information required on Devon's monthly check stubs. Wake Energy, LLC, is an Oklahoma limited liability company with its principal place of business in Edmond, Oklahoma. Devon owns and operates hundreds of oil and gas wells in the State of Wyoming.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brady L. Smith, Esq. BRADY SMITH LAW, PLLC One Leadership Square 211 N. Robinson Ave., Ste. 1320 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 293-3029 E-mail: brady@blsmithlaw.com skeeter@blsmithlaw.com - and - S. Gregory Thomas, Esq. THOMAS THOMAS & THRALL, LLC PO Box 337 Gillette, WY 82717-0337 Telephone: (307) 257-5298 E-mail: greg@tripletlaw.org DIPLOMAT GOLF: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO v. THE DIPLOMAT GOLF & RACQUET CLUB CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., and LCZ INC. D/B/A KNIGHTS INN A/K/A KNIGHTS INN HALLANDALE, Case No. 1:26-cv-23880 (S.D. Fla., June 2, 2026) is a class action seeking injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant oversees, manages, leases, operates, maintains, and/or oversees a commercial property at 26 Diplomat Parkway, Hallandale Beach, Florida. The Plaintiff contends that the he found the commercial property and commercial mini mart business located within the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. He encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property and commercial mini mart business located within the commercial property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises. THE DIPLOMAT GOLF & RACQUET CLUB CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. owns and operates the commercial property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 E-Mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com jr@ajperezlawgroup.com DOLLAR GENERAL: Shareholder Suit Pending, Derivative Suit Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar General Corp. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending May 1, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2026, that the motion to dismiss the consolidated shareholder class suit is pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee while the consolidated derivative suit is stayed pending resolution of the defendants anticipated motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in the Shareholder Securities Action. On Nov. 27, 2023, and Nov. 30, 2023, respectively, two putative shareholder class action lawsuits were filed alleging that, during the putative class periods identified below, the Company and certain of its current and former officers violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting the impact of alleged store labor, inventory, pricing and other practices on the Companys financial results and prospects. The first action is captioned Washtenaw County Employees Retirement System v. Dollar General Corporation, et al., with a putative class period of May 28, 2020, to Aug. 30, 2023. The second action is captioned Robert J. Edmonds v. Dollar General Corporation, et al., with a putative class period of Feb. 23, 2023, to Aug. 31, 2023. These actions are collectively referred to as the Shareholder Securities Litigation. The plaintiffs in the Shareholder Securities Litigation seek compensatory damages, equitable and injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys fees and costs. The Edmonds matter was voluntarily dismissed on Jan. 19, 2024. On April 4, 2024, the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in the Shareholder Securities Litigation. On June 17, 2024, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, adding a claim that lead plaintiffs and certain members of the putative class purchased shares of the Companys common stock contemporaneously with common stock sales by certain individual defendants. On Oct. 17, 2024, lead plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint, expanding the putative class period to cover May 28, 2020, to Aug. 28, 2024. On Nov. 15, 2024, defendants moved to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint, and on June 23, 2025, the court granted defendants motion without prejudice. On Aug. 25, 2025, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the second consolidated amended complaint, attaching the proposed third consolidated amended complaint. The defendants filed their opposition to the motion to amend on Oct. 25, 2025. On March 24, 2026, the court granted the motion to amend, and lead plaintiffs filed a third consolidated amended complaint that does not alter the claims, defendants or putative class period but includes additional allegations in support of the previously asserted claims. On April 21, 2026, defendants moved to dismiss the third consolidated amended complaint. Briefing on defendants motion to dismiss was completed on May 29, 2026. In addition, several related shareholder derivative actions have been filed. On Jan. 26 and 29, 2024, and Feb. 1, 2024, respectively, the following shareholder derivative actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee in which the plaintiff shareholders, purportedly on behalf and for the benefit of the Company, allege that certain of the Companys current and former officers and directors (i) violated their fiduciary duties by misrepresenting the impact of alleged store labor, inventory pricing, and other practices on the Companys financial results, prospects, and reputation, as well as creating a risk of adverse regulatory action; (ii) wasted corporate assets; and (iii) were unjustly enriched: Nathan Silva v. Todd J. Vasos, et al.; Terry Dunn v. Todd J. Vasos, et al.; and Kathryn A. Caliguiri Inh Ira Bene Of Catherine Sugarbaker v. Todd J. Vasos, et al. (collectively, the Federal Court Shareholder Derivative Litigation). The Silva complaint also alleges certain of the Companys current and former officers and directors violated federal securities laws and aided and abetted breach of fiduciary duty and that Mr. Vasos violated his fiduciary duties by misusing material, nonpublic information. The Dunn and Caliguiri complaints additionally allege that certain of the Companys officers and directors violated their fiduciary duties by recklessly or negligently disregarding workplace safety practices, and that Mr. Vasos, John Garratt and Patricia Fili-Krushel violated their fiduciary duties by misusing material, nonpublic information. The plaintiffs in the Federal Court Shareholder Derivative Litigation seek both nonmonetary and monetary relief for the benefit of the Company. Procedurally, on April 2, 2024, the court consolidated the Silva, Dunn, and Caliguiri actions, and on May 2, 2024, the Silva action was dismissed. On May 22, 2024, the court entered an order staying the Dunn and Caliguiri actions pending resolution of the defendants anticipated motion to dismiss in the Shareholder Securities Litigation. On July 21, 2025, the court extended the stay pending the courts ruling on plaintiffs motion for leave to file a further amended complaint in the Shareholder Securities Action, and on April 22, 2026, the court further extended the stay pending resolution of the defendants anticipated motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in the Shareholder Securities Action. Dollar General Corp. is a discount retailer offering a broad selection of everyday household essentials, groceries and basic apparel through thousands of small-box stores primarily serving rural and suburban communities across the United States. The company focuses on value-priced merchandise and convenient neighborhood locations aimed at budget-conscious consumers. DOLLAR TREE: Hearne Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. The case is styled as Shawn Hearne, on behalf of other similarly situated aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorney's General Act v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc, Case No. 26CUB01846 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., May 11, 2026). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Dollar Tree, Inc. -- https://www.dollartree.com/ -- operates retail discount stores under the Dollar Tree and Dollar Tree Canada brands in the United States and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karen I. Gold, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 310-439-5208 Fax: (855) 786-6356 Email: kgold@blackstonepc.com DOTERRA INTERNATIONAL: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. doTERRA International, LLC, Case No. 0:26-cv-02821-NEB-EMB (D. Minn., June 2, 2026) alleges that the Defendant's website, www.doterra.com is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations. As a consequence of her experience visiting the Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found the Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like the Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content -- content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users, the suit alleges. In addition to her claim under the ADA, the Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in the Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota pursuant to Minn. Stat. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website’s development and maintenance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com EMPOWER GROUP: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Baldwin Says ---------------------------------------------------------- JAMES BALDWIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EMPOWER GROUP PARTNERS INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-03311 (E.D.N.Y., June 2, 2026) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted the Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant experienced on April 16, 2026. The Plaintiff’s claims arise from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. On or around April 16, 2026, the ransom group "Dragon Force" exfiltrated 316 GB of sensitive data belonging to Defendant. The Plaintiff and Class Members have lost the ability to control their private information and are subject to an increased risk of identity theft. The Defendant is a financial services company that services over 20 million people Defendant had numerous statutory, regulatory, contractual, and common law duties and obligations, including those based on its affirmative representations to Plaintiff and Class Members, to keep their private information confidential, safe, secure, and protected from unauthorized disclosure or access.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com EPISCIENCES INC: Ramirez Alleges Blind User-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROSEMARIE RAMIREZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. EPISCIENCES, INC., Case No. 1:26-cv-06487 (N.D. Ill., June 2, 2026) arises because the Defendant's website, www.epionce.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 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 ERMI LLC: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Dovberg Says ------------------------------------------------------------- MARVIN DOVBERG, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ERMI LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-03092-MHC (N.D. Ga., June 2, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiff's and/or Class Members' protected health information and personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network, including, without limitation, names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, financial account details, medical records, health insurance information and dates of birth. The Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause Representative Plaintiff and thousands of other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendant on July 25, 2025, by which cybercriminals infiltrated the Defendant's inadequately protected network and accessed the Private Information which was being kept there. The Plaintiff further seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for not ensuring that the Private Information was maintained in a manner consistent with industry, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy Rule (45 CFR, Part 160 and Parts A and E of Part 164), the, HIPAA Security Rule (45 CFR Part 160 and Subparts A and C of Part 164) and other relevant standards. The Plaintiff suffered imminent and impending injury arising from the substantially increased risk of fraud, identity theft and misuse resulting from Representative Plaintiff's Private Information being placed in the hands of unauthorized third parties/criminals. The Defendant is a for-profit enterprise with a principal place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia. Defendants name stands for "End Range of Motion Improvement."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles H. Van Horn, Esq. BERMAN FINK VAN HORN P.C. 3475 Piedmont Road, Suite 1640 Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 261-7711 E-mail: cvanhorn@bfvlaw.com - and - Scott Edward Cole, Esq. Laura Van Note Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 E-mail: sec@colevannote.com lvn@colevannote.com ESR LLC: Wilson Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------- HOWARD WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ESR, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06495 (N.D. Ill., June 2, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.allcitycandy.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Esr, LLC operates as a sweet shop. The Company offers chocolate, candies, yogurt, and bubble gum products. Wolfgan The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com ETHIKA INC: Evans Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------ James Evans, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Ethika, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-06397 (N.D. Ill., May 30, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://www.ethika.com/ (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website") to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Wood and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the Website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a wide selection of bold, comfort focused underwear and lifestyle apparel for men and women, including signature boxer briefs, bras and bralettes, matching sets, socks, graphic tops, hoodies, and other apparel designed for everyday wear and active lifestyles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law FABLETICS INC: Blaise Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messaging ---------------------------------------------------------- Ashley Del Valle, individually and on others similarly situated v. FABLETICS, INC., Case No. 247859931 (Fla. 11th Judicial Cir. Ct., Miami-Dade Cty., May 11, 2026), is brought against the Defendant's violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA") as a result of the Defendant's unsolicited text messaging. To promote its goods, services, and/or properties, Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging and continues to text message consumers after they have opted out of Defendant's solicitations. Defendant also engages in telemarketing without the required policies and procedures, and training of its personnel engaged in telemarketing. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the intrusion seclusion invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation and disruption of the dally life of Plaintiff and members of the Class. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person entitled to bring this action under the TCPA and a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Defendant is a limited liability company with its headquarters located in Boca Raton, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Awad, Esq. Mitchell D. Hansen, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, Florida 33305 Phone: 813-340-8838 Email: samuel@jibraellaw.com mitchell@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com FIGURE LENDING: Nouri Sues Over Unauthorized Telephone Recordings ----------------------------------------------------------------- LUKAS NOURI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIGURE LENDING LLC and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 26CU030122C (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., June 2, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California Invasion of Privacy Act. The case arises from the Defendant's policy and practice of recording telephone conversations without the consent of all parties. As a result of the Defendant's violations, all individuals, who called Figure's customer service number, while they were in California and were recorded by the Defendant surreptitiously and without disclosure are entitled to an award of statutory damages as set forth in Penal Code Section 637.2 and injunctive relief. Figure Lending LLC is a company that offers consumer lending products based in Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zev B. Zysman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ZEV B. ZYSMAN 15760 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 700 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 783-8836 Email: zev@zysmanlawca.com FIVEPOINT CREDIT: Bradford Sues Over Illegal Credit Denial ---------------------------------------------------------- RADLEY BRADFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIVEPOINT CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-04180 (S.D. Tex., May 27, 2026) alleges violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. The Defendant's failure to provide Plaintiff with the specific information as to why his application for credit was incomplete deprived Plaintiff of the opportunity to address or correct the issues that Defendant based its credit denial on, says the suit. Fivepoint Credit Union provides financial services as a credit union. The Company offers lending solutions, personal and business banking, and investment and financial planning services. [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 Email: thogan@atlaslawcenter.com FLOORINGINC LLC: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Mueller Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- TARA NICOLE MUELLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLOORINGINC LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01161-SEB-MG (S.D. Ind., June 2, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website https://www.flooringinc.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy, ambiguous link texts, unclear labels for interactive elements, inadequate focus order, changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Flooringinc LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in Indiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason B. Marshall, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N. Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 Email: jmarshall@ealg.law FRANK & ADAM APPAREL: Davis Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Davis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Frank & Adam Apparel LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-06398 (N.D. Ill., May 30, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://www.dressthepopulation.com (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website") to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Wood and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the Website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase an extensive assortment of premium women's occasion wear, including mini, midi, and maxi dresses, and jumpsuits designed for bridal events, formal galas, social gatherings, vacations, and professional settings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law FREMONT CONTRACT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Luna Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- GILBERT LUNA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FREMONT CONTRACT CARRIERS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-00244-MDN (D. Neb., May 29, 2026) is an action against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices, including Plaintiff and Class Members' names and social security numbers (collectively defined herein as "Private Information"). The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information—and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted Private Information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk of identity theft and fraud to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes, says the suit. Fremont Contract Carriers, Inc. provides trucking transportation services. The Company offers a wide range of transportation services which include medium to long-haul van, logistics, load tracking, local van capacity, and flatbed services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 101 Park Avenue Suite 1300 - #16982799 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 - and - Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Dr. Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 Email: daniel@slfla.com FRESH WATER SYSTEMS: Illegally Collects Personal Info, Yardley Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- ERIC YARDLEY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRESH WATER SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-03145-LL-JLB (S.D. Cal., May 20, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant for recording, decoding, or capturing Plaintiff's routing, addressing, or signaling information and aiding Meta Platforms, Inc. to do the same via a tracking pixel. The Plaintiff alleges that countless Californians have visited the Defendant's website and without their knowledge, Defendant secretly collected their personal identifying information. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks to prevent Defendant from continuing to violate CIPA, and to recover statutory damages for Plaintiff and Class Members. Fresh Water Systems, Inc. is a water treatment solutions provider headquartered in South Carolina. The company maintains the website https://www.freshwatersystems.com, which provides water services to consumers in California and other states. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. Noah J. Larsh, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (866) 219-3343 E-mail: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com Noah@SwigartLawGroup.com - and - Daniel G. Shay, Esq. SHAY LEGAL, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 222-7429 E-mail: Dan@ShayLegal.com FROST BANK: Removes Donaie Class Suit to W.D. Tex. -------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of RENARD DONAIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FROST BANK, Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Judicial District Court of the State of Texas, County of Bexar (Case No. 2026CI09135) to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on May 26, 2026, 2026. The clerk of court for the Western District of Texas assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-03405 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Judge Xavier Rodriguez. Frost Bank operates as a bank. The Bank offers accounts, cards, savings, credits, insurance, investments, remote banking, loans, and other related services. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jason K. Fagelman, Esq. Joseph E. Simmons, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600 Dallas, TX 75201-7932 Telephone: (214) 855-8000 Facsimile: (214) 855-8200 Email: jason.fagelman@nortonrosefulbright.com joseph.simmons@nortonrosefulbright.com - and - Ashley Senary Dahlberg, Frost Tower, 111 W. Houston Street, Suite 1800 San Antonio, Texas 78205 Telephone: (210) 224-5575 Facsimile: (210) 270-7205 Email: ashley.dahlberg@nortonrosefulbright.com FROST BANK: Removes Hinojosa Suit to W.D. Tex. ---------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of JAVIER HINOJOSA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FROST BANK, Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Judicial Court of the State of Texas, County of Bexar (Case No. 2026CI09017) to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on May 26, 2026. The clerk of court for the Western District of Texas assigned Case No. 5:26-cv-03407 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Judge Jason K. Pulliam and referred to Magistrate Elizabeth S. Chestney. Frost Bank operates as a bank. The Bank offers accounts, cards, savings, credits, insurance, investments, remote banking, loans, and other related services. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jason K. Fagelman, Esq. Joseph E. Simmons, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600 Dallas, TX 75201-7932 Telephone: (214) 855-8000 Facsimile: (214) 855-8200 Email: jason.fagelman@nortonrosefulbright.com joseph.simmons@nortonrosefulbright.com - and - Ashley Senary Dahlberg, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP Frost Tower, 111 W. Houston Street, Suite 1800 San Antonio, Texas 78205 Telephone: (210) 224-5575 Facsimile: (210) 270-7205 Email: ashley.dahlberg@nortonrosefulbright.com GASTRO HEALTH: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Telsey Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- DEBBIE TELSEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GASTRO HEALTH, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-23825-CMA (S.D. Fla., June 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach between February 25, 2026, and March 2, 2026. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Gastro Health, LLC is a medical services provider, with its principal place of business in Miami, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (786) 206-9057 Email: mweekes@milberg.com GENERAC HOLDINGS: City Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 7th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- CITY PENSION FUND FOR FIREFIGHTERS AND POLICE OFFICERS IN THE CITY OF TAMPA, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled City Pension Fund for Firefighters and Police Officers in the City of Tampa, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Generac Holdings Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01436-BHL, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Generac, its chief executive officer, Aaron Jagdfeld, and its chief financial officer, York Ragen, faced several lawsuits following the decline of the company's stock price. This Court ordered the cases consolidated and appointed the City Pension Fund for Firefighters and Police Officers in the City of Tampa as Lead Plaintiff. On July 31, 2023, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a First Consolidated Amended Complaint, alleging three different theories of securities fraud. The Lead Plaintiffs did not identify any affirmative misrepresentation of fact made by the Defendants. Instead, they alleged that the Defendants fraudulently concealed three "negative trends" in different sectors of Generac's business: (1) the weakening of demand for Generac's HSB generators as the pandemic continued, (2) a defect in Generac's SnapRS solar energy products, and (3) risks arising from Generac's "highly consolidated" sales of solar energy products through a single distributor, Pink Energy. On Feb. 7, 2025, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss that complaint, concluding that Lead Plaintiffs' securities fraud accusations failed because they had not adequately alleged falsity and scienter on their primary theory and had failed to allege falsity, scienter, and materiality on their second and third theories. The Court allowed Lead Plaintiffs the opportunity to address the Court's concerns in a further amended pleading. On Mar. 10, 2025, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Apr. 30, 2025. On Apr. 30, 2026, Judge Brett H. Ludwig entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. The Court agrees with the Defendants that the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint fails to satisfy the rigorous pleading standards applicable to securities fraud claims. The Lead Plaintiffs have again failed to adequately plead falsity and scienter on their primary theory, and their amendments fail to cure the previously identified deficiencies as to their second and third theories. Accordingly, the case is dismissed with prejudice. The appellate case is styled as City Pension Fund for Firefighters and Police Officers in the City of Tampa, et al. v. Generac Holdings Inc., et al., Case No. 26-2183, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on June 2, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants CITY PENSION FUND FOR FIREFIGHTERS AND POLICE OFFICERS IN THE CITY OF TAMPA, et al., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: James E. Barz, Esq. Frank A. Richter, Esq. Michael J. Stramaglia, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (630) 696-4107 Email: jbarz@rgrdlaw.com frichter@rgrdlaw.com mstramaglia@rgrdlaw.com - and - Darren J. Robbins, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 Email: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com - and - Guri Ademi, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. ADEMI LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 Email: gademi@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com - and - Andrew T. Phillips, Esq. ATOLLES LAW, SC 222 E. Erie Street, Suite 210 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: (414) 644-0391 Facsimile: (414) 278-7590 Email: aphillips@attolles.com - and - Robert D. Klausner, Esq. KLAUSNER, KAUFMAN, JENSEN & LEVINSON 7080 NW 4th Street Plantation, FL 33317 Telephone: (954) 916-1202 Facsimile: (954) 916-1232 Email: bob@robertdklausner.com Defendants-Respondents GENERAC HOLDINGS INC., et al. are represented by: Glenn Vanzura, Esq. WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP 2029 Century Park E., Ste. 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 728−8319 Email: gvanzura@willkie.com - and - Jacqueline M. Vallette, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 700 Louisiana St., Ste. 3400 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 238−3000 Email: jvallette@mayerbrown.com - and - Joseph De Simone, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 1221 Ave. of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 506−2500 Email: jdesimone@mayerbrown.com - and - Michael J. Gill, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 71 S. Wacker Dr. Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (513) 579−6400 Facsimile: (513) 579−6457 Email: mgill@mayerbrown.com GEOLOGICS CORP: Agrees to Data Breach Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Danielle Toth of ClaimDepot reports that individuals whose private information the December 2023 GeoLogics Corp. data breach compromised may be eligible to claim up to $2,500 from a class action settlement. GeoLogics Corp. agreed to settle a class action lawsuit claiming a targeted cyberattack that occurred in December 2023 exposed files containing sensitive personal information, such as names, addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, photo identification, driver's licenses and Social Security numbers. Who can file a claim? The class includes all individuals residing in the United States whose private information the data incident affecting GeoLogics starting on or about Dec. 21, 2023, compromised and who received notice of the data incident from GeoLogics. How much can class members receive? There are two cash payment options. Class members may claim one or the other but not both. -- Reimbursement for out-of-pocket losses: Class members who experienced actual, documented losses as a direct result of the data breach may claim up to $2,500. Eligible expenses include: -- Losses due to identity theft or fraud -- Fees for credit reports, credit monitoring or freezing/unfreezing credit -- Costs to replace identification documents -- Postage to contact banks or financial institutions by mail -- Alternative cash payment: Class members who do not have documented losses may claim a one-time payment of $50. No documentation is required for this option. If the total amount all class members claim exceeds the available settlement funds after deductions for attorneys' fees and costs, administration costs and service awards to class representatives, the settlement administrator may reduce payments on a pro rata basis. Class members can also claim two years of credit monitoring services, which include $1 million in identity theft protection insurance. How to claim a settlement payment Class members can file a claim online or download and print a PDF claim form, complete it and email or mail it to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: GeoLogics Data Incident Settlement, c/o Settlement Administrator, PO Box 25226, Santa Ana, CA 92799-9958 Settlement administrator's email address: info@GeoLogicsCorpDataSettlement.com The claim deadline is Aug. 17, 2026. What proof or documentation is required to submit a claim? -- Out-of-pocket losses reimbursement: Class members must provide proof, such as bank statements, receipts or other records that show they incurred expenses as a result of the data breach. They can submit self-prepared notes or explanations to support their claim, but these are not sufficient on their own. -- Alternative cash payment or credit monitoring: Class members must select the appropriate option on the claim form. They do not need to provide documentation. Payout options -- PayPal -- Venmo -- Zelle -- Physical check Settlement fund breakdown The settlement fund covers: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees and costs: $200,000 -- Service awards to class representatives: $2,500 each -- Payments to eligible class members: Remaining funds Important dates -- Deadline to opt out: July 17, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: Aug. 17, 2026 -- Final approval hearing: Nov. 2, 2026 When is the GeoLogics Corp. data incident settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will distribute payments after the court resolves any appeals and grants final approval of the settlement. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action settlement claimed GeoLogics Corp. failed to adequately protect private information during a targeted cyberattack in December 2023. The lawsuit alleges unauthorized parties accessed sensitive data. By settling, both sides avoid the costs, risks and uncertainty of ongoing litigation, and class members receive timely compensation and credit monitoring services. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Up to $2,500 plus credit monitoring Deadline: August 17, 2026 [GN] GL PARTNERS: Ramos-Williams Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- JASMYNE RAMOS-WILLIAMS, KEVIN A. REDMOND, LONDON ANGEL HILL, CODY MASSA, AARON MICAH PATTERSON, KATELYN STEWART AND DANIELLE WHITE, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs v. GL PARTNERS, INC., GL RESOURCES, LLC, GRASS ROOTS DISPENSARY, LLC, GRASSROOTS OPCO MO, LLC, and WATERFRONT HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-00434-BCW (W.D. Mo., May 19, 2026) is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated, arising from the Defendants' failure to pay wages in accordance with the federal law. The Plaintiffs were employed as budtenders at various GreenLight retail locations in Missouri. According to the complaint, the Defendants maintained a mandatory tip pool that unlawfully required budtenders to share tips with shift leads and other supervisors, as well as with employees who did not customarily and regularly receive tips, resulting in Plaintiffs and those similarly situated not being paid the full amount of tips owed to them pursuant to the FLSA. GL Partners, Inc. is a Nevada for-profit corporation authorized to transact business in Missouri as a foreign corporation. GL Partners is the principal company in charge of the various retail locations of GreenLight Dispensary, a cannabis dispensary company, across Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John J. Ziegelmeyer III, Esq. Brad K. Thoenen, Esq. Ethan A. Crockett, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 1600 Genessee, Suite 754 Kansas City, MO 64102 Telephone: (816) 875-3332 E-mail: jziegelmeyer@hkm.com bthoenen@hkm.com ecrockett@hkm.com GLOBE LIFE: Amendment of Class Cert Briefing Schedule Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF MIAMI GENERAL EMPLOYEES' & SANITATION EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT TRUST, on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. GLOBE LIFE INC. f/k/a TORCHMARK CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-00376-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to amend schedule for class certification briefing. The Parties request that the Court extend the deadlines for the Defendants to file their response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification until July 28, 2026; the Plaintiffs to file their reply in support of their motion for class certification until Oct. 2, 2026; and the Defendants to file any sur-reply to the Plaintiffs' reply to Oct. 30, 2026. On May 15, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. Since that time, the Parties have conferred on the issues raised in that motion, including the Defendants' request to take the depositions of both Lead Plaintiffs and their market efficiency expert during late June and early July. To allow for those depositions to be scheduled on dates that accommodate the Parties and the witnesses, the Parties require a two-week extension to the deadline for the Defendants to file their response to the motion for class certification. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs believe an additional week would allow them to take the deposition and file a fulsome Reply. At this time, the Parties do not request any further changes to the Scheduling Order and no other deadlines will be impacted by the requested relief. Globe Life is an insurance company offering a wide range of insurance products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nFU4QN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: William S. Norton, Esq. Joshua C. Littlejohn, Esq. Christopher F. Moriarty, Esq. Gregg S. Levin, Esq. Vanessa A. Davis, Esq. Marie Celeste Anderson, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 28 Bridgeside Boulevard Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 216-9000 Facsimile: (843) 216-9450 E-mail: bnorton@motleyrice.com jlittlejohn@motleyrice.com cmoriarty@motleyrice.com glevin@motleyrice.com vdavis@motleyrice.com mcanderson@motleyrice.com - and - Spencer A. Burkholz, Esq. Robert R. Henssler, Esq. Laura Andracchio, Esq. Megan M. Sonney, Esq. Olivia A. Rambo, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: spenceb@rgrdlaw.com bhenssler@rgrdlaw.com landracchio@rgrdlaw.com msonney@rgrdlaw.com orambo@rgrdlaw.com - and - Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Paul R. Bessette, Esq. Jeffrey Hammer, Esq. Cheri A. Grosvenor, Esq. Brian P. Miller, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 500 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1800 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 457-2010 Facsimile: (512) 457-2100 E-mail: pbessette@kslaw.com jhammer@kslaw.com cgrosvenor@kslaw.com bmiller@kslaw.com GORILLA GLUE: Miscalculates Overtime Wages, Gabbard Says -------------------------------------------------------- MARK GABBARD, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE GORILLA GLUE COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-00502-DRC (S.D. Ohio, May 21, 2026), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt, hourly-paid order picker by Defendant from approximately November 2002 to October 2025. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, he and Defendant's hourly employees earned bonus pay and other non-discretionary remuneration. However, the Defendant failed to properly include Plaintiff's bonus pay and other non-discretionary remuneration into the regular rate for proper overtime calculation, says the suit. Headquartered in Sharonville, Ohio, The Gorilla Glue Company manufactures, distributes, and sells Gorilla Tape, Gorilla Super Glue, Gorilla Construction Adhesive, and other premium tapes, sealants, and adhesives. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile. (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com GRAIL INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit for Misleading Investors -------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP informs stockholders that a class action was filed on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Grail, Inc. (NASDAQ: GRAL) securities between May 13, 2025, and February 19, 2026. Grail, Inc. describes itself as a commercial stage healthcare company with a focus on early cancer detection through screening methodology. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that Grail, Inc. (GRAL) Misled Investors Concerning NHS-Galleri's Potential to Achieve statistically significant reduction in Stage III-IV cancers According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements and engaged in a scheme to deceive the market and a course of conduct that artificially inflated the price of Grail's common stock and operated as a fraud or deceit on Class Period purchasers of Grail's common stock by materially misleading the investing public. Later, defendants' prior misrepresentations and fraudulent conduct became apparent to the market, the price of Grail's common stock materially declined, as the prior artificial inflation came out of the price over time. As a result of their purchases of Grail's common stock during the Class Period, Plaintiff and other members of the Class suffered economic loss, i.e., damages under federal securities laws. On this news, On this news, Grail's stock price fell from $101.53 per share on February 19, 2026, to $50.21 per share on February 20, 2026, a decline of approximately 50.55% in a single trading day. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against Grail, Inc. Shareholders who wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the class should contact Robbins LLP. The lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. For more information, visit https://robbinsllp.com/grail-inc/ About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. Aaron Dumas, Jr., Esq. Robbins LLP 5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92122 (800) 350-6003 adumas@robbinsllp.com www.robbinsllp.com[GN] GREAT WOLF: Prout Sues Over Use of Toxic Synthetic Fragrances ------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW PROUT, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREAT WOLF RESORTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-at-02287 (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. The Representative Plaintiff asserts Defendant had, and continues to have, a consistent policy of releasing synthetic fragranced consumer products upon individuals as they enter Defendant's Facilities. 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. The Plaintiff suffers and continues to suffer from chemical sensitivities and, when exposed to fragrance, is substantially limited in his 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. 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.[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 GRIFFIN FUNDING: Bradford Sues Over ECOA Violations --------------------------------------------------- RADLEY BRADFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRIFFIN FUNDING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-04181 (S.D. Tex., May 27, 2026) alleges violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Griffin Funding, Inc., is a consumer-direct national boutique mortgage company. [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 Email: thogan@atlaslawcenter.com GUARANTEED RATE: Faces Bradford Suit Over ECOA Violations --------------------------------------------------------- RADLEY BRADFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GUARANTEED RATE, INC. d/b/a OWNING, Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-04182 (S.D. Tex., May 27, 2026) alleges violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Guaranteed Rate, Inc. operates as a mortgage and finance company. The Company provides residential mortgage lending, refinance, investors loan, insurance, relocation finance, and home equity loan services. [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 Email: thogan@atlaslawcenter.com HELEN OF TROY: Faces Atlanta Suit Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF ATLANTA GENERAL EMPLOYEES' PENSION PLAN, CITY OF ATLANTA POLICE OFFICERS' PENSION PLAN, and CITY OF ATLANTA FIREFIGHTERS’ PENSION PLAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. HELEN OF TROY LIMITED, NOEL GEOFFROY, and BRIAN GRASS, Case No. 3:26-cv-01528 (W.D. Tex., June 2, 2026) is securities class action is brought on behalf of purchasers of Helen of Troy common stock between April 24, 2024, and October 8, 2025, inclusive. The claims asserted are alleged against Helen of Troy and certain of the Company's current and former senior executives, and arise under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Throughout the Class Period, which begins shortly after Noel Geoffroy became CEO, the Company boasted about the "fuel" it was generating from Project Pegasus. Although Helen of Troy admitted to some speed bumps in Project Pegasus, specifically citing "implementation hiccups" with its new Tennessee distribution center, Defendants assured investors that "despite the delayed savings related to our Tennessee distribution center, Project Pegasus continues to move forward. We have made good progress on the cost of goods sold work streams, implementing multiple projects that reduce costs and simplify our supplier base." In reality, Project Pegasus was not delivering the efficiencies that Defendants touted. Rather, unknown to investors, Helen of Troy did not have enough resources or the budget to achieve its stated restructuring or savings goals. 6. The truth began to emerge on July 9, 2024, when Helen of Troy announced its results for the first quarter of 2025, reporting that earnings per share had declined by a staggering 49% from the prior year, and reducing full-year revenue outlook by over 20%. The Company attributed the poor financial results to an "unusual number of internal and external challenges," delaying the long-awaited delivery of savings from the Company's strategic plan. As a result of these disclosures, the price of Helen of Troy shares declined by $24.68 per share, or 27.7%. Fiscal year 2023 began on October 1, 2022, and concluded on September 30, 2023. Helen of Troy continued to assure investors that Pegasus was "on track," and that the Company had continued making "significant investments" into optimizing its productivity. Then, on May 2, 2025, the Company announced the sudden departure of its CEO, Noel Geoffroy, who spearheaded Project Pegasus and was only appointed as CEO just 14 months prior. Months later, on July 10, 2025, Helen of Troy revealed that its net sales for the first quarter of fiscal 2026 had declined 11% year-over-year and its adjusted earnings per share had shrunk by nearly 60% compared to the prior year. The Company also disclosed a $414.4 million goodwill impairment, which it attributed to its continued decelerating revenue growth. The Company's interim CEO -- CFO Brian Grass -- conceded that Helen of Troy had become "too complicated and lost focus," which "created unnecessary sprawl and [the Company] became scattered in terms of priorities." As a result of these disclosures, the price of Helen of Troy shares declined by $7.04 per share, or 22.7%. Then, on October 9, 2025, during his first earnings call as CEO, G. Scott Uzzell reported Helen of Troy's second quarter results for fiscal year 2026, announcing that quarterly sales were down 8.9% year-over-year, adjusted earnings per share plummeted by 51%, and that these results were caused by significant business disruptions and cost headwinds which the Company expects to persist for the remainder of the year. Uzzell acknowledged Helen of Troy's underperformance, stating that Helen of Troy "earned [its] way into a difficult period." These disclosures caused Helen of Troy's stock price to decline by $6.90 per share, or 25%. Based in El Paso, Texas, Helen of Troy markets a variety of consumer goods across several segments. Prior to the Class Period, the Company embarked on an aggressive growth-by acquisition strategy. By October 2022, investors had become concerned over integration challenges and growing costs caused by these acquisitions, while the Company's organic revenue growth also stagnated.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gerald T. Drought, Esq. Frank B. Burney, Esq. MARTIN & DROUGHT, P.C. Weston Centre 112 E. Pecan Street, Suite 1616 San Antonio, TX 78205 Telephone: (210) 227-7591 Facsimile: (210) 227-7924 E-mail: gdrought@mdtlaw.com fburney@mdtlaw.com - and - Hannah Ross, Esq. Scott R. Foglietta, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 E-mail: scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com hannah@blbglaw.com HELEN OF TROY: Faces Class Action Suit for Misleading Investors --------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP reminds stockholders that a class action was filed on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Helen of Troy Limited (NASDAQ: HELE) common stock between April 24, 2024 and October 8, 2025. Helen of Troy markets a variety of consumer goods across several segments. For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that Helen of Troy Limited (HELE) Misled Investors Regarding the Ability of Project Pegasus to Improve Efficiency and Effectiveness According to the complaint, in fiscal year 2023, Helen of Troy's then COO, and later CEO, Noel Geoffroy initiated Project Pegasus, a "global restructuring program that focused on both efficiency and effectiveness." As a part of this initiative, the Company invested in a new distribution center in Tennessee to support its targeted growth. Plaintiff alleges that during the class period, the Company boasted about the "fuel" it was generating from Project Pegasus. Although Helen of Troy admitted to some speed bumps in Project Pegasus, specifically citing "implementation hiccups" with its new Tennessee distribution center, defendants assured investors that "despite the delayed savings related to our Tennessee distribution center, Project Pegasus continues to move forward. We have made good progress on the cost of goods sold work streams, implementing multiple projects that reduce costs and simplify our supplier base." In reality, Project Pegasus was not delivering the efficiencies that defendants touted. Rather, unknown to investors, Helen of Troy did not have enough resources or the budget to achieve its stated restructuring or savings goals. Plaintiff further alleges that on July 10, 2025, Helen of Troy revealed that its net sales for the first quarter of fiscal 2026 had declined 11% year-over-year and its adjusted earnings per share had shrunk by nearly 60% compared to the prior year. The Company also disclosed a $414.4 million goodwill impairment, which it attributed to its continued decelerating revenue growth. The Company's interim CEO -- CFO Brian Grass -- conceded that Helen of Troy had become "too complicated and lost focus," which "created unnecessary sprawl and [the Company] became scattered in terms of priorities." As a result of these disclosures, the price of Helen of Troy shares declined by $7.04 per share, or 22.7%. Then, on October 9, 2025, during his first earnings call as CEO, G. Scott Uzzell reported Helen of Troy's second quarter results for fiscal year 2026, announcing that quarterly sales were down 8.9% year-over-year, adjusted earnings per share plummeted by 51%, and that these results were caused by significant business disruptions and cost headwinds which the Company expects to persist for the remainder of the year. Uzzell acknowledged Helen of Troy's underperformance, stating that Helen of Troy "earned [its] way into a difficult period." These disclosures caused Helen of Troy's stock price to decline by $6.90 per share, or 25%. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against Helen of Troy Limited. Shareholders who wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the class must submit their papers to the court by August 3, 2026. The lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. For more information, click here. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. [GN] HIMS & HERS: Merrill Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------------ MONICA MERRILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HIMS & HERS HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-05255 (N.D. Cal., June 2, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of placing unwanted marketing text messages to the cellular telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers in an attempt to promote its products or services without obtaining prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's action, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages. Hims & Hers Health, Inc. is a publicly traded company with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael T. Houchin, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, PC 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 Email: mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com HOME SECURITY: Echols Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- TAZINIQUE ECHOLS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Home Security Superstore, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05864 (N.D. Ill., May 20, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, Thehomesecuritysuperstore.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The website provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Defendant. However, the website contains significant access barriers that make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website. Headquartered in Alpharetta, GA, The Home Security Superstore, LLC owns and operates the website, which offers home security and safety products for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 (716) 281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law HOMETAP EQUITY PARTNERS: Ruane Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hometap Equity Partners, LLC. The case is styled as Roberta Ruane, John Ruane, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hometap Equity Partners, LLC, Hometap Holdings II, LLC, Hometap Investment Partners II, L.P., Case No. 2:26-cv-00875-CCW (W.D. Pa., May 11, 2026). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Hometap -- https://www.hometap.com/ -- provides a loan alternative called a home equity investment, allowing homeowners to tap their home equity without monthly payments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel C. Levin, Esq. Nicholas Elia, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Ste. 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: (215) 592-1500 Fax: (215) 592-4663 Email: dlevin@lfsblaw.com nelia@lfsblaw.com - and - D. Aaron Rihn, Esq. ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 437 Grant Street, Suite 1100 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: (412) 281-7229 Fax: (412) 281-4229 Email: arihn@peircelaw.com HOSPITAL SERVICES: Rios Files FCRA Suit in D. New Mexico -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hospital Services Corporation. The case is styled as Michael Rios, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hospital Services Corporation d/b/a HSC Background Investigation Services, Case No. 1:26-cv-01747 (D.N.M., May 31, 2026). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Hospital Services Corporation doing business as HSC Background Investigation Services -- https://www.nmhospitalservices.com/ -- provides in-depth investigative reports through our trained specialists.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (732) 695-3282 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com HOT TOPIC: Gallo Sues Over Misleading Discount Promotions --------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS GALLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOT TOPIC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 26-2-09007-1 (Wash. Sup., Pierce Cty., June 2, 2026) alleges violation of the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant markets its Products by email to Washington residents. The subject lines in these emails often promote "sales" and "discounts" on the Products. However, many subject lines are false, misleading, and unlawful because they promote misleading discounts, under false time restrictions, and from misleading regular and former prices. Hot Topic, Inc. is a retail chain that sells apparel, accessories, figures, and home goods. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com - and - M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Brook E. Garberding, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. Brandon P. Jack, Esq. EMERY REDDY, PC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (916) 823-6955 Email: anderson@emeryreddy.com brook@emeryreddy.com gregory@emeryreddy.com brandon@emeryreddy.com - and - Alexander E. Wolf, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 South Beverly Drive, PH Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (872) 365-7060 Email: awolf@milberg.com HUMANEDGE INC: Purvis Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------------- JESSIE PURVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HUMANEDGE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 7:26-cv-04184 (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2026) is a class action arising out of Defendant HumanEdge's failures to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. According to the complaint, the Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted cyberattack on or about April 8, 2026 to compromise Defendant's network that contained personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and other individuals. The threat actor "Qilin" successfully breached HumanEdge's inadequately protected computer systems and accessed and exfiltrated an unknown quantity of highly sensitive customer data, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information that it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiffs and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access of an unknown third party and including in that notice precisely what specific types of information were accessed and taken by cybercriminals. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant seeking redress for its unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for: (i) negligence, (ii) breach of implied contract, (iii) unjust enrichment, and (iv) declaratory relief. HumanEdge, Inc. is a national recruitment and staffing agency that connects job seekers with employers throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary E. Mason, Esq. MASON & PERRY LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Ste. 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com IAC INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Defreitas Says ------------------------------------------------------ ANDREYA DEFREITAS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. I.A.C., INC. d/b/a INDUSTRIAL ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, Case No. 3:26-cv-00859 (D. Conn., June 2, 2026) contends that cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train their employees on cybersecurity, failed to adequately monitor their agents, contractors, vendors, and suppliers in handling and securing the Private Information of Plaintiff, and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's Private Information -- rendering it an easy target for cybercriminals. On or before February 24, 2025, the Defendant lost control over its computer network and the highly sensitive personally identifiable information stored thereon in a data breach perpetrated by cybercriminals (the Data Breach). The notorious "INC" and "Akira" and ransomware gangs have been implicated in the Data Breach, and Akira has posted that it possesses sensitive Private Information stolen from Defendant on its dark web leak site. The Defendant's failure to timely report the Data Breach made the victims vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their Private Information.   The Defendant knew or should have known that each victim of the Data Breach deserved prompt and efficient notice of the Data Breach and assistance in mitigating the effects of Private Information misuse, says the suit.   In failing to adequately protect its clients' information, and by failing to adequately notify them about the breach, the Defendant violated state law and harmed thousands of its current and former clients. The Plaintiff and the Class are victims of Defendant's negligence and inadequate cyber security measures. Specifically, Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class trusted Defendant with their Private Information. But Defendant betrayed that trust. Defendant failed to properly use up-to-date security practices to prevent the Data Breach, the suit further contends. The Plaintiff is a former client of Defendant and a Data Breach victim. I.A.C., INC. d/b/a INDUSTRIAL ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION is an American holding company that owns brands worldwide, mostly in media and Internet.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 100 Pearl Street 14th Floor - No. 16946876 Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (929) 677-5181 E-mail: ofaircloth@sirillp.com - and - Raina Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC  980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610  Chicago, IL 60611  Telephone: (872) 263-1100  Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com INDUSTRIAL ACCEPTANCE: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Mayo Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA MAYO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INDUSTRIAL ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION D/B/A IAC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00862 (D. Conn., June 2, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach in February 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Industrial Acceptance Corporation, doing business as IAC, Inc., is a financial services company based in New Haven, Connecticut. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (929) 677-5181 Email: ofaircloth@sirillp.com - and - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy., Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 Email: abm@murphylegalfirm.com J.M. SMUCKER: Faces Class Suit Over Hot Fudge Topping's False Ads ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Alexander Mercado filed a class action lawsuit against The J.M. Smucker Co. Why: Mercado claims Smucker misleads consumers by labeling its sugar-free hot fudge topping as being sweetened with Splenda. Where: The Smucker class action lawsuit was filed in New York federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses Smucker of misleading consumers by marketing its sugar-free hot fudge topping as sweetened with Splenda, even though the product is primarily sweetened with other, less desirable ingredients. Plaintiff Alexander Mercado claims Smucker's Sugar Free Hot Fudge Spoonable Topping is primarily sweetened with maltitol syrup, glycerin and sorbitol despite the product's label prominently stating it is "Sweetened with Splenda." "While [Smucker] states prominently on the front label of the products that they are 'Sweetened with Splenda,' there is hardly any Splenda in the products at all," the Smucker class action lawsuit says. Mercado argues Smucker's labeling of the sugar-free hot fudge spoonable topping is ultimately misleading and that the company has profited from this deception. He wants to represent a class of New York consumers who purchased the Smucker product for personal, family or household consumption. Consumers relied on Smucker's labeling claims, class action says Mercado argues he purchased the sugar-free hot fudge spoonable topping multiple times, relying on Smucker's labeling claims, and that he would not have bought the product or would have paid less for it had he known the primary sweetener was not Splenda. "Plaintiff and class members have been damaged either in the full amount of the purchase price of the products or in the difference in value between the products as warranted and the products as actually sold," the Smucker class action lawsuit says. Mercado argues maltitol syrup is not calorie-free like Splenda and is known to cause digestive issues, including bloating, gas, diarrhea and stomach cramps. Splenda, made from sucralose, is a popular sugar substitute because it has no calories and does not cause significant spikes in blood glucose or insulin, making it safe for diabetics, according to the Smucker class action. Mercado claims Smucker violated New York General Business Law, which prohibits deceptive acts or practices and false advertising. The plaintiff demands a jury trial and requests injunctive relief and an award of compensatory, statutory and punitive damages for himself and all class members. In another Smucker lawsuit, a California federal judge said last year that he was leaning toward certifying a class of consumers claiming the company failed to disclose the risks posed by PFAS chemicals found in some of its pet food packaging. The plaintiff is represented by Joshua D. Arisohn of Arisohn LLC. The Smucker class action lawsuit is Mercado v. The J.M. Smucker Co., Case No. 1:26-cv-04012, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. [GN] KINDRED BRANDS: Echols Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- TAZINIQUE ECHOLS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Kindred Brands 1 Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-06504 (N.D. Ill., June 2, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://lovekinship.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services the website provides to their non-disabled customers through its website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the ADA. Yet, the website contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. The access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website, says the suit. The Defendant provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Three Bird Nest.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law KOBY EMPIRE: Transmits Mobile App User Data to Meta, Savage Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROBIN SAVAGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KOBY EMPIRE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:26-cv-01401 (C.D. Cal., June 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of secretly intercepting and transmitting the private communications and personal data of users of its Sunflower mobile application to Meta Platforms, Inc. through the Facebook SDK, a third-party software development kit. According to the complaint, the Facebook SDK was embedded in the application's source code to secretly intercept and transmit user data to Meta's servers for advertising and analytics purposes without the knowledge or consent of its users. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and the Class sustained damages, says the suit. Koby Empire, Inc. is a mobile application developer and registered mental health provider, with its principal place of business in Royal Oak, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Victor J. Sandoval, Esq. Lucas Coughlin, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1121 Los Angeles, CA 90034 Telephone: (562) 534-5907 Email: victor@almeidalawgroup.com KOCH FERTILIZER: Conspires to Fix NPK Fertilizer Prices, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOHN WEIDENAAR and STACY L. COPE, EXECUTRIX OF THE JAN L. KING ESTATE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KOCH FERTILIZER, LLC; KOCH AGRONOMIC SERVICES, LLC; NUTRIEN LTD.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC.; THE MOSAIC CO.; CANPOTEX LTD.; CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.; CF INDUSTRIES INC.; CF NITROGEN, LLC; YARA INTERNATIONAL ASA; and YARA NORTH AMERICA, INC. Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-02312 (D. Kan., May 27, 2026) arises from Defendants' conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices for nitrogen, phosphate and potassium (potash) fertilizers ("NPK Fertilizers") from January 1, 2021, until Defendants' unlawful conduct and its anticompetitive effects cease to persist. The complaint relates that the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct had the following effects, among others: competition among Defendants has been restrained or eliminated with respect to NPK fertilizers; the price of NPK fertilizers has been fixed, stabilized, or maintained at artificially high levels; and purchasers have been deprived of free and open competition for NPK fertilizers. Moreover, Defendants' violations of the antitrust laws have caused Plaintiffs and members of the Class to pay higher prices for NPK fertilizers than they would have in the absence of Defendants' illegal contract, combination, or conspiracy, and, as a result, Plaintiffs and members of the Class have suffered damages in the form of overcharges paid on their NPK fertilizers purchases. This is an injury of the type that the antitrust laws were meant to punish and prevent. Defendants' price fixing agreement is per se unlawful, or, alternatively, are unlawful under either a quick look or rule of reason analysis, says the suit. The Plaintiffs are entitled to the amount of the Defendants' ill-gotten gains resulting from its unlawful, unjust, and inequitable conduct, asserts the complaint. Plaintiffs are entitled to the establishment of a constructive trust consisting of all ill-gotten gains from which Plaintiffs, it adds. Plaintiff John Weidenaar is a farmer and citizen of Montana, and purchased NPK Fertilizer both directly and indirectly from other Defendants for end use during the Class Period. Plaintiff Stacy L. Cope is the duly appointed Executrix of the Estate of Jan L. King. The Estate of Jan L. King owns farmland in Prowers County, Colorado. Defendants are the dominant producers and sellers of NPK Fertilizers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rex A. Sharp, Esq. Isaac L. Diel, Esq. Hammons P. Hepner, Esq. SHARP LAW, LLP 4820 W. 75th Street Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 901-0505 Facsimile: (913) 261-7564 Fax E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com idiel@midwest-law.com hhepner@midwest-law.com KURU FOOTWEAR: McLean Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- KELLY McLEAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KURU FOOTWEAR, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04451 (S.D.N.Y., May 28, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.KuruFootwear.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Kuru Footwear is a developer of heel pain relief footwear technology intended to provide comfortable shoes. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Schonfeld, Esq. Joseph & Norinsberg, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com LABORATORY CORP: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $35MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ Danielle Toth of ClaimDepot reports that patients who received diagnostic services from Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings and whose personal information the company transmitted to American Medical Collection Agency between August 2018 and March 2019 may be eligible to claim up to $5,000 from a class action settlement. Labcorp agreed to pay $35 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it failed to adequately protect personal and health information during a cybersecurity incident involving AMCA's computer systems. Who can file a claim? Individuals are eligible to participate in this settlement if: -- Labcorp transmitted their personal information to AMCA (also known as Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau Inc.). -- The computer systems the AMCA cybersecurity incident compromised between August 2018 and March 2019 contained their information. How much can class members get? Class members may be eligible for one of the following awards: -- Documented out-of-pocket losses: Up to $5,000 for unreimbursed costs, expenses or losses resulting from identity theft, medical fraud or misuse of personal information. Eligible expenses may include: -- Professional service costs (such as legal or credit repair services) -- Miscellaneous expenses (such as notary, fax, postage, copying, mileage and long-distance phone charges) -- Credit monitoring costs incurred on or after Aug. 1, 2018, through Sept. 3, 2026 -- Up to 10 hours of documented time spent remedying fraud or identity theft at $25 per hour -- Alternative cash payment: Class members who do not have out-of-pocket losses can claim an alternative cash payment estimated at $50. The settlement administrator may adjust the final amount depending on the total number of valid claims and the amount left in the settlement fund after deductions for administrative costs, attorneys' fees and costs, service awards to class representatives and taxes. -- Medical monitoring: All class members can elect to receive up to two years of CyEx Medical Shield Pro medical and health care information monitoring services. How to claim a class action settlement payment Class members can file a claim online or download the PDF claim form, complete it and mail it to the settlement administrator. Settlement administrator's mailing address: American Medical Collection Agency Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation Labcorp Settlement, c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC, PO Box 5324, New York, NY 10150-5324 What proof or documentation is necessary to submit a claim? -- For out-of-pocket loss claims, class members must provide documentation, such as receipts or other records, showing the costs incurred. Self-prepared documents (like handwritten receipts) are not sufficient on their own, but class members may use them to supplement other documentation. -- For alternative cash payment or medical monitoring claims, class members must select the appropriate option on the claim form. -- For online claims, class members must provide the class member ID from the settlement notice they received. Payout options -- Electronic payment (if claim is filed online) -- Mailed check (if claim is filed by mail) $35 million settlement fund breakdown The $35,000,000 settlement fund covers: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $11,670,000 -- Attorneys' expenses: To be determined -- Service awards to class representatives: $5,000 each -- Medical monitoring services: Cost determined by number of valid claims for this option -- Payments to eligible class members: Remainder of the fund Important dates -- Deadline to opt out: July 27, 2026 -- Final fairness hearing: Aug. 20, 2026 -- Deadline to file a claim: Sept. 3, 2026 When is the Labcorp AMCA data breach settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will distribute payments after the court resolves any appeals and grants final approval of the settlement. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged a cybersecurity incident impacted AMCA's computer systems, potentially exposing Labcorp customers' personal and health information. Labcorp denies any wrongdoing or liability. The parties reached the settlement to avoid the costs and risks of litigation and provide compensation to affected individuals. Settlement Open for Claims Award: Up to $5,000 plus medical monitoring Deadline: September 3, 2026 [GN] LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING: Idris Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Elijah Idris, Justin Bickham, Gowan McLin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC, Case No. CGC26636797 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., May 11, 2026). The case type is stated as "Personal Injury/Property Damage - Non-Vehicle Related." Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC -- https://lakeview.com/ -- is the fourth largest mortgage loan servicer in the country.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lesley E. Weaver, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY PLLC 1111 Broadway, Ste 03-130 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone: 341-217-0550 Email: lweaver@stranchlaw.com LANE 201 BOUTIQUE: Ford Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ SANDRA FORD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lane 201 Boutique LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05893 (N.D. Ill., May 20, 2026) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://lane201.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Ford and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. Despite readily available accessible technology, Defendant has chosen to rely on an exclusively visual interface that provides no meaningful accommodations for screen-reading software users. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lane 201 Boutique LLC owns and operates the website which offers women apparel and fashion accessories for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N, Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 (716) 281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law LEADER FREIGHT: Williams Sues Over Illegally Deducted Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Theodare Williams, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. LEADER FREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC., DANILO TOSIC, and FILIP MILIVOJEVIC, Case No. 1:26-cv-01125-JRS-MG (S.D. Ind., May 31, 2026), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") on behalf of a class consisting of all similarly situated persons who are or were employed as truck drivers of the Defendants and had monies illegally deducted from their wages. The Plaintiff did not sign a document permitting the Defendants to take monies from his compensation for escrow. The Defendants deducted monies from the wages of the Plaintiff for escrow. The Plaintiff did not sign a document permitting the Defendants to take monies from his compensation for insurance. The Defendants deducted monies from the wages of the Plaintiff for insurance. The Plaintiff earned commissions while working for the Defendants. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff for certain commissions earned during the course of his employment. The Plaintiff earned mileage while working for the Defendants. The Defendants failed to pay The Plaintiff for certain mileage earned during the course of his employment. The Defendants failed to pay The Plaintiff at least minimum wages for his last workweek he worked for the Defendants, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is or was a truck driver who worked for the Defendant. LFS, is an incorporated company that is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald E. Weldy, Esq. WELDY LAW 11268 Governors Lane Fishers, IN 46037 Phone: (317) 289-0483 Email: rweldy@weldylegal.com LISINSKI LAW: Faces Ortega Suit Over RICO Violations ---------------------------------------------------- EVA ACEVEDO ORTEGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE LISINSKI LAW FIRM, LLC; ANGELYNE E. LISINSKI; JUAN CHINCHILLA; and REA SINGH, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-00644-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio, May 28, 2026) alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants operated a high-volume immigration practice that: (a) concealed from clients that their immigration petitions were Violence Against Women Act self-petitions requiring allegations of domestic abuse or extreme cruelty, or "T Visa" applications that required allegations of forced labor or involuntary servitude, among other things; (b) delegated all substantive legal work to non-attorney staff; (c) used non-attorney drafting personnel and template-driven processes to generate abuse narratives without meaningful client participation; (d) prepared and/or filed petitions with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services containing allegations that clients say they never made, and without attorney contact, review or client understanding; (e) charged thousands of dollars for this process while failing to disclose material additional costs; and (f) unreasonably withheld client files and case information when clients discovered or questioned what had been prepared or filed in their names. Plaintiff is requesting equitable fee forfeiture, disgorgement, restitution, and damages arising from Defendants' systematic scheme to defraud vulnerable immigrants through a high-volume immigration filing operation disguised as a legitimate law practice. Each Defendant explicitly agreed to the overall structure of the racketeering conspiracy and knew that the success of the multi-million-dollar immigration mill depended entirely upon the coordinated commission of federal wire fraud, mail fraud, and post-fraud witness tampering, says the suit. The Lisinski Law Firm, LLC offers humanitarian immigration solutions, including pathways that allow individuals to adjust status within the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Anthony Alvarez, Sr. AVANTI LAW GROUP, PLLC 600 28th St. SW Wyoming, MI 45909 Tel: (616) 257-6807 LPL FINANCIAL: Brown Class Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- CIARA GLASGOW BROWN, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. LPL FINANCIAL, LLC, a limited liability company, Case No. 3:26-cv-03358-JLS-DEB (S.D. Cal., June 2, 2026) seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorney's fees, costs and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, the Defendant maintained a corporate policy and practice of failing to compensate its CSRs for all pre-, mid-, and post-shift off-the-clock work and failed incorporate attendance bonuses into the overtime rate of pay. Regardless of the specific job title, all CSRs: (1) were paid on an hourly basis; (2) were classified as non-exempt employees; (3) used the same timekeeping system(s); (4) used many (if not all) of the same computer programs; (5) were subject to the same relevant timekeeping and attendance policies; and (6) had the primary job duty of providing customer support. The Defendant required its CSRs to begin work prior to their scheduled shifts and perform a number of off-the-clock tasks that were integral and indispensable to their jobs, including booting up computers and logging into numerous software programs, the suit contends. The CSRs only "clocked in" and received compensation after this preliminary work was completed, though they were required to perform this work to be "phone ready" when their scheduled shifts began, the suit adds. The Plaintiff and the putative collective members consist of current and former customer service representatives, or similar positions, who were compensated on an hourly basis. The Defendant employs hundreds, if not thousands, of CSRs who provided customer service and support to Defendant's customers throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 1801 Century Park E. Suite No. 860 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 579-0600 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com LUCKY JOE'S: Udeme Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------ BRANDON UDEME, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LUCKY JOE'S GARAGE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-02407-SBP (D. Colo., June 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of placing unwanted telemarketing calls to the cellular telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers in an attempt to promote its products or services without obtaining prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's action, the Plaintiff and Class members have been harmed including intrusion upon seclusion, invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of daily life. Lucky Joe's Garage LLC is an e-commerce firm, headquartered in Tallahassee, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Awad, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 1515 NE 26th St. Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (954) 600-3267 Email: samuel@jibraellaw.com M. LEONARD: Battle Sues Over Blind User-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ ANDRE BATTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. M. Leonard International, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-06524 (N.D., Ill., June 2, 2026) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, Sanita.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The suit contends that the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services Extra Butter provides to their non-disabled customers through its website. Accordingly, the website contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. The access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Haspel's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Defendant provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Just Ingredients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. HORWITZ LAW, PLLC 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com MANITOBA: Judge OKs $129MM Solitary Confinement Class Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Caitlyn Gowriluk, writing for CBC News, reports that a Manitoba judge has approved what a class-action administrator says is a $129-million settlement agreement in a lawsuit that alleged the province's use of segregation in provincial jails for adults and youth was negligent and breached Charter rights. The agreement was approved Thursday, June 4, in a Winnipeg courtroom, where Court of King's Bench Justice Theodor Bock made the decision after hearing emotional comments from people affected by the practice. They included a 22-year-old man who was held in segregation after being incarcerated as a young teen. "It will very much likely haunt me for the rest of my life," he said, calling the segregation a "horribly traumatic" experience that "had a resounding effect." Court also heard from two mothers, who described some of the struggles their late sons experienced after being held in segregation. "These guys and girls have to reintegrate back into society and be functioning members of society," said one of those mothers, who told court she's now raising her young grandson. "And I just think it does a lot to be locked up for 23 hours a day." Class-action administrator Proactio says on its website that the settlement fund, which it says is $129 million, is part of a deal where the Manitoba government agreed to resolve the lawsuit without a trial but denies liability. Under the settlement agreement, it says eligible class-action lawsuit members are expected to receive awards starting at $3,000 for adults and $9,000 for youth. They might be entitled to higher amounts if they were held in segregation for a prolonged period or suffered specific, provable harms while segregated. The maximum compensation is $100,000, depending on their circumstances, Proactio's website says. The Manitoba class action covers three specific groups of people who experienced solitary confinement, which class-action counsel Koskie Minsky describes on its website as a person being segregated in a room or area without meaningful human contact for at least 22 hours in a day. Those eligible include youths who were subjected to segregation in a Manitoba custodial facility after Sept. 12, 2006. People who were in segregation for at least 15 consecutive days, or while suffering from a serious mental illness, after Sept. 12, 2012, are also eligible, Proactio's website says. Bock said he plans to release written reasons for his decision at a later date. A spokesperson for Manitoba Justice Minister Matt Wiebe said in an emailed statement the government acknowledges the settlement accepted by the courts and will reserve further comment "pending the release of the written decision." The Manitoba class-action development follows other lawsuits across Canada in recent years surrounding the use of solitary confinement, including in British Columbia and Ontario. [GN] MARKLEY LOWELL: Delgrosso Sues Over Excessive Data Center Noise --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH DELGROSSO and BARBARA DYMENT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. MARKLEY LOWELL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2681CV01404 (Super. Ct., Mass., May 27, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to follow proper industrial practices to prevent offsite emission of noise, and has failed to absorb, capture, mitigate, and/or prevent noise from escaping its data center, thereby invading the homes and properties of Plaintiffs and the Class. Defendant Markley Lowell, LLC operates and maintains the Data Center located at 1 Markley Way, Lowell MA 01852. Plaintiffs Joseph Delgrosso and Barbara Dyment are citizens of Massachusetts who have owned and resided at their properties located at 1 Autumn Street, Lowell, Massachusetts. The complaint relates that the Defendant's Data center is a 352,000 square foot facility where it provides hosting, colocation, and high performance computing (HPC) services. A properly operated, maintained and/or constructed Data Center will contain, capture, or otherwise prevent the emission of excessive noise from its generators and cooling systems by designing and implementing low-noise cooling systems. However, the Defendant has failed to implement adequate low-noise cooling system that contain, mitigate and/or prevent the escape of noise, thereby resulting in the offsite emission of excessive noise beyond its property. Through its operation and maintenance of the Data Center, Defendant has emitted, and continues to emit, unreasonable and excessive noise onto Plaintiffs' properties thereby causing property damages through private nuisance and negligence, says the suit. The Plaintiffs, therefore, seek monetary and injunctive relief for property damage caused by Defendant's private nuisance and negligence and the aggregate amount in controversy significantly exceeds $50,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William P. Doyle, III, Esq. COLONNA, DOYLE & SIMEOLA 26 Main Street, 3rd Floor Lynnfield, MA 01940 Telephone: (781) 245-1127 E-mail: bii@colonna-doyle.com - and - Laura L. Sheets, Esq. Steven D. Liddle, Esq. Matthew Z. Robb, Esq. LIDDLE SHEETS P.C. 975 E. Jefferson Ave. Detroit, MI 48207 Telephone: (313) 392-0015 E-mail: sliddle@lsclassaction.com lsheets@lsclassaction.com mrobb@lsclassaction.com MARS INC: Removes Martinez Suit to C.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of DANIELLE MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARS, INCORPORATED D/B/A BANFIELD PET HOSPITAL; MEDICAL MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL, INC. D/B/A BANFIELD PET HOSPITAL; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. 26STCV10938) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 29, 2026. The clerk of court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-05766. The case is assigned to Judge George H Wu and referred to Magistrate Michael B Kaufman. Medical Management International, Inc., doing business as Banfield Pet Hospital, provides animal healthcare services. The Company offers general pet veterinary hospital services including, diagnostic and imaging, preventive care, emergency, surgery, dentistry, and microchipping. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Elizabeth A. Falcone, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. The KOIN Center 222 SW Columbia Street, Suite 1500 Portland, OR 97201 Telephone: (503) 552-2166 Email: elizabeth.falcone@ogletree.com - and - Paul M. Smith, Esq. George J. Theofanis, SBN 324037 OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2800 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 840-3150 Facsimile: (916) 840-3159 Email: paul.smith@ogletree.com george.theofanis@ogletree.com MAXEM HEALTH: Underpays Family Nurse Practitioners, Shows Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- NAOMI SHOWS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAXEM HEALTH URGENT CARE LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:26-cv-00389-HTW-LGI (S.D. Miss., June 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Shows worked for the Defendants as a family nurse practitioner in March 2020. Maxem Health Urgent Care LLC is a company that operates clinics in Mississippi. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel F. Dillard, Esq. Kevin Hanlon, Esq. JOEL F. DILLARD, PA 775 North Congress Street Jackson, MS 39202 Telephone: (601) 509-1372 Email: joel.f.dillard@gmail.com kevin@joeldillard.com MAZA LIQUORS: Evans Sues Over Website's Non-Compliance with ADA --------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES EVANS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Maza Liquors LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-05872 (N.D. Ill., May 20, 2026) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant's violations stem from its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Evans and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. Due to Defendant's failure and refusal to remove access barriers to the website, visually impaired individuals have been and are being denied equal access to Defendant as well as to the numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public through the website, says the suit. Based in San Jose, CA, Maza Liquors LLC owns and operates the website, https://www.donsliquorsandwine.com, which offers spirit beverages for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N, Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 (716) 281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law MCDONALD'S CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Worm Contamination in Sodas ------------------------------------------------------------------ WISN reports that staff at a Paddock Lake McDonald's knew the drive-thru soda machine had been contaminated with worms, but served customers anyway, according to a class action lawsuit filed against operators of the restaurant. According to the suit, filed in Kenosha County Circuit Court, three different customers reported finding worms in their drinks to the Kenosha Health Department, starting with Jazmyne Gurske. "How does this even happen?!" Gurske wrote in a Facebook post, "I'm extremely angry and disgusted." A subsequent inspection report, cited in the lawsuit, said management noticed worms coming from the sewage receptacle the weekend before Gurske visited the 75th Paddock Lake restaurant. The inspection report court documents point to damaged tiles under the soda and ice machine in the drive-thru. "Drain failures created conditions that allowed contaminated water, wastewater, sewage-related material, or organisms to infiltrate or compromise beverage dispensing components," lawyers wrote in the lawsuit. "Food/beverages were prepared with contaminated sewage water and that the beverages contained sewage and worms." The report said inspectors ordered a re-inspection and to not use the drive-thru soda machine until the additional review. "A reinspection was conducted April 30, 2026. Repairs to the soda machine plumbing and floor were complete and the soda machine had been sanitized. The inspector gave the approval for the establishment to operate the soda machine," Kenosha County Communications Manager Joe Potente said. Neither the restaurant owner nor McDonald's corporate office responded to requests for comment by the time this story was published. [GN] MER-SEA & CO: Murphy Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MURPHY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MER-SEA & CO., LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04507 (S.D.N.Y., May 28, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.mersea.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Mer-Sea & Co., LLC is a designer and seller of clothing and accessories. The company offers travel wraps, sweaters, scented candles, and sea-infused soaps, thereby providing products with marine-sourced ingredients. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC: Wygle Seeks Refund of IEEPA Tariff Charges -------------------------------------------------------------- RICK WYGLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC TOOL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-00950 (E.D. Wis., May 27, 2026) arises from Milwaukee's retention of profits generated by unlawful tariffs imposed by the federal government under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act ("IEEPA"). The complaint relates that beginning in February 2025, the federal government imposed sweeping tariffs on imports from numerous countries under purported authority of the IEEPA. Those tariffs dramatically increased the cost of imported consumer goods sold in the United States. U.S. importers--including Milwaukee Electric--responded by increasing prices on consumer goods to offset the cost of these tariffs. As a result, American consumers paid higher retail prices for consumer goods reflecting the economic burden of those tariffs. In January 2026, Milwaukee Electric filed suit against the United States and U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("CBP") seeking refunds of IEEPA tariffs paid on imports. On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court held that the IEEPA-based tariffs were unlawful. As a consequence of that decision, importers who paid those tariffs--including Milwaukee Electric--became entitled to refunds of the duties they previously paid to CBP. Milwaukee Electric collected the tariffs from consumers through increased prices on its products, while seeking refunds of the same tariff payments from the federal government. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of millions of consumers who purchased goods from Milwaukee Electric during the Class Period and who paid tariff surcharges reflecting Milwaukee Electric's pass-through of unlawful tariffs. Plaintiff seeks restitution of those tariff overcharges, together with appropriate declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. Plaintiff Rick Wygle purchased goods from Milwaukee Electric that were subject to increased prices from the IEEPA tariffs, including a Milwaukee 18V Lithium-Ion Compact Impact Driver. Defendant Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation is one of the largest manufacturers and distributors of professional-grade power tools, cordless tool systems, batteries, and related equipment in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Terence R. Coates, Esq. Jonathan T. Deters, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com jdeters@msdlegal.com - and - M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. EMERY REDDY, PC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: 916.823.6955 E-mail: anderson@emeryreddy.com gregory@emeryreddy.com MINUS-8 INC: Lopez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MINUS-8, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04505 (S.D.N.Y., May 28, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.minus8watch.com is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Minus-8, Inc. specializes in creating original and reliable watches, focusing on ultra-durable dive and field models designed for everyday use. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal MISSION MERCANTILE: Ramirez Sues Over Website's Access Barriers --------------------------------------------------------------- ROSEMARIE RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MISSION MERCANTILE, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06486 (N.D. Ill., June 2, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.missionmercantile.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Mission Mercantile, Ltd. is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [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 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com MIZUBA CORPORATION: Barlow Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Barlow, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Mizuba Corporation, Case No. 1:26-cv-06399 (N.D. Ill., May 30, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://mizubatea.com/ (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website") to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Wood and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the Website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a wide range of Japanese teas, including loose-leaf green teas, ceremonial-grade matcha powders, tea bundles and gift sets, tea brewing tools and accessories, and limited seasonal or single-origin tea offerings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law NATERA INC: Klein Sues Over PGT-A Testing's Misrepresentation ------------------------------------------------------------- MELISSA KLEIN and VALERIE GRIFFETH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NATERA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:26-cv-05231 (N.D. Cal., June 2, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the New York Consumer Protection and Illinois' Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, fraud, fraud by concealment, and unjust enrichment/restitution. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, unfair, and misleading advertising, marketing, and promotion of its preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy ("PGT-A" or "PGT-A testing"). According to the complaint, the Defendant advertised its PGT-A testing as a proven, accurate, and reliable method to decrease the chance of miscarriage and increase the chance of giving birth to a healthy baby. However, studies show that when looking at clinic pregnancy, miscarriage, or live-birth rates, there is no difference between cycles utilizing PGT-A and cycles not utilizing PGT-A. Studies also show the accuracy rating for PGT-A is significantly lower than advertised or disclosed. As a result of the Defendant's misrepresentations, the Plaintiffs and Class members suffered economic losses. Natera, Inc. is a diagnostics company based in Austin, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Karen Barth Menzies, Esq. JUSTICE LAW COLLABORATIVE, LLC 6701 Center Drive West, #1400 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Telephone: (310) 363-0030 Email: karen@justicelc.com NEWREZ LLC: Fails to Provide Mortgage Payoff Statements, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ SHARON SHAPIRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEWREZ, LLC d/b/a SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING, Defendant, Case No. 2:26-cv-05309 (C.D. Cal., May 18, 2026) is a class action brought under the California Business and Professions Code and the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act arising from Defendant Shellpoint's failure to timely provide mortgage payoff statements and payoff-related information after written requests. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of similarly situated borrowers, successors in interest, executors, trustees, and estate representatives whose written requests for payoff statements or payoff-related information were not timely fulfilled by Defendant. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, acting as mortgage servicer, failed to timely send or otherwise provide payoff information after receiving Plaintiff's written requests concerning a mortgage loan secured by the borrower's primary residence. The Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant later asserted that payoff statements had been sent on earlier dates, but Plaintiff did not receive those purported statements by email or regular mail. As a result of Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff was delayed in obtaining the information necessary to satisfy the loan, resulting in continued accrual of interest and related charges before payoff, says the suit. Newrez, LLC is a mortgage servicer that conducts business throughout the United States, including in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Mackey, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT MACKEY 16320 Murphy Road Sonora, CA 95370 Telephone: (412) 370-9110 E-mail: bobmackeyesq@aol.com - and - Matt Smith, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street NE Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com jrathod@classlawdc.com - and - Scott David Hirsch, Esq. SCOTT HIRSCH LAW GROUP PLLC 1 Research Court, Suite 450 Rockville, MD 20850 Telephone: (301) 569-1339 E-mail: scott@scotthirschlawgroup.com OAKLAND COUNTY, MI: Forfeits Real Property Without Due Process -------------------------------------------------------------- CARL WILKINSON for Irvin Wilkinson with Power of Attorney, JOHN McGILL; RONDA GRAY; LHISA WARSAW; JONATHAN M. ELLISON; HEYWOOD BALLARD; REYFORD FRYE; MARIO MORENO; CAROLYN RICHARDSONHEART; MARVIN ASKER; MARVIN ASKER personal representative for the Estate of GEORGETTE KORI, deceased, and all the unknown claimants and owners, and all the heirs, devisees or assigns of the claimants and owners and all the heirs, devisees and assignees of Georgette Kori (deceased), all or any of whom may have or had an interest in the foreclosed property or the subject matter of this action, CHRISTOPHER BOYD; WENDY WRIGHT; KEYCIA WRIGHT; CAMILLA BOWMAN-PORTER; BRANDON KLECKLEY; REGINALD COLLINS; SIMPLY CONSTRUCTION EXCAVATING; DEMETRIA DAVIS; ALLYSA HAYES; SILVER CAPITAL GROUP; SHEILA MAXWELL; BOBBY WILLIAMSON, personal representative for the Estate of ALMA WILLIAMSON, deceased, and all the unknown claimants and owners, and all the heirs, devisees or assigns of the claimants and owners and all the heirs, devisees and assignees of Alma Williamson (deceased), all or any of whom may have or had an interest in the foreclosed property or the subject matter of this action, DELLA HAGWOOD, DR. FESSEHA TEWODROS; EAH PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC; ROLAND PORTER; JAMES HOLLEY; FREDERICKA HOLLY; KEYCIA POPE personal representative for the Estate of Serenus Pope, deceased, and all the unknown claimants and owners, and all the heirs, devisees or assigns of the claimants and owners and all the heirs, devisees and assignees of Serenus Pope (deceased), all or any of whom may have or had an interest in the foreclosed property or the subject matter of this action, ANTHONY MOTTLEY; ADENLKE IJLWAYE; RENEE HASSAN; SARAH DELEON; MICHAEL GRAVES; DAVID McELMURRY; SFS TAX SERVICE; and SODORE, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COUNTY OF OAKLAND, ANDREW MEISNER in his personal and official capacity; CITY OF SOUTHFIELD; SOUTHFIELD NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION INITIATIVE LLC; FREDERICK ZORN in his personal and official capacity; KENSON J. SIVER in his personal and official capacity; and SOUTHFIELD NON-PROFIT HOUSING CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-11816-SJM-KGA (E.D. Mich., June 2, 2026) is an action seeking enforce fundamental rights under the Michigan Constitution Article X, and the deprivation of the Plaintiffs' "surplus equity" and "just compensation" in their properties under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and their right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants' conduct caused the deprivation of Plaintiffs' valuable property rights consisting of equity in real property without just compensation. This abuse stems from the Defendants' property tax foreclosure process. Michigan law generally authorizes counties to foreclose private property whose owners have failed to pay all property taxes. Those properties may be sold at auction, and the proceeds are used to make municipalities whole for unpaid taxes, as well as reasonable fees and expenses. The Plaintiffs all fell behind in paying their property taxes on their residences. Their respective properties were all forfeited and then foreclosed upon, sometimes without constitutionally sufficient notice. Oakland County is a county in the U.S. state of Michigan. It is a principal county of the Detroit metropolitan area, containing the bulk of Detroit's northern suburbs. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott F. Smith, Esq. SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC 30833 Northwestern Hwy, Suite 200 Farmington Hills, MI 48334 Telephone: (248) 626-1962 ONSITE MAMMOGRAPHY: $2.5MM Settlement Final Hearing Set Sept. 9 --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Onsite Mammography agreed to pay $2.525 million to resolve claims it failed to prevent a 2024 data breach that compromised patient information. The Onsite Mammography class action settlement benefits individuals who received a data breach notice from Onsite Mammography informing them that their information may have been compromised in October 2024. According to the Onsite Mammography data breach class action lawsuit, Onsite Mammography failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures that could have prevented a 2024 data breach. As a result of Onsite Mammography's alleged negligence, hackers gained access to sensitive patient information, the class action lawsuit contends. Onsite Mammography, now known as Onsite Women's Health, provides mammography and related screening services through partner medical practices and healthcare locations across the United States. Onsite Mammography has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $2.525 million class action settlement to resolve the data breach class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Onsite Mammography settlement, class members can receive reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses related to the data breach. This includes up to $5,000 for documented expenses, such as bank fees, credit costs, credit monitoring, identity theft expenses and more. Class members can also receive a pro rata share of the settlement fund. Exact payments will vary depending on the number of claims filed with the settlement. All class members can receive three years of free credit and medical data monitoring and insurance services. These services include three credit bureau monitoring and $1 million in identity theft insurance. The deadline for exclusion and objection is July 13, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Onsite Mammography settlement is scheduled for Sept. 9, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Aug. 11, 2026. Who's Eligible The Onsite Mammography class action settlement benefits individuals who received a data breach notice from Onsite Mammography informing them that their information may have been compromised in October 2024. Potential Award Up to $5,000 in out-of-pocket expenses and a pro rata cash payment Proof of Purchase Documentation supporting the unreimbursed costs, losses or expenditures, such as bank statements, invoices, receipts and bills Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 08/11/2026 Case Name Clarkson, et al. v. Onsite Mammography LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-11123-MGM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts Final Hearing 09/09/2026 Settlement Website OnsiteSettlement.com Claims Administrator Onsite Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 3868 Baton Rouge, LA 70821 info@OnsiteSettlement.com855-389-9238 Class Counsel Elena A. Belov ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC Marc H. Edelson EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP Jonathan S. Mann PITTMAN, DUTTON, HELLUMS, BRADLEY & MANN P.C. Defense Counsel Mason N. Floyd Peter T. Berk CLARK HILL PLC [GN] OSHKOSH CORP: Fountain Valley Balks at Fire Truck Market Monopoly ----------------------------------------------------------------- The CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Oshkosh Corp.; REV Group, Inc.; Boise Mobile Equipment, Inc.; Pierce Manufacturing Inc.; Maxi-Metal, Inc.; Ferrara Fire Apparatus, Inc.; Emergency One ("E-ONE"); Kovatch Mobile Equipment; Spartan Fire, LLC d/b/a Spartan Emergency Response, et al., Defendants, Case No. 8:26-cv-01246 (C.D. Cal., May 18, 2026) is a class action brought against the Defendants under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, Sections 3, 4, 7, and 16 of the Clayton Act, and various state statutes. According to the complaint, two largest fire apparatus manufacturers, Oshkosh Corporation and REV Group, Inc., steadily neutralized their competition by absorbing them in a series of private equity roll-ups and strategic acquisitions. They now control approximately 76% of the U.S. fire apparatus market, and Oshkosh controls more than 50% of the market on its own -- a monopoly share. Oshkosh and REV Group have so effectively consolidated the fire apparatus market that the index score used to calculate market concentration is nearly double the threshold at which the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission dub a market "highly concentrated" for antitrust purposes. The manufacturer Defendants and fire apparatus dealers also entered into hub-and-spoke conspiracies -- formalized through a series of exclusive dealing agreements -- that suppress competition by allocating the United States fire apparatus market into a cartel of exclusive fiefdoms. All of this anticompetitive conduct enabled Defendants and their co-conspirators to jack up prices with impunity. Accordingly, fire apparatus prices have skyrocketed, alleges the suit. The complaint asserts that these companies have abused their market and monopoly power to extract supracompetitive prices for essential emergency equipment. They have used their dominance not to improve public safety but to maximize returns. And while their profits soared, firefighters were held up and hurt, communities were incinerated, and people lost their lives. This lawsuit seeks to hold these companies accountable. Plaintiff City of Fountain Valley is a public entity located in Fountain Valley, California with a population of approximately 60,000 citizens. Within the effective limitations period, the Plaintiff purchased fire apparatus from, through, dealt by, and/or manufactured by, Defendants; and/or experienced undue delays in their delivery. Oshkosh Corporation is a publicly held corporation organized under the laws of Wisconsin, with its headquarters in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. Oshkosh Corporation is the parent company of fire apparatus manufacturers Pierce Manufacturing Inc. and Maxi-Metal, Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael E. Klenov, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY LLC 505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-4844 E-mail : mklenov@koreintillery.com - and - George A. Zelcs, Esq. Daniel A. Epstein, Esq. Labeat Rrahmani, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY LLC 205 North Michigan, Suite 1950 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 641-9750 E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com depstein@koreintillery.com lrrahmani@koreintillery.com OUTLAW DIP: Evans Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------- JAMES EVANS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Outlaw Dip Company Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-06510 (N.D. Ill., June 2, 2026) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://outlawdip.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services the website provides to their non-disabled customers through its website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the ADA. Yet, the website contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. The access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website, says the suit. The Defendant provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Three Bird Nest.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law PACIFIC OAK: Continues to Defend Bondholder Class, Derivative Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------- Pacific Oak Strategic Opportunity REIT, Inc. disclosed in a Form 8-K, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2026, that the Company continues to defend itself from a bondholder class suit and derivative suit in the Tel Aviv District Court. On Sept. 10, 2025, a bondholder filed a petition for certification of a class action in the Tel Aviv District Court, Israel against the Company and certain members of its board of directors, alleging that disclosures relating to the Company were misleading and caused investor harm. The petition states an individual claim amount in excess of 2.5 million Israeli new shekels ($0.8 million as of March 31, 2026) and cites the petitioner's expert model estimating potential class-wide damages of approximately 124.6 to 145.2 million Israeli new shekels ($39.6 to $46.0 million as of March 31, 2026). The matter is at a preliminary stage, and the court has not ruled on class certification or on the merits of the claims. Based on the Company's legal counsel's advice, the potential outcome of the proceeding cannot be determined, nor can the chances of the petition being approved be reliably assessed at this time. Additionally, on Sept. 15, 2025, a shareholder derivative action was filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against the Company and certain current and former directors and officers. The plaintiff in the derivative action alleges, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duty, failures of oversight, and misstatements and omissions in the Companys public disclosures that are substantially similar to those at issue in the bondholder class action. The derivative complaint seeks, on behalf of the Company, damages, corporate governance reforms, costs, and attorneys fees. The Company believes that the allegations in the derivative action are without merit and intends to defend itself and the individual defendants vigorously. The court has not made any determinations with respect to the sufficiency of the complaint, liability, or damages, and no schedule for further proceedings has been set. Based on the advice of its legal counsel, the Company is currently unable to predict the outcome of the derivative action or estimate any possible loss or range of loss associated with this matter. Pacific Oak Strategic Opportunity REIT, Inc. is a publicly registered, non-traded real estate investment trust focused on strategic and opportunistic real estate-related investments. The Company seeks to generate income and capital appreciation through a diversified portfolio of commercial real estate assets and related investments. PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Public Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 3rd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION OF NEW MEXICO, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss in the lawsuit entitled Defined Benefit Plan of the Mid-Jersey Trucking Industry and Teamsters Local 701 Pension and Annuity Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PayPal Holdings, Inc. et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-05864, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. This is a federal securities class action on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased PayPal common stock between February 3, 2021, and February 1, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period") against PayPal and certain of its officers (collectively "Defendants") seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On Mar. 13, 2023, Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec and Public Employees Retirement Association of New Mexico filed an amended consolidated complaint against the Defendants. On Dec. 11, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended consolidated complaint, which Judge Robert Kirsch granted on Jan. 29, 2025. On Mar. 17, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed second amended complaint for violations of the Federal Securities Laws, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Aug. 20, 2025. On Mar. 31, 2026, Judge Kirsch entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. The case is dismissed with prejudice. The appellate case is styled as In re PayPal Holdings Inc. Securities Litigation, et al., Case No. 26-2214, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on June 1, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION OF NEW MEXICO, et al. are represented by: Matthew I. Alpert, Esq. Tor Gronborg, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 - and - Raul Torrez, Esq. Office of Attorney General of New Mexico P.O. Drawer 1508 Santa Fe, NM 87504 Telephone: (505) 239-4672 - and - Christopher L. Ayers, Esq. Jennifer R. Scullion, Esq. Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. SEEGER WEISS 55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Telephone: (973) 639-9100 Defendants-Appellees PAYPAL HOLDINGS INC., et al. are represented by: Maureen T. Coghlan, Esq. David F. Edelstein, Esq. ARCHER & GREINER 1025 Laurel Oak Road Voorhees, NJ 08043 Telephone: (856) 354-3034 (856) 795-2121 PENDULUM THERAPEUTICS: Echols Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tazinique Echols, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Pendulum Therapeutics, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-06400 (N.D. Ill., May 30, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://pendulumlife.com/ (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website") to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Wood and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the Website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a selection of health and wellness supplements, including probiotic formulas, glucose support supplements, digestive health solutions, prebiotics, and metabolic support products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Grohol Suit Over Mass Malpractice ----------------------------------------------------- LORI GROHOL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF PENNSYLVANIA COURTS; AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION; BLOOMSBURG FAIR ASSOCIATION; MATTHEW W. BRANN; HEATH BROSIUS; JESSICA CHAPMAN; WILLIAM R. CHRISTMAN III; MARY BETH CLARK; COMMITTEE ON RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE; COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; MARK J. CONWAY; COURT OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE; ROBERT CRAVITZ; DOES 1-100; FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER; LORI R. HACKENBERG; INTERNATIONAL LEGAL AID GROUP; JUDICIAL CONDUCT BOARD OF PENNSYLVANIA; LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION; KATHLEEN LINCOLN; GABRIELLE MILLER-WAGNER; LORI MOLLOY; JENNA ANN NEIDIG; NORTH PENN LEGAL SERVICES, INC.; NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY PROTHONOTARY'S OFFICE; OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL; OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL; PENNSYLVANIA BAR ASSOCIATION; PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS; PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES; PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AND VETERANS AFFAIRS; PENNSYLVANIA GENERAL ASSEMPLY; PENNSYLVANIA LEGAL AID NETWORK, INC.; SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA; MICHAEL F. J. PIECUCH; JEFFREY ROWE; JAMIE SALESKI; ALLY SHOLLEY; TIMOTHY SMITH; SNYDER COUNTY; SNYDER COUNTY STOP COALITION; SARAH STIGERWALT-EGAN; DAVID ANDREW STROUSE; K. MICHAEL SULLIVAN; TRANSITIONS LEGAL CENTER; TRANSITIONS OF PA; DAVID K TREVASKIS; BRIAN ULMER; UNION COUNTY; UNION COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADVISORY BOARD; UNION COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE; UNION COUNTY STOP COALITION; UNION-SNYDER COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION; UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA; US CONGRESS; US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT; US DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; US DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISCRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA; and US JUDICIAL CONFERENCE, Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-01437-KM (M.D. Pa., May 26, 2026) is an action alleging that the Plaintiff was harmed by mass malpractice of the Defendants. Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts is the administrative agency of the Pennsylvania court system. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paige Martineau, Esq. 218 Pine Street Williamsport, PA 17701 Telephone: (570) 392-3025 PICS NV: Faces Class Action Suit for Misleading Investors Over IPO ------------------------------------------------------------------ Robbins LLP informs stockholders that a class action was filed on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired PicS N.V. (NASDAQ: PICS) securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's January 30, 2026 initial public offering ("IPO"). PicS operates one of the largest digital banks in Brazil. The Company offers various payment, credit, insurance, and investment products across both financial and non-financial services. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that PicS N.V. (PICS) Misled Investors in Connection with its IPO. According to the complaint, during the IPO, defendants failed to disclose that: (1) PicS had conducted an evaluation of its credit evaluation procedures in December 2025 and determined that those procedures were deficient and required enhancement; (2) as a result of the new procedures implemented in December 2025, the Company had reclassified approximately R$590 million of exposures previously classified as Stage 2 to Stage 3, resulting in an incremental expected credit loss ("ECL") charge of R$88 million during the fourth quarter of 2025; (3) PicS had experienced an elevated but undisclosed Stage 3 formation rate of more than 7% during the fourth quarter of 2025, significantly exceeding historical trends; (4) the Company had materially overstated the quality and effectiveness of its credit models, underwriting practices, and customer data in identifying and managing credit risk; and (5) PicS was experiencing deteriorating customer credit quality, heightened default risk, and increasing loan impairments associated with its expansion into riskier lending products, resulting in adverse financial and operational trends that predated the IPO and were expected to continue worsening. Plaintiff further alleges that on March 19, 2026, less than three months after the IPO, PicS disclosed its fourth quarter and full-year 2025 financial results, revealing that it had reclassified approximately R$590 million of credit portfolio balances from Stage 2 to Stage 3, which increased ECL provisions by R$88 million. The Company also reported that its Stage 3 formation rate had risen to 7.1% during the fourth quarter of 2025, representing a 97% increase from the prior quarter. Further, PicS disclosed that it had implemented significant changes to its credit-loss methodologies in December 2025, including enhanced risk models, renegotiation tracking, and stricter policies governing the classification of non-performing exposures. On June 2, 2026, the Company further disclosed that Stage 3 loans had increased to 13% of its total credit portfolio and that delinquent loans continued to rise. On this news, PicS Class A common stock fell to less than $9.00 per share by June 4, 2026, representing a decline of more than 50% from the $19.00 per share IPO price. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against PicS N.V. Shareholders who wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the class should contact Robbins LLP. The lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. For more information, visit https://robbinsllp.com/pics-n-v-2/ All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. To be notified if a class action against PicS N.V. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today. Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Aaron Dumas, Jr., Esq. Robbins LLP 5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300 San Diego, CA 92122 (800) 350-6003 adumas@robbinsllp.com www.robbinsllp.com [GN] PLAYA BOWLS BOCA: Diaz Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messaging ----------------------------------------------------------- Francisco Diaz, individually and on others similarly situated v. PLAYA BOWLS BOCA, LLC, Case No. 247886078 (Fla. 11th Judicial Cir. Ct., Miami-Dade Cty., May 11, 2026), is brought against the Defendant's violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA") as a result of the Defendant's unsolicited text messaging. To promote its goods, services, and/or properties, Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging and continues to text message consumers after they have opted out of Defendant's solicitations. Defendant also engages in telemarketing without the required policies and procedures, and training of its personnel engaged in telemarketing. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the intrusion seclusion invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation and disruption of the dally life of Plaintiff and members of the Class. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person entitled to bring this action under the TCPA and a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Defendant is a limited liability company with its headquarters located in El Segundo, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Awad, Esq. Mitchell D. Hansen, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, Florida 33305 Phone: 813-340-8838 Email: samuel@jibraellaw.com mitchell@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com PRIMMER PIPER: Court Denies Motion to Compel in Data Breach Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Gaboriault v. Primmer, Piper, Eggleston & Cramer, P.C., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-113 (D. Vt.) Judge William K. Sessions III of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont denied the defendant's motion to compel, motion for sanctions, and motion for an award of expenses in a putative class action arising from an alleged data breach. The complaint, filed on February 2, 2024, asserts causes of action for negligence; negligent hiring and retention; breach of contract; breach of implied contract; invasion of privacy; publication of private facts; and unjust enrichment. The action centers on a data breach that allegedly occurred between November 8 and November 11, 2021, during which the personal information of putative class members may have been compromised, including names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, financial account numbers, dates of birth, medical information, health insurance numbers, online credentials, tax identification numbers, passport numbers, and electronic signatures. The complaint seeks both equitable relief and damages, including punitive damages. The court found that much of the discovery delay was the result of agreed extensions between the parties, and that lead counsel's undisputed illness during late March and April 2026 constituted an objectively reasonable justification for the delayed production. It further found that an award of fees and expenses would be unjust under the circumstances and that the defendant had not demonstrated sufficient prejudice, given that fact discovery remained open until October 30, 2026 and trial was not set until February 2027. The court also declined to deem the plaintiff's objections waived, finding good cause for the untimely responses. A copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EThpX6 from PacerMonitor.com Plaintiff Shawna Gaboriault is represented by counsel of record (not identified in the order). Defendant Primmer, Piper, Eggleston & Cramer, P.C., and John Does 1 to 10 are represented by counsel of record (not identified in the order). PROFESSIONAL PARKING: Illegally Collects Personal Info, Stefek Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- DUSTIN STEFEK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROFESSIONAL PARKING MANAGEMENT CORPORATION; PAVE MOBILITY, INC.; and ETICO PARKING SOLUTIONS INC., Defendants, Case No. 8:26-cv-01493 (M.D. Fla., May 18, 2026) is a class action brought against the Defendants for alleged violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act. The Plaintiff is a resident of Lakeland, Florida. On November 9, 2023, he parked a vehicle at a private parking lot. Days later, he received a private "Parking Charge Notice" from PPM, a company he had never heard of or dealt with before. The notice was addressed to Plaintiff by name and mailed to his home address. It threatened that nonpayment could result in collections and also warned that the vehicle could be booted or towed at the owner's expense. The Plaintiff did not sign any written consent form or execute any electronic agreement authorizing PPM, PAVE, Etico, or any other party to obtain his personal information from a motor vehicle record. The Plaintiff did not see any signage at the parking facility disclosing that Defendants would obtain his name and home address from state motor vehicle records, says the suit. The complaint alleges that PPM's conduct was knowing, willful, and in reckless disregard of the DPPA. PPM designed, implemented, and operates a standardized system that obtains, uses, and discloses DMV-sourced personal information to pursue private parking charges without any permissible purpose under the law. Professional Parking Management Corporation monitors and enforces parking at private parking facilities in Florida and other states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles M. Garabedian, Esq. Victor Sanabria, Esq. MARK FERRER & HAYDEN 80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 1999 Miami, FL 33130 E-mail: charles@mfh.law victor@mfh.law PROVEN WINNERS DIRECT: Cruz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gabriela Cruz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Proven Winners Direct, LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00969 (E.D. Wis., May 30, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://provenwinnersdirect.com (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website") to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the Website. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is legally visually impaired and a member of a protected class under the ADA. The Defendant provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a diverse selection of plants and gardening supplies, including annuals, perennials, shrubs, and edibles, as well as fertilizers, potting soil, self-watering planters, and augers, complemented by home garden and irrigation kits.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Phone: 844-731-3343 Direct: 718-554-0237 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law REGAL REXNORD: Clubhouse Trailer Sues Over Defective HD Actuators ----------------------------------------------------------------- CLUBHOUSE TRAILER CO., LLC, and FORWARD PERFORMING ARTS, INC. on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. REGAL REXNORD CORPORATION and THOMSON INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 2:26-cv-00987 (E.D. Wis., June 2, 2026) contends that the Electrak HD actuators have a fundamental design defect. According to the complaint, the actuators do not truly synchronize during motion. When one actuator encounters resistance and stops, the obstructed device does not communicate a stop command to its paired actuator. The non-faulted actuator continues moving uncontrollably until it reaches its own overload limit or end of travel -- a condition Defendants themselves have called a "runaway actuator" defect. The Electrak HD is an electric linear actuator, a modern device that replaces hydraulic and manual lift systems to push, pull, or rotate an object with electrical energy, usually performing such tasks on extremely heavy loads. An actuator is, in effect, a motor that moves objects or machinery in a straight line. The Electrak HD actuator fails to comply with this standard. Instead, when one Electrak HD actuator stops in the event of a failure, the other continues to travel until either a loss of power or it reaches end of travel or its own overload limit. As a result, these actuators -- with their immense power -- can warp metal objects, shatter heavy glass, and leave users unable to halt a runaway actuator, the suit adds. The Plaintiffs bring their claims individually and on behalf of all persons or entities in the United States who purchased Thomson Electrak HD electric linear actuators. Defendants Regal Rexnord Corporation and Thomson Industries, Inc. are manufacturers of linear motion control products, devices designed to automate movement in straight lines. Thomson is a brand of Regal Rexnord Corporation and operates as part of Regal's Linear Motion Division. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tal J. Lifshitz, Esq. Brandon M. Sadowsky, Esq. Lindsey E. Graham, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 372-1800 Facsimile: (305) 372-3508 E-mail: tjl@kttlaw.com bsadowsky@kttlaw.com lgraham@kttlaw.com - and - Carlos E. Silva, Esq. Benjamin Fernandez Iv, Esq. Oliver Silva, Esq. SILVA & SILVA, P.A. 236 Valencia Avenue Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 445-0011 Facsimile: (305) 445-1181 E-mail: csilva@silvasilva.com bfernandez@silvasilva.com osilva@silvasilva.com RIGETTI & CO: Faces Conner Suit Over Alleged Bait & Switch Scheme ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRITTANY CONNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RIGETTI & CO., LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, d/b/a WWW.RIGETTI.COM, Case No. 26STCV17347 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 2, 2026) involves an outrageous privacy "bait and switch" scheme. Accordingly, the Defendant lures visitors to its website, rigetti.com by assuring consumers that it respects their privacy. The Defendant even presents visitors with a "consent banner" that purports to allow visitors to choose whether to permit Defendant to install third party tracking cookies used to harvest their private information. However, the Defendant secretly tracks, de-anonymizes, and sells visitors' personal information before the consent "banner" even appears and continues to track even after a visitor rejects cookies. As shown below, the Defendant has violated California law, says the suit. The Defendant is a Delaware corporation that operates the website. The website markets quantum computing solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com ROBERT BOSCH: Daniel's Balks at HVAC Equipment Price Conspiracy --------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel's Heating & Cooling Co., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROBERT BOSCH LLC, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, JC RESIDENTIAL AND LIGHT COMMERCIAL LLC, JOHNSON CONTROLS HITACHI AIR CONDITIONING NORTH AMERICA LLC, TRANE TECHNOLOGIES PLC, TRANE U.S. INC., MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC TRANE HVAC US, CARRIER GLOBAL CORP., VIESSMANN MANUFACTURING CO. (U.S.), INC., DAIKIN INDUSTRIES, LTD., DAIKIN COMFORT TECHNOLOGIES NORTH AMERICA, DAIKIN APPLIED AMERICAS, THERMALNETICS, LLC, LENNOX INTERNATIONAL, INC., LENNOX INDUSTRIES INC., ALLIED AIR ENTERPRISES LLC, RHEEM MANUFACTURING CO., AAON, INC., a Nevada Corporation, AAON, INC., an Oklahoma Corporation, AAON COIL PRODUCTS, INC., and BASX, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:26-cv-11633-FKB-EAS (E.D. Mich., May 19, 2026) is a civil antitrust action pursuant to the Clayton Act and the Sherman Act, on behalf of the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a proposed Class of all persons and entities who directly purchased HVAC equipment manufactured by the Defendants in the United States beginning at least as early as January 1, 2020 through the present. According to the complaint, through frequent and repeated members-only confidential meetings, information sharing, communications, and public signaling, the Defendants drove the prices of HVAC Equipment to historic levels. Two key organizations served as conduits for coordinated exchanging information and telegraphing pricing strategies. First, Defendants used the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), a trade association for the HVAC industry they largely control, to implement extensive sharing of information available only to AHRI members who also agreed to share their own data with their competitors. Second, the Defendants used a niche HVAC industry publication, Air Conditioning, Heating & Refrigeration (ACHR) News, to each announce their price increases to and provide commentary on their pricing and supply plans. During the Class Period, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of HVAC Equipment in the United States. This alleged coordination had real-world consequences. The Defendants' anticompetitive behaviors widened the spread between the price that they pay to manufacture HVAC Equipment and the price at which they sold HVAC Equipment to residential and commercial consumers. The Plaintiff and members of the Class are individuals and entities who purchased HVAC Equipment directly from Defendants. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of itself individually and on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased HVAC Equipment directly from a Defendant in the United States during the Class Period. The Defendants in this case are the leading manufacturers of HVAC Equipment in the United States: Trane, Carrier, Daikin, Bosch, Lennox, Rheem, and AAON. These seven Defendants control over 90% of the market for HVAC Equipment in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard G. Mack Jr., Esq. Jeff DeLaunay, Esq. MILLER COHEN, PLC 7700 Second Avenue, Suite 335 Detroit, MI 48202 Telephone: (313) 566-4787 Facsimile: (313) 964-4490 E-mail: richardmack@millercohen.com jdelaunay@millercohen.com - and - Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Cadio Zirpoli, Esq. Ronnie Spiegel, Esq. Ivy Arai Tabbara, Esq. Drew M. Morgan, Esq. SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP 550 California Street, Suite 910 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com czirpoli@saverilawfirm.com rspiegel@saverilawfirm.com itabbara@saverilawfirm.com dmorgan@saverilawfirm.com - and - Anthony J. O'Neill, Esq. MICHAEL'S & MELO, P.C. 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1115 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 588-5000 Facsimile: (312) 427-5709 E-mail: aoneill@michaelsmelo.com - and - Michael R. Pieczonka, Esq. PIECZONKA LAW LLC 617 Devon Avenue Park Ridge, IL 60068 Telephone: (847) 502-8404 Facsimile: (847) 825-7746 E-mail: m@pieczonkalaw.com - and - Benjamin J. Widlanski, Esq. KOZYAK, TROPIN & THROCKMORTON 2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Floor 9 Miami, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 372-1800 Facsimile: (305) 372-3508 E-mail: bwidlanski@kttlaw.com - and - Adam Zapala, Esq. Elizabeth T. Castillo, Esq. Christopher Jeu, Esq. Christian Ruano, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: azapala@cpmlegal.com ecastillo@cpmlegal.com cjeu@cpmlegal.com cruano@cpmlegal.com ROOTS AMERICA: Faces Murphy Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROOTS AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04189 (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on April 28, 2026, in an attempt to purchase an Isla Camp Shirt from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. The Plaintiff was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Roots America Corporation operates the website that serves as an apparel shop.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal SHERWIN-WILLIAMS MANUFACTURING: Faces Class Suit Over Plant Odors ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiffs Christina Modrovich and Robert Birner filed a class action lawsuit against The Sherwin-Williams Manufacturing Co. Why: Modrovich and Birner claim Sherwin-Williams' coatings manufacturing plant in Rochester, Pennsylvania, emits noxious odors that invade nearby properties. Where: The Sherwin-Williams class action lawsuit was filed in Pennsylvania federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses Sherwin-Williams' coatings manufacturing plant in Rochester, Pennsylvania, of emitting noxious odors that invade nearby properties. Plaintiffs Christina Modrovich and Robert Birner claim the Sherwin-Williams' plant emits volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and other odorous pollutants into the ambient air, which, they argue, is a violation of the company's permit for the facility. Modrovich and Birner allege Sherwin-Williams failed to implement proper care and management of its mixing, grinding, blending and filling equipment and did not install adequate air pollution capture and removal systems. "Defendant has failed to follow proper industrial practices to prevent the offsite emission of noxious odors, and has failed to capture, mitigate and/or prevent noxious odors from escaping its facility, thereby invading the homes and properties of plaintiffs and the class," the Sherwin-Williams class action lawsuit says. Modrovich and Birner want to represent a class of owner-occupants or renters of residential property located within a one-mile radius of Sherwin-Williams' coatings manufacturing plant in Rochester, Pennsylvania, at any time within the applicable statute of limitations. Pennsylvania coatings manufacturing plant allegedly received multiple violation notices Modrovich and Birner claim Sherwin-Williams' coatings manufacturing plant -- which formulates coatings for packaging materials -- has received multiple notices of violation from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. The notices of violation were given for failing to comply with particulate matter emission limitations, failing to submit a plan approval application, failing to install a thermal oxidizer and failing to maintain a source or control device, according to the Sherwin-Williams class action lawsuit. Modrovich and Birner claim Sherwin-Williams is guilty of private nuisance, public nuisance and negligence. The plaintiffs demand a jury trial and request declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of compensatory damages for themselves and all class members. In other recent pollution claims, a group of Oregon residents filed a class action lawsuit against Amazon Data Services in March over allegations the company contaminated the drinking water in two Oregon counties. The plaintiffs are represented by Kevin Riechelson of Cohen & Riechelson and Steven D. Liddle, Laura L. Sheets and Matthew Z. Robb of Liddle Sheets P.C. The Sherwin-Williams class action lawsuit is Modrovich, et al. v. The Sherwin-Williams Manufacturing Co., Case No. 1:26-cv-00124, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. [GN] SILVER BUYER: Murphy Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users --------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SILVER BUYER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04151 (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2026) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.oakgem.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on April 28, 2026, in an attempt to purchase a Breitling Navitimer Automatic 41mm Watch from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. The Plaintiff was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Silver Buyer, Inc. operates the website that offers jewelry products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: jeffrey@gottlieb.legal dana@gottlieb.legal michael@gottlieb.legal SPORTRADAR GROUP: Faces Smale Suit Over Share Price Drop -------------------------------------------------------- JAMES ANTHONY SMALE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPORTRADAR GROUP AG, CARSTEN KOERL, and CRAIG FELENSTEIN, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-04112 (S.D.N.Y., May 18, 2026) is a federal class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Sportradar Class A ordinary shares between November 7, 2024, and April 21, 2026, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. This complaint alleges that, pursuant to the federal laws, throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts, about the Company's business and operations. Specifically, the Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Sportradar intentionally worked with black-market gambling operators to increase its revenues, despite its assurances of strict legal and regulatory compliance and claims that ethics and integrity were crucial for Sportradar's operations; (2) the Company's KYC and compliance processes were not as robust as Defendants' had claimed; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the significant decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other members of the Class have suffered significant damages. Sportradar Group AG provides data platforms and services, such as data collection and processing and risk management, to the global sports betting industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Naumon A. Amjed, Esq. Ryan T. Degnan, Esq. Geoffrey C. Jarvis, Esq. Joshua S. Keszczyk, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: namjed@ktmc.com rdegnan@ktmc.com gjarvis@ktmc.com jkeszczyk@ktmc.com SPORTSMAN'S WAREHOUSE: Higley Deal Reached, Derivative Suit Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sportsman's Warehouse Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, for the period ending May 2, 2026, dated and delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2026, that the parties in the consolidated Higley class suit reached an agreement in principle that is subject to the approval of the Superior court of the State of Washington in King County while the derivative suit is stayed. Two putative class action lawsuits filed by Kjersten Higley against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of Washington in King County on July 18, 2024, and January 13, 2025, respectively. The complaints asserted claims on behalf of purported classes of individuals alleging, among other things, that the Company failed to properly compensate class members for all time worked and business expenses. The complaints also alleged that certain individuals were required to enter into non-disclosure agreements that allegedly restricted discussion of compensation. The matters were subsequently consolidated, and the parties have reached an agreement in principle to resolve the consolidated action, which is subject to final approval by the Court. The Company denies the allegations and any liability or wrongdoing. The Company is also subject to a related putative shareholder derivative action filed in the same court arising out of the facts alleged in the Higley class actions. The derivative complaint, brought on behalf of the Company, generally asserts that certain current and former officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties and were unjustly enriched by allegedly permitting or failing to prevent the compensation and non-disclosure agreement practices challenged in the Higley lawsuits. The derivative plaintiff seeks, among other relief, damages on behalf of the Company, corporate governance reforms, and an award of attorneys fees and expenses. The derivative action has been stayed by agreement of the parties pending final approval of the settlement of the consolidated Higley class action and the resolution of any related appeals. The Company believes that the claims asserted in the derivative lawsuit are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them if the stay is lifted. At this time, the Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of the derivative action or estimate the amount of any potential loss or range of loss, if any, that may result. Sportsman's Warehouse Holdings, Inc. is an outdoor specialty retailer offering a wide selection of hunting, fishing, camping, shooting, and other outdoor gear through its stores and e-commerce platform. The Company serves recreational enthusiasts across the United States with branded and private-label products, as well as related services and expertise. STATE FARM: Removes Leifester Class Suit to W.D. Wash. ------------------------------------------------------ The Defendant in the case of MELODIE LEIFESTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Pierce (Case No. 26-2-08124-2) to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on May 26, 2026. The clerk of court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 3:26-cv-05539. The case is assigned to Judge Tiffany M Cartwright. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company operates as an insurance company. The Company offers vehicle, auto, accident, homeowners, condo owners, renters, life and annuities, fire and casualty, health, disability, flood, business, and boat insurance products and services. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Catharine M. Morisset, Esq. Clarence M. Belnavis, Esq. Kylene Slocum, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 1700 Seventh Avenue Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101 Email: cmorisset@fisherphillips.com cbelnavis.@fisherphillips.com kslocum@fisherphillips.com STONE LEGACY: Mhatre Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Ketan Mhatre, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. STONE LEGACY CORPORATION d/b/a Saffron – Modern Indian Dining d/b/a Aya; PAPILLON LLC d/b/a Saffron – Modern Indian Dining d/b/a Aya; STONE AND BRICK LLC d/b/a Saffron – Modern Indian Dining d/b/a Aya; HANISH KUMAR; FATIMA KUMAR; and ABHISHEK PATIL; Case No. 2:26-cv-00971 (E.D. Wis., May 31, 2026), is brought for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Wisconsin Wage Payment and Collection Law ("WWPCL"), arising from the Defendants' various willful, malicious, and unlawful employment policies, patterns, and practices and to recover from the Defendants: unpaid minimum wages; unpaid overtime wages; liquidated damages; reasonable attorney fees; and the costs of the action. Throughout his employment, Plaintiff regularly worked about seventy seven hours per week: between ten and twelve hours per day--on average eleven hours per day-seven days per week. Because Plaintiff was not paid for his work from February 2, 2026 through February 8, 2026, from February 16, 2026 and February 22, 2026, and from March 9, 2026 through March 22, 2026, he was not paid at least one and one-half times the greater of the federal minimum wage and his regular hourly wage for his hours worked during these periods, for hours worked beyond the fortieth hour per week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to work as a cook at Aya from February 2, 2026 through on March 22, 2026. The the Defendants operate an Indian restaurant known as "Saffron – Modern Indian Dining."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany Troy, Esq. Aaron B. Schweitzer, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355 Phone: (718) 762-1324 Email: troylaw@troypllc.com SUSAN ALEXANDRA: Lopez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ---------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUSAN ALEXANDRA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04623 (S.D.N.Y., June 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, declaratory relief, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.susanalexandra.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Susan Alexandra, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal TAGPUAN BAKERY: Almonte Seeks Wages, OT Pay Under FLSA, NYLL ------------------------------------------------------------ SANCHO ALMONTE, MA ELENA GONZALES, SEGUNDO VICTOR ROCANO, IRA DARIO, LUIS EDUARDO ROCANO, NANCY DUELA, and ANTONETTE SANDOVAL, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TAGPUAN BAKERY CAFE AND RESTAURANT CORP. and JEANETTE G. TORRES BOCOBO, Case No. 1:26-cv-03315 (E.D.N.Y., June 2, 2026) is a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York State Labor Law arising from the Defendant's failure to pay owed wages and failures to pay overtime. According to the complaint, the claims and defenses to non payment and underpayment of wages would be identical between all Plaintiffs as there is a common illegal practice by only one corporation subsidiaries, owners, and direct corporate lineage, making them one and the same. Throughout the Plaintiffs' employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiffs regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Despite working overtime hours, Defendants failed to properly compensate Plaintiffs at the legally required overtime rate and, in many instances, failed to pay overtime wages entirely, the suit contends. Tagpuan Bakery Cafe and Restaurant operates as a Filipino bakery and cafe, known for offering freshly baked traditional pastries, all-day breakfasts like silogs, and signature specialty drinks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jaymark Hawlader, Esq. 118-35 Queens Blvd #400 Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (212) 464-8403 E-mail: jay@hawladerlaw.com TAL EDUCATION: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Securities Fraud --------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo Finance reports that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed against TAL Education Group, alleging violations of federal securities laws. -- Plaintiffs claim the company made omissions and misrepresentations related to its business and prospects. -- The case focuses on TAL Education Group's historical disclosures and potential impact on shareholders of NYSE:TAL. For investors watching NYSE:TAL, the lawsuit arrives at a time when the stock trades at $9.72, with performance that has been mixed over different time frames. The share price is down 11.6% over the past 30 days and down 15.4% year to date, while the 3 year return is 54.8% and the 5 year return is down 68.7%. That kind of profile can prompt closer attention to both legal headlines and underlying business fundamentals. This new legal action may influence how investors think about disclosure quality, risk, and potential volatility around NYSE:TAL. As the case progresses, the focus will likely be on court filings and company responses, which can shape sentiment and help you reassess position sizing, time horizon, and diversification choices. Wall Street's queuing for one rocket. While SpaceX counts down to its IPO, other companies tied to the new space race are already in orbit. The securities class action ties directly back to TAL Education Group's regulatory history in China, including the 2021 fines for misleading advertising and the sweeping ban on for-profit K‑12 tutoring. For you as an investor, the core questions are whether prior disclosures adequately reflected these regulatory and business risks, and how any future settlements, penalties, or compliance costs could affect cash flows. Class actions typically take years to resolve, which can keep a legal overhang on the stock and contribute to swings in sentiment. At the same time, the current technical picture, with the share price trading below both the 60 day and 200 day moving averages and key levels flagged at US$10.64 resistance and US$9.43 support, shows that the market is already pricing in caution. The lawsuit does not change the underlying business model overnight, but it can influence access to capital, management focus, and how closely regulators and investors scrutinize TAL's communications going forward. How This Fits Into The TAL Education Group Narrative The legal focus on disclosure and business practices reinforces the narrative's emphasis on disciplined resource allocation and cautious long-term growth, as tighter oversight can encourage more conservative operations. The lawsuit challenges the narrative's view that diversified online enrichment and AI-powered learning devices reduce regulatory risk, since it highlights how past actions in core tutoring exposed TAL to legal and regulatory scrutiny. The potential financial and reputational impact of ongoing class actions does not feature prominently in the narrative, so investors may need to factor in prolonged legal costs and management distraction that are hard to quantify in growth or margin assumptions. Knowing what a company is worth starts with understanding its story. Check out one of the top narratives in the Simply Wall St Community for TAL Education Group to help decide what it's worth to you. The Risks and Rewards Investors Should Consider -- Extended legal proceedings from the securities class action could lead to higher legal expenses and potential settlements, weighing on cash that might otherwise go to product investment or additional buybacks. -- The combination of regulatory actions in 2021 and the current lawsuit suggests persistent regulatory and legal scrutiny, which may limit TAL's flexibility in education services compared with peers such as New Oriental Education and Gaotu Techedu. -- Analysts currently highlight several rewards, including views that TAL is trading below some fair value estimates and that earnings are forecast to grow, which may help offset sentiment pressure from legal headlines for long-term holders. -- Diversification into online enrichment and AI-focused learning devices provides revenue streams that are less tied to traditional K‑12 tutoring rules and could help TAL stay competitive against other global edtech players such as Chegg and Duolingo. What To Watch Going Forward From here, focus on the lawsuit's timeline, including any motions to dismiss, class certification decisions, and settlement discussions, as each stage can shift perceived risk. Monitor TAL's disclosures around regulatory compliance and how management addresses governance and transparency on earnings calls or investor updates. Price action around the US$9.43 support and US$10.64 resistance levels can signal how the market digests new legal or regulatory information. Finally, keep an eye on how TAL executes in its newer product areas, such as AI-focused devices and enrichment programs, because consistent operational delivery can help balance the legal overhang in the overall investment case. To ensure you're always in the loop on how the latest news impacts the investment narrative for TAL Education Group, head to the community page for TAL Education Group to never miss an update on the top community narratives. [GN] TESLA INC: Faces Class Action Over Heat Pump Failure in Quebec -------------------------------------------------------------- electrek reports that a Quebec Tesla owner has filed a class action request against Tesla over heat pump failures, seeking damages for all Tesla owners in the province after being stuck with a $4,477 repair bill when her Model 3's heat pump died after just six years. The lawsuit covers every Tesla model equipped with a heat pump -- Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, and Cybertruck -- and alleges the automaker has been hiding a known defect from buyers. A long history of heat pump problems The plaintiff, Amelie Paquette, purchased a new 2021 Model 3 from Tesla's Laval, Quebec location in December 2020 for $52,880. According to the court filing via Driving, her vehicle's heat pump system experienced a string of failures from almost the moment she drove it off the lot. Just over a month after purchase, three heat pump sensors had to be replaced. Less than a year later, foreign debris was found inside the fan mechanism. Weeks after that, a major failure caused a total loss of cabin heating, forcing Tesla to replace the compressor, main manifold, and all fluid lines under warranty. Tesla never provided a precise diagnosis for any of these failures. Then, on January 27, 2026, smoke began pouring from inside and outside the vehicle during cabin preheating, accompanied by a chemical odor. Tesla's Laval service center determined the entire heat pump needed replacement -- but this time, the four-year or 80,000-kilometer warranty had expired. The odometer read 158,220 kilometers. Paquette met personally with Tesla's assistant service director at the Laval location to demand a free replacement or shared responsibility. Tesla refused. She paid $4,476.55 out of pocket and later sent a formal demand letter. Tesla rejected that too, by email, on March 17, 2026. The lawsuit targets all heat pump-equipped Teslas The class action request, filed before Quebec's Superior Court by lawyers from Perrier Avocats, seeks to represent all Quebec consumers who own or lease a heat pump-equipped Tesla: Model S (2021+), Model 3 (2021+), Model X (2021+), Model Y (2020+), and Cybertruck (2023+). The lawsuit alleges Tesla's heat pump constitutes a "hidden defect" under Quebec's Civil Code and Consumer Protection Act, making the vehicles "unfit for their intended use." The filing argues that a vehicle of Tesla's price and quality should serve without major repair for at least 10 years or 200,000 kilometers -- a standard the plaintiff's Model 3 failed to meet by a wide margin. The lawsuit further alleges that Tesla, as a professional seller, is presumed to have known about the defect and failed to disclose the risks associated with the heat pump system to buyers. The class action seeks reimbursement of repair costs, a reduction in purchase or lease prices, and punitive damages. This is not Tesla's first legal trouble in Quebec. The province's Superior Court has previously authorized class action lawsuits against Tesla over paint defects and Premium Connectivity changes. Tesla is also facing up to $14.5 billion in lawsuits across multiple jurisdictions. A well-documented problem Tesla's heat pump issues are hardly new. We first reported on widespread heating failures in brand-new Model 3 and Model Y vehicles in January 2021. By early 2022, the problem had escalated significantly, with owners losing heat entirely in extreme cold as temperatures dropped below -10°C. Tesla CEO Elon Musk said at the time that a software update would fix the issue by recalibrating a valve in the heat pump system. But Tesla service centers told affected owners it was a hardware problem -- a flap or valve getting stuck due to ice buildup, which traps refrigerant inside the evaporator and causes the compressor to shut down. NHTSA eventually issued a recall covering certain 2021-2022 Model 3, Model Y, Model S, and Model X vehicles, confirming that the heat pump problem compromised windshield defrosting -- a federal safety standard violation. Transport Canada also launched its own investigation after receiving over 170 complaints from Canadian owners, the majority from Quebec. Out-of-warranty heat pump repairs typically cost between $3,800 and $4,700 in Canada, making it one of the most expensive maintenance surprises for Tesla owners. Unlike traditional PTC ceramic heaters, heat pump systems are deeply integrated with Tesla's battery thermal management system, limiting repair options to Tesla service centers. This lawsuit was inevitable. Tesla's heat pump has been one of the most persistent reliability issues across its lineup, and Quebec, where winters regularly push temperatures well below -20°C, is arguably the worst place for a heat pump system that has demonstrated repeated failures in extreme cold. We've been covering Tesla's heat pump problems since 2021, and the pattern described in this lawsuit is one we've heard dozens of times from readers: repeated failures under warranty, vague diagnoses from service centers, and then an expensive bill the moment the warranty expires. A heat pump failing at 158,000 kilometers on a $53,000 vehicle after 3 separate repairs under warranty is not acceptable, and the lawsuit's argument that a Tesla should last at least 10 years or 200,000 kilometers without a major failure is entirely reasonable. Quebec's consumer protection laws are among the strongest in North America, and they explicitly create a legal warranty of quality that goes beyond the manufacturer's written warranty. Tesla has learned this the hard way before. The real question is whether this class action gets authorized and how many owners it ultimately represents -- because based on the volume of complaints to Transport Canada alone, the number could be significant. It could reportedly be worth up to $400 million. [GN] TILEVERA LLC: Faces Lamperis Suit Over Website's Access Barriers ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH LAMPERIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TILEVERA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06424 (N.D. Ill., June 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.cletile.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Tilevera, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [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 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com TOLL BROTHERS: Intercepts User Data Without Consent, Meeks Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- TONYA MEEKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOLL BROTHERS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-03364-CAB-MMP (S.D. Cal., June 2, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act, invasion of privacy under California's Constitution, and intrusion upon seclusion. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of intercepting, recording, decoding, capturing, disclosing, and using the contents of the Plaintiff's and Class members' electronic communications from its website, https://www.tollbrothers.com, without consent. According to the complaint, the Defendant installed tracking technologies on its website to aid Meta Platforms, Inc. and other third parties to intercept, disclose, and use electronic communications. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and the Class sustained damages. Toll Brothers, Inc. is an American homebuilding company, with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. Noah J. Larsh, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S., Ste. 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (866) 219-3343 Email: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com Noah@SwigartLawGroup.com - and - Daniel G. Shay, Esq. SHAY LEGAL, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S., Ste. 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 222-7429 Email: Dan@ShayLegal.com TRANSGLOBAL INSURANCE: Zacharias Sues Over Failure to Secure Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- EAPEN ZACHARIAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSGLOBAL INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. and TRANSGLOBAL HOLDING COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 2:26-cv-01655 (D. Nev., June 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence and declaratory and injunctive relief. The case arises from TransGlobal's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on or about February 18, 2026. TransGlobal also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. TransGlobal Holding Company is a full-service financial planning and wealth management group based in Monrovia, California. TransGlobal Insurance Agency, Inc. is a subsidiary of TransGlobal Holding Company based in Las Vegas, Nevada. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick R. Leverty, Esq. LEVERTY & ASSOCIATES LAW CHTD. 3100 W. Charleston Blvd., Suite 200 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Telephone: (702) 507-0201 Email: pat@levertylaw.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com jaw@federmanlaw.com TRUMAN BOOT COMPANY: Booker Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- Martrell Desamonta Booker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Truman Boot Company, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-06396 (N.D. Ill., May 30, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://www.trumanboot.com/ (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website") to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Wood and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the Website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a wide selection of work boots, cap toe boots, moc toe boots, and rugged leather boots, crafted with high-quality materials, durable construction, and traditional bootmaking techniques.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law TUCKERNUCK INC: McWhirter Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY MCWHIRTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TUCKERNUCK, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-01164-JRS-MJD (S.D. Ind., June 2, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://tnuck.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inadequate focus order, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, the lack of navigation links, incorrectly formatted lists, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Tuckernuck, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in Indiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason B. Marshall, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 4903 Avenue N. Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (463) 777-4196 Email: jmarshall@ealg.law TUNNELL COMPANIES: Fails to Prevent Data Brach, Lathbury Says ------------------------------------------------------------- MAKENZIE LATHBURY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TUNNELL COMPANIES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. N26C-05-261 SPL (Del. Sup., May 28, 2026) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly and negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that the Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent an unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party—an undoubtedly nefarious third party seeking to profit off this disclosure by defrauding Representative Plaintiff and Class Members in the future, says the suit. Tunnell Companies, LLC provides real estate services. The Company offers real estate development, restaurant, and golf course management services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dean R. Roland, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR P.A. 1000 N. West St., Suite 1500 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 984-3800 Email: droland@coochtaylor.com - and - Scott Edward Cole, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 Email: sec@colevannote.com TURBO HOLDINGS: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Lamperis Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH LAMPERIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TURBO HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06422 (N.D. Ill., June 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.triplefatgoose.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Turbo Holdings, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [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 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com UNION PACIFIC: Loses Bid to Dismiss TCE Contamination Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Faye Black et al., Plaintiffs, v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Defendant, Case No. 23-1218-EFM-ADM (D. Kan.), Judge Eric F. Melgren of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas denied Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of standing and granted in part and denied in part Defendant's motion to exclude Plaintiff's expert witnesses, in the context of Plaintiff's effort to certify a class action. Plaintiff brought this putative class action alleging that Defendant contaminated her property, exposing her and others similarly situated to toxic chemicals. Defendant owns and operates an industrial railroad site near 29th North and Grove Streets in Wichita, Kansas. In 1994, the City of Wichita discovered trichloroethylene contamination in the groundwater near 21st North and Grove Streets. In 1995, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment began investigating the contamination, eventually confirming that Defendant's site was the source. In 2002, Defendant entered a consent order with the agency to investigate the contamination. Plaintiff filed suit in October 2023 and seeks to certify a class of persons who own residential homes within an area overlying trichloroethylene-contaminated groundwater. Four claims remained: negligent remediation, continuing nuisance, continuing trespass, and violation of Kansas's Discharge Statute, Section 65-6203. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that Plaintiff's injury in fact was too speculative and that her requested remedy did not correspond to her injury. The court found that Defendant's challenges were facial rather than factual attacks, as Defendant offered no factual evidence to contest Plaintiff's allegations. On injury in fact, the court held that the physical presence of trichloroethylene contamination in the groundwater and soil beneath Plaintiff's home constituted a concrete and particularized injury, constituting an invasion of a legally protected property interest. On redressability, the court found that Plaintiff's request for money damages measured by the cost of installing vapor intrusion mitigation systems at least partially remedied the harm. Accordingly, the court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss. Defendant also moved to exclude all five of Plaintiff's experts. As to Dr. Richard Laton, a hydrologist and hydrogeologist, Defendant challenged his methodology on several grounds. The court found that concerns regarding Defendant's use of the threshold value of 1.2 micrograms per liter went to weight, not admissibility. The court expressed concern over Dr. Laton's initial use of historic maximum contamination levels and his simple substitution method for non-detect test results. Dr. Laton subsequently revised his plume map, using maximum well sample values since 2023 and assigning a value of zero to non-detect samples. The court found the revised map addressed its reliability concerns and declined to exclude Dr. Laton's testimony. As to Dr. Mark Kram, a hydrogeochemist, the court rejected Defendant's arguments that he used the wrong contamination standard, that his preemptive mitigation recommendation was inconsistent with the guidance he cited, and that he improperly relied on Dr. Laton's map without verifying his methodology. However, the court excluded Dr. Kram's opinion identifying a definite number of homes currently at risk, finding he had impermissibly relied on Dr. Laton's initial, problematic map without reviewing the underlying report or methodology. As to Mr. Frank Anastasi, a hydrogeologist, the court excluded his opinion regarding the location of the contamination plume, finding it inextricably tied to Dr. Laton's initial, revised map. However, the court found his opinion on Defendant's negligent remediation efforts relevant to the commonality and predominance elements of class certification and declined to exclude it. As to Mr. Thomas Hatton, a vapor intrusion mitigation expert, the court found Defendant's challenges to his survey methodology and cost estimates unpersuasive, noting that perceived inconsistencies were matters for cross-examination. The court declined to exclude his testimony. As to Dr. Richard Zabel, a real estate economist retained to estimate property values, the parties agreed his testimony was not relevant to class certification. The court therefore declined to consider his opinion for that purpose. Accordingly, the court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss, and granted in part and denied in part Defendant's motion to exclude Plaintiff's experts. A copy of the Court's decision dated June 5, 2026 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yv7Vdb from PacerMonitor.com UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Emerson Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- CLAIRE EMERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE, LLC d/b/a ALLIED UNIVERSAL SECURITY SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06124 (N.D. Ill., May 26, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Emerson was employed by the Defendant as a security officer. Allied Universal Security Services LLC provides security products and services. The Company offers access control, intrusion, alarm detection, and IP-based video systems, as well as renders janitorial, transition planning, green cleaning, and staffing services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES LEGAL GROUP LLC 7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. Nicholas A. Boggs, Esq. 700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 320 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com nboggs@ohlaborlaw.com UP FINTECH: Rosen Laws Investigates Potential Securities Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of UP Fintech Holding Limited (NASDAQ: TIGR) resulting from allegations that UP Fintech may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased UP Fintech securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/cases/up-fintech-holding-limited/join or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On May 22, 2026, Reuters published an article entitled "China to crack down on 'illegal' cross-border securities." The article stated that China "announced a major crackdown on cross-border investment on Friday and said it would punish brokers it accused of illegally moving money to foreign markets, sending their shares plunging." Further, the article stated that "Online brokers Tiger, Futu and Longbridge would be penalised for soliciting business in China without an onshore licence, the securities regulator said. Shares in Futu and Tiger parent UP Fintech Holding fell more than 30% in U.S. premarket trade." On this news, UP Fintech American Depositary Shares ("ADS") fell 25.3% on May 22, 2026. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] UPSTEP LLC: Cole Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------- Morgan Cole, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. UPSTEP, LLC, Case No. 4:26-cv-04144-SLD-RLH (C.D. Ill., May 30, 2026), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website https://www.upstep.com (hereinafter "Website" or "the Website") to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through the Website. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is legally visually impaired and a member of a protected class under the ADA. The Defendant provides to the public the Website, which provides consumers access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to purchase a wide range of custom orthotic insoles for everyday use, work, sports, running, walking, and foot pain relief.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 4903 Avenue N Brooklyn, NY 11234 Phone: 844-731-3343 Direct: 718-554-0237 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law VERITONE INC: Elwan Alleges Federal Securities Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- AHMED ELWAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VERITONE, INC.. RYAN STEELBERG, AND MICHAEL L. ZEMETRA, Defendants, Case No. 8:26-cv-01275 (C.D. Cal., May 21, 2026) pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Veritone securities between October 14, 2025 and April 14, 2026, inclusive. Throughout the said period, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the company inaccurately recorded and/or misclassified certain revenue and costs; (2) that, as a result, the company overstated its revenue, assets, accounts receivable, royalties and other comprehensive income; (3) that company maintained deficient internal controls over accounting and financial reporting; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the company would be forced to restate certain of its financial statements, and (5) that, as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Headquartered in Irvine, CA, Veritone engages in the provision of artificial intelligence computing solutions and services. The company's common stock trades on the NASDAQ exchange under the symbol “VERI.” [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY WOLKE & ROTTER 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com 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 VIRTUAL PROFIT: Mollins Class Suit Removed to E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as KENNETH M. MOLLINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. VIRTUAL PROFIT COOKER LLC, Defendant, Case No. 607042/2026, was removed from the Supreme Court of New York, Nassau County to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on May 22, 2026. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:26-cv-03107 to the proceeding. This is a consumer class action under the New York General Business Law arising from Defendant's purportedly deceptive business model involving the creation and licensing of fictitious "virtual restaurant" brands. Virtual Profit Cooker LLC is a virtual brand restaurant and food company.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Adam H. Russ, Esq. Briana A. Enck-Smith, Esq. RUSKIN MOSCOU FALTISCHEK, P.C. 1425 RXR Plaza East Tower, 15th Floor Uniondale, NY 11556 Telephone: (516) 663-6600 WALMAN OPTICAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Urban Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- COREY URBAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE WALMAN OPTICAL COMPANY d/b/a WALMAN OPTICAL, Defendant, Case No. 0:26-cv-02667-ECT-SGE (D. Minn. May 19, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former customers' and patients' sensitive information, including protected health information and other personally identifiable information. On or around April 27, 2026, the Defendant experienced unauthorized access to its IT Network. Since the data breach occurred, the notorious ransomware group "Medusa" has claimed responsibility for the data breach. The data breach resulted in the exposure of these types of private information: name, address, contact information, Social Security number, date of birth, medical and health insurance information. The complaint alleges that the Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information –– and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted private information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect its customers' and patients' sensitive data, says the suit. The Walman Optical Company d/b/a Walman Optical is a Minnesota-based optical products company that manufactures and distributes prescription lenses, frames, and other ophthalmic goods through a nationwide network of optical laboratories, providing vision care products and related services to optometrists, ophthalmologists, and optical retailer sellers throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is 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 - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive-Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com WATCHISMO LLC: Lopez Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website -------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WATCHISMO LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-04624 (S.D.N.Y., June 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, declaratory relief, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.watches.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Watchismo LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal WELLS FARGO: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Class Cert Reply Brief ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned Re Wells Fargo Cash Sweep Litigation, Case No. 3:24-cv-04616-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for leave to file a reply brief in further support of the Plaintiffs' supplemental class certification brief. Pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-3(c) and 7-11, the Plaintiffs request the Court's permission to submit the attached 10- page proposed reply brief in further support of the Plaintiffs' supplemental class certification brief. Because Wells Fargo's response to the Plaintiffs' supplemental brief introduces new arguments and new evidence, the Plaintiffs request the opportunity to respond in a short written submission. The Plaintiffs' proposed short reply brief will ensure fairness to the parties and provide the Court with a complete record on which to rule on Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 29, 2026, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kmoztI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq. John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq. Adam H. Wierzbowski, Esq. Michael Blatchley, Esq. Emily A. Tu, Esq. Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 E-mail: salvatore@blbglaw.com johnr@blbglaw.com adam@blbglaw.com michaelb@blbglaw.com emily.tu@blbglaw.com jonathanu@blbglaw.com WHALECO INC: Wade Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Messages -------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Wade, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Whaleco, Inc d/b/a Temu, U.S. Defendant, Case No. 5:26-cv-02677 (C.D. Cal., May 19, 2026) is a putative class action arising from the Defendant's violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. To advertise and promote its goods and services, the Defendant transmitted, or caused to be transmitted, unsolicited telemarketing text messages to Plaintiff and other consumers, including multiple messages initiated before 8:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. local time at the called party's location. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, treble damages for willful or knowing violations, costs, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Whaleco, Inc, is a Company Incorporated in Delaware that is authorized to do business in California and conducts business under the name Temu, U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vinit R. Venkatesh, Esq. PLG DAMAGE ATTORNEYS 2750 SW 145th Avenue #509 Miramar, FL 33027 E-mail: service@plgdamage.com WHOLE FOODS: Vickers Sues Over Facility's Use of Toxic Fragrances ----------------------------------------------------------------- MONICA VICKERS, MICHELLE MURPHY, TORI CANONNE, SCOTT BLACK, AUDRA KOERBER, STEFANY JOHNSON, and ELLIOTT MAYER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-04994 (N.D. Cal., May 27, 2026) is a class action seeking remedies for Defendant's practice of employing fragrance in it facilities, despite Defendant's knowledge of the realities and the discriminatory effect of these practices. Defendant Whole Foods Market, Inc. is a business that maintains grocery facilities, open to the public. In the complaint, the Representative Plaintiffs assert 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 Plaintiffs aver that the effects of these Synthetic fragranced consumer products adversely affect all human beings. But for those with recognized disabilities such as fragrance/chemical and/or multiple chemical sensitivities, autism, and so on, the fear, apprehension and emotional distress of coming into contact with fragrance can be intense, as can be the physiological manifestations predictably attendant to the exposure, says the suit. Representative Plaintiffs bring this action, individually, and on behalf of the Classes of all persons harmed by the toxic doses of Synthetic fragranced consumer products at Defendant's Facilities. In doing so, Representative Plaintiffs, individually, and on behalf of members of the Nationwide and California Non-Unruh Classes, 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, which run afoul of a multitude of state and federal laws; and seeks actual damages, subject to the Unruh Civil Rights Act's minimum statutory damage.[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, 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 WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Battle Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE BATTLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06527 (N.D. Ill., June 2, 2026) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.westelm.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Williams-Sonoma, Inc. operates as a home furnishing store. The Company retails cooking and serving equipment, home furnishings, and home accessories through retail stores, mail order catalogs, and e-commerce. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com WOOF PET: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Ramirez Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROSEMARIE RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WOOF PET, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:26-cv-06457 (N.D. Ill., June 1, 2026) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.mywoof.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Woof Pet, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [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 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com ZIMMER US: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, McDowell Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL MCDOWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZIMMER US, INC. d/b/a ZIMMER BIOMET, Defendant, Case No. 3:26-cv-00733 (N.D. Ind., May 28, 2026) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff McDowell was employed by the Defendant as a staff. Zimmer US, Inc. d/b/a Zimmer Biomet is an Indiana-based business entity that operates orthopedic, surgical-support, warehouse, inventory, logistics, and related operations throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Conlon, Esq. Michael Rinderman, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5279 Email: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com michael.rinderman@jtblawgroup.com ZOETIS INC: Ann Arbor RHC Suit Over Securities Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF ANN ARBOR RETIREE HEALTH CARE BENEFIT PLAN & TRUST, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZOETIS INC., KRISTIN PECK, and WETTENY JOSEPH, Defendants, Case No. 1:26-cv-04401 (S.D.N.Y., May 27, 2026) is a class action seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Defendant Zoetis Inc. is an animal health company that develops, manufactures, and sells vaccines, medicines, diagnostics, biopharmaceuticals, and digital solutions for companion animals and livestock. It develops and sells both "Companion Animal" products primarily for dogs and cats, and "Livestock" products for cattle, swine, poultry, fish, and sheep. Defendant Kristin Peck ("Defendant Peck") was Zoetis' Chief Executive Officer. Defendant Wetteny Joseph ("Defendant Joseph") was Zoetis' Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Plaintiff City of Ann Arbor Retiree Health Care Benefit Plan & Trust ("Ann Arbor RHC" or "Plaintiff") provides pension, disability, and death benefits to general, police, and firefighter employees. This case concerns how Zoetis misled investors by portraying its Companion Animal segment and flagship products as a durable growth engine driven by expanding markets, rising market share, and strong veterinarian adoption, while concealing that serious safety concerns, intensifying competition, and declining veterinarian confidence were materially eroding the segment's sales growth, competitive position, and financial outlook. According to the complaint, Zoetis' flagship dermatology products, including Apoquel and Cytopoint, faced mounting competitive pressure following the late 2024 launch of Elanco Animal Health, Inc.'s ("Elanco") Zenrelia, a competing therapy that Elanco marketed as comparable or superior to Apoquel in head-to-head clinical studies and at a lower price point. At the same time, Simparica Trio faced increasing competition following the U.S. launch of Elanco's Credelio Quattro, an "all in one" parasite protection therapy designed to compete directly in the same core market. Credelio Quattro was priced below Simparica Trio and offered tapeworm coverage that Simparica Trio lacked, contributing to slowing growth and market share losses for Simparica Trio. The truth behind Defendants' misrepresentations was revealed over the course of four disclosures spanning from August 5, 2025 to May 7, 2026. In the final disclosure on May 7, 2026, the Company reported first quarter 2026 financial results that reflected significant deterioration across its core Companion Animal business and sharply reduced its full-year guidance. On this news, Zoetis' stock price plummeted 21.5% from $111.22 to $87.31. The Plaintiff and other members of the Class purchased Zoetis securities between the time Defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts and the time the true facts were disclosed, without knowledge of the misrepresented or omitted facts. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the resulting precipitous decline in the market value of Zoetis securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis P. McConville, Esq. Connor C. Boehme, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: fmcconville@labaton.com cboehme@labaton.com - and - Thomas C. Michaud, Esq. VMT LAW 79 Alfred Street Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: (313) 578-1200 Facsimile: (313) 578-1201 E-mail: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2026. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***